White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Court...

[Hatuey]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

I'm pro-choice. I'm also pro anything science can possibly do to prevent birth defects. Why the hell should I pick a side????

Because men on this board want you to. Bruahaha.

 

[Howler63]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Well, seeing as how most people are not vegan, and most people are against animal cruelty, I guess we're just a fundamentally hypocritical race. Nature itself would be hypocritical by that logic.

No one suggested abortion wasn't a big deal. And I'm honest enough to forgo suggesting that pro lifers think that the right to choose isn't a big deal.

But this is a preventable viral disease that kills or deforms the unborn. It is an issue that can stand on its own and isn't related to abortion in any way, other than involving the unborn. There is no choice involved with Zika (as pertains to pro choice vs pro life), there are no rights that are questioned or ignored, according to the logic used by either side of the issue. It should be a bipartisan no brainer, unless you wanted to try and use the issue to score political points, or if you were too busy trying to defund PP and shut down the clinics to address a potential public health threat.

And honestly, the mental gymnastics accusation? After the OP you posted? The abortion debate is about the right to life vs the right to control ones own body, everything I've posted has been straight forward from there. You've suggested several times that the goal of pro choicers is to kill babies. Zika is a threat to public health, and the local government should be taking steps to fight it and prevent it's spreading.

Vegans don't commit animal cruelty in nature. Only carnivores do. So...that's just silly.


You can't have it both ways. if you cheer a process that kills the unborn, then you haven't a leg to stand on when you whine about anything else killing the unborn. Beside, it's just zygotes we're talking about here...lumps of flesh....right?

And the goal of the pro-choicer IS to kill babies. That's as plain as the nose on your face.

The end result of both abortion and Zika is dead unborn.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

I guess TECHNICALLY ripping an unborn child to shreds isnt really causing a 'birth defect'.

But yeah...its retarded beyond words for anyone that thinks its OK to butcher millions of unborn children a year to clamor for support of 'unborn children'.

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

How fortunate, since the second can be cured by the first.

You're not making any kind of sense whatsoever. Being pro-choice does not cure Zika. What about those who make the choice to have a baby? Why should they be told that we're not going to do everything we can to maximize their chances of having a healthy baby? It sounds like you're saying we should completely end all research to that effect and just go with the abortion option. Is that what you're saying? Is that what you think pro-choice people really want? Is that what you think pro-life people would want????

 

[Howler63]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

This goes to show the lunacy in the white house.

The dishonesty is just...crazy. Hell, every democrat I know is pro-abortion....they should love Zika...it's nature's "abortion self starter kit".

 

[VanceMack]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

I'm pro-choice. I'm also pro anything science can possibly do to prevent birth defects. Why the hell should I pick a side????

Chopping up an inconvenient unborn child is certainly one way to ensure the child doesnt have any 'birth' defects.

 

[Howler63]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

You're not making any kind of sense whatsoever. Being pro-choice does not cure Zika. What about those who make the choice to have a baby? Why should they be told that we're not going to do everything we can to maximize their chances of having a healthy baby? It sounds like you're saying we should completely end all research to that effect and just go with the abortion option. Is that what you're saying? Is that what you think pro-choice people really want? Is that what you think pro-life people would want????

They claim to want to save babies. Right? And yet they support a policy that ends the lives of millions of 'unborn children' each year. You don't see a conflict of ideas here? If you loved babies that much, why support abortion?

I'll tell you why...because you're a hypocrite. It's like anti-abortion/pro-death penalty Christians. Same sort of hypocrisy. Life is precious...until we put it in the electric chair.

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Because men on this board want you to. Bruahaha.

Har!

I'm always astounded at the inability for some to comprehend that not everything is black and white. "Pick a side" is not conducive to any kind of productive, realistic solutions whatsoever. Especially not in the two completely different debates the OP is trying to merge into one.

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

They claim to want to save babies. Right? And yet they support a policy that ends the lives of millions of 'unborn children' each year. You don't see a conflict of ideas here? If you loved babies that much, why support abortion?

I'll tell you why...because you're a hypocrite. It's like anti-abortion/pro-death penalty Christians. Same sort of hypocrisy. Life is precious...until we put it in the electric chair.

I'm sorry, I'm not used to thinking along those same rigid lines. And now you've added yet another debate to this thread. Abortion, medical research and now the death penalty. Which one do you really want to debate here? The only thing they have in common is that they all involve human life in some manner. Is that what you want to discuss? Human life and at what point it starts or ceases to be precious?

I'm a first-trimester pro-choicer (with exceptions later), pro-death penalty in very specific cases and definitely pro-medical research that saves human lives. You still haven't clarified why I should pick any kind of side. The "hypocrite" label doesn't bother me one iota. We are all hypocrites about something and many of our stances are riddled with double standards, so you're going to have to find another reason why I should "pick a side". No single issue is ever black and white. Life would be so much easier if it were, would it not?

 

[cpwill]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Birth defects do not make an abortion mandatory.

Concur - they absolutely do not. Tragically, however, it seems to be the common response.

If you care about the unborn, stopping Zika from spreading should at least be a priority.

And certainly it is.

"Protecting from Birth Defects" means preventing them. Not strapping down any pregnant woman who tests positive and hacking her baby out with a meat cleaver.

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical...

But the logic being put forward here is apparently this:
If you are pro choice then you should be helping spread Zika as much and as quickly as possible, because that will result in more abortions, which is apparently the whole point of being pro choice.

We can then build the massive "fetal slurry" plants we've been dreaming about, knowing that a fresh supply of aborted fetuses is now guaranteed. Fetal slurry can be used as fertilizer, feed for livestock, or engine coolant. But alas, we've been figured out by those gosh darned social conservatives.

But the problem with this is the willingness to bend other law, shift other priorities aside, and engage in ridiculous twists to celebrate expand and always defend abortion on the left. It's not entirely without cause that we refer to it as the only sacrament leftists recognize anymore.

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Chopping up an inconvenient unborn child is certainly one way to ensure the child doesnt have any 'birth' defects.

How does this kind of comment apply to a pro-life woman who wants to have a healthy child? Or a pro-choice one for that matter? Not all pro-choicers make the choice of aborting. But pretty much 100% of couples hope their baby will be healthy. I'm all for science making that as much of a reality as possible, regardless of my stance on abortion.

 

[Howler63]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

I'm sorry, I'm not used to thinking along those same rigid lines. And now you've added yet another debate to this thread. Abortion, medical research and now the death penalty. Which one do you really want to debate here? The only thing they have in common is that they all involve human life in some manner. Is that what you want to discuss? Human life and at what point it starts or ceases to be precious?

I'm a first-trimester pro-choicer (with exceptions later), pro-death penalty in very specific cases and definitely pro-medical research that saves human lives. You still haven't clarified why I should pick any kind of side. The "hypocrite" label doesn't bother me one iota. We are all hypocrites about something and many of our stances are riddled with double standards, so you're going to have to find another reason why I should "pick a side". No single issue is ever black and white. Life would be so much easier if it were, would it not?

Well, there you go. You admit to being a hypocrite. Now if we can just get the White House to admit it too.

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Well, there you go. You admit to being a hypocrite. Now if we can just get the White House to admit it too.

I don't understand why it matters. Isn't the important thing to get people together to fund necessary medical research? You're engaging in behavior that is utterly destructive to a country's politics. :shrug:

And just to nitpick here, but I don't agree the correct term is hypocrisy in this specific issue. Wanting women to have healthy babies does not conflict with their right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

It's really tone deaf to discuss these two issues in the same news conference, using similar language and reference with each.

I can fully appreciate the White House being supportive of the Supreme Court decision and also being supportive of fighting the Zeka virus to help ensure no more children are born with the virus' deformities. But it does seem somewhat hypocritical to be concerned about some unborn children and have little or no regard for other unborn children.

One is left with the distinct assumption that the left, led by this White House, is only concerned about Zeka because it could saddle women with deformed children they don't want after the period for which a legal abortion may be sought. It's not the children they're primarily concerned with, it's the women.

 

[Howler63]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

I don't understand why it matters. Isn't the important thing to get people together to fund necessary medical research? You're engaging in behavior that is utterly destructive to a country's politics. :shrug:

And just to nitpick here, but I don't agree the correct term is hypocrisy in this specific issue. Wanting women to have healthy babies does not conflict with their right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

What? That's laughable on it's face.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

So protect the unborn from birth defects, but don't protect them from being killed?

Seems legit.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

What? That's laughable on it's face.


View attachment 67203417

Perhaps you could expand on that without resorting to silly graphics that accomplish very little other than to amuse the peanut gallery. How does funding medical research that helps all women have healthy babies conflict with also supporting the right of women to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Are you saying that my being pro-choice prevents me from wanting couples to have any babies at all, let alone healthy ones??

 

[Howler63]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Perhaps you could expand on that without resorting to silly graphics that accomplish very little other than to amuse the peanut gallery. How does funding medical research that helps all women have healthy babies conflict with also supporting the right of women to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Are you saying that my being pro-choice prevents me from wanting couples to have any babies at all, let alone healthy ones??

Which one kills more children?

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Which one kills more children?

Ok, we're answering questions with questions now. Very well:

How does that answer my question?

 

[Howler63]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Ok, we're answering questions with questions now. Very well:

How does that answer my question?

Because it helps us define what is, and what is not 'unborn children'.

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Because it helps us define what is, and what is not 'unborn children'.

Unborn children are unborn children. You know, those who are still in their mother's bodies. If you think I'm one of those pro-choicers who doesn't admit what abortion actually is and what it actually does, let me make it clear right now: Abortion terminates human life at its earliest stages. I am 100% okay with the choice of terminating it in the first trimester of pregnancy. That's the law in my country and I don't want it changed. I hope you're not going to try to drag me into an endless abortion debate because I am not going there, not here.

Now that we've established that, tell me why my stance on abortion prevents me from also supporting all efforts to ensure all couples, regardless of their own stance on abortion, have healthy babies?

 

[Howler63]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Unborn children are unborn children. You know, those who are still in their mother's bodies. If you think I'm one of those pro-choicers who doesn't admit what abortion actually is and what it actually does, let me make it clear right now: Abortion terminates human life at its earliest stages. I am 100% okay with the choice of terminating it in the first trimester of pregnancy. That's the law in my country and I don't want it changed. I hope you're not going to try to drag me into an endless abortion debate because I am not going there, not here.

Now that we've established that, tell me why my stance on abortion prevents me from also supporting all efforts to ensure all couples, regardless of their own stance on abortion, have healthy babies?

Because it's a contradiction. You claim to want to save babies from Zika....but have no desire to save babies from their mothers. Mothers, I might add, who kill in far greater numbers. Tell me again how that isn't a contradiction.

My problem is this...the White House spokesman is attempting to lecture Republicans on saving 'unborn children' while cheering the 'choice' to kill others.

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Because it's a contradiction. You claim to want to save babies from Zika....but have no desire to save babies from their mothers. Mothers, I might add, who kill in far greater numbers. Tell me again how that isn't a contradiction.

My problem is this...the White House spokesman is attempting to lecture Republicans on saving 'unborn children' while cheering the 'choice' to kill others.

Okay, I can see why you would call it a contradiction. To me it's not, because I've long ago accepted that life is really not as sacred as we pretend it is and never was. Our very history is testament to that. It all comes down to the value we, as a society, assign to life. The problem lies in the fact that virtually nobody agrees on when life has value and when it doesn't. We see it every day in abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia and death penalty debates. As long as we can't agree on some important questions, when does life legally begin? when does it become valuable? does it ever lose its value? do we own our own life? do we own our fetus' life?...etc... we're going to have to keep dealing with some contradictions. :shrug:

 

[VanceMack]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

How does this kind of comment apply to a pro-life woman who wants to have a healthy child? Or a pro-choice one for that matter? Not all pro-choicers make the choice of aborting. But pretty much 100% of couples hope their baby will be healthy. I'm all for science making that as much of a reality as possible, regardless of my stance on abortion.

Not to be blunt but using the pro slaughter crowd rhetoric, why should society give a **** about the unborn clump of cells? If you can so easily butcher it, how do you justify calling for support of it? Thats just...goofy.

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: White House Demands Protection For Unborn Children After Celebrating Supreme Cour

Not to be blunt but using the pro slaughter crowd rhetoric, why should society give a **** about the unborn clump of cells? If you can so easily butcher it, how do you justify calling for support of it? Thats just...goofy.

Good question. And again it goes to society's vast number of contradictions when it comes to the issues of life and death I mentioned above. We're at a point in most of the Western world where it's a given that women have the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. We're also at a point where we can perform in-utero surgeries to save an unborn child's life or correct an abnormality before birth. The latter, I think, being something that most of us can agree is a very, very good thing. Pardon the pun, but why throw the baby out with the bath water just because you want to proverbially stick it to the other side? That's a very immature reaction. How about we put the focus on what unites us instead?