Why Abortion destroys the family unit

[prometeus]

Abortion is murder, we both know that.

No, still not and you know it but are choosing to lie.

 

[minnie616]

No, still not and you know it but are choosing to lie.

I agree.

 

[minnie616]

Abortion is murder, we both know that.

No children are aborted.
Abortion is simply the ending of a pregnacy.
In fact a spontaneous abortion is the proper medical name for a miscarriage.
92.2 percent of elective abortions occur in the first trimester.

 

[maquiscat]

Besides we have been given the right to life by God, as outlined in the DOI.

So why did not the people of Jericho or the Amalekites or the Midianite women have that right to life from God?

If you support abortion you don't stand for American ideals and are likely a traitor.

Given that abortion was not against the American ideals prior to the 1860's, it isn't against them now. Furthermore, anyone who supports violations of bodily autonomy is not supporting American ideals and is most likely a traitor.

 

[maquiscat]

Abortion is murder, we both know that.

Abortion is not murder. We both know that. Not in the US and many other countries at least. However, in some South American countries, not only is abortion murder but miscarriage is also murder.

 

[Boss]

Given that abortion was not against the American ideals prior to the 1860's, it isn't against them now. Furthermore, anyone who supports violations of bodily autonomy is not supporting American ideals and is most likely a traitor.

Bah ha ha...

So why did not the people of Jericho or the Amalekites or the Midianite women have that right to life from God?

The same reason that people who die a natural death don't, I suppose. Lmao.

So yeah... fail.

 

[neil]

I'm pro life, but I don't get the purpose of this thread. Is there an assumption or projection that folks who are ok with killing unborn children are going to care about something like the family unit?

Even I, as someone who's pro life, don't attribute that much importance to the family unit. The family unit needs to exist for the purpose of perpetuating the family unit and religion. I myself am not religious, so the need for the family unit to exist is just circular reasoning to me.

There are other things that are done by government-imposed laws/standards/etc. that create this artificial dependency on the family unit by individuals & as a libertarian I'm for getting rid of such government-imposed laws/standards/etc.

For example, the government is involved in marriage, and it shouldn't be. Government has no business being involved in marriage at all. Marriage as a religious thing should only be between a couple and their religious establishment that they are members of (their "religion"). What arrangements a couple wants to make regarding property ownership, money, etc. should be no different from a generic contract & that's the only thing the government ought to be involved in enforcing. Custody agreements for children can be stated in such contracts & if a couple wants to have a divorce through their religion, that custody agreement doesn't change unless they want to amend their contract or agree together to cancel it & enter into a new contract. Anyways, I'm not going to go too much into depth on this; the point is that the religious side & contractual side for property, money, custody, etc. ought to be kept separate so the government only deals with that part like any other contract, and the couple's religion only deals with the religious (spiritual, moral, etc.) side of stuff.

Another example is tax benefits/incentives/advantages for married couples; there's no basis for this & the only reason it exists is arbitrary for the advantage of religious purposes.

 

[maquiscat]

I'm pro life, but I don't get the purpose of this thread. Is there an assumption or projection that folks who are ok with killing unborn children are going to care about something like the family unit?

Even I, as someone who's pro life, don't attribute that much importance to the family unit. The family unit needs to exist for the purpose of perpetuating the family unit and religion. I myself am not religious, so the need for the family unit to exist is just circular reasoning to me.

There are other things that are done by government-imposed laws/standards/etc. that create this artificial dependency on the family unit by individuals & as a libertarian I'm for getting rid of such government-imposed laws/standards/etc.

For example, the government is involved in marriage, and it shouldn't be. Government has no business being involved in marriage at all. Marriage as a religious thing should only be between a couple and their religious establishment that they are members of (their "religion"). What arrangements a couple wants to make regarding property ownership, money, etc. should be no different from a generic contract & that's the only thing the government ought to be involved in enforcing. Custody agreements for children can be stated in such contracts & if a couple wants to have a divorce through their religion, that custody agreement doesn't change unless they want to amend their contract or agree together to cancel it & enter into a new contract. Anyways, I'm not going to go too much into depth on this; the point is that the religious side & contractual side for property, money, custody, etc. ought to be kept separate so the government only deals with that part like any other contract, and the couple's religion only deals with the religious (spiritual, moral, etc.) side of stuff.

Another example is tax benefits/incentives/advantages for married couples; there's no basis for this & the only reason it exists is arbitrary for the advantage of religious purposes.

The problem with this is the conceptual errors you have. Much to many Christians' and other religious types' dismay, marriage has not always been about religion. Marriage has been about business and politics and so much more. Sure religion is in there, but it's never been the only thing. Secondly, studies have shown that the family unit is a social advantage. What some don't want to acknowledge, is that a family unit of 2 is as valid and advantageous as one of 4 or 10. Stable households of 2 or more people tend to be more productive than large numbers of single people. So it is to the advantage of government to encourage such. Such households are also better for raising children in. So encouraging them is also advantageous in having children better cared for. Do please note that I did not specify that opposite sex 2 parent households are better than raising children. It can be more than 2 parents (setting aside biological parenting), and can be any mix of sexes/genders.

 

[Scrabaholic]

But the unborn dont? That's called a double standard. Don't get it twisted.

The unborn are not persons - they have zero rights.

 

[Scrabaholic]

You are still killing the unborn child. If God says thou shall not kill it doesn't get any more explicit than that.

Dont get it twisted.

Are you vegan?

 

[Scrabaholic]

It's the start of human life. I find it hilarious that you advocate for abortion yet you yourself were not aborted.

I should have been.

Here is a hypothetical for you. Would you like to be sucked out of the womb with a vacuum before you are old enough to defend yourself?

Yes.