Alabama Senate election

[vraiblonde]

Certainly, some crack whores and pimp daddies become decent parents

Name one.

some kids thrive on the not-so-great life and become great people because of, not even in spite of, the negative rearing they received.

That is true, but the odds are long. And how much abuse do you think a baby or small child should endure for the possibility - not probability - that they will become "great people"? Keep in mind that there are women who pimp their young child out to pedophiles for drug money. There are men who rape and beat their own children. Do you honestly think children are better off living these abusive lives?

some very rich people are just as negligent as very poor people.

Wealth has nothing to do with my argument. Rich people who don't care to raise children responsibly should get abortions too. I'm all equal opportunity like that.

I am not good with criminals or welfare suckers. I am not good with welfare at all, to be honest (not the government's job). The problem is just killing people preemptively because of what might happen. Seems a little "Minority Report" to me.

Then what do you suggest?

 

[vraiblonde]

If I took a bag of unwanted kittens and tossed them into the river, everyone on this forum would want me hanged.

I would, simply because #1, you should have gotten your cat spayed so unwanted kittens don't happen; and #2, unwanted kittens can be used to feed other animals. I feel some people recoiling at the thought of that, but snakes need to eat too, and throwing kittens in a river is a waste of good kittens.

I agree that abortions should be done in the first trimester, second at the very latest, waiting until the third trimester is disgusting and ignorant. But women have proven that they're not going to do that. They're either too stupid or too drugged out to take care of their problem.

So then what?

I don't want to talk about what *should* be - we all already know what *should* be. And it's not. So let's talk about what *is*.

 

[PsyOps]

I don't want to talk about what *should* be - we all already know what *should* be. And it's not. So let's talk about what *is*.

But, talking about what is leads us to what should be.

 

[vraiblonde]

But, talking about what is leads us to what should be.

Actually, it's just pissing in the wind and virtue-signaling. Saying, "Here's the way it should be..." without discussing a feasible plan to get it that way is pointless.

 

[This_person]

Name one.

Very funny

That is true, but the odds are long. And how much abuse do you think a baby or small child should endure for the possibility - not probability - that they will become "great people"? Keep in mind that there are women who pimp their young child out to pedophiles for drug money. There are men who rape and beat their own children. Do you honestly think children are better off living these abusive lives?

I don't think it is up to humans to decide whether or not other humans are better off alive or dead. I'm all fine with these kids committing suicide if it is up to them, but I do not think you, or I, or Joe Schmuckatelli should be able to say, "you know what, that kid is better off dead so let's kill it." I'm not challenging your viewpoint that they very well may have ####ty lives, even if the statistics say that a huge percentage of elective abortions is people who already have kids. I'm simply saying it is not up to one or two people whether another person should live or die without any input from that person.

Then what do you suggest?

I hold that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among those rights are life. It is that person's right to live, save for the physical health of the mother. Since rape and non-consensual (isn't that rape?) incest make up <0.5% of all abortions, I can even go so far as to say I would legally (though not morally) include those if the rape or incest is properly documented and adjudicated. I am not able to establish what constitutes what makes life worth living for all human beings, so I am fine with those people making that choice for themselves, but not having it made for them by their mom or dad.

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't think it is up to humans to decide whether or not other humans are better off alive or dead.

But isn't that what you're doing by insisting on "life" at all cost?

I'm simply saying it is not up to one or two people whether another person should live or die without any input from that person.

How do you ask a 3-month fetus what it wants? "Hey, fetus, do you want to be born so I can pimp you out to my dealer and his buddies, and so I can burn you with my crack pipe for kicks, or do you want me to abort you?"

Or maybe they did ask, and the answer they got was, "Abort me, please."

 

[littlelady]

Exactly. She came up with this idea very early on and ran with it. A very smart cookie.

Did you use the word ‘cookie’ on purpose? Very clever!

 

[PsyOps]

Actually, it's just pissing in the wind and virtue-signaling. Saying, "Here's the way it should be..." without discussing a feasible plan to get it that way is pointless.

When we support a candidate we vote saying "this is the way I want it to be" - should be. Of course this belief it rooted in ideas and not just some empty dream.

 

[SamSpade]

But isn't that what you're doing by insisting on "life" at all cost?

The alternative is a government that holds the right to determine who lives and who does not deserve to live by whatever whimsical idea it holds, rather than on a principle that simple values life - period.

We've had governments that decided - we have too many peasants - starve them to death.
We've had governments that decided that intellectuals were a threat - execute them.
We've had governments that decided that people like Jews, homosexuals and retarded persons were parasites - and were killed.

(Actually, #1 refers to at least TWO governments).

So I think erring on the side of caution is appropriate. Even a punk like Ben Carson can turn out all right.

 

[Hijinx]

I would, simply because #1, you should have gotten your cat spayed so unwanted kittens don't happen; and #2, unwanted kittens can be used to feed other animals. I feel some people recoiling at the thought of that, but snakes need to eat too, and throwing kittens in a river is a waste of good kittens.

I agree that abortions should be done in the first trimester, second at the very latest, waiting until the third trimester is disgusting and ignorant. But women have proven that they're not going to do that. They're either too stupid or too drugged out to take care of their problem.

So then what?

I don't want to talk about what *should* be - we all already know what *should* be. And it's not. So let's talk about what *is*.

First (I don't have any kittens I used that as an example.
Second if I catch that POS cat that walks all over my car tracking it up he will wish he was in a sack.

 

[This_person]

But isn't that what you're doing by insisting on "life" at all cost?

Absolutely not. That is letting nature take its course. We have the right to life - it's unalienable. We're not talking about a mass murderer here who has been adjudicated as being a permanent detriment to society, we're talking about an unborn child. Again, we do not allow mom to kill that kid a moment after birth, and there's really no difference a trimester earlier.

How do you ask a 3-month fetus what it wants? "Hey, fetus, do you want to be born so I can pimp you out to my dealer and his buddies, and so I can burn you with my crack pipe for kicks, or do you want me to abort you?"

Or maybe they did ask, and the answer they got was, "Abort me, please."

Your first question is the key - you can't ask a baby what it wants. So, you have to fail on the side of that baby's right to life. You can't ask a 1 year old what it wants either and get a reasonable response, so we don't let mom or dad or anyone else just kill it for being inconvenient. This baby is no different.

 

[vraiblonde]

The alternative is a government that holds the right to determine who lives and who does not deserve to live by whatever whimsical idea it holds, rather than on a principle that simple values life - period.

And how much power do we really want to give government, anyway?

I do want to point out that it's not the government aborting children, or even making that choice. The decision was that the government stays out of it. You'd think conservatives would be on board with that, just like you'd think they'd be on board with government not regulating marriage.

 

[This_person]

And how much power do we really want to give government, anyway?

I do want to point out that it's not the government aborting children, or even making that choice. The decision was that the government stays out of it. You'd think conservatives would be on board with that, just like you'd think they'd be on board with government not regulating marriage.

The federal government is not out of it. They have told the states that the 10th amendment does not apply when it comes to abortion for either the state or the people, overturning state laws (will of the people) repeatedly. They fund abortion mills. They are not out of it at all.

I'm all on board for them getting out of the marriage business altogether.

 

[vraiblonde]

They fund abortion mills.

Well, not technically.

I can go both ways with Planned Parenthood. On one hand, I don't want my tax dollars funding irresponsibility, and I certainly understand religious/other types who don't want to be paying for that which they find morally reprehensible. On the other hand, as a practical matter for the good of society, I'm in favor of keeping these mindless animals from popping out bebes they're just going to neglect and abuse, and increasing their numbers. Paying for their abortions is way cheaper than paying for their future kid's incarceration and any other detrimental effect they'll have on society.

 

[PsyOps]

The government actually charging, trying, and securing a guilty verdict. In other words, a court adjudicating it as such, as I mentioned at the outset.

The interesting paradox in this is... if the mother aborts, it's legal and not murder. If someone else kills the unborn child, it's illegal and murder.

How do you explain this? An unborn human fetus is being killed regardless of whether the mother does it or someone else does it. It's either a person or it's not. It cannot be a person in one sense and not a person in another.

 

[vraiblonde]

The interesting paradox in this is... if the mother aborts, it's legal and not murder. If someone else kills the unborn child, it's illegal and murder.

How do you explain this? An unborn human fetus is being killed regardless of whether the mother does it or someone else does it. It's either a person or it's not. It cannot be a person in one sense and not a person in another.

It's the difference between you deciding to pull the plug on your terminally ill child, and some stranger doing it without your permission. Can we agree that children belong to their parents and not to the government? Or do you just want to go Brave New World and be done with it?

Emotion aside, what's it to you if a woman aborts her child? Remember: emotion aside. And religion aside, as well, because we're not a theocracy.

 

[GURPS]

Well, not technically.

I can go both ways with Planned Parenthood. On one hand, I don't want my tax dollars funding irresponsibility, and I certainly understand religious/other types who don't want to be paying for that which they find morally reprehensible.

this otherwise I don't really care, murder your unborn child or not ... you will stand in Judgement on the final day
[don't be a pussy and claim it isn't murder just to assuage your guilt - if you cannot handle that you must think you are doing something wrong]



Progressives Give Billions to causes ... let them fund this as well

 

[GURPS]

Can we agree that children belong to their parents and not to the government? Or do you just want to go Brave New World and be done with it?

NOPE After Charlie T - your kids health choices belong to the Gov.
[and several other high profile cases where a Doc. stepped in and had a child taken from parents]

 

[This_person]

Well, not technically.

I can go both ways with Planned Parenthood. On one hand, I don't want my tax dollars funding irresponsibility, and I certainly understand religious/other types who don't want to be paying for that which they find morally reprehensible. On the other hand, as a practical matter for the good of society, I'm in favor of keeping these mindless animals from popping out bebes they're just going to neglect and abuse, and increasing their numbers. Paying for their abortions is way cheaper than paying for their future kid's incarceration and any other detrimental effect they'll have on society.

True, technically they pay for the right hand so the money that would fund the right hand can fund the left hand. Technically. Like, all we do is buy oil, we don't fund terrorism. Technically.

I get, agree, understand that killing the kids before they're born will statistically save welfare and penal institutions money. I just can't wrap my head around killing kids because we don't like their parents, and statistically they'll be a load. Woody Harrelson's (sp?) dad was a contract killer for the mob - should Woody have been killed? If we allow the mom to make the decision to kill kids, what about dad? Grandma? Good-buddy next-door neighbor? Social worker? If the reason it is ok is that statistics show these people will be bad parents, do we just start killing the kids of adjudicated bad parents? As in, instead of putting them in foster care, we just kill the kid?

Life is precious, and a right.

 

[This_person]

It's the difference between you deciding to pull the plug on your terminally ill child, and some stranger doing it without your permission. Can we agree that children belong to their parents and not to the government? Or do you just want to go Brave New World and be done with it?

Emotion aside, what's it to you if a woman aborts her child? Remember: emotion aside. And religion aside, as well, because we're not a theocracy.

No, I would say it's much more like you shooting your kid in the head at dinner, or some stranger doing it without my permission. When you add in "terminally ill", you are putting a caveat that does not exist in the vast majority of elective abortions.

Emotion aside, I believe murder is wrong for society, and it is up to good people (religious or not) to protect the innocent. This is not capital punishment, because the child has not been adjudicated as a criminal. This is not about euthanizing an elderly dementia patient with a DNR. This is about taking a statistically-speaking perfectly healthy child and sucking it into a blender because mom doesn't feel like being a mom to it because it conflicts with her lifestyle.