They seem to think all of these things didn't exist before government intervention.
Texas bans safest and most common abortion procedure after 13 weeks
- Thread starter Sapidus
- Start date
They seem to think all of these things didn't exist before government intervention.
black dog
Free America
As often as needed..
This_person
Well-Known Member
What about them? Are you suggesting they should be killed, too?
Yeah. That seems to be working so well with the homeless population. Why should we care about anyone other than ourselves.
I'm sure you have room on your couch.
Invite your local street person in for the night.
Do your part!
Funny how that works; the more money we spend on something, the more of it we have. You never-produced-a-dollar lefties wouldn't ever understand why that is inevitably always so.
black dog
Free America
I could care less about the homeless, did they have a roof over there head before government intervention??? I think not..
What do the homeless, crazy, and lazy do South of the Rio Grand?
And I ask again, why is it the Taxpayers responsibility to take care of them???
This_person
Well-Known Member
And, we have homeless shelters that are from both the charity/non-profit sector and from the public/taxpayer-funded sector. And, yet, the problem persists. Almost as if there's no solution.
As near as I can tell, socialist and communist countries have homeless as well.
So, what you're saying is that - even with government help like the homeless have now - the problems are never "solved", and there's no reason to throw more taxpayer funds at the problem.
PsyOps
Pixelated
The one thing I get about liberals is, you all want this perfect little nirvana, where no one on this earth suffers. Life must be easy, and we're going to get government to make it easy. If there are any difficulties, we must dispose of it. You don't want to accept responsibility for your mistakes. You don't want to accept the difficulties that life hands you. You want easy solutions to these "problems" - and in this case, you're willing to destroy human life to obtain that ease in life. You'll go to great lengths to protect the guilty from death, while going through the same great lengths to destroy innocent life, because it's inconvenient to suffer through the difficulties of sustaining that life. The chronically disabled, mentally challenged are guilty of intruding in on your perfect little world; and the only, best solution is to dispose of it.
I could never be a progressive liberal. It makes me sick to know you people have so little love for those truly in need, and care so little for human life.
Last edited:
Oh they do care for human life and those in need... Themselves. Period.
They want to be taken care of like children.
PsyOps
Pixelated
It's just ironic - if not hypocritical - that they will cry out in outrage over the execution of a murderer while almost smiling at the death of an unborn child - guilty of nothing more than two people that couldn't exercise enough discipline to avoid procreating in the first place. They effectively demanded laws that make it a federal crime to disturb a sea turtle egg, while also making it legal to destroy a human fetus. I have tried to weed through the logic here, and fail to understand it.
hotbikermama40
New Member
A sword in one hand. And a shield in the other...
Years ago, when I was busy wasting time trying to help the homeless, I eventually came to pretty much the same conclusion - it can't be solved, or at least, no one knows how to solve it. Far too many of the homeless - for lack of a better way to put it - want that life over what they would have to do to end it.
I met people who actually claimed they detested the idea of living indoors - as though it were a cage. Others who preferred the "freedom" to go where they please, no possessions, were able to panhandle enough to get a drink or a fix - and that's it. OCCASIONALLY we struck gold with someone who genuinely wanted to fix their life - we provided rides, jobs and got them used to a schedule. But most didn't want to change, and I've definitely learned you can't change someone who doesn't want to change.
I ran into a wall where the truth was - I either had to repurpose my life to helping the homeless, running a shelter, fighting for funding and so on - or accept the fact that their problems were better met by people who knew what they were doing and were much better equipped to do it. Just being thoughtful and sincere wouldn't cut it.
Last edited:
This_person
Well-Known Member
While I can't quote the statistics, I believe a large number are mentally challenged, too. I absolutely believe there are some that just need a helping hand, some who have no idea how to accept a helping hand, and some who do not want to change - as you say, prefer their lifestyle over other lifestyles. That's fine. It's not our job to save everyone (I leave that to Jesus, and we know the Lord helps those who help themselves).
The homeless were brought into the conversation because Sap couldn't fight the obvious truth about being wrong on abortion. As a rule, whether one is right or left leaning, the person defending the indefensible will switch subjects or offer completely unrelated ideas as a related idea, and attack that straw man instead of attacking the previous argument. This has been Sap's MO since starting here, it seems; Sap either ignores the arguments against Sap's position, or changes the subject.
black dog
Free America
Sap's not the only member here that consistently does that...
This_person
Well-Known Member
Do tell....
I'm still somewhere in the middle on abortion. Generally I regard it as murder, especially when dealing with ones very late in the pregnancy, where the line of demarcation between "baby" and "fetus" just about doesn't exist. The very idea of cutting up a child's brain in utero while bringing a child out feet first - because legally, it is BORN once the head emerges - is simply barbaric.
On the other hand, when it is merely a clump of about 200 cells, it's about as "human" as a swab of cheek cells, and is only likely to become more human as long as it remains in the uterus with all that environment entails.
The way I often argue is - if it's always murder, are you ready to give the death penalty to all the persons involved in abortions over the last several years? Because if you honestly see is as murder like anything else, you're talking about mass murder on an epic scale. If it ISN'T murder, then why do people typically grieve - sometimes over a very long time - over a miscarriage, and why is it prosecutable if causing a miscarriage is no more than causing someone to lose a little useless tissue?
CLEARLY - intuitively - we all give the fetus value, even if we all disagree on giving it RIGHTS.
Toxick
Splat
Yeah - I'm weirded out just reading about it.
Cannibalism isn't something I'm especially comfortable with - even if it's not human.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Where it was willingly placed....
Going forward, absolutely. I would not make it retroactively illegal, but going forward, I would gladly treat people going after elective abortion that are not about the physical health of the mother/child or as a result of rape (statutory and non-consensual incest included) as murderers. I am 100% behind that thought.
It's hard for me to accept that we "all" give the fetus value when it can be referred to as a "clump of cells" without understanding the difference between that clump and sperm or an egg. The thing that makes it more human than a swab of cheek cells is that it will grow into a fully-formed human, separate from the mother, if just left where it was willingly placed; a swab of cheek cells, or a fingernail (which will continue to grow after the host person dies), or a sperm/egg will not do that, because they are not individual human life.