Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And most pro-choice people disagree with your basic premise. Therefore, if we can't agree on what is a "person", then we're unlikely to agree on what might be ethical behavior regarding that fetus.
And if you want to talk about manufacturing "silly logic", then please explain to me why most of the "pro-life" advocates seem to lose interest in what happens to that fetus once it gets out of the womb. Once it exits the birth canal, then the baby and mother (along with the rest of the family) are no longer a concern of the "pro-life" crowd.
Are you equally adamant about what happens to the young unwanted kids AFTER they're born? If so, then what ways do you show it? Do you volunteer to babysit for young unwed mothers so they can continue their schooling or work at a job? Do you volunteer to help the mother who just had her fourth kid and whose husband is working at a low wage job trying to keep them fed and clothed? Or does your interest in what happens to that mother and child end once the child is born?
After babies are born they are the responsibility of the parents not pro-lifers or anyone else. There is no conflict in not wanting the unborn to be killed and not being responsible for their upkeep afterwards. This is about death nothing more and nothing less!
Science says once conception occurs it's a human life.
And you and yours don't care about the unborn who will never get a chance to live at all. Many adopted kids have full and happy lives contrary to the scenario you are painting.
It has nothing to do with making women submit either. That's just leftist, liberal rubbish.
You really should be happy, as liberals are the one utilizing abortion the most
Fewer Leftist is the overriding goal in my opinion They have F'd up every country and city they have come to power in, overseas and here.
I'm assuming that one of the main reasons women have abortions is for financial reasons. They simply can't afford to have a child or have another child. If abortions were to be banned with the exception of rape and sever medical reasons would we see an increase in child poverty if women no longer have the option for abortions outside of those two reasons? Would this cause a need to expand the welfare state to help support all of these children living with struggling parents?
If they can't afford to raise a child then why engage in unprotected sex? And no, we shouldn't expand the welfare state to reward irresponsibility either.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,989,189 times
Reputation: 50679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
If they can't afford to raise a child then why engage in unprotected sex? And no, we shouldn't expand the welfare state to reward irresponsibility either.
Do you really not understand the god given drive to procreate? Do you not understand the concept of "the selfish gene"?
Healthy young adults are compelled by their biology to have sex. It's a drive that very few can resist. That's why humans are so successful in procreating and we've overpopulated the earth. Few of us were planned, our parents were just compelled by our desires.
Few young people have your grim outlook, Oldglory, of calculating finances and birth control before engaging in sex.
If they can't afford to raise a child then why engage in unprotected sex? And no, we shouldn't expand the welfare state to reward irresponsibility either.
Not my problem, she says.
Just wait until your taxes go up to cover additional WIC and SNAP payments to poor mothers of new babies. If you think there won't be new babies in poor families starting 9 months after abortion bans go into effect, you are just kidding yourself. They are not instantly going to become "responsible."
Abortion ban states will probably need more social workers and additional services to handle adoptions. More tax dollars.
Yep, one more reason this new Republican is still "Pro"-Abortion. I would rather pay a few hundred dollars for an abortion than to pay hundreds of thousands in jail time and welfare. Just think of the pain, suffering, and death, that could be avoided if Murder's, Rapist, Fentanyl and Heroin dealers were aborted in the first place
What happens if that life turns out to be a doctor or scientist or a military leader or a teacher and brings up a family and more lives and saves lives does your Russian roulette fortune cookie with others people's lives worth it for a few hundred dollars a bargain? Funny, that you don't try it in yourself. It's always people that has ZERO connections.
I didn't know people can read an unborn future of people they don't even know. Amazing!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
