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.
A fetus is not a child. A fetus is a fetus, and is nothing more than a glob of goo no bigger than a quarter that cannot survive independently outside a woman's body. It is part of a person's body no different than a limb, a wart, an organ, or a piece of snot dangling from her nose. Therefore, she should have full, unconditional control over it's fate. Hell, she can take the fetus out and deep-fry it and make a fetus omelet and eat it for breakfast, with a side of toast and bacon for all I care.
In addition, you may want to take Biology 101 at your local junior college to gain a basic understanding of human morphology so you can understand what biologically constitutes a "child" or a "human being" before commenting further on this issue.
And yes, abortion does lower the incidents of poverty because it cuts back on potential mouths to feed, especially if they are born to single mothers living in poverty. What's wrong with that? Abortion is not an ideal outcome, which is one of the many reasons why liberals support greater contraception access to women. A liberal policy goal is to REDUCE abortion, not increase it.
Slow down Dr. Goebbels!
A limb has the mother's DNA because it is part of her body.
The fetus she is carrying has DNA that is neither the mother's nor the father's.
That's because it is a separate and unique person.
The reason this child is in the mother's womb and dependent on her body is because the mother and father acted to put him or her there and in that dependent capacity by willingly copulating.
In this scenario, both parents have already made their choice.
"In addition, you may want to take Biology 101 at your local junior college to gain a basic understanding of human morphology so you can understand what biologically constitutes a "child" or a "human being" before commenting further on this issue."
Or we could just use a little common sense.
We all know that a fetus is a person and that human life begins at conception.
Slave traders in the US also understood that the people they bought and sold like livestock were human beings.
Nazis understood that Jews, Gypsies, Poles and the disabled were people too.
True status as human has never prevented a corrupt government from declaring an entire class of individuals to be sub-human and therefore have no rights.
Roe V. Wade is the same sort of rationalizing that led to the dehumanizing of Africans slaves and victims of the Nazi regime.
The only reason that eugenics is not fully practiced in the developed world is that no one has yet to market it correctly, but the time is nigh. People will adjust to having the responsibility of child-birthing regulated and some may actually enjoy not having the expectation to provide society with an obligatory 'unit' of their very own.
Though abortion is murder IMO & it is unfortunate that the unborn will never experience birth & concious life... enforced sterilization may be a good thing. Problem is: Who will control & regulate who gets to procreate and who doesn't?
There's the rub. 'Progressive' liberals will adore such regulation since they know no better but to accept enlightened truisms about god-government being entitled to know better than they, aided as the bureaucracy is by that Holy Scripture known as "The Book of Government Statistics", updated annually. What about everyone else...? 'Conservative' fuedalists will be alarmed that they cannot have large families due to 'unit' allocation restrictions or simply by having undesirous genetics. Will they see the Utilitarian Light by having fewer or no children without recourse no matter how many they can afford to produce?
For everyone who thinks abortion is "murder," would you support jailing women who get abortions for LIFE, or support the death penalty for these women who get abortions?
Shouldn't we retroactively go after all women who do so?
It's pre-meditated and deliberate, after all.
And, when abortion is illegal in the United States in the conservative fantasy world future, where will good white families take little Sally to terminate her pregnancy when they learn she got knocked up by the black kid down the street? Canada?
For everyone who thinks abortion is "murder," would you support jailing women who get abortions for LIFE, or support the death penalty for these women who get abortions?
Shouldn't we retroactively go after all women who do so?
It's pre-meditated and deliberate, after all.
And, when abortion is illegal in the United States in the conservative fantasy world future, where will good white families take little Sally to terminate her pregnancy when they learn she got knocked up by the black kid down the street? Canada?
If abortion is ever illegalized it will be because enforced sterilization will be legalized.
-
Or some disastrous scenario occurs that changes everything we experience & know today.
I'm betting on enforced sterilization as the best bet to happen. Humans living in comfy affluence love abrogating responsibility and the whole abortion thing centers around that. Females have no interest in being nothing more than an occasional incubator & full-time house-maid/child tenderer all their lives and this has changed civilization and will continue to do so. Eugenics was born toward engineering humanity, cultivating beneficial traits and weeding out those deemed malignant. Gender equality doctrine is naturally friendly to the idea of eugenics as it benefits directly from it.
Even those who consider themselves progressive ('progressivism' is different, more grimly protectionist & authority-loving, like those in America today who claim to be liberal) understand that there are too many people and that they are a drag. The pioneer Indira Ghandi was ahead of her time but too militant as she only chose poor slum-dwelling males for sterilization back in India (she was Nehru's daughter). China has the one child rule as policy. America just uses non-profit organizations & a copious media to manipulate eugenics via sensible family-planning and 'civil' rights arguments.
You seem to be upset by our Capitalist society. It produces a small amount of rich and a large amount of poor. If you don't like it you can always go to one of those socialist countries where the divide between rich and poor isn't as magnified as it is here in America. It seems to be getting on your nerves.
large amount of poor? I have noticed that in the 1950's tha mount of poor in the USA was not large at all, but all of a sudden, LBJ comes along an announces the war on poverty. now we have a large population of poor peoplewith no end in sight. I do believe that washington dc does not want the poor to go away. if they did they would limit the federal aid and stop giving it when that time limit ran out.
large amount of poor? I have noticed that in the 1950's tha mount of poor in the USA was not large at all, but all of a sudden, LBJ comes along an announces the war on poverty. now we have a large population of poor peoplewith no end in sight. I do believe that washington dc does not want the poor to go away. if they did they would limit the federal aid and stop giving it when that time limit ran out.
The distance between the top and the bottom was far less in the 50's then it is today. The poor were there. You just didn't notice.
The middle class has moved closer to the bottom.
Quote:
"There are two types of poor people, those who are poor together and those who are poor alone.
The first are the true poor, the others are rich people out of luck". Jean-Paul Sartre
The distance between the top and the bottom was far less in the 50's then it is today. The poor were there. You just didn't notice.
The middle class has moved closer to the bottom.
yes you are correct. that means that plans and goverment aid that the feds having been laying down since LBJ's war on poverty debacle has not succeeded. it is time to drop it and start with something else. because welfare for life sure as hell isnt working.
By recipient class, I mean healthy people who just live on welfare their entire lives.
If you can prove that you can support a child without a tax payer having to take responsibility for that child, by all means, you can sign a document stating that you will NEVER ask for public assistance for that child.
I prefer mandatory sterilization for those with up to two children and are 100% dependent on the government. No more having child after child after child and claiming that you have the right to public funds to raise those children.
After all, Roe v. Wade was sold on the premise that unwanted children would be no more.
And many, many lefties claim that abortion is better than bringing an unwanted child into the world.
BTW....NO COST (to you) for these abortions!
Come and get it!
Let's help the poor be less dependent on government. The problem with that is that it has become "cool" to be part of the recipient class. It used to be an embarrassment and people wanted off welfare. That is not the case anymore. It is no longer "cool" to be rich due to the fact that success is looked down upon by many liberals in this country (including our current President). It is "cool" to be poor and not be successful.
I work with people who constantly brag about their handouts and having more children. One woman even shares her WIC with everyone she knows. She buys milk, eggs, and cheese for everyone. Another woman collects unemployment while working full-time under the table and brags about it to her friends. One of my coworkers was excited when he got fired so he could collect unemployment and sit on his ass playing video games. He said he would "pretend" to look for a job.
Let's end this war on the successful and start helping the poor be less dependent on government. Let's attach a stigma to welfare. It should be embarrassing to take a handout from Uncle Sam. It isn't good to have millions of people wondering around doing nothing with their lives but producing babies and collecting a check. Kids have no dads because a woman doesn't need to think about who she is sleeping with because the government is "daddy" now. Women have sex with losers who aren't even worth their time just to "get some" and then end up pregnant and the life of poverty has begun. This isn't good for our society.
Let the woman decide. Period. The liberal position on this issue is the rational, intelligent, and COMMON SENSE approach to the issue of abortion.
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."
- a quote coming from the blabbering, flip-flopping piece of excrement that was the GOP's presidential candidate in 2012. Damn, he was much more intelligent and articulate when he was a "progressive with progressive views", dontcha think?
Abortion, in most cases, is infanticide. The flip-flopping piece of excrement won another 4 years in office - dontcha think!!!
What passes for "American" these days is a shadow of its former incarnation.
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.
