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.
Personally I believe it's unethical that 30,000 children a year age out of foster care because no one wanted to give them a home and a family.
I also believe that it's unethical that while people like the OP are tremendously worried about what is happening inside other women's wombs they forget the 16 million children in this country who live in poverty.
I think it's positively revolting that parents who can't properly feed, clothe or educate their child are applauded simply because they gave birth. No one seems to think about the malnourished child who will drop out of school at 14 and never have a good job. Nope! The anti-choice crowd is standing and applauding because, by golly, one more baby made it through the birth canal! (Let's see where they're at when that child is locked in a closet and slapped around by Mom and Dad. Because Mom and dad are high or incapable of raising a child on poverty wages or just plain evil. Think they're around to comfort that child? If he survives.)
The ethics of when life begins has been debated for thousands of years. For the last 40 years the anti-choice crowd has been telling women they MUST have children. While they complain about Obamacare, illegal aliens having children in the United States and raising property taxes because heaven forbid should they have to spend a penny on a hispanic anchor baby living in the barrio.
Ask that 14 year old drop out if she's sorry she's alive. I doubt many in her unfortunate circumstances would volunteer for oblivion.
You obviously don't know many kids who have had the **** slapped out of them by their parents. You obviously don't know ANY unwanted children who have been told, by their parents, "I wish you were never born."
You obviously don't know much about hunger and poverty and abuse in this country and the hundreds of thousands of kids who no one gives a damn about.
The self-righteousness of the people who think EVERY child is loved and wanted and who thinks EVERY child is kissing the ground thankful that they woke up in the morning (with nothing to eat at breakfast) is matched only by the utter ignorance of how life is for the unwanted and unloved.
The OP has an open invitation to list the programs that have been set up by the anti-choice crowd to help make sure NO child has the **** kicked out of them by their parents. Just because they can.
You're welcome to leave your list of resources. (I'm serious. I'm really, really, really tired of turning on the news and finding out that the authorities have discovered yet another 20 pound three year old covered with cigarette burns who is expected to die. It's time the entire country got a wake-up call and started giving a damn about the kids who are already here.)
p.s. Living in utter neglect and poverty is not an "unfortunate circumstance". It is a HORRENDOUS fact of life for thousands and thousands of kids in our country. But nice way to sugar coat despair. The anti-choice crowd is tremendously good with euphemisms.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 08-18-2013 at 03:32 PM..
You obviously don't know many kids who have had the **** slapped out of them by their parents. You obviously don't know ANY unwanted children who have been told, by their parents, "I wish you were never born."
You obviously don't know about hunger and poverty and abuse in this country and the hundreds of thousands of kids who no one gives a damn about.
The self-righteousness of the people who think EVERY child is loved and wanted and who thinks EVERY child is kissing the ground thankful that they woke up in the morning (with nothing to eat at breakfast) is matched only by your utter ignorance of how life is for the unwanted and unloved.
The OP has an open invitation to list the programs that have been set up by the anti-choice crowd to help make sure NO child has the **** kicked out of them by their parents.
You're welcome to leave you list of resources.
I see, hear, or read things such as you describe almost every day and it's heart wrenching. But none of the indignities and cruelties you relate justify the wholesale premature termination of innocent life, especially on the scale it's done these days.
Personally I believe it's unethical that 30,000 children a year age out of foster care because no one wanted to give them a home and a family.
Abortion is legal in the U.S., so, did legalizing abortion solve this problem?
That problem is also a bit of a red herring. Child abuse, global warming, cancer, not being asked out to high school prom are separate problems even if in one way or another they all are related humans being born into this world.
Quote:
I also believe that it's unethical that while people like the OP are tremendously worried about what is happening inside other women's wombs they forget the 16 million children in this country who live in poverty.
I live in poverty in the United States. But being a citizen of the United States I live in what economists term "relative poverty" as opposed to "absolute poverty." There are some citizens of the United States that live in absolute poverty but they are a small minority and are usually adults that are homeless sleeping literally under bridges in sewers etc.
Given I live in relative poverty I live materially (not necessarily emotionally or psychologically etc.) like a king relative to those living in abject poverty in Ethiopia or Cambodia. Actually, I live materially better than the kings and queens that ruled over Europe centuries ago. My apartment is roughly 550 sq ft. with running water, hot water, electricity, frig, stove, AC, toilet, shower with tub, cabinets, and I have a microwave I bought.
Quote:
I think it's positively revolting that parents who can't properly feed, clothe or educate their child are applauded simply because they gave birth. No one seems to think about their malnourished child who will drop out of school at 14 and never have a good job.
In the United States a parent can't feed or clothe their children?
I was raised in middle-class Black-America. And while the true face of poverty in the Black-American ghettos were/are often far less attractive than what popular U.S. TV sitcoms depict poverty as, nonetheless, more than a few kids raised in the ghettos by a single parent on welfare had more name-brand sneakers and clothing than I did as a kid.
I'm not that much against public programs by the way. So, my comments about abortion does not mean I think all public programs ought to be cut.
I think some of them are inefficiently run. I also think if welfare were entirely wiped out a lot of young women would select for different traits in young men than they select for now. I think both welfare and legalized abortion are feminist tools that help women sleep with whatever guys they want.
Nonetheless, I'm not against welfare today. I wouldn't even be against the state providing married mother's with infants financial assistance for a few years if the married couple fall at or below the poverty line. The check going to the mother/wife not her husband.
Quote:
The ethics of when life begins has been debated for thousands of years.
Ethics?
I'm speaking of biology. The science of biology. It's undisputed human life begins at conception. You know... the whole "my genes I inherited from my parents made me gay." Yeah... that.
The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote . Over the next few days, the single, large cell divides many times to form a hollow ball of smaller cells. On the sixth day after fertilization, this hollow ball burrows into the wall of the mother's uterus, or womb.
So, according to liberal ideology, science says homosexuality likely begins at conception (fertilization), but science has no idea when human life begins?
One philosopher of science has argued that like separation of church and state there needs to be a separation of science and state. Political ideologies should not become "science" telling us we don't know when human life begins when in fact science absent of all political knows for fact, genetically, when human life begins.
Quote:
For the last 40 years the anti-choice community has been telling women they MUST have children. While they complain about Obamacare, illegal aliens having children in the United States and raising property taxes because heaven forbid should they have to spend a penny on a hispanic anchor baby living in the barrio.
I find that so unethical I can barely breathe.
I can only speak for myself, but I have no problem with Hispanic women document or undocumented, giving birth to their children in the United States.
I receive free medical care from the VA Hospital. I think the Americans that aren't military veterans and struggling financially, don't know what they're missing out on with free medical care.
I'd have no problem with free medical and dental care.
OK, a fetus legally becomes a person when he/she is born (though he/she does have some legal protection inside the womb when he/she is already viable).
However, a new human life begins at conception/fertilization:
It is not a fetus when it is born.
You're not seriously trying to pass off YouTubes as credible, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
Yes, that's what I meant--my statement would apply if one considers both killing prenatal human beings and killing human infants to both be morally unjustifiable (or to both be morally justifiable).
Might I suggest then, that you not have an abortion.
I'd also ask you to stay the hell out of my uterus.
You're not welcome there.
just because a woman has the organs to bear children doesn't mean she has too.
"the middle finger to biological evolution" "the "cult" career, money and status" above natural means.
do you say the same thing about men? LOL another american taliban thinker.
Actually, as one lawyer I've read has argued, the privacy rights issue could be applied to men in a Roe For Men.
The Supreme Court ruled against a Roe For Men though, stating that when men have sex they knowingly engage in risky behavior. (Do women not knowingly engage in risky behavior when having sex? )
I have no problem with women being queens, presidents, or CEOs. Not quite Taliban.
One of the world leaders I most admired was a single mother that's agnostic, liberal, and became the President of Chile.
Verónica Michelle Bachelet Jeria (Spanish pronunciation: [miˈtʃel βatʃeˈlet]; born September 29, 1951) is a ChileanSocial Democrat politician who served as President of Chile from 2006 to 2010, the first woman to do so. Unable to seek a second successive term, she left office and headed the newly created United Nations body UN Women. She resigned from that position in March 2013 to run for a second term as President of Chile.
Bachelet won the 2006 presidential election in a runoff, beating center-right businessman and former senator Sebastián Piñera with 53.5% of the vote. She campaigned on a platform of continuing Chile's free-market policies, while increasing social benefits to help reduce the gap between rich and poor.[1]
Understandably, those trained/educated as lawyers will tend to think like lawyers (most U.S. politicians are lawyers by educational background and profession). Those educated as engineers will probably tend to think like engineers.
While I'm only an undergraduate, my major is biology, which by intent of the major and the biologists and biological anthropologists, tries to inoculate a certain mode of thinking and analysis that is bio-centric.
So, the theory of evolution really is about reproduction. Giving birth. Genes being passed on to future generations. To a lawyer a pregnancy might seem "cruel," "unnatural," a curse bestowed by "patriarchy" upon an innocent female population.
But to me as a student of the science of biology all that stuff if flowery verbiage that's nonsense . To me females are by evolutionary processes designed for pregnancy and for giving birth.
Abortion is simply giving the middle finger to the theory of evolution. The exception might be the intent of humans to act as intelligent designers selecting for traits they want in an offspring and aborting (one method of selecting against) an unwanted offspring. Which is pretty Nazi.
Though... a many East Indians select against female offspring by aborting girls before they are born.
Originally Posted by Supine Prior to the Roe vs Wade ruling U.S. women had the right to give birth to their children--except for some women under the largely liberal, politically leftist eugenics movement that swept through the United States.
Your comment was directed to my statement above which you quoted. You basically implied my statement was false and that in fact prior to Re vs Wade American women as whole did not legally have the right to give birth to their children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick
Au contraire. Apparently your "education" on the subject is woefully insufficient. Here is some history on abortion in the US:
From your link I got this from the first 2 paragraphs. The only portion of the article I read.
Quote:
If recent legislation passed in Arkansas and North Dakota is allowed to stand, it will be harder for women to get an abortion in those states than it was in New England in 1650. Legislators in Little Rock and Bismarck have passed new restrictions that ban abortions according to when a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Federal judges have blocked the new restrictions until legal challenges to their constitutionality are settled. But the six-week deadline contrasts starkly with early American abortion law, where the procedure was legal until “quickening”—the first time a mother feels the baby kick, which can happen anywhere from 14 weeks to 26 weeks into pregnancy.
Abortion was not just legal—it was a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure in colonial America and common enough to appear in the legal and medical records of the period. Official abortion laws did not appear on the books in the United States until 1821, and abortion before quickening did not become illegal until the 1860s. If a woman living in New England in the 17th or 18th centuries wanted an abortion, no legal, social, or religious force would have stopped her.
Exactly how did you--or that article--contradict my statement that prior to the Roe vs Wade ruling women in United States had the right to give birth to their children--except for some women under the eugenics movement that swept the United States?
You didn't contradict me neither did that article.
However, I'm sure you pull that article up as a routine objection to pro-life comments about Roe vs Wade.
Apparently, your education has not helped you figure out state laws and state rights as opposed to federally protected rights. The Roe vs Wade ruling effectively made it federal law that all states in Union must allow legalized abortion.
I think it's your "education" on the subject that is woefully insufficient. When I say I had to go over some of the Justices comments on the Roe vs Wade ruling that states just that. Don't read into that the Dred Scott ruling or first time drunk driving offenses in Milwaukee being a misdemeanor.
But to me as a student of the science of biology all that stuff if flowery verbiage that's nonsense . To me females are by evolutionary processes designed for pregnancy and for giving birth.
supine, you must be a man. you can think women are baby making machines all you want. thankfully that choice is up to the woman.
abortion giving the middle finger to nature??? humans intervene in almost everything from nature.
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.
