Trump signs bill allowing states to withhold funding from abortion services

[Landon]

More good news for the anti-abortion community. Trump signed a bill (out of media's reach) that allows states to withhold federal funding from abortion services/clinics. The primary target? Planned Parenthood. The bill reverses what Obama signed which said that states were prohibited from withholding federal funding to the services.


President Donald Trump privately signed a bill on Thursday that allows states to withhold federal money from organizations that provide abortion services, including Planned Parenthood, a group frequently targeted by Republicans.

The bill, which the usually camera-friendly President signed without any media present, reverses an Obama-era regulation that prohibited states from withholding money from facilities that perform abortions, arguing that many of these facilities also provide other family planning and medical services.
The bulk of federal money Planned Parenthood receives, though, goes toward preventive health care, birth control, pregnancy tests and other women's health services. Federal law prohibits taxpayer dollars from funding abortions and Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions.

What do you think?

[dbgtz]

Stupid

[lemons]

*REMOVED*

Post edited by King-Tom (Forum Moderator) - Please do not be rude to other members!

[Landon]

dbgtz; lemons;

Why so?

[lemons]

because I'm pro-abortion simple as that! trump is a moron

[Landon]

because I'm pro-abortion simple as that! trump is a moron

And why exactly are you 'pro abortion'?

[lemons]

And why exactly are you 'pro abortion'?

why are you anti-abortion? probably because im against those reasons!

[Landon]

why are you anti-abortion? probably those reasons!

I don't get it. The reasons for being anti-abortion are radically different from 'pro abortion'.

[lemons]

I don't get it. The reasons for being anti-abortion are radically different from 'pro abortion'.

yes i corrected my post..

im not getting into a debate with you it's completely pointless

ot i cant wait until all of this is reversed by the next dem president in 2020 !

[Landon]

yes i corrected my post..

im not getting into a debate with you it's completely pointless

ot i cant wait until all of this is reversed by the next dem president in 2020 !

Nah it'll be 2024 ;)

[MKR&*42]

I am of course against this because this is not 1950 :)

[dbgtz]

dbgtz; lemons;

Why so?

People who are desperate for abortions will get one regardless, back street abortions were a thing and dangerous.
Should the child not be aborted, then they may well end up dumped on a doorstep and become a burden on the state.
The mothers mental and physical health could be at risk.
The parent/s in question could be young themselves and not ready for a child.
Expanding on the above, it could be argued poorer people having many kids keeps them being poor - restricting contraception and abortion will only make it worse.
The world is overpopulated as it is so forcing people to have kids they don't want isn't a great idea.
Happy people = better productivity. Unwanted kids = stress = unhappy.

[Landon]

People who are desperate for abortions will get one regardless, back street abortions were a thing and dangerous.
Should the child not be aborted, then they may well end up dumped on a doorstep and become a burden on the state.
The mothers mental and physical health could be at risk.
The parent/s in question could be young themselves and not ready for a child.
Expanding on the above, it could be argued poorer people having many kids keeps them being poor - restricting contraception and abortion will only make it worse.
The world is overpopulated as it is so forcing people to have kids they don't want isn't a great idea.
Happy people = better productivity. Unwanted kids = stress = unhappy.

Isn't that what adoption is for though? Many couples that feel as though they cannot raise their child properly end up putting them up for adoption where they give the kid a better life.


I am of course against this because this is not 1950 :)

We are better off aborting babies now a days? If this is not what you meant, please explain.

[peteyt]

Isn't that what adoption is for though? Many couples that feel as though they cannot raise their child properly end up putting them up for adoption where they give the kid a better life.



We are better off aborting babies now a days? If this is not what you meant, please explain.
They still have to have the baby in the first place and if they don't want it going though with it might cause issues for the mother.

Then there's cases like rape.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[dbgtz]

Isn't that what adoption is for though? Many couples that feel as though they cannot raise their child properly end up putting them up for adoption where they give the kid a better life.

No guarantee of being adopted and becomes a burden on the state even if adopted quickly and then you never know how someone may react to being adopted. Still putting the mother under greater physical and mental strain and even without any other issues, pregnancy and childbirth itself is a very physically demanding task. Still the stress of deciding what to do, with people possibly pushing the mother to do what they think is right but not what is right for the mother. Still contributing to an overpopulated world. Still, for the US at least, puts a financial burden on someone to have children they didn't want to begin with.

[lemons]

Isn't that what adoption is for though? Many couples that feel as though they cannot raise their child properly end up putting them up for adoption where they give the kid a better life.


would you be happy for your sister or mum to be forced to have a baby she did not want?

- - - Updated - - -




We are better off aborting babies now a days?

babies that are not wanted, yes!

[Lewis]

I don't agree with murder abortion but then again sometimes I think the baby is better off than to have parents that would even consider such an option. And while I am sympathetic to the cases where rape is involved or possible severe birth defects, these only take up an incredibly small amount of abortions as far as I know.

Not looking for a debate though, as others have said :P

This is an interesting site if anyone wants to have a look: https://theabortionsurvivors.com/

[Landon]

Like a few of you have mentioned, I believe in abortion only if either the mother was raped or the baby is going to have (the obvious) medical issues in life and will not live normally.

[peteyt]

Like a few of you have mentioned, I believe in abortion only if either the mother was raped or the baby is going to have (the obvious) medical issues in life and will not live normally.
The thing is someone may get pregnant by accident and not be in the best place to have a child e.g. financially, emotionally. Yes she should have been more careful but people make mistakes. She may hate the idea of adoption so may have to bring a child she didn't want up. Even if she did adopt the child could have a troubled life and upbringing. Yes the child could also be fine and even become important but i think the mother should have a say at least.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Landon]

The thing is someone may get pregnant by accident and not be in the best place to have a child e.g. financially, emotionally. Yes she should have been more careful but people make mistakes. She may hate the idea of adoption so may have to bring a child she didn't want up. Even if she did adopt the child could have a troubled life and upbringing. Yes the child could also be fine and even become important but i think the mother should have a say at least.

Handing a child up for adoption is a lot better than making a mother that doesn't want the child raise it. Regardless of whether or not the new parents are good (which most are because those that adopt kids actually want them), they'll be given another chance at life.

[dbgtz]

I think you need to look up adoption rates pal.
I also don't know why you seem so concerned with a foetus which probably doesn't even know pain yet you've given zero consideration to the well-being of the lady forced to go through pregnancy.

[Landon]

I think you need to look up adoption rates pal.

I need to look up adoption rates to know that it's better than killing the baby?

[dbgtz]

I need to look up adoption rates to know that it's better than killing the baby?

No, you need to look it up because you seem to think every child will get adopted. Far from.
And why did you just ignore my second point?

[Landon]

No, you need to look it up because you seem to think every child will get adopted. Far from.
And why did you just ignore my second point?

I didn't say every child will get adopted. Don't put words in my mouth. Here are my exact words.


Handing a child up for adoption is a lot better than making a mother that doesn't want the child raise it. Regardless of whether or not the new parents are good (which most are because those that adopt kids actually want them), they'll be given another chance at life.


And to this:


I also don't know why you seem so concerned with a foetus which probably doesn't even know pain yet you've given zero consideration to the well-being of the lady forced to go through pregnancy.

Of course I've given zero concern. Unless the lady is raped, the baby has defects, or she is in serious pain, the child should not be aborted.

I have zero concern because unprotected sex is the couple's issue. Not the baby's.

[dbgtz]

I didn't say every child will get adopted. Don't put words in my mouth. Here are my exact words.


OK so what about all the children who don't get adopted?



And to this:



Of course I've given zero concern. Unless the lady is raped, the baby has defects, or she is in serious pain, the child should not be aborted.

I have zero concern because unprotected sex is the couple's issue. Not the baby's.

Firstly, you've now changed your claim and also contradicted yourself by saying "she is in serious pain" i.e. some concern for the mother.
Also no contraception short of surgery is 100%.

Steering away somewhat, I want to ask why you believe a foetus life is firstly important at all, and secondly why you value their importance greater than that of the woman?

[Landon]

OK so what about all the children who don't get adopted?

Steering away somewhat, I want to ask why you believe a foetus life is firstly important at all, and secondly why you value their importance greater than that of the woman?

1) It's a lot better than killing them. Even a few children that are alive is a lot better than none at all. Also, we do have orphanages.

2) a) I think they're important because kids are a continuation of our species.
b) In the case of pregnancy, a kid's life is certainly more important if the mother chose to have unsafe sex and consequently pays the price of having a child. It's a lot more important to make sure the child is okay than the woman's emotional struggle of not wanting the child imo.

[lemons]

1) It's a lot better than killing them. Even a few children that are alive is a lot better than none at all. Also, we do have orphanages.

2) a) I think they're important because kids are a continuation of our species.
b) In the case of pregnancy, a kid's life is certainly more important if the mother chose to have unsafe sex and consequently pays the price of having a child. It's a lot more important to make sure the child is okay than the woman's emotional struggle of not wanting the child imo.

you literally disgust me!

I'm sure it's really every kids dream to grow up in an orphanage

There is already enough people being born to 'continue our species' - too many in some parts of the world!

A foetus or an unborn child is never more important than the well-being of the mother who has to carry it for 9 months, are you delusional?? what if its the mans choice/personal requirement not to wear a condom is it still the womans fault that she ends up pregnant???

you and your views represents the backwards thinking of the US and republicans in general - v glad the vast majority people are sane in the UK and the rest of the western world! :)

[dbgtz]

1) It's a lot better than killing them. Even a few children that are alive is a lot better than none at all. Also, we do have orphanages.


So dump them on the state? What about the issues that occur with this? Here's some statistics for you:

children raised in orphanages are 10 times more likely to be involved in prostitution, 40 times more likely to have a criminal record and — shockingly — 500 times more likely to commit suicide
http://blog.ted.com/are-orphanages-a-necessary-evil-or-is-there-a-better-way/



2) a) I think they're important because kids are a continuation of our species.
b) In the case of pregnancy, a kid's life is certainly more important if the mother chose to have unsafe sex and consequently pays the price of having a child. It's a lot more important to make sure the child is okay than the woman's emotional struggle of not wanting the child imo.

A continuation of our species where there's over 7 billion of us already? We are massively overpopulated and it is unsustainable.
You seem to be ignoring the PHYSICAL struggle of the woman too. There is a risk of some surgery being required, and with any surgery comes risk of infection and ultimately death. Yes, people still die from childbirth. Let's just ignore that whole "contraception isn't 100% effective" too. Interesting to see your moral compass though.

[Zak]

I'm overwhelmingly pro-choice. A step backwards in my opinion.

[Landon]

you literally disgust me!

Lol if I really make you feel that bad then you shouldn't be debating me.


I'm sure it's really every kids dream to grow up in an orphanage

It's every child's dream to be dead, too, huh.


There is already enough people being born to 'continue our species' - too many in some parts of the world!

Wooooooo lets KILL EM ALL! Yeah!


what if its the mans choice/personal requirement not to wear a condom is it still the womans fault that she ends up pregnant???

There is no validity in this. If the man chooses to not wear a condom then it's the woman's fault for letting him in lol.


you and your views represents the backwards thinking of the US and republicans in general - v glad the vast majority people are sane in the UK and the rest of the western world! :)

Lol and if I told you that your views are backwards and that the majority of the US was sane unlike the UK then you would cry and tell me to go to hell like a typical crybaby liberal.

-----------


So dump them on the state? What about the issues that occur with this?

I don't deny that. I do deny that every child shouldn't have a chance though.


A continuation of our species where there's over 7 billion of us already? We are massively overpopulated and it is unsustainable.

Under this ideology, we could kill almost every child and be fine.


You seem to be ignoring the PHYSICAL struggle of the woman too. There is a risk of some surgery being required, and with any surgery comes risk of infection and ultimately death. Yes, people still die from childbirth. Let's just ignore that whole "contraception isn't 100% effective" too. Interesting to see your moral compass though.

The physical struggle? Pretty sure every woman that wants to get pregnant knows that they are going to have to deal with physical struggle.

Surgery: Yeah? My mom had two c-sections. One for me and one for my sister. She's just fine. She isn't dead nor did she get any infections. C-section is perfectly safe these days and highly acceptable.

[Alysha]

This is disgusting. You put all the blame on a woman, take no regard for female well being and automatically give a foetus more respect than a woman.
a foetus isn't a child. If you really want to give them a chance, allow them to be brought up in an environment which isn't an emotional drain on them. The amount of poor children who will grow up thinking they're unwanted is going to be horrible as it is, purely because a group of mainly men, think that they deserve a chance at life, even though they were nothing more than a bunch of cells at the time.
women won't stop having abortions, the rise in backstreet ones will just cause more suffering to those involved.

[lemons]

Lol if I really make you feel that bad then you shouldn't be debating me.

It's every child's dream to be dead, too, huh.

Wooooooo lets KILL EM ALL! Yeah!

There is no validity in this. If the man chooses to not wear a condom then it's the woman's fault for letting him in lol.

Lol and if I told you that your views are backwards and that the majority of the US was sane unlike the UK then you would cry and tell me to go to hell like a typical crybaby liberal.



A child can't dream to be dead if it isnt already alive :o

Nobody has suggested aborting all the babies - please take this seriously :) We don't need to force women to give birth just to 'continue our species', that's just ridiculous to suggest! The abortion rate is only 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women in the US according to one source which is the lowest level since abortion was legalised - hardly a shortage of babies being born!

A man has just as much responsibility in causing pregnancy as the woman, if not more!

Even if C-sections are safe in developed countries why should a woman be forced by law to have to go under the knife to remove a baby she does not want. Having an abortion itself is punishing enough let alone being forced to give birth by laws created by old men in suits in the white house!

*REMOVED*

Post edited by Despect (Forum Super Moderator) - Please do not be rude to other members, thanks.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Great news, this is the kind of thing I want to see the President doing.

Abortion is absolutely immoral and disgusting, only a ignorant pig would kill a child in the womb. Anyone only has to read about abortion techniques such as literally blending the baby in the womb and pulling its limbs/body parts out afterwards or even read accounts of babies screaming after being pulled from their mothers wombs and left to die in a bin - it's a modern day Holocaust and is happening everyday because most liberal women now believe opening their legs every weekend shouldn't carry any responsibility for they themselves. Screw your invented 'rights' - there exists no right to kill an unborn child.

And before anyone comes back with the moronic answer that it isn't a child, you only have to look at what *wanted* pregnancies that end in miscarriage, stillborns or an accident resulting in the babies death - the kind of response they get is as though the 'foetus' is a child, well, because it is. It's only *unwanted* babies we pretend aren't human. It's appalling.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc

[dbgtz]

I don't deny that. I do deny that every child shouldn't have a chance though.


But they're not getting much of a chance.
Funny thing is, I bet there are studies out there that basically put it down to poor state support as to why they turn out so bad, yet you want to cut welfare.



Under this ideology, we could kill almost every child and be fine.


No? You couldn't simply cull every child under 12 right now, otherwise you have a huge gap. I'm simply wanting a reduction of birth rates which should cause a decline in total population.



The physical struggle? Pretty sure every woman that wants to get pregnant knows that they are going to have to deal with physical struggle.

Surgery: Yeah? My mom had two c-sections. One for me and one for my sister. She's just fine. She isn't dead nor did she get any infections. C-section is perfectly safe these days and highly acceptable.

Yes but these women don't want to be pregnant that's the whole bloody point.
You can't use bloody anecdotal evidence to "prove" a surgery is "perfectly safe". All surgery has risks and you're naive to think otherwise.


Great news, this is the kind of thing I want to see the President doing.

Abortion is absolutely immoral and disgusting, only a ignorant pig would kill a child in the womb. Anyone only has to read about abortion techniques such as literally blending the baby in the womb and pulling its limbs/body parts out afterwards or even read accounts of babies screaming after being pulled from their mothers wombs and left to die in a bin - it's a modern day Holocaust and is happening everyday because most liberal women now believe opening their legs every weekend shouldn't carry any responsibility for they themselves. Screw your invented 'rights' - there exists no right to kill an unborn child.


Immoral is a sham of an argument since peoples morals differ. It's also rather rich to choose when allowing death is immoral when it suits you, yet you'd be happy with restricting healthcare to those who need it, bombing those who are innocent and potentially risking the livelihoods of many simply for ideological reasons.

Looking up the techniques of abortion in the UK, and there are two ways. One is the pills, which is not either of the methods you described and one is surgery which are none of the techniques you described as seen here http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/How-is-it-performed.aspx#surgical. You should really provide sources for what you say rather than spout out stuff from your bum.
The only thing you've really argued for is the reduction in the number of weeks.

I will end this by saying that sure, all rights are made up. Nobody has the inherent right to water, food, privacy, education, healthcare or even life itself. It is all made up.



And before anyone comes back with the moronic answer that it isn't a child, you only have to look at what *wanted* pregnancies that end in miscarriage, stillborns or an accident resulting in the babies death - the kind of response they get is as though the 'foetus' is a child, well, because it is. It's only *unwanted* babies we pretend aren't human. It's appalling.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc

There is a slight difference, and that is there is an emotional investment from the parent(s). A wanted pregnancy will make the parent(s) think about the future, think about how they will raise their child and how well of a parent they will be. They will plan ahead, purchase baby products, be happy about where their life is heading and when there is a miscarriage all of that basically goes with it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Immoral is a sham of an argument since peoples morals differ. It's also rather rich to choose when allowing death is immoral when it suits you, yet you'd be happy with restricting healthcare to those who need it, bombing those who are innocent and potentially risking the livelihoods of many simply for ideological reasons.

Immoral is tearing a baby up inside its mothers womb and extracting it. I find that immoral, yes.

I do love how many pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty. They'll argue for the deaths of the innocent simply for not being wanted but those who are genuinely not wanted and deserve death - murderers - they argue passionately for the right to life. It's the same old story: turn morality and what is right on its head. I side with the innocent and what is morally right.


Looking up the techniques of abortion in the UK, and there are two ways. One is the pills, which is not either of the methods you described and one is surgery which are none of the techniques you described as seen here http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/How-is-it-performed.aspx#surgical. You should really provide sources for what you say rather than spout out stuff from your bum.

There's a few ways to kill babies I am well aware - from sodium injections into the heart to poisoning it with medication, all as absolutely vile as the next method. The suction abortion method which the NHS uses is the one I was alluding to, where the baby is literally blended and pulled apart by the procedure. Type in 'suction abortion' on Google images if you wish to see the grim reality.


The only thing you've really argued for is the reduction in the number of weeks.

I'm arguing for a complete and total ban on all abortions unless mothers life is hanging by a thread.


I will end this by saying that sure, all rights are made up. Nobody has the inherent right to water, food, privacy, education, healthcare or even life itself. It is all made up.

Agreed. Apart from the right to life.


There is a slight difference, and that is there is an emotional investment from the parent(s). A wanted pregnancy will make the parent(s) think about the future, think about how they will raise their child and how well of a parent they will be. They will plan ahead, purchase baby products, be happy about where their life is heading and when there is a miscarriage all of that basically goes with it.

And since when did life depend on whether somebody was wanted or not? The murder of a homeless man with no family is just as appalling as the murder of somebody who had a loving family. The inclusion of whether somebody is 'wanted' or not has nothing to do with whether it is right to kill an innocent human being. That's the crux of the issue.

[dbgtz]

Immoral is tearing a baby up inside its mothers womb and extracting it. I find that immoral, yes.

I do love how many pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty. They'll argue for the deaths of the innocent simply for not being wanted but those who are genuinely not wanted and deserve death - murderers - they argue passionately for the right to life. It's the same old story: turn morality and what is right on its head. I side with the innocent and what is morally right.


Immoral is bringing a child into the world who is unwanted and not cared for. Immoral is essentially whatever anyone decides it to be and is a pointless argument.

On the death penalty part, while I can't speak for everyone, I'm against it because it is just asking for complication. If there was a guarantee only those who committed the crimes would receive it, then I'd be OK with it.



There's a few ways to kill babies I am well aware - from sodium injections into the heart to poisoning it with medication, all as absolutely vile as the next method. The suction abortion method which the NHS uses is the one I was alluding to, where the baby is literally blended and pulled apart by the procedure. Type in 'suction abortion' on Google images if you wish to see the grim reality.


I expected something much worse than an unformed blob. It's also only used up to 15 weeks where a foetus is not really developed.
If you honestly think that is grim then you should look up some of the shit that happens in nature.



I'm arguing for a complete and total ban on all abortions unless mothers life is hanging by a thread.


OK. Give me a practical reason why abortion should be outright outlawed.



Agreed. Apart from the right to life.


OK are you vegan then? Oh even that would be eating life so :S
Nobody has a right to life, but if you can disprove then go ahead.



And since when did life depend on whether somebody was wanted or not? The murder of a homeless man with no family is just as appalling as the murder of somebody who had a loving family. The inclusion of whether somebody is 'wanted' or not has nothing to do with whether it is right to kill an innocent human being. That's the crux of the issue.

I was only really explaining the difference of attitude between abortion and miscarriage. But as I think about it now, life is always about if someone wants you. First of all you're reliant on people wanting you for the first however many years of your life, otherwise you're completely fucked and will die. Then someone must want to educate you, otherwise you're fucked or left to live on your own merits as they are. Then a company must want to employ you, which depends on your merits. Then as you get older, someone must want to take care of you should you get to that kind of stage of life. And that's ignoring any mental issues when it comes to loneliness.

[MKR&*42]

Oh I do so love when people bring out the word 'immoral' as if it actually, objectively, means anything remotely useful when debating someone.

"Why are drugs bad?" "cuz immoral"
"Why is abortion bad?" "cuz immoral"
"Why is prostitution bad?" "cuz immoral"

"Ah I see, glad you clarified that..."

Immoral means absolutely fuck all besides "I don't like it so you shouldn't be allowed to do it".

[-:Undertaker:-]

Immoral is bringing a child into the world who is unwanted and not cared for. Immoral is essentially whatever anyone decides it to be and is a pointless argument.

Oh don't be so silly. Bringing a child into the world when you don't want it is immoral you are right about that, but that doesn't then mean you kill it. That's a ludicrious answer to a problem that can be solved quite easily.

If you don't want your pet any longer you don't take it outside and strangle it.


]On the death penalty part, while I can't speak for everyone, I'm against it because it is just asking for complication. If there was a guarantee only those who committed the crimes would receive it, then I'd be OK with it.

Interesting.


I expected something much worse than an unformed blob. It's also only used up to 15 weeks where a foetus is not really developed.

Yes that little thing that looks like a small baby is a 'blob' ... if it makes you feel better calling it a blob then you probably should.


If you honestly think that is grim then you should look up some of the shit that happens in nature.

I watch gore, murders, accidents on the internet all the time so have a high tolerance to blood and guts - but the act of abortion is one of the few things which make me very uneasy. It's the total innocence of the child being kill against the evil and sinister taking it away from its mothers womb that is absolutely vile. It's so unnatural.


OK. Give me a practical reason why abortion should be outright outlawed.

Because murder is wrong. End of story.

OK are you vegan then? Oh even that would be eating life so :S
Nobody has a right to life, but if you can disprove then go ahead.

Human beings are not equivalent in the slightest to animals.


I was only really explaining the difference of attitude between abortion and miscarriage. But as I think about it now, life is always about if someone wants you. First of all you're reliant on people wanting you for the first however many years of your life, otherwise you're completely fucked and will die. Then someone must want to educate you, otherwise you're fucked or left to live on your own merits as they are. Then a company must want to employ you, which depends on your merits. Then as you get older, someone must want to take care of you should you get to that kind of stage of life. And that's ignoring any mental issues when it comes to loneliness.

Maybe satisfaction from life is, but the judgement of who dies and who doesn't isn't for you to make on behalf of someone on the shaky basis that they may be unwanted. Tell that to children who have been adopted.


Oh I do so love when people bring out the word 'immoral' as if it actually, objectively, means anything remotely useful when debating someone.

"Why are drugs bad?" "cuz immoral"
"Why is abortion bad?" "cuz immoral"
"Why is prostitution bad?" "cuz immoral"

"Ah I see, glad you clarified that..."

Immoral means absolutely fuck all besides "I don't like it so you shouldn't be allowed to do it".

You're eager to abolish morality because in doing so you no longer have any limits on pleasure in your life and/or don't feel guilty about something when you should. Turns you into a slave to your desires rather than your critical thoughts.

I'd rather be good and miserable than bad and happy.

[Landon]

Nobody has suggested aborting all the babies - please take this seriously :)

Oh really? Because under the way that you've treated me, my claim works against you.


A man has just as much responsibility in causing pregnancy as the woman, if not more!

Yet it's still the woman's problem for having sex and allowing the man to make her pregnant. Regardless of whether or not a condom was in use. Think about the possible consequences of sex before having it.


Even if C-sections are safe in developed countries why should a woman be forced by law to have to go under the knife to remove a baby she does not want. Having an abortion itself is punishing enough let alone being forced to give birth by laws created by old men in suits in the white house!

To save the woman's life. It's a lot easier to cut a woman open at the last stage of pregnancy while she is in labor than to stick a knife into the vagina to cut the live baby into many pieces and suck it right up into a tube as it is screaming for its life.[/QUOTE]


You are just a disgusting pig with no respect for women as you have shown and it's very sad you still think this way!

Ah, so I am a disgusting pig to not believe in murder and you're a pretty angel for thinking its okay to murder and viciously abort babies. Okay :D

- - - Updated - - -


But they're not getting much of a chance. Funny thing is, I bet there are studies out there that basically put it down to poor state support as to why they turn out so bad, yet you want to cut welfare.

Nah, I believe in welfare as long as it isn't abused. So for instance if you're buying smokes/drugs/liquor with the money then you should be immediately yanked. Unfortunately this isn't happening today.


No? You couldn't simply cull every child under 12 right now, otherwise you have a huge gap. I'm simply wanting a reduction of birth rates which should cause a decline in total population.

Yeah you could lol. And it's been attempted before by Hitler.

[dbgtz]

Oh don't be so silly. Bringing a child into the world when you don't want it is immoral you are right about that, but that doesn't then mean you kill it. That's a ludicrious answer to a problem that can be solved quite easily.

If you don't want your pet any longer you don't take it outside and strangle it.




Yes that little thing that looks like a small baby is a 'blob' ... if it makes you feel better calling it a blob then you probably should.


But that's exactly what it is? Up to a point, it is just a group of cells with instructions.



I watch gore, murders, accidents on the internet all the time so have a high tolerance to blood and guts - but the act of abortion is one of the few things which make me very uneasy. It's the total innocence of the child being kill against the evil and sinister taking it away from its mothers womb that is absolutely vile. It's so unnatural.


It is not a child. I think you slightly messed up this sentence though tbh, I found it hard to read. From what I can tell, you're just using emotive language as attempt to prove you are correct, when really you've said nothing. You're trying to state opinion as fact, again.

The methods used may be unnatural but abortions have been around for a very long time. Also, if unnatural was really a strong argument not to allow something then we wouldn't even be on this forum.



Because murder is wrong. End of story.


That's not a practical reason, you've just brought your own morals back into this. Your opinion is not fact. Some might see murder as a good thing, since things like the death of Bin Laden could be seen as murder but a lot of people do not oppose that. Also, by strict definition you can't murder a foetus and again you're attempting to be emotive to sway opinion which is a poor argument.



Human beings are not equivalent in the slightest to animals.


Why?



Maybe satisfaction from life is, but the judgement of who dies and who doesn't isn't for you to make on behalf of someone on the shaky basis that they may be unwanted. Tell that to children who have been adopted.


To the tiny percentage of children who are adopted?

Unless I was a woman it would never be my choice anyway and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the decision to be honest.




Nah, I believe in welfare as long as it isn't abused. So for instance if you're buying smokes/drugs/liquor with the money then you should be immediately yanked. Unfortunately this isn't happening today.


It isn't happening because it would require means testing which is expensive and intrusive. I agree with the general principle, but understand why actually implementing it is a bad idea.


Yeah you could lol. And it's been attempted before by Hitler.

Did you just compare me to Hitler?? Why did you just mention Hitler?? What he did is completely irrelevant to anything that I was saying(and no, he didn't seek to exterminate those below a certain age). What the fuck even was this argument, seriously.

If you really did not understand the point I was trying to make, I was suggesting that culling a generation would cause horrible economic consequences for a long fucking time and would leave a massive gap in the work force.

Bloody Godwin's law.

[Landon]

Did you just compare me to Hitler?? Why did you just mention Hitler?? What he did is completely irrelevant to anything that I was saying(and no, he didn't seek to exterminate those below a certain age). What the fuck even was this argument, seriously.

If you really did not understand the point I was trying to make, I was suggesting that culling a generation would cause horrible economic consequences for a long fucking time and would leave a massive gap in the work force.

Bloody Godwin's law.

Oh? But you can compare Trump to Hitler and have no issues. And as soon as Sean Spicer said something, he suffered brutal verbal abuse because when a liberal does it its okay but a conservative gets their head chopped off for it. Not literal but you get the point.

Anyways yes he did. If you weren't 13 or able to work then you'd die.

[dbgtz]

Oh? But you can compare Trump to Hitler and have no issues.

I have never done that.


And as soon as Sean Spicer said something,

I don't know who that is.


he suffered brutal verbal abuse because when a liberal does it its okay but a conservative gets their head chopped off for it. Not literal but you get the point.


I don't understand what you're saying.


Anyways yes he did. If you weren't 13 or able to work then you'd die.

He didn't target them for being kids though, that's my point. The children of the master race were saved, of course.

I don't really understand where any of this is going. I do want to say there's a big difference in calling someone Hitler when you're trying to debate with them compared with just saying it as a general comment. While in both cases the comment is unneeded and perhaps childish, in the former specifically you just seem like you're desperate to "win".

[Landon]

I don't really understand where any of this is going. I do want to say there's a big difference in calling someone Hitler when you're trying to debate with them compared with just saying it as a general comment. While in both cases the comment is unneeded and perhaps childish, in the former specifically you just seem like you're desperate to "win".

I understand it quite well. You said you couldn't go around and kill every 12 and under child right now and I said yeah you could. Hitler did it.. Lol I never called you Hitler?

[dbgtz]

I understand it quite well. You said you couldn't go around and kill every 12 and under child right now and I said yeah you could. Hitler did it.. Lol I never called you Hitler?

I understand the mention of Hitler, kind of, but then you somehow bring Trump into it for no reason.
Hitler didn't target kids because they were kids. Either provide a source or shut up, seriously.

And you say you weren't comparing me, but it seemed pretty implied before. Maybe to be safe, don't needlessly bring up Hitler to begin with.

[Landon]

but it seemed pretty implied before

Lol, like you always say: source.

You have none.

[dbgtz]

Lol, like you always say: source.

You have none.

Not sure if you're trolling or attempting to be smart.

If you really believe your own words, then I shall prove it.

Firstly, I said:

No? You couldn't simply cull every child under 12 right now, otherwise you have a huge gap. I'm simply wanting a reduction of birth rates which should cause a decline in total population.

which you then replied:

Yeah you could lol. And it's been attempted before by Hitler.

At this point, I question if you have compared me to Hitler:

Did you just compare me to Hitler??

Now, you may not have been comparing me to Hitler at this point. However, by your response:

Oh? But you can compare Trump to Hitler and have no issues.
Suggests that you were, indeed, comparing me to Hitler since you imply I have taken issue with it, and that I am hypocritical because I allegedly compared Trump to Hitler without regard for him.

gg
Now if you want to make a reply with some degree of relevancy to the topic at hand, that would be great.

[Landon]

Now if you want to make a reply with some degree of relevancy to the topic at hand, that would be great.

No thanks.

gg

[MKR&*42]

No thanks.

gg
.
Solid debate skills.

This is legit going to be my sig now.

[Landon]

.
Solid debate skills.

This is legit going to be my sig now.

Thank you!

Now I've gotten some ideas for my signature.

[scottish]

This thread has just turned embarrassing.

re your signature, was the 'Absolute idiot.' quote from me and I'm sure I've said that a few times but a) I'm not liberal b) You've yet to 'win' any debate? Also your last quote isn't proving any points?

[lemons]

landon well and truly embarrassed himself

http://i.imgur.com/qH7LRIy.gif

[Landon]

Haha how? I just said Hitler killed kids looool so many liberals triggered. Mission accomplished I'd say.

[FlyingJesus]

A foetus is not a child. If you genuinely believe that it somehow is then it also follows that every single ovum and sperm is a child, and in that case every time a woman has a period instead of getting herself pregnant that's murder, and every time a male bashes one out or goes without having sex long enough for sperm to die is absolute genocide
A tree is not a book, a raw chicken is not a healthy meal, pebble is not a mountain... things are not defined by their potential, but by what they actually are

But hey, who needs facts when you can just call everyone who disagrees with you a liberal and backpedal every time you're proven to be inextricably wrong

[Landon]

A foetus is not a child. If you genuinely believe that it somehow is then it also follows that every single ovum and sperm is a child, and in that case every time a woman has a period instead of getting herself pregnant that's murder

Take for instance an egg from a woman. It's not murder if it is solely the egg. If it is the fertilized egg, it is murder. Because the egg has been met with the sperm and a child will form considering there is no interruptions like the reality of abortion. An egg alone being discarded had no potential to become a child anyways unless it is fertilized.


But hey, who needs facts when you can just call everyone who disagrees with you a liberal and backpedal every time you're proven to be inextricably wrong

Yeah. Or by calling them an absolute cretin or idiot as well. :(

[FlyingJesus]

Calls 'em like I sees 'em. You're back to calling me a liberal in your sig I see :P fun times. Is that because I have the potential to become one?

And you're still calling things by their potential instead of what they actually are, and besides that a fertilised egg has no potential to become a child without a billion different things that occur along the way - a womb isn't just a bag of air where things happen by magic. Do you also think that a child is an adult?

[Landon]

Calls 'em like I sees 'em. You're back to calling me a liberal in your sig I see :P fun times. Is that because I have the potential to become one?

And you're still calling things by their potential instead of what they actually are, and besides that a fertilised egg has no potential to become a child without a billion different things that occur along the way - a womb isn't just a bag of air where things happen by magic.

No, I'm simply countering what you said. You're saying that since I believe a fetus is a child, I also probably believe that menstruation or ejaculation are both murder which is simply a conflict because an egg and a sperm on their own are not a human in its developmental stages and are not a child without them coinciding together lol.


Do you also think that a child is an adult?

What point are you trying to get at? To answer your question, no?

[FlyingJesus]

You're saying that since I believe a fetus is a child, I also probably believe that menstruation or ejaculation are both murder

No I'm not, I'm saying that if you believe the former then logically the latter MUST follow, and if you don't think so then your entire argument falls apart


What point are you trying to get at? To answer your question, no?

That (as I keep saying) things are not defined by their potential

[Landon]

No I'm not, I'm saying that if you believe the former then logically the latter MUST follow, and if you don't think so then your entire argument falls apart

That doesn't make sense though. As an example if I were to say that since you believe in abortion even in the last stages when a baby can live on its own before birth then you certainly must believe in executing those on death row, what would you say?

Keep in mind that I don't know what you believe specifically on that comparison. But logically, according to what you have told me, you would believe in the other if you believe in killing inmates. Both are murder.

[dbgtz]

Haha how? I just said Hitler killed kids looool so many liberals triggered. Mission accomplished I'd say.

No, you said he targeted kids based on their age, which is false.

[Landon]

No, you said he targeted kids based on their age, which is false.

He did though. Kids couldn't do the labor that he demanded so they were killed. You had a good chance of not being killed immediately if you were 13-18 because you could be subjected to forced labor. So yes, it was very age targeted.

[FlyingJesus]

if I were to say that since you believe in abortion even in the last stages when a baby can live on its own before birth then you certainly must believe in executing those on death row, what would you say?

I don't agree with late stage abortion, that's a completely different matter because it's forcing the death of something that already is a self sustaining life force, and also premature babies aren't death row inmates. My point was that if you're using potential as your argument then each individual ovum and sperm has the same potential (on its own) to become a fully grown human as a newly created foetus - it's the difference between what is and what may be

[Landon]

I don't agree with late stage abortion, that's a completely different matter because it's forcing the death of something that already is a self sustaining life force, and also premature babies aren't death row inmates. My point was that if you're using potential as your argument then each individual ovum and sperm has the same potential (on its own) to become a fully grown human as a newly created foetus - it's the difference between what is and what may be

Death is death. There is no difference.

[FlyingJesus]

Cool in that case you're a mass murderer because every time you scratch you're killing hundreds of living cells, every step you take you kill thousands of microbes, every time your heart beats it sends out white blood cells to kill invasive bacteria etc

Also if "death is death" then how come you oppose abortion but support the death penalty and war? Nothing you say makes any sense

[Landon]

Also if "death is death" then how come you oppose abortion but support the death penalty and war? Nothing you say makes any sense

Of course I support the death penalty/war but oppose abortion. I made an example to you to show that your logic wasn't working lol.

Perhaps you need another read:


if I were to say that since you believe in abortion even in the last stages when a baby can live on its own before birth then you certainly must believe in executing those on death row, what would you say?

It's a question. It's not my belief at all.

[FlyingJesus]

No dear I'm not the one who needs to reread anything, I already answered that. My logic is fine, yours is the theory that "death is death" but only some death is ok. Either you think that all loss of life is the same or you don't - if you do then you can't support the death sentence whilst opposing abortion, and if you don't then there's no reason at all for you to have ever said it

It's no wonder people get confused trying to debate with you, you can't even keep your own beliefs the same for 5 minutes

[Landon]

No dear I'm not the one who needs to reread anything, I already answered that. My logic is fine, yours is the theory that "death is death" but only some death is ok. Either you think that all loss of life is the same or you don't - if you do then you can't support the death sentence whilst opposing abortion, and if you don't then there's no reason at all for you to have ever said it

It's no wonder people get confused trying to debate with you, you can't even keep your own beliefs the same for 5 minutes

Yes dear, hell yeah only some death is okay.

A convicted rapist/terrorist/murderer etc. deserves to die but an innocent little baby according to you deserves to be ripped apart inside the womb. I see how you work lol.

Btw, what belief could I not keep the same for 5 minutes? I'd like to know. I provided you an example of your own thinking and you accuse that of being my beliefs.

[FlyingJesus]

Btw, what belief could I not keep the same for 5 minutes? I'd like to know.

"Death is death"


I provided you an example of your own thinking and you accuse that of being my beliefs.

No you didn't, you provided a strawman of something that I don't believe and have told you I don't believe

Also ***AGAIN*** a foetus is not a child

[Landon]

"Death is death"



No you didn't, you provided a strawman of something that I don't believe and have told you I don't believe

Also ***AGAIN*** a foetus is not a child
Didn't I just tell you that the example I provided is like what you are using on me but it doesn't work? My view has never changed lol. I believe in shooting terrorists and executing convicted murderers but I don't believe in ripping a baby out of the womb.

Lol anytime you can't think of anything to say I get the "oh his view switched guys lets kill him" annoying bullshit that I have to deal with until I just eventually don't take it anymore. Move on.

Regardless, you should be ashamed of yourself for not supporting late term abortion but supporting it early. Same thing. You just don't like it because you can easily see the features of the baby lol.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

Didn't I just tell you that the example I provided is like what you are using on me

Yeah you did say that, but it's simply not true. Your example was something that I don't believe, mine is something that you do. You can't use an if/then argument when the "if" doesn't exist - that's called a strawman. That said, even if it had reflected what I believe (and I repeat because you don't seem to have understood the last 50 times: it doesn't) your analogy was that if killing one thing is ok then killing everything is ok, which isn't something that logically follows at all. You lose on all counts


My view has never changed lol.

"Death is death. There is no difference" is the exact opposite of "hell yeah only some death is okay". That is you changing your view within 2 posts


Lol anytime you can't think of anything to say I get the "oh his view switched guys lets kill him" annoying bullshit that I have to deal with until I just eventually don't take it anymore. Move on.

I'm sorry that you're annoyed by your own inability to come up with any real argument or response without 1) making things up out of thin air or 2) pretending you never said things that are on the exact same page in writing, but me pointing it out is not bullshit; you saying this nonsense in the first place is the problem. I have fully and eloquently responded to every little bit of your fiction, so don't come along crying and pretending that I can't think of anything to say while you yourself are ignoring half of every post in every thread


Regardless, you should be ashamed of yourself for not supporting late term abortion but supporting it early. Same thing. You just don't like it because you can easily see the features of the baby lol.

Aaaaaaaaaand we're back to you claiming that potential is the same as realisation, with the added cute bonus of trying to tell me what I think. That always works out so well for you :) :) :)

[Landon]

Yeah you did say that, but it's simply not true. Your example was something that I don't believe, mine is something that you do. You can't use an if/then argument when the "if" doesn't exist - that's called a strawman. That said, even if it had reflected what I believe (and I repeat because you don't seem to have understood the last 50 times: it doesn't) your analogy was that if killing one thing is ok then killing everything is ok, which isn't something that logically follows at all. You lose on all counts



"Death is death. There is no difference" is the exact opposite of "hell yeah only some death is okay". That is you changing your view within 2 posts



I'm sorry that you're annoyed by your own inability to come up with any real argument or response without 1) making things up out of thin air or 2) pretending you never said things that are on the exact same page in writing, but me pointing it out is not bullshit; you saying this nonsense in the first place is the problem. I have fully and eloquently responded to every little bit of your fiction

1) You used one on me a bit ago.

2) Lol I said that the concept of death is no different. I didn't say whether or not it was okay.

3) All the while you and your pals used to revert towards name-calling (and still do) to try to prove your points. The immaturity flows. No wonder you have a hard time debating me and frequently get angry and emotional.


so don't come along crying and pretending that I can't think of anything to say while you yourself are ignoring half of every post in every thread

"Lol absolute cretin, absolute idiot, disgusting pig with no respect for women" lol grow up. This is your problem (with others included)

[FlyingJesus]

1) It's fine to use if/then arguments when it's something that someone actually does believe. I did that, you did not. You invented a story.

2) You didn't use the word concept at all, you responded to my post stating exact examples of differences and said "NOPE NOT DIFFERENT ALL THE SAME". Backpedalling and trying to change what you said as usual.

3) I haven't called you names in this thread at all, that's been your tactic with the whole "lol liberal" "you people" thing pretending to be under attack for something other than your awful attempt at debate which you still continue with despite me having told you plenty of times that I'm not a liberal. I don't have a hard time debating you (as seen by the fact that I actually respond to the points that are put up and say things that make sense), I have a hard time getting through your skull because you absolutely refuse to learn, which is infuriating. You have never once actually resolved any points, and in this last post of yours you have yet again ignored every single point to just talk bollocks and change the subject. If you'd like to genuinely debate the issue, try answering the points that have been made, it would make a nice change.

[Landon]

1) It's fine to use if/then arguments when it's something that someone actually does believe. I did that, you did not. You invented a story.

2) You didn't use the word concept at all, you responded to my post stating exact examples of differences and said "NOPE NOT DIFFERENT ALL THE SAME". Backpedalling and trying to change what you said as usual.

3) I haven't called you names in this thread at all, that's been your tactic with the whole "lol liberal" "you people" thing pretending to be under attack for something other than your awful attempt at debate which you still continue with despite me having told you plenty of times that I'm not a liberal. I don't have a hard time debating you (as seen by the fact that I actually respond to the points that are put up and say things that make sense), I have a hard time getting through your skull because you absolutely refuse to learn, which is infuriating. You have never once actually resolved any points, and in this last post of yours you have yet again ignored every single point to just talk bollocks and change the subject. If you'd like to genuinely debate the issue, try answering the points that have been made, it would make a nice change.

1) Which you used. I don't believe in your argument therefore under your theory it is not "fine".

2) Lol okay, you've confused me now.

3) okay but calling me a cretin and idiot in other threads is justified but certainly not this one. I called you a liberal so you have the right to throw a fit and cry. To your point about "genuinely debating", you try that for once instead of the name calling. It will help your credibility but at this but you are the one that is looking like the "cretin" here. I still love that term btw and will keep referencing it.

[FlyingJesus]

1) Which you used. I don't believe in your argument therefore under your theory it is not "fine".

So you don't believe that a foetus is a child? Because that's what I referenced and you later stated it yourself


2) Lol okay, you've confused me now.

It's really very simple, and I've said it lots of times now. I said that not every death is the same thing, you said it was. You didn't say that the concept is the same, you said that death is death and there's no difference between different deaths. You literally used those words, and now you're trying to claim that it means something else


3) okay but calling me a cretin and idiot in other threads is justified but certainly not this one. I called you a liberal so you have the right to throw a fit and cry. To your point about "genuinely debating", you try that for once instead of the name calling. It will help your credibility but at this but you are the one that is looking like the "cretin" here. I still love that term btw and will keep referencing it.

I didn't say it was justified, I said I haven't done it here. Why do you keep telling me I'm calling names when I'm not? I take it from this post IN WHICH YOU ONCE AGAIN FAIL TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS ANY SINGLE ISSUE AT ALL DESPITE BEING ASKED SPECIFICALLY TO DO SO AND INSTEAD JUST CARRY ON LYING that your decision is no, you do not want a proper debate.

[Landon]

So you don't believe that a foetus is a child? Because that's what I referenced and you later stated it yourself



It's really very simple, and I've said it lots of times now. I said that not every death is the same thing, you said it was. You didn't say that the concept is the same, you said that death is death and there's no difference between different deaths. You literally used those words, and now you're trying to claim that it means something else



I didn't say it was justified, I said I haven't done it here. Why do you keep telling me I'm calling names when I'm not? I take it from this post IN WHICH YOU ONCE AGAIN FAIL TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS ANY SINGLE ISSUE AT ALL DESPITE BEING ASKED SPECIFICALLY TO DO SO AND INSTEAD JUST CARRY ON LYING that your decision is no, you do not want a proper debate.

I try not to debate with people that don't debate properly as it is. I like to remain civil. You break that barrier because apparently your feelings matter over anyone elses. Also, I'm not an "absolute cretin", so what you said is absolutely wrong because I am not what you call me lmao

1) Yes, I believe a fetus is a child.
2) I said the concept of death is the same. The concept of dying doesn't change.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyways I need to leave lol, this isn't only incredibly embarrassing for you but for me for not leaving when I started being called trash lmao

[FlyingJesus]

1) So I didn't make anything up at all then, cool, you lied as usual.
2) It was in direct reference to abortion and execution, you can't now just pretend that it's not because you got called out. If you really really didn't mean it that way and aren't just trying to cover for yourself then it's no-one's fault but your own that your post was misinterpreted, as you posted it in response to a very specific sentence - not to mention that reading it the way you're now claiming means it has absolutely no relevance or meaning in the discussion.

And where you get off on claiming I don't debate properly I really don't know. All you've done in your replies to me is lie, bring up old posts that are nothing to do with this discussion, and go off topic/ignore what's been said. That's not civil or proper, and feelings haven't come into this at all other than your insistence that your hurt feelings are more important than the current topic. If you want to actually respond, do so properly, but until you learn to do that there's really no point in repeating myself just to try getting through to you.


Nice edit too, but nope I didn't call you trash either. Please stop lying.

[Landon]

Nice edit too, but nope I didn't call you trash either. Please stop lying.

Lol think if you were called a disgusting pig for not believing in murder. Knowing your beliefs, you would cry and riot in the streets instead of manning up and taking it. The thing with liberals are that the stereotypes are almost always true.

[FlyingJesus]

That's also not something that I said. I'm also not a liberal. Everything that you've typed there is a flat out lie.

[Landon]

That's also not something that I said. I'm also not a liberal. Everything that you've typed there is a flat out lie.

I'm not convinced bud.

[FlyingJesus]

You're not convinced that I didn't say that to you? Or you're not convinced that the guy who voted for Brexit and the Conservatives isn't a liberal? In both cases you're wrong, in both cases provably so, and in at least the first case you know this to be the case and still lied.

Just searched the entire thread, no-one has used the words "trash" or "pig" except you lol

[Landon]

in both cases provably so, and in at least the first case you know this to be the case and still lied.

Oh. But calling conservatives racist, sexist, homophobic bigots is okay and not calling you a liberal lol. Or telling me I hate women because I don't believe in killing kids.

- - - Updated - - -


A child can't dream to be dead if it isnt already alive :o

Nobody has suggested aborting all the babies - please take this seriously :) We don't need to force women to give birth just to 'continue our species', that's just ridiculous to suggest! The abortion rate is only 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women in the US according to one source which is the lowest level since abortion was legalised - hardly a shortage of babies being born!

A man has just as much responsibility in causing pregnancy as the woman, if not more!

Even if C-sections are safe in developed countries why should a woman be forced by law to have to go under the knife to remove a baby she does not want. Having an abortion itself is punishing enough let alone being forced to give birth by laws created by old men in suits in the white house!

You are just a disgusting pig with no respect for women as you have shown and it's very sad you still think this way!

FlyingJesus; Your searching skills are terrible

[lemons]

*REMOVED*

Post edited by King-Tom (Forum Moderator) - Please do not be rude to other members!

[Landon]

but who am I to say what you are... im just a typical crybaby liberal!

Haha exactly.

[FlyingJesus]

Oh. But calling conservatives racist, sexist, homophobic bigots is okay and not calling you a liberal lol. Or telling me I hate women because I don't believe in killing kids.

I haven't done any of those things, and I am a conservative myself lol as I've told you...


@FlyingJesus (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24753); Your searching skills are terrible

My mistake, but that's still not me. My search skills (which admittedly stretched as far as typing "pig" into the search function for this thread) are still far superior to your powers of identification. Stop accusing me of things that I haven't said or done

[Landon]

I haven't done any of those things, and I am a conservative myself lol as I've told you...

Is that so? Keep in mind, I have called you a liberal to pick at you haha I know quite well what you said. That's interesting though. I really did think you were liberal.


My mistake, but that's still not me. My search skills (which admittedly stretched as far as typing "pig" into the search function for this thread) are still far superior to your powers of identification. Stop accusing me of things that I haven't said or done

The question is whether you condone it or not lol

Post edited by King-Tom (Forum Moderator) - Please do not post to cause arguments!

[FlyingJesus]

No the question is whether I said it or not: I didn't, so stop lying about me

[Landon]

No the question is whether I said it or not: I didn't, so stop lying about me

I'm not. I never even made a mention of who was calling me things. You never did, I was referencing lemons.

And 'trash' as in bad things. Not literally trash.

[FlyingJesus]

I never even made a mention of who was calling me things.

Yes you did:


To your point about "genuinely debating", you try that for once instead of the name calling


I like to remain civil. You break that barrier


lol grow up. This is your problem

And if you weren't addressing me you wouldn't have been quoting me lol, backpedal backpedal backpedal

[Landon]

Yes you did:







And if you weren't addressing me you wouldn't have been quoting me lol, backpedal backpedal backpedal

Oh right, with the absolute cretin bs in a different thread. I gotcha.

The absolute pig deal was another person.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But that's exactly what it is? Up to a point, it is just a group of cells with instructions.

Then so are you and I.

Calling something 'a group of cells' is describing anything living. It's emotive language in order to make me feel indifferent to the fate of an unborn child. That's why you call it a 'foetus' instead of a baby, because it covers what you are *actually* doing.

Godwin's Law I know, but same story with the Jews in Nazi Germany. Dehumanise something so you can then kill it.


It is not a child. I think you slightly messed up this sentence though tbh, I found it hard to read. From what I can tell, you're just using emotive language as attempt to prove you are correct, when really you've said nothing. You're trying to state opinion as fact, again.

The methods used may be unnatural but abortions have been around for a very long time. Also, if unnatural was really a strong argument not to allow something then we wouldn't even be on this forum.

It doesn't matter how long they've been around for. The act of dragging a baby out of its mothers womb by either blending it up, sucking it out and taking it out and placing it in a bin to die crying is evil and vile.

We execute murderers more humanely than we abort the unborn.


That's not a practical reason, you've just brought your own morals back into this. Your opinion is not fact. Some might see murder as a good thing, since things like the death of Bin Laden could be seen as murder but a lot of people do not oppose that. Also, by strict definition you can't murder a foetus and again you're attempting to be emotive to sway opinion which is a poor argument.

Oh don't try the relativity shtick on me. If you cannot agree with me that murder is a bad thing (and you're confusing murder with an execution of a lunatic terrorist, purposely or because you genuinely cannot tell the difference?) then there's really no point continuing the debate is there. If you can't agree on universal rights and wrongs then what's the bloody point.


Why?

You think a human is the same as an animal or is this the everything is relative trick you learnt in Philosophy class?


To the tiny percentage of children who are adopted?

I couldn't care less what the adoption rates are. We're discussing life here, whether a child has to live for the start of its life in a home - of which many do and turn out fine people - has nothing to do with whether an innocent baby in the womb ought to be aborted (killed) or not.

[dbgtz]

Then so are you and I.

Calling something 'a group of cells' is describing anything living. It's emotive language in order to make me feel indifferent to the fate of an unborn child. That's why you call it a 'foetus' instead of a baby, because it covers what you are *actually* doing.

Godwin's Law I know, but same story with the Jews in Nazi Germany. Dehumanise something so you can then kill it.


Firstly, I will say I call it a foetus because that is what it is in that same way a child is not an adult. But I'm glad you mention emotive language, because you just described what you do. A perfect example of you doing this is just below, where you use "evil" and "vile" as if that actually means anything. So perhaps agreeing emotion shouldn't get in the way of practical debate is a good start, then.

Also funny you talk about dehumanising, which is exactly what you do with certain groups of people which covers what you are *actually* doing ;)



It doesn't matter how long they've been around for. The act of dragging a baby out of its mothers womb by either blending it up, sucking it out and taking it out and placing it in a bin to die crying is evil and vile.

We execute murderers more humanely than we abort the unborn.


As opposed to a woman giving birth in secret and leaving it in a bin to die then, which has happened. I don't actually believe a foetus is just taken out and then left in a bin to die, unless you have a source on that.

I actually tried to look for an example of that happening and all I found was this: http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/poland-doctors-left-baby-die-after-an-hour-of-crying-following-botched-abortion-of-baby-with-down-syndrome-67268/ where the abortion was incorrectly carried out, and it wasn't even in this country.

But either way, you didn't really counter the point of it actually being quite a natural thing, since it seems to almost be instinct as it has been documented to quite a while back.



Oh don't try the relativity shtick on me. If you cannot agree with me that murder is a bad thing (and you're confusing murder with an execution of a lunatic terrorist, purposely or because you genuinely cannot tell the difference?) then there's really no point continuing the debate is there. If you can't agree on universal rights and wrongs then what's the bloody point.


Lunatic terrorist, back at it again with the dehumanising ;) From what I recall, he was unarmed and could have been captured, but was instead shot. How you do not see this as an unlawful killing is pretty ridiculous. At this point, I'm not even arguing against him being sentenced to death, but the lack of any trial. But that's getting off topic a bit.

My whole point was there's no such thing as a universal right and wrong, only what you think is a universal right and wrong.

Also a quick hypothetical, if you execute someone who is later proven innocent, is that murder?



You think a human is the same as an animal or is this the everything is relative trick you learnt in Philosophy class?


I've never done Philosophy, I do maths. I just want you to actually answer the question directly rather than avoid answering it.



I couldn't care less what the adoption rates are. We're discussing life here, whether a child has to live for the start of its life in a home - of which many do and turn out fine people - has nothing to do with whether an innocent baby in the womb ought to be aborted (killed) or not.

Fair enough. I hope you're very much in favour of state spending on these children then.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Firstly, I will say I call it a foetus because that is what it is in that same way a child is not an adult. But I'm glad you mention emotive language, because you just described what you do. A perfect example of you doing this is just below, where you use "evil" and "vile" as if that actually means anything. So perhaps agreeing emotion shouldn't get in the way of practical debate is a good start, then.

I believe the practice to be evil and vile, absolutely. I make no apology for being emotional over that just as I make no apology for being emotional when calling for the death penalty for mass murderers or terrorists.


Also funny you talk about dehumanising, which is exactly what you do with certain groups of people which covers what you are *actually* doing ;)

What groups are you talking about and examples of me doing this please.


As opposed to a woman giving birth in secret and leaving it in a bin to die then, which has happened. I don't actually believe a foetus is just taken out and then left in a bin to die, unless you have a source on that.

If a woman gives birth and leaves a baby in a bin to die then she should be prosecuted for murder/manslaughter. I'm not exactly sure how that evil crime then leads you to believe the child would be better off dead via a Doctor.

There's another option you know, like keeping the baby alive.


I actually tried to look for an example of that happening and all I found was this: http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/poland-doctors-left-baby-die-after-an-hour-of-crying-following-botched-abortion-of-baby-with-down-syndrome-67268/ where the abortion was incorrectly carried out, and it wasn't even in this country.

But either way, you didn't really counter the point of it actually being quite a natural thing, since it seems to almost be instinct as it has been documented to quite a while back.

Abortion is natural you're claiming to me?


Lunatic terrorist, back at it again with the dehumanising ;) From what I recall, he was unarmed and could have been captured, but was instead shot. How you do not see this as an unlawful killing is pretty ridiculous. At this point, I'm not even arguing against him being sentenced to death, but the lack of any trial. But that's getting off topic a bit.

A man who ordered thousands of deaths dehumanises himself.


My whole point was there's no such thing as a universal right and wrong, only what you think is a universal right and wrong.

Killing the innocent is wrong, we can agree?


Also a quick hypothetical, if you execute someone who is later proven innocent, is that murder?


Manslaughter that would come under I assume. Execution isn't classed as murder.


I've never done Philosophy, I do maths. I just want you to actually answer the question directly rather than avoid answering it.

If I need to tell you why a human being isn't the same or equal to an animal then is there much point continuing?


Fair enough. I hope you're very much in favour of state spending on these children then.

Absolutely 100% or the Church.

[Landon]

If I need to tell you why a human being isn't the same or equal to an animal then is there much point continuing?

The two of you are probably using two different concepts to describe this.

dbgtz is taking the literal approach as in we are animals based on what it actually means to be an animal while Dan is taking the mental approach in a sense that humans do not equate ourselves to animals as we most certainly have our dominance over (most of) them and pretty much reside over them.

Perhaps that is what you mean?


But either way, you didn't really counter the point of it actually being quite a natural thing, since it seems to almost be instinct as it has been documented to quite a while back.

Are you saying that we as humans are programmed to have the ability to abort offspring by instinct?

[FlyingJesus]

Technically abortionis is natural as a miscarriage is in strict medical terms a natural abortion, the practise of making it happen on purpose is known as medically induced abortion

[dbgtz]

I believe the practice to be evil and vile, absolutely. I make no apology for being emotional over that just as I make no apology for being emotional when calling for the death penalty for mass murderers or terrorists.


OK then I make no apology for calling a foetus a bunch of cells.



What groups are you talking about and examples of me doing this please.


Well, in another thread you referred to a certain group as "drugged up losers". I'd say that's pretty dehumanising. If you want I'll find more examples later but I always end up spending too much time replying to these at the moment lmao



If a woman gives birth and leaves a baby in a bin to die then she should be prosecuted for murder/manslaughter. I'm not exactly sure how that evil crime then leads you to believe the child would be better off dead via a Doctor.

There's another option you know, like keeping the baby alive.


Better off because a lot of people will either dump the baby after to die or get a shitty back street abortion which puts the woman at risk?



Abortion is natural you're claiming to me?


The desire for abortions, yes. See the bit I replied to Landon.



A man who ordered thousands of deaths dehumanises himself.


No, you're doing it.



Killing the innocent is wrong, we can agree?


Is it? If it came down to me or another person dying in a situation, I'd almost always choose them.



Manslaughter that would come under I assume. Execution isn't classed as murder.


To be honest, I should have asked if it's an unlawful killing since it's probably undefined in this country.



If I need to tell you why a human being isn't the same or equal to an animal then is there much point continuing?


Not sure why you can't just answer the question rather than taking jabs or asking questions back.


Absolutely 100% or the Church.

Alrighty then.


Are you saying that we as humans are programmed to have the ability to abort offspring by instinct?

If you mean that in a more literal sense, no women obviously can't choose to abort as a simple action like clapping your hands. But a simple look up on the subject shows ways in which miscarriages were induced (so, abortion) such as through labour and battery.