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.
What do you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN
Stupid
*REMOVED*
Post edited by King-Tom (Forum Moderator) - Please do not be rude to other members!
because I'm pro-abortion simple as that! trump is a moron
And why exactly are you 'pro abortion'?Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
why are you anti-abortion? probably because im against those reasons!Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
I don't get it. The reasons for being anti-abortion are radically different from 'pro abortion'.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
yes i corrected my post..Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
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 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
I am of course against this because this is not 1950 :)
People who are desperate for abortions will get one regardless, back street abortions were a thing and dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
We are better off aborting babies now a days? If this is not what you meant, please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intersocial
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
Then there's cases like rape.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
would you be happy for your sister or mum to be forced to have a baby she did not want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
- - - Updated - - -
babies that are not wanted, yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
I don't agree withmurderabortion 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/
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by peteyt
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.
I need to look up adoption rates to know that it's better than killing the baby?Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
No, you need to look it up because you seem to think every child will get adopted. Far from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Quote:
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:
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.Quote:
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.
I have zero concern because unprotected sex is the couple's issue. Not the baby's.
OK so what about all the children who don't get adopted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
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.Quote:
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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
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! :)
So dump them on the state? What about the issues that occur with this? Here's some statistics for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
http://blog.ted.com/are-orphanages-a...-a-better-way/Quote:
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
A continuation of our species where there's over 7 billion of us already? We are massively overpopulated and it is unsustainable.Quote:
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 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.
I'm overwhelmingly pro-choice. A step backwards in my opinion.
Lol if I really make you feel that bad then you shouldn't be debating me.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
It's every child's dream to be dead, too, huh.Quote:
I'm sure it's really every kids dream to grow up in an orphanage
Wooooooo lets KILL EM ALL! Yeah!Quote:
There is already enough people being born to 'continue our species' - too many in some parts of the world!
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.Quote:
what if its the mans choice/personal requirement not to wear a condom is it still the womans fault that she ends up pregnant???
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.Quote:
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! :)
-----------
I don't deny that. I do deny that every child shouldn't have a chance though.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Under this ideology, we could kill almost every child and be fine.Quote:
A continuation of our species where there's over 7 billion of us already? We are massively overpopulated and it is unsustainable.
The physical struggle? Pretty sure every woman that wants to get pregnant knows that they are going to have to deal with physical struggle.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
A child can't dream to be dead if it isnt already alive :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Landon
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*
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.
But they're not getting much of a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
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.
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.Quote:
Under this ideology, we could kill almost every child and be fine.
Yes but these women don't want to be pregnant that's the whole bloody point.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
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/Abortio....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.
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.Quote:
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.
Immoral is tearing a baby up inside its mothers womb and extracting it. I find that immoral, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
I'm arguing for a complete and total ban on all abortions unless mothers life is hanging by a thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Agreed. Apart from the right to life.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
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.
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.Quote:
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.
If you honestly think that is grim then you should look up some of the shit that happens in nature.
OK. Give me a practical reason why abortion should be outright outlawed.Quote:
I'm arguing for a complete and total ban on all abortions unless mothers life is hanging by a thread.
OK are you vegan then? Oh even that would be eating life so :SQuote:
Agreed. Apart from the right to life.
Nobody has a right to life, but if you can disprove then go ahead.
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.Quote:
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.
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".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
If you don't want your pet any longer you don't take it outside and strangle it.
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Because murder is wrong. End of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Human beings are not equivalent in the slightest to animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intersocial
I'd rather be good and miserable than bad and happy.
Oh really? Because under the way that you've treated me, my claim works against you.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
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.Quote:
A man has just as much responsibility in causing pregnancy as the woman, if not more!
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]Quote:
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!
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 :DQuote:
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!
- - - Updated - - -
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Yeah you could lol. And it's been attempted before by Hitler.Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
But that's exactly what it is? Up to a point, it is just a group of cells with instructions.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Because murder is wrong. End of story.
Why?Quote:
Human beings are not equivalent in the slightest to animals.
To the tiny percentage of children who are adopted?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Yeah you could lol. And it's been attempted before by Hitler.
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.