Trump signs bill allowing states to withhold funding from abortion services

[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

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.

[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/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.

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.

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/Abortio....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 **** and will die. Then someone must want to educate you, otherwise you're **** 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 **** 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 **** and will die. Then someone must want to educate you, otherwise you're **** 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 **** 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

- - - 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 **** 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 **** time and would leave a massive gap in the work force.

Bloody Godwin's law.