Is abortion ok

[OldSalty2]

Characterizing someone as supporting abortions is insulting. Despite what some think, there's no one cheering on more terminated pregnancies.
Changing a flat tire is an inconvenience. An unwanted child is far more than that, with greater implications.
Abortions have been performed since ancient Egypt, where undesirables were simply killed after birth. Considering Christianity didn't exist then, nor did a left or right, making claims about the procedure's origins and intent doesn't hold water.

So a necessity.

And patented for "modern time" application.

 

[The38Super]

Seems many have come to the conclusion that social programs don't work, which is definitely reasonable. When imo, it's more about the inefficiency and corruption that make it this way and that there can be a overall net return on the investment.

For social programs to work, then they as an entirety, should return an objective net positive based on easy to understand criteria.

How about we see exactly how this money is being spent?

Giving someone a check is an empty method of supporting them and clearly hasn't been working. It's human nature to want to be productive and make their own living, but if you lack the skills to find a job, what options do you have? If we invested more money per recipient (i.e. on developing skills so they can find a job and childcare, so they can actually leave the house for said training and subsequent job), it would decrease the overall spend, because a healthy chunk would become more self-sufficient and either no longer require subsidies or require less (keeping in mind that minimum wage doesn't get you anywhere near the poverty line). You could even put a deadline on 'graduating' from welfare.

 

[The38Super]

I was agreeing with non parent adults getting off of the food stamp train. The rest I have no real opinion on.

Not to divert too far from the thread's topic, but that's a challenge too, considering that working a minimum wage job, which is all most recipients are qualified for, puts you way below the poverty line. It's exacerbated by the current housing market, where rent is trending higher and higher.

 

[OldSalty2]

Giving someone a check is an empty method of supporting them and clearly hasn't been working. It's human nature to want to be productive and make their own living, but if you lack the skills to find a job, what options do you have? If we invested more money per recipient (i.e. on developing skills so they can find a job and childcare, so they can actually leave the house for said training and subsequent job), it would decrease the overall spend, because a healthy chunk would become more self-sufficient and either no longer require subsidies or require less (keeping in mind that minimum wage doesn't get you anywhere near the poverty line). You could even put a deadline on 'graduating' from welfare.

We find some general common ground on this topic.

My opinion is based off of how I feel blessed for what I have and do not mind paying into assistance that helps lift the overall.

many "conservatives" celebrate people "lifting themselves up". I wonder how many of these examples at some point in time throughout their journey were not given or provided access to, some type of social assistance? Bet it's pretty small I'd wager.

Let's just start with where the money is going...

 

[tylerw02]

If you're against abortion, you're guaranteeing it just the same; it'll just start in 15 years or so.

This makes no sense. Communication skills are important.

Either way, sounds as though you condone murder for convenience.

 

[tylerw02]

If god is your savior and all that, why would you “fear” it?

I believe you missed the context of the conversation here in a weak attempt to be snarky.

 

[tylerw02]

Sure about that? Of the data sources I've reviewed, violent crime incidents per capita is less than half of what it was at the beginning of the 90's. You could ski down that slope, it's such a steep drop.

The problem is that upon regression analysis, multiple factors contribute to violent crime...not merely abortion rates. However, one advocating for abortion as a solution to violent crime is bordering being a eugenicist. That is not the place you want to be.

 

[Rthur]

Yes, it is fairy dust. I also pointed out that the welfare programs will cause terminal damage to the country, especially via the GDP. This is how I know you are not reading this thread carefully - we agree on this part.

On the vax, honestly I’m tired of talking about it and don’t give a shit any more. But my crystal ball says that those who choose not to get it there will be no welfare should it come to that. Nope. There, I have answered the real reason you had for posting your original question. Can we go back to just abortion?

If you had read this thread you would know my stance on abortion.
If you were tired of talking about the vax you'd pass on the reply.

R

 

[The38Super]

This makes no sense. Communication skills are important.

Either way, sounds as though you condone murder for convenience.

Yep, absolutely. You know me so well.

 

[The38Super]

The problem is that upon regression analysis, multiple factors contribute to violent crime...not merely abortion rates. However, one advocating for abortion as a solution to violent crime is bordering being a eugenicist. That is not the place you want to be.

Okay, you win the Evil Knievel award for the day for putting the fun back in fundamentalist

 

[Docsherm]

So if a

So you’re not a God-fearing man. You are condoning murder.

Would you support watching two of America's enemies kill each other off? One enemy committing genocide on the other?

I am perfectly fine with it. Hell, I would give them both weapons and bring popcorn.........

 

[tylerw02]

Yep, absolutely. You know me so well.

I don't know you at all, but if you're supporting abortion, there is no other way to state it.

 

[quietmike]

Yes, it would be a good start. Totally agree. But it will never pass.

If enough people demand it, it will.

 

[tylerw02]

Okay, you win the Evil Knievel award for the day for putting the fun back in fundamentalist

Not even close. Belief that you should be allowed to murder your child because it isn't convenient is not a fundamentalist principle.

 

[tylerw02]

So if a


Would you support watching two of America's enemies kill each other off? One enemy committing genocide on the other?

I am perfectly fine with it. Hell, I would give them both weapons and bring popcorn.........

I don't think you've followed the conversation well enough to make such a comment, however, you're making an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[quietmike]

Seems many have come to the conclusion that social programs don't work, which is definitely reasonable. When imo, it's more about the inefficiency and corruption that make it this way and that there can be a overall net return on the investment.

For social programs to work, then they as an entirety, should return an objective net positive based on easy to understand criteria.

How about we see exactly how this money is being spent?

Drive to any housing project and watch 20 year olds slinging dope, drinking a 40, and doing drive bys and you'll see how it's being spent.

 

[918v]

Yeah, because we have such a great track record of molding orphans into non-traumatized, totally not abused, productive citizens. Hell, that's almost a de facto reason to allow abortions right there.

If there were no orphans where would the CIA get their assassins?

 

[lariat]

Giving someone a check is an empty method of supporting them and clearly hasn't been working. It's human nature to want to be productive and make their own living, but if you lack the skills to find a job, what options do you have? If we invested more money per recipient (i.e. on developing skills so they can find a job and childcare, so they can actually leave the house for said training and subsequent job), it would decrease the overall spend, because a healthy chunk would become more self-sufficient and either no longer require subsidies or require less (keeping in mind that minimum wage doesn't get you anywhere near the poverty line). You could even put a deadline on 'graduating' from welfare.

There are holes in this argument, primary of which is that people are good, honest and not lazy. But in general I can agree with it.

If you had read this thread you would know my stance on abortion.
If you were tired of talking about the vax you'd pass on the reply.

R

you are all over the map. Put down the coffee. You asked me the question and I replied to it. Nowhere in it was anything about your position on abortion, so why you are referencing it now is a mystery.

And your response about welfare is equally consistent. First you say to take away the welfare, then you ask if the non-vaxed can have it.

Square up the lines so everything is parallel.

 

[quietmike]

Yeah, because we have such a great track record of molding orphans into non-traumatized, totally not abused, productive citizens. Hell, that's almost a de facto reason to allow abortions right there.

So, open season at the welfare office and housing projects as well?
Those people are ostensibly adults who can't live w/o draining resources from others.

 

[quietmike]

Giving someone a check is an empty method of supporting them and clearly hasn't been working. It's human nature to want to be productive and make their own living, but if you lack the skills to find a job, what options do you have? If we invested more money per recipient (i.e. on developing skills so they can find a job and childcare, so they can actually leave the house for said training and subsequent job), it would decrease the overall spend, because a healthy chunk would become more self-sufficient and either no longer require subsidies or require less (keeping in mind that minimum wage doesn't get you anywhere near the poverty line). You could even put a deadline on 'graduating' from welfare.

This is the kind of simplistic thinking one would expect to hear from a lefty.
If everyone wants to be good productive citizens, explain the overcrowded prisons.

The reality is simple. If I put an add in the paper saying I'll pay someone $1,000/week to mow my yard, my phone would blow up.

When government advertises it will pay people to be shiftless bums who raise bastard kids, some will sign up for that job. The only real work they have to do is vote for democrats every two years.

 

[Rthur]

There are holes in this argument, primary of which is that people are good, honest and not lazy. But in general I can agree with it.

you are all over the map. Put down the coffee. You asked me the question and I replied to it. Nowhere in it was anything about your position on abortion, so why you are referencing it now is a mystery.

And your response about welfare is equally consistent. First you say to take away the welfare, then you ask if the non-vaxed can have it.

Square up the lines so everything is parallel.

Like I figured.
The point has already passed over.
You took part in discussions off the main topic.
I interjected on these points very much related to main topic.
You then asked to return to main topic and asserted you have given your stance in previous posts.
I said same.
It is square if you can think in more than two dimensions.

R

 

[lariat]

Like I figured.
The point has already passed over.
You took part in discussions off the main topic.
I interjected on these points very much related to main topic.
You then asked to return to main topic and asserted you have given your stance in previous posts.
I said same.
It is square if you can think in more than two dimensions.

R

You seem upset…

 

[Rthur]

You seem upset…

If I was you wouldn't need to ask.

R

 

[tylerw02]

In case of rape! I’ll say yes! Any other circumstance such as dick hungry whores getting knocked up, no! Carry it to birth and offer up for adoption!

So its wrong to kill a baby unless you're raped? Then you get a free pass? Two wrongs make a right, right?

 

[tylerw02]

But the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill". I do not remember reading any caveats........


What about the children that die in wars that we were in? Say those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Japan, etc................ So we should not have bombed them because they were innocents?

War is war. End of story.

The Bible doesn't say "thou shalt not kill". It says "Thou shalt not murder". Words mean things.

 

[lariat]

If I was you wouldn't need to ask.

R

Awesome. Let’s get back on track. Most of thread is a pretty productive.

 

[theLBC]

Characterizing someone as supporting abortions is insulting. Despite what some think, there's no one cheering on more terminated pregnancies.
Changing a flat tire is an inconvenience. An unwanted child is far more than that, with greater implications.
Abortions have been performed since ancient Egypt, where undesirables were simply killed after birth. Considering Christianity didn't exist then, nor did a left or right, making claims about the procedure's origins and intent doesn't hold water.

wrong.
there are women that celebrate their abortions online.

 

[lariat]

wrong.
there are women that celebrate their abortions online.

And that is the sickest thing I have thought about today. Horrendous.

 

[tylerw02]

Do you want NAZIs? Because this is how you get NAZIs!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bradu]

What would we do with all the babies born if they weren't aborted? There are approximately 400k children in foster care as it is and only 120k waiting to be adopted. Add 800k a year to that and it will get exponentially worse. Yes, we all know the answer is to prevent pregnancies in the first place and take away government assistance but I don't see any of that changing.

 

[lariat]

What would we do with all the babies born if they weren't aborted? There are approximately 400k children in foster care as it is and only 120k waiting to be adopted. Add 800k a year to that and it will get exponentially worse. Yes, we all know the answer is to prevent pregnancies in the first place and take away government assistance but I don't see any of that changing.

This is a legitimate question that should be answered as part of the solution.

 

[tylerw02]

Pragmatism doesn't describe whether the action is right or wrong.

 

[Choid]

Pragmatism doesn't describe whether the action is right or wrong.

Correct, but on the other hand reality has to be an input when it comes to policy.

 

[tylerw02]

The question is about right and wrong, not policy. Legal=/=ethical.

For instance, we all consider murder unethical, and its illegal but we cannot stop it. Murder still happens and we have no practical way to eliminate it from our society. But when we are talking about the unborn, we just give it a pass altogether. Killing the innocent, unique human being and denying he or she the very right to being out of convenience is some EVIL shit, even if it is "easy" for society.

 

[HeavyAssault]

So, less that the 1%..stop virtue signaling

(benchmstr has joined the chat)

 

[lariat]

Pragmatism doesn't describe whether the action is right or wrong.

Doesn’t it?

 

[tylerw02]

Doesn’t it?

No, not at all.

 

[theLBC]

if it wasn't so easy to legally kill babies, there would be many less unwanted pregnancies.

 

[lariat]

No, not at all.

how so? Are you saying it is pragmatic to have abortions legal but not morally right?

 

[tylerw02]

how so? Are you saying it is pragmatic to have abortions legal but not morally right?

There are those in the thread arguing abortion should be legal because it has perceived societal benefits.


I don't care about said benefits because it is unethical.

 

[lariat]

if it wasn't so easy to legally kill babies, there would be many less unwanted pregnancies.

I want to believe this, but I can’t. If that is the case why are the equatorial countries so heavily populated?

 

[lariat]

There are those in the thread arguing abortion should be legal because it has perceived societal benefits.


I don't care about said benefits because it is unethical.

So you are saying that you personally see the benefits of what they are talking about but reject it because it is immoral, not because of its impracticality? IOW, the morality of this issue trumps any practical aspects for you. Is this correct?

 

[theLBC]

I want to believe this, but I can’t. If that is the case why are the equatorial countries so heavily populated?

because of basic evolutionary pressures to reproduce.
do the men in these countries pay child support?

 

[tylerw02]

So you are saying that you personally see the benefits of what they are talking about but reject it because it is immoral, not because of its impracticality? IOW, the morality of this issue trumps any practical aspects for you. Is this correct?

I did not say that I personally see the benefits. I stated others highlighted the perceived benefits. However, assuming those benefits were tangible (they are not), it would still be immoral. Doing something immoral because its pragmatic doesn't trump the fact that it is an immoral act.

 

[lariat]

I did not say that I personally see the benefits. I stated others highlighted the perceived benefits. However, assuming those benefits were tangible (they are not), it would still be immoral. Doing something immoral because its pragmatic doesn't trump the fact that it is an immoral act.

But you can agree that doing something immoral can be pragmatic?

 

[TurboTrout]

I believe you missed the context of the conversation here in a weak attempt to be snarky.

Not snarky, I always found that statement silly.

 

[lariat]

because of basic evolutionary pressures to reproduce.
do the men in these countries pay child support?

Nope. But the women do by virtue of raising the children. They don’t keep their legs closed either even though they are aware of the risks.

 

[Snipe260]

So its wrong to kill a baby unless you're raped? Then you get a free pass? Two wrongs make a right, right?

Well , it’s a touchy subject! So if you had a wife and she was raped by the rapper ice cube and she got pregnant , would you make her go full term and keep or put up for adoption. That would be no fault of her own that some thug would ruin the next 9 months of her life! Everyday! Answer that for me!

 

[tylerw02]

Not snarky, I always found that statement silly.

Then you don't understand the statement.

 

[tylerw02]

Well , it’s a touchy subject! So if you had a wife and she was raped by the rapper ice cube and she got pregnant , would you make her go full term and keep or put up for adoption. That would be no fault of her own that some thug would ruin the next 9 months of her life! Everyday! Answer that for me!

How does being pregnant "ruin" her life? How is it the child's fault? Why does the child deserve to die?