AirWorthy99 wrote:

Not making this up, you can look up the thousands of cases of people that come back from a coma.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

I just looked up "straw man" argument on Wikipedia and it referred me to your post

The first line ignores the notion of a living will, and brain death, at which point other folks have to make the call. It doesn't even rise to straw man.

Life experiences will tell you otherwise.

Just recently a friend of the family was involved in a motorcycle accident. Went into a coma, Doctors decided to divvy up all working organs because this person wasn't going to live. They removed the machines.

Today that person is walking and alive at his home, after spending some months in a hospital.

Not making this up, you can look up the thousands of cases of people that come back from a coma.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

I just looked up "straw man" argument on Wikipedia and it referred me to your post

The first line ignores the notion of a living will, and brain death, at which point other folks have to make the call. It doesn't even rise to straw man.

Life experiences will tell you otherwise.

Just recently a friend of the family was involved in a motorcycle accident. Went into a coma, Doctors decided to divvy up all working organs because this person wasn't going to live. They removed the machines.

Today that person is walking and alive at his home, after spending some months in a hospital.

Not making this up, you can look up the thousands of cases of people that come back from a coma.

casinterest wrote:

True story. I have know people that have had accidents, and diseases (Cancer) where the life support was removed, and they passed away.

Virtual737 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

True story. I have know people that have had accidents, and diseases (Cancer) where the life support was removed, and they passed away.

Shhhh, or the Texans will make that illegal too.

B777LRF wrote:

If there was any justice in Texas (I know, keep on dreaming) any person who's been sued under this law should be able to counter-sue the male responsible for impregnating the women, to the tune of all costs and damages awarded in the suit plus a couple of millions for "emotional damage".

But we all know this ain't going to happen; the old, white, reactionaries who can only get an erection courtesy of a chemical injection is not interested in justice. Their sole interest is to turn Texas into a radical Christian Talibanas and run that sordid state as per the old testament.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There certainly is, but that doesn't guarantee it is used without fail. How many people do you know who can be relied on to take a medication at the same time, daily, without fail? Women on BCP need regular checkups to ensure their combo is working for them - can they afford this if under or noninsured? And then we're not even talking about the number of young women from troubled backgrounds who get into unhealthy relationships with emotionally manipulative men. Will they stand their ground if their guy says 'I don't want to use a rubber this time'? People are far too black and white on this - 'oh the tools are available, nobody has an excuse' really lacks imagination and/or exposure to different life circumstances.

Weather or not some actually uses the tools available is not what we are discussing. Several people have made the argument that we need abortions because people get pregnant due to lack of access to birth control. I am just pointing out that argument is false.

Fair enough, but you did make earlier comments about what should be considered 'before the act is carried out'. My point is that even with birth control available and used, and even with the best of intentions, things happen - for a variety of reasons - and not all of them can pregnant women simply be blamed for.

Virtual737 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Not making this up, you can look up the thousands of cases of people that come back from a coma.

I don't doubt it, but this thread is about abortion. Turning off life support is nowhere near the same, even though there are moral comparisons to be made.

scbriml wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Moral arguments against abortion:

That a fetus is not a person, or human because it depends on the mother. So if someone goes into a coma, and depends on a machine to live, do we just call it quits on that person?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they don't have their organs developed. So people that have transplanted organs or some missing, or a machine that helps their heart work properly, would we also quit on them?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they are asleep and not conscious ? So tonight when you go to sleep and you are unconscious, would you let your wife kill you and claim you were asleep?

That a woman doesn't want the burden of raising a child. Well, why isn't adoption an option? many people are willing to adopt, and in many cases long waiting lists exist that couples wait even years to adopt.

That the child when it gets born will become a burden to society and go into life of crime. That's not realistic, I know of many cases of people born into poverty and into areas of high crime, they never ended up going into crime, in fact they became very successful people. Ask them what would they think if his mother aborted them.

That a the child will cost too much money to raise. Since when are we born with a dollar tag attached to us? isn't life something that is not worth any money?

That the woman and child will suffer. What's to say there won't be any suffering after the abortion?

All roads lead to infanticide. If I can't take care or deal with a child, I might as well kill it. That's the argument.

These are just some moral arguments, I am not getting into religious or legal arguments.

Let me ask you a question - unless you're the man involved, why is it any of your damned business what a woman does when she finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy?

Because the fetus is half of the man, at least 23 chromosomes. None of this is easy to figure our, hence the debate.

Supporting the right of women to have a choice doesn't have to mean being pro-abortion. It would be great if abortions were never required, but no form of contraception is 100% safe, then there's the whole rape/incest scenario. Interestingly, I believe if men got pregnant, there'd be abortion clinics on every street corner and they'd cost $25.

scbriml wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Moral arguments against abortion:

That a fetus is not a person, or human because it depends on the mother. So if someone goes into a coma, and depends on a machine to live, do we just call it quits on that person?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they don't have their organs developed. So people that have transplanted organs or some missing, or a machine that helps their heart work properly, would we also quit on them?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they are asleep and not conscious ? So tonight when you go to sleep and you are unconscious, would you let your wife kill you and claim you were asleep?

That a woman doesn't want the burden of raising a child. Well, why isn't adoption an option? many people are willing to adopt, and in many cases long waiting lists exist that couples wait even years to adopt.

That the child when it gets born will become a burden to society and go into life of crime. That's not realistic, I know of many cases of people born into poverty and into areas of high crime, they never ended up going into crime, in fact they became very successful people. Ask them what would they think if his mother aborted them.

That a the child will cost too much money to raise. Since when are we born with a dollar tag attached to us? isn't life something that is not worth any money?

That the woman and child will suffer. What's to say there won't be any suffering after the abortion?

All roads lead to infanticide. If I can't take care or deal with a child, I might as well kill it. That's the argument.

These are just some moral arguments, I am not getting into religious or legal arguments.

Let me ask you a question - unless you're the man involved, why is it any of your damned business what a woman does when she finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy?

Supporting the right of women to have a choice doesn't have to mean being pro-abortion. It would be great if abortions were never required, but no form of contraception is 100% safe, then there's the whole rape/incest scenario. Interestingly, I believe if men got pregnant, there'd be abortion clinics on every street corner and they'd cost $25.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Killing or death is bad for me, no matter if it doesn't involve me, much more when its an innocent child. Don't we care about that?

bpatus297 wrote:

It can be argued that the mother is the life support of the fetus.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

If your neighbors decided to kill their children because they can't take care of them,

PixelPilot wrote:

There's so much stupid walking around that they should make abortion mandatory for people that are visibly incapable of being a responsible parent.

On a serious note let women do what she wants. Nobodies business. I bet plenty of guys support this option in many cases.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Killing or death is bad for me, no matter if it doesn't involve me, much more when its an innocent child. Don't we care about that?

Great that you feel this way, but if so, where are your threads against the cartels in Latin America? Certainly they have killed innocent kids in the crossfire. Where are your threads about wanton killing of pregnant women in Nigeria and the Sudan? Where are the threads about *our* tax dollars supporting drone strikes that have killed innocent children and pregnant women in Afghanistan? How about the proxy war in Yemen that our leaders have sold arms to Saudi Arabia and the UAE in support of? I think we're up to 3,000 child deaths now.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1078972

Killing of innocents is indeed to be avoided - the question is, how realistic and pragmatic are the efforts to prevent it? The reason in the case of abortion that the moral case of 'innocent life lost' is not used is because that's a philosophical question. Medical science agrees permanent viability of the fetus cannot be established until the 2nd trimester, and that's why most countries that allow abortion generally don't permit any after 20-23 weeks, when viability can be reasonably predicted. This is an acceptable compromise to reasonably minded people - taking into account both the legal considerations and the fact that a fetus declared viable by a doctor should be carried to term.

Virtual737 wrote:

Are you of the belief that a 43 day old fetus and a 6 year old child are pretty much equivalent?

Virtual737 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

It can be argued that the mother is the life support of the fetus.

A life support machine isn't a sentient, living, self sufficient organism. Let's please not try and draw that comparison.

Why, because it takes the wind out of that sail? A women is 100% the life support of a fetus, just like parents are 100% the life support for an infant who is incapable of providing for themselves. Like pixie said, this is really about when life begins, and I just don't know.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

If your neighbors decided to kill their children because they can't take care of them,

Are you of the belief that a 43 day old fetus and a 6 year old child are pretty much equivalent?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

That's relative. Some science studies say that life begins way before that. For me its in conception. There isn't a complete consensus on that today, not even from scientists.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

That's relative. Some science studies say that life begins way before that. For me its in conception. There isn't a complete consensus on that today, not even from scientists.

If it's what new doctors are learning in medical school, it's the current consensus. 20-23 weeks is the viability standard throughout the western world and you will not find much variation among medical textbooks in any reputable university.

https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical- ... able-birth

https://fn.bmj.com/content/88/3/F199

Other scientists' pet theories do not apply because they are not part of that consensus. Science does not work on a peer review system where 100% agreement = consensus, FYI.

Virtual737 wrote:

I don't want to go too far into the opinions of when life begins as I'm not qualified to and I'm certainly not qualified to judge anyone else's opinion. What does shock me though is that the same state that respects the viability of a 43 day old fetus also has the death penalty in its legal system. The arguments that one life is sacred regardless should apply universally.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I have sources too, many of them: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html

Tugger wrote:

Were the people against allowing a woman to choose if she needs to have an abortion in support of the rape babies of ISIS and the forced wives that were made to carry them?

That is an actual thing throughout the history of the the world. A victor would force the women to carry their babies (by raping them... well not always raping them, sometimes they would forcibly take them as wives, so that's not rape...) and begin a new generation for their new future.

If that is not OK (hint: it's not) then it is also not OK to force a woman to carry any child that they do not want.

Tugg

AirWorthy99 wrote:

For the child, no due process at all for an innocent, who hasn't done no wrong to anyone.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

These are just some moral arguments, I am not getting into religious or legal arguments.

Virtual737 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

For the child, no due process at all for an innocent, who hasn't done no wrong to anyone.

That's an interesting point though. The fetus, until something like mid-term, is not sentient. It has no ability to even think, let alone act, so there is no concept of it having done anything, let alone something right or wrong. The fetus is also dependent on the mother who now has less rights than she had before, rightly or wrongly.

The death penalty is absolute and final. There is and can never be any recourse for a mistake. For that reason alone I am against it, although some people are truly evil and fully deserve it.

Nobody ever "knew" a fetus. Nobody other than the mother ever really interacted with it. It has no impact on the wider world. It's passing would have zero impact on anyone at all outside the family. The same cannot be said of, say, even an 8 month old baby.

So my question is, if a fetus has no consciousness, no ability to think, act or do, why do you think it has the same rights as a fully developed child? If the fetus is still at a stage where there is no concept of pain (and how can there be pain if there is no consciousness?) then where is the wrong in termination? If the answer is because all human life is sacred, then the death penalty is wrong for the same reason.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

To me, who have experienced this 3 times already, that's life. Now I am not going to impose my beliefs on you, that would be authoritative, I am just letting you know what I believe based on my own personal feelings.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

About sentient, well, like I mentioned before, according to this, all people in a coma should be disconnected, their lives can be over without them suffering or even knowing it ends.

PixelPilot wrote:

Well so let me ask you this...
What about the wellbeing of the mother and a child that let's say was an "accident" or effect of a rape?
Forcing young people to be parents cause of their mistake or error or something tragic doesn't really speak "for the better" in my book.
All I see is women's rights going back to the middle ages.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Well so let me ask you this...
What about the wellbeing of the mother and a child that let's say was an "accident" or effect of a rape?
Forcing young people to be parents cause of their mistake or error or something tragic doesn't really speak "for the better" in my book.
All I see is women's rights going back to the middle ages.

Adoption is also an option. But hey, my view is to the right. A center view is to allow abortion in those sort of cases of rape or incest. I am willing to compromise on that.

The Texas law would allow for that sort of situation. That's not at play here.

Aesma wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

These are just some moral arguments, I am not getting into religious or legal arguments.

Do these moral people having moral arguments actually care about anybody but themselves, though ? Do they support laws that help people ? Do they oppose foreign wars that kill millions of people ? Do they care about immigrants ? Do they care about the poor and homeless ?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Well so let me ask you this...
What about the wellbeing of the mother and a child that let's say was an "accident" or effect of a rape?
Forcing young people to be parents cause of their mistake or error or something tragic doesn't really speak "for the better" in my book.
All I see is women's rights going back to the middle ages.

Adoption is also an option. But hey, my view is to the right. A center view is to allow abortion in those sort of cases of rape or incest. I am willing to compromise on that.

The Texas law would allow for that sort of situation. That's not at play here.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

For the child, no due process at all for an innocent, who hasn't done no wrong to anyone.

That's an interesting point though. The fetus, until something like mid-term, is not sentient. It has no ability to even think, let alone act, so there is no concept of it having done anything, let alone something right or wrong. The fetus is also dependent on the mother who now has less rights than she had before, rightly or wrongly.

The death penalty is absolute and final. There is and can never be any recourse for a mistake. For that reason alone I am against it, although some people are truly evil and fully deserve it.

Nobody ever "knew" a fetus. Nobody other than the mother ever really interacted with it. It has no impact on the wider world. It's passing would have zero impact on anyone at all outside the family. The same cannot be said of, say, even an 8 month old baby.

So my question is, if a fetus has no consciousness, no ability to think, act or do, why do you think it has the same rights as a fully developed child? If the fetus is still at a stage where there is no concept of pain (and how can there be pain if there is no consciousness?) then where is the wrong in termination? If the answer is because all human life is sacred, then the death penalty is wrong for the same reason.

If you had kids like I had, and see them when you go to the obstetrician weeks on my wife's womb, you might just believe the contrary. Aside from the religious, scientific arguments.

To me, who have experienced this 3 times already, that's life. Now I am not going to impose my beliefs on you, that would be authoritative, I am just letting you know what I believe based on my own personal feelings.

About sentient, well, like I mentioned before, according to this, all people in a coma should be disconnected, their lives can be over without them suffering or even knowing it ends. Not getting into the argument that all live is sacred, that's a religious argument.

What I ask is, if tomorrow you get into a car accident, and you are in a coma for weeks, not awake, nothing, would you like for your family to disconnect you and not see if you would wake up?

Thousands if not millions of people have woken up, to live a great life after being in a coma. The 'fetus' or baby won't ever have the same chance, we are already deciding that it should end, no matter what.

Virtual737 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

For the child, no due process at all for an innocent, who hasn't done no wrong to anyone.

That's an interesting point though. The fetus, until something like mid-term, is not sentient. It has no ability to even think, let alone act, so there is no concept of it having done anything, let alone something right or wrong. The fetus is also dependent on the mother who now has less rights than she had before, rightly or wrongly.

The death penalty is absolute and final. There is and can never be any recourse for a mistake. For that reason alone I am against it, although some people are truly evil and fully deserve it.

Nobody ever "knew" a fetus. Nobody other than the mother ever really interacted with it. It has no impact on the wider world. It's passing would have zero impact on anyone at all outside the family. The same cannot be said of, say, even an 8 month old baby.

So my question is, if a fetus has no consciousness, no ability to think, act or do, why do you think it has the same rights as a fully developed child? If the fetus is still at a stage where there is no concept of pain (and how can there be pain if there is no consciousness?) then where is the wrong in termination? If the answer is because all human life is sacred, then the death penalty is wrong for the same reason.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Well so let me ask you this...
What about the wellbeing of the mother and a child that let's say was an "accident" or effect of a rape?
Forcing young people to be parents cause of their mistake or error or something tragic doesn't really speak "for the better" in my book.
All I see is women's rights going back to the middle ages.

Adoption is also an option. But hey, my view is to the right. A center view is to allow abortion in those sort of cases of rape or incest. I am willing to compromise on that.

The Texas law would allow for that sort of situation. That's not at play here.

PixelPilot wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Well so let me ask you this...
What about the wellbeing of the mother and a child that let's say was an "accident" or effect of a rape?
Forcing young people to be parents cause of their mistake or error or something tragic doesn't really speak "for the better" in my book.
All I see is women's rights going back to the middle ages.

Adoption is also an option. But hey, my view is to the right. A center view is to allow abortion in those sort of cases of rape or incest. I am willing to compromise on that.

The Texas law would allow for that sort of situation. That's not at play here.

I know 3 adopted kids in my family. 2 were lucky to be adopted at baby age one was older. If you would listen to the stories of the older one you wouldn't wish that shit on anybody and he is in literally the perfect home imaginable.
The heartbreak and sense of being nobody is not some myth. They carry it all their lives.

Aaron747 wrote:

So again, flipping the page and getting back to bodily autonomy, which is both a moral and legal concern: if someone is the only match for organ donation, should the state be able to force them to give up a part of their body because they are the only one who can save a life?

No reasonable person would support that because it is up to the individual whether they want to use/sacrifice their organ or not.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

My problem with abortion is that its a road that would lead to infanticide.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Adoption is also an option. But hey, my view is to the right. A center view is to allow abortion in those sort of cases of rape or incest. I am willing to compromise on that.

The Texas law would allow for that sort of situation. That's not at play here.

I know 3 adopted kids in my family. 2 were lucky to be adopted at baby age one was older. If you would listen to the stories of the older one you wouldn't wish that shit on anybody and he is in literally the perfect home imaginable.
The heartbreak and sense of being nobody is not some myth. They carry it all their lives.

Thats a complex proposition.

If the potential for life is based on whether or not someone will suffer or struggle or have a bad life then most of the worlds population wont exist. We all suffer we all deal with issues in our lives. Just imagine the populations of Africa, Middle East, Latin America, Asia who are born into poverty, those nations wont exist, then the only born would be those of the wealthier nations, those who can support and give a great life to children. Thats the argument.

My problem with abortion is that its a road that would lead to infanticide. Then I have other religious issues, but wont force them on people.

PixelPilot wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

I know 3 adopted kids in my family. 2 were lucky to be adopted at baby age one was older. If you would listen to the stories of the older one you wouldn't wish that shit on anybody and he is in literally the perfect home imaginable.
The heartbreak and sense of being nobody is not some myth. They carry it all their lives.

Thats a complex proposition.

If the potential for life is based on whether or not someone will suffer or struggle or have a bad life then most of the worlds population wont exist. We all suffer we all deal with issues in our lives. Just imagine the populations of Africa, Middle East, Latin America, Asia who are born into poverty, those nations wont exist, then the only born would be those of the wealthier nations, those who can support and give a great life to children. Thats the argument.

My problem with abortion is that its a road that would lead to infanticide. Then I have other religious issues, but wont force them on people.

If a child is born due to a forced government law then you can guarantee a negative outlook for the young one.
Sure I bet all the adoption agencies that make a killing profit on those kids are happy but that's about it.
As for having kids when living in poverty... I mean why the fuck would you deliberately bring somebody into misery? I will never understand that.
At some point you need to understand that just because you can doesn't mean that you should but that would require some self reflection.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

No one is born with any guarantee of a happy and successful life. No one. We all know this if we are adults, we all have dealt with issues. People born into wealth might also live bad lives, probably worse than those born in poverty. Money isn't everything.

Like I said, if you think you can't provide a good life to your kid, give it up for adoption. Now, like I said a middle ground would be this law, abortion till the 12th week. We on the right can't expect to have everything we want, we could reach half way.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

this is a slippery slope that does indeed lead to infanticide,

PixelPilot wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

No one is born with any guarantee of a happy and successful life. No one. We all know this if we are adults, we all have dealt with issues. People born into wealth might also live bad lives, probably worse than those born in poverty. Money isn't everything.

Like I said, if you think you can't provide a good life to your kid, give it up for adoption. Now, like I said a middle ground would be this law, abortion till the 12th week. We on the right can't expect to have everything we want, we could reach half way.

I edited my previous post but will post it again in case you missed it cause your point of giving up for adoption is something completely foreign to me. I'm trying but fail to see any positives of this.
This was 2014. Now with the economic burden of the pandemic and all sorts of issues, these numbers will be exponentially higher yet you want to add another 1.3million kids to that system cause for some reason you think this is ok.

"...There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care...."
"...There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples. Every year there are about 1.3 million abortions. Only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies place their children through adoption..."

Tugger wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

this is a slippery slope that does indeed lead to infanticide,

Doesn't forcing a girl to carry a baby she does not want actually lead to MORE infanticide?

Tugg

AirWorthy99 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Thats a complex proposition.

If the potential for life is based on whether or not someone will suffer or struggle or have a bad life then most of the worlds population wont exist. We all suffer we all deal with issues in our lives. Just imagine the populations of Africa, Middle East, Latin America, Asia who are born into poverty, those nations wont exist, then the only born would be those of the wealthier nations, those who can support and give a great life to children. Thats the argument.

My problem with abortion is that its a road that would lead to infanticide. Then I have other religious issues, but wont force them on people.

If a child is born due to a forced government law then you can guarantee a negative outlook for the young one.
Sure I bet all the adoption agencies that make a killing profit on those kids are happy but that's about it.
As for having kids when living in poverty... I mean why the fuck would you deliberately bring somebody into misery? I will never understand that.
At some point you need to understand that just because you can doesn't mean that you should but that would require some self reflection.

No one is born with any guarantee of a happy and successful life. No one. We all know this if we are adults, we all have dealt with issues. People born into wealth might also live bad lives, probably worse than those born in poverty. Money isn't everything.

Like I said, if you think you can't provide a good life to your kid, give it up for adoption. Now, like I said a middle ground would be this law, abortion till the 12th week. We on the right can't expect to have everything we want, we could reach half way.

As for suffering, another subject which is tied to abortion is eugenics. Health technology has gotten so good that when the baby is on the womb you can determine probable diseases or health defects. If you look around not much down syndrome kids are any more. As technology advances, and are able to determine more probable health issues, you will see more abortions due to the preference of not bringing children to the world so that the parents and the children not deal with their health issues.

Many can agree to this, but this is a slippery slope that does indeed lead to infanticide, just bring children to the world if you can pay for them, or deal with the issues they have, and only perfect conditions exist to raise them and a great chance they will lead a happy and great life, where does it end?

seb146 wrote:

So we have shifted into "we must have this law because morality" but not everyone lives by the same moral code. This is forcing everyone to live by one small group's moral code. It seems to me that code is: love and protect the fetus, hate and throw away the child. People are willing to force births but not lift a finger for the children and families who need assistance.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Don't know where are you headed with this. A girl can allow for an adoption, there are many programs from institutions, even religious institutions that can allow for adoption.

PixelPilot wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So we have shifted into "we must have this law because morality" but not everyone lives by the same moral code. This is forcing everyone to live by one small group's moral code. It seems to me that code is: love and protect the fetus, hate and throw away the child. People are willing to force births but not lift a finger for the children and families who need assistance.

That's because nobody cares about the child once he/she is born. If it goes into the system somebody makes money so it becomes a product. A lot of product = a lot of money.
Interestingly enough the burden is on taxpayers but the profits fall into private hands..

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

If a child is born due to a forced government law then you can guarantee a negative outlook for the young one.
Sure I bet all the adoption agencies that make a killing profit on those kids are happy but that's about it.
As for having kids when living in poverty... I mean why the fuck would you deliberately bring somebody into misery? I will never understand that.
At some point you need to understand that just because you can doesn't mean that you should but that would require some self reflection.

No one is born with any guarantee of a happy and successful life. No one. We all know this if we are adults, we all have dealt with issues. People born into wealth might also live bad lives, probably worse than those born in poverty. Money isn't everything.

Like I said, if you think you can't provide a good life to your kid, give it up for adoption. Now, like I said a middle ground would be this law, abortion till the 12th week. We on the right can't expect to have everything we want, we could reach half way.

As for suffering, another subject which is tied to abortion is eugenics. Health technology has gotten so good that when the baby is on the womb you can determine probable diseases or health defects. If you look around not much down syndrome kids are any more. As technology advances, and are able to determine more probable health issues, you will see more abortions due to the preference of not bringing children to the world so that the parents and the children not deal with their health issues.

Many can agree to this, but this is a slippery slope that does indeed lead to infanticide, just bring children to the world if you can pay for them, or deal with the issues they have, and only perfect conditions exist to raise them and a great chance they will lead a happy and great life, where does it end?

Let’s cut to the chase again as my question went unanswered: why is it your business or anyone else’s as to what a woman decides? It’s great that you felt strongly about seeing your kids on ultrasound, but those feelings might differ for someone in different circumstances.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

No one is born with any guarantee of a happy and successful life. No one. We all know this if we are adults, we all have dealt with issues. People born into wealth might also live bad lives, probably worse than those born in poverty. Money isn't everything.

Like I said, if you think you can't provide a good life to your kid, give it up for adoption. Now, like I said a middle ground would be this law, abortion till the 12th week. We on the right can't expect to have everything we want, we could reach half way.

As for suffering, another subject which is tied to abortion is eugenics. Health technology has gotten so good that when the baby is on the womb you can determine probable diseases or health defects. If you look around not much down syndrome kids are any more. As technology advances, and are able to determine more probable health issues, you will see more abortions due to the preference of not bringing children to the world so that the parents and the children not deal with their health issues.

Many can agree to this, but this is a slippery slope that does indeed lead to infanticide, just bring children to the world if you can pay for them, or deal with the issues they have, and only perfect conditions exist to raise them and a great chance they will lead a happy and great life, where does it end?

Let’s cut to the chase again as my question went unanswered: why is it your business or anyone else’s as to what a woman decides? It’s great that you felt strongly about seeing your kids on ultrasound, but those feelings might differ for someone in different circumstances.

The answer to your question, its one of those personal beliefs that you can't just explain. As I am sure you have on other subjects which might be of my interest.

Let me ask you a question. If a couple has a child, and they see the newborn has some health defects only detected when it was born, and they decide to let the baby die of hunger, so it could die, and you know this, would you be OK with this?

This is the MO in the Netherlands, which happens to be the country of the OP https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240050/