Donald Trump: How Do You Feel about Him Now? (Poll)

[Final-Fan]

irstupid said:

Final-Fan said:

The really interesting thing is that people can be relatively close on certain principles but still see underlying facts so differently that they are nearly on diametrically opposed positions.  My position is that before a certain level of development the fetus is not a "person", which is why it is not wrong to kill it.  Once it is a person (or once there is a reasonable likelihood of personhood) then it is wrong to kill it.  Your position is that personhood begins at conception (unless I'm wrong about that—correct me if I am).  So right there we stand on opposite sides of the abortion issue even though we both agree it's generally wrong to kill a "person". 

Beyond that I'd say that there is more gray area to late-term abortion that you seem to be admitting to.  Like, if the fetus only has a 25% chance to live and a 75% chance that letting it come to term will kill the woman, I would say that the woman has the right to choose to defend her own life against the "attacking" fetus, assuming that there isn't a way to remove the fetus non-lethally.  Please let me know if we actually agree on this too!  But where do we draw the line on the "likelihood of fetus living" vs. "likelihood of woman dying"?  It's murky territory. 

I know I'm butting in, but I'm also against abortion. It gets tricky in regards to rape victims, cause even though I would like to say "just give it up for adoption" as many people in the US want to adopt and maybe that would result in adoption not costing a years salary. But I can see the defense of forcing a woman to carry that to term could be tramatizing.

As for everyone else.

1. At conception is a bit lisleading. By the time someone knows they are pregnant they are a bit further along than the day after that you make conception sound like

2. I see a child whether in the womb or in a baby stroller as a life and I just can't murder it. Feels wrong on a personal level. You can't change that thinking, and I'm betting its the same for others.

Smartie900 said:
I still find it unbelievable that the creation of a 'Space Force' seems to be an idea that is supported by many. While the Outer Space Treaty signed by the UN doesn't specifically bar humans from militarizing space; it should be clear that the idea of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a useless branch of a military is illogical. I was cautiously optimistic about Trump's capability to handle monetary issues with some level of competency, but I was clearly mistaken.

A military space force is a big win in my book solely because I feel the best inventions/innovations/ect happen due to military funding. Is this space force going to win the space war against a china/Russia space force or against aliens? IDK, can't predict future, but the thought of it makes me laugh as it being ridiculous. But could this space force vastly improve our space tech which could not only improve our life on earth but lead to the advancement of things that put us closer to our beloved scifi fantasy stuff like Star Wars/Trek/ect.  That I hope and do believe it will.

Don't worry, I was butting in too. 

The "at conception" point was because I was making a bit of a presumption that Dulfite's objections were religiously based.  I sort of think I remember that this was his position but I recognized that I could be confusing him with someone else and just took the chance.  If I was wrong, sorry Dulfite!  But I have never seen an argument against early term abortion that made any sense to me that wasn't based on religious conviction that personhood was conferred on the fetus before there was any scientific reason to do so IMO (e.g. a six week old embryo that has barely begun to form a brain). 

The emotional arguments you cite do not persuade me that it's reasonable to legally prohibit a woman from having an abortion when forcing them to carry to term has such consequences for them.  But that's not to say that the emotional response isn't a reason for you to act on it in your personal life or try to persuade others to act in the way you feel is right. 

On the subject of having the military throw hundreds of billions of dollars at a space force just to realize the beneficial side effects that can be expected to result (like happened with the Apollo program, space shuttle program, etc.) I really don't see the point in not just throwing the same money directly at pure science research and development or civilian space efforts.  If your position is, "those aren't going to happen so I'll take what I can get," well, I can't really argue with that except to say that I don't think the space force is happening either.