Quantcast
Hypocrisy on Abortion?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Hypocrisy on Abortion?

Democratic Support of UBI and Abortion at the same time is Hypocrisy

Yes 7 24.14%
 
No 22 75.86%
 
Total:29
DonFerrari said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Only in America can one be in full support of assault weapons, basically no limitations on weaponry ownership, not wanting any background checks and an adamant defender of the death penalty and yet unironically call themselves "Pro-Life".

Pretty sure that's the point of this restriction: To ensure nobody aborts.

Because you are missing easy points.

An adult have a right to defend himself even with heavy weaponry. But if he kills someone (not by self-defense) he is a criminal who choose it, so he can be killed of.

A baby didn't chose anything and shouldn't be killed because parents decided they can't bother.

What we're talking about isn't a baby. It's a bunch of cells that don't even have a heart beat let alone a heart. I'm pretty sure it's not murder if you kill something that isn't even alive.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network

Least they aren't going after women for miscarriages. I wouldn't put it past some deep south republican state legislatures. The old white men have trouble with science.



vivster said:
DonFerrari said:

Because you are missing easy points.

An adult have a right to defend himself even with heavy weaponry. But if he kills someone (not by self-defense) he is a criminal who choose it, so he can be killed of.

A baby didn't chose anything and shouldn't be killed because parents decided they can't bother.

What we're talking about isn't a baby. It's a bunch of cells that don't even have a heart beat let alone a heart. I'm pretty sure it's not murder if you kill something that isn't even alive.

It is alive, and depending on the place you look abortion is permitted even after there is a heartbeat

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

This have that until 24 weeks it is open to the mother to abort, after it then you have risk to the mother or preganancy not viable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

A fetus when reaching 24 weeks already have a 40-70% chance of living if given birth instead of killed.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Pemalite said:
The mother owns the body in question, not the fetus. Thus the mother should have the first and last say of what occurs in her body... Otherwise we are giving the rights of the host body to another human being.

If the fetus can survive via it's own power, then let it, but it shouldn't be allowed to at the expense of another person.

************

As for the Universal Basic Income... Why isn't that a thing in the USA? It works in most other developed nations with great success?

A baby also can't survive via it's own power (it will die rather quickly without somebody taking care of it)...so I don't think that should have anything at all to do with the argument.

It is also a fine line saying the mother can do whatever she wants to her body. So if a mother decides to continue drinking absurd amounts of alcohol, and the baby comes out extremely messed up, you have no issue with this right? After all, it was her body and she had the right to drink like that. The fact that the child will now have a crappy life with many issues due to this isn't the mother's problem.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

DonFerrari said:
vivster said:

What we're talking about isn't a baby. It's a bunch of cells that don't even have a heart beat let alone a heart. I'm pretty sure it's not murder if you kill something that isn't even alive.

It is alive, and depending on the place you look abortion is permitted even after there is a heartbeat

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

This have that until 24 weeks it is open to the mother to abort, after it then you have risk to the mother or preganancy not viable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

A fetus when reaching 24 weeks already have a 40-70% chance of living if given birth instead of killed.

It is permitted only in cases where the mother's life is in danger or there's something seriously wrong with the fetus. In which case when you abort you are not losing a life, you're saving one.

But we're not talking about 24 weeks here, we're talking about less than 10, at which point there is nothing alive that even resembles a human.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
Baalzamon said:
Pemalite said:
The mother owns the body in question, not the fetus. Thus the mother should have the first and last say of what occurs in her body... Otherwise we are giving the rights of the host body to another human being.

If the fetus can survive via it's own power, then let it, but it shouldn't be allowed to at the expense of another person.

************

As for the Universal Basic Income... Why isn't that a thing in the USA? It works in most other developed nations with great success?

A baby also can't survive via it's own power (it will die rather quickly without somebody taking care of it)...so I don't think that should have anything at all to do with the argument.

It is also a fine line saying the mother can do whatever she wants to her body. So if a mother decides to continue drinking absurd amounts of alcohol, and the baby comes out extremely messed up, you have no issue with this right? After all, it was her body and she had the right to drink like that. The fact that the child will now have a crappy life with many issues due to this isn't the mother's problem.

A solution for this would be mandatory screenings and subsequent abortions for seriously damaged fetuses. I doubt a mother who doesn't take care of herself would want a disabled kid anyway.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Baalzamon said:

A baby also can't survive via it's own power (it will die rather quickly without somebody taking care of it)...so I don't think that should have anything at all to do with the argument.

It is also a fine line saying the mother can do whatever she wants to her body. So if a mother decides to continue drinking absurd amounts of alcohol, and the baby comes out extremely messed up, you have no issue with this right? After all, it was her body and she had the right to drink like that. The fact that the child will now have a crappy life with many issues due to this isn't the mother's problem.

A solution for this would be mandatory screenings and subsequent abortions for seriously damaged fetuses. I doubt a mother who doesn't take care of herself would want a disabled kid anyway.

So now you are going to force the abortion of damaged fetuses? You are once again dictating what the mother has to do with her body...which seems to be people's entire problem with not allowing abortion in the first place.

I'm putting a scenario out there where the mother absolutely decides she still wants the baby. So nobody can tell her she can't have it, and nobody can tell her she can't drink during pregnancy cause that is her choice. Baby is born disabled, that absolutely just became the mother's fault for directly causing a person to have to live their whole life with a disability.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Baalzamon said:
vivster said:

A solution for this would be mandatory screenings and subsequent abortions for seriously damaged fetuses. I doubt a mother who doesn't take care of herself would want a disabled kid anyway.

So now you are going to force the abortion of damaged fetuses? You are once again dictating what the mother has to do with her body...which seems to be people's entire problem with not allowing abortion in the first place.

I'm putting a scenario out there where the mother absolutely decides she still wants the baby. So nobody can tell her she can't have it, and nobody can tell her she can't drink during pregnancy cause that is her choice. Baby is born disabled, that absolutely just became the mother's fault for directly causing a person to have to live their whole life with a disability.

It's called punishing people for a crime. Willingly ruining a human's life is a crime. That's why we also "dictate" what humans are allowed to put in their body before getting into their car. Or how we "dictate" what small children have to put into their body to not get terrible diseases and infect others.

Allowing everything or nothing isn't the debate here. There obviously have to be rules that need to be enforced. It's called "society". That is, if laws make any sense and are meant to protect people, which the recently updated abortion laws are not.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Abortion is murder.



PLAYING: Horizon Zero Dawn (PS4), For Honor (PS4)

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


vivster said:
Baalzamon said:

So now you are going to force the abortion of damaged fetuses? You are once again dictating what the mother has to do with her body...which seems to be people's entire problem with not allowing abortion in the first place.

I'm putting a scenario out there where the mother absolutely decides she still wants the baby. So nobody can tell her she can't have it, and nobody can tell her she can't drink during pregnancy cause that is her choice. Baby is born disabled, that absolutely just became the mother's fault for directly causing a person to have to live their whole life with a disability.

It's called punishing people for a crime. Willingly ruining a human's life is a crime. That's why we also "dictate" what humans are allowed to put in their body before getting into their car. Or how we "dictate" what small children have to put into their body to not get terrible diseases and infect others.

Allowing everything or nothing isn't the debate here. There obviously have to be rules that need to be enforced. It's called "society". That is, if laws make any sense and are meant to protect people, which the recently updated abortion laws are not.

Willingly ruining a human life...but the people saying abortion is ok are absolutely saying it isn't a human life. They are saying it's just this thing you can end. If causing them to be disabled is willingly ruining their life, then isn't killing them also doing that?



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.