By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
collint0101 on 17 May 2019
NightlyPoe said:
collint0101 said:

I don't like abortion but oftentimes it is the result of a parent not being able to properly care for a child. You see it as culling the herd but to me it's about the mother making the choice based upon whether or not they can provide for their child. I can guarantee you abortion rates would instantly go down the moment day care becomes drastically more affordable and accessable. 

Of course there's an economic component to it.  But that doesn't mean it's any more okay to kill a child in the womb to save daycare than it is to kill them on six months later.

The thing is a fetus isnt a child for a good portion of the time it's in the womb. I'm leery of late term abortion unless there's a serious medical concern involving the mother or child but I have a very hard time saying a fetus is the same as a child for basically all of the first trimester at least



Around the Network
collint0101 on 17 May 2019
jason1637 said:
collint0101 said:

I don't like abortion but oftentimes it is the result of a parent not being able to properly care for a child. You see it as culling the herd but to me it's about the mother making the choice based upon whether or not they can provide for their child. I can guarantee you abortion rates would instantly go down the moment day care becomes drastically more affordable and accessable. 

My problem with it is that these people are killing another life because it inconveniences them. It's a hard decision for someone to give up their child for adoption or foster care but honestly the kid is better off alive than to be killed.

Writing off legitimate economic factors that determine whether or not someone can properly provide for a child as inconveniences sounds like a bit of an understatement. 



jason1637 on 17 May 2019
collint0101 said:
jason1637 said:

My problem with it is that these people are killing another life because it inconveniences them. It's a hard decision for someone to give up their child for adoption or foster care but honestly the kid is better off alive than to be killed.

Writing off legitimate economic factors that determine whether or not someone can properly provide for a child as inconveniences sounds like a bit of an understatement. 

Well none is saying they have to provide for the child since there are other options to have the child raised by other people. Just be a decent eneough human being to let them live.



collint0101 on 17 May 2019
jason1637 said:
collint0101 said:

Writing off legitimate economic factors that determine whether or not someone can properly provide for a child as inconveniences sounds like a bit of an understatement. 

Well none is saying they have to provide for the child. Just be a decent eneough human being to let them live.

That actually sounds terrible. Life is one thing but quality of life is another and fact of the matter is our society is unfortunately unwilling to put systems in place to better the lives of these children after they're born. Like I've said probably 3 other times before this I don't like abortion but unless we see a huge political push to guarantee a decent standard of living for these children I'm going to remain pro choice because often times the alternative is crime, poverty, overburdened foster care, ect. Pro life is only concerned about whether or not a child is born but I doubt anyone here can find a pro life group that's also pushing for parental guidance classes or increased maternity leave



collint0101 on 17 May 2019
NightlyPoe said:
collint0101 said:

The thing is a fetus isnt a child for a good portion of the time it's in the womb. I'm leery of late term abortion unless there's a serious medical concern involving the mother or child but I have a very hard time saying a fetus is the same as a child for basically all of the first trimester at least

I don't see the moral cause of denying a human of his or her most basic of rights, the right to live, based on where they are on a developmental line.  Nor do I find it viable to use the word "fetus" as a means for stripping humanity itself away.

At this point it's just basic science. In what way is a clump of cells that hasn't even developed internal organs or a vertebrae comparable to a child? 



Around the Network
collint0101 on 17 May 2019
NightlyPoe said:
SpokenTruth said:

Then where do you delineate the right to life? Conception?  Morula?  Blastocyst?  Zygote?  Embryo?  Fetus?

The sperm and egg are technically living and have their own genetic makeup. Do each one then have a right to life?

Conception.

Gametes may have their own genetic makeup, but under no definition do they make up a unique human.

Your definition of life sounds very grounded in religion with no real scientific backing



collint0101 on 18 May 2019
NightlyPoe said:
collint0101 said:

Your definition of life sounds very grounded in religion with no real scientific backing

As I said to the other poster, science has very little to do with this.  It's an ethical question.  Science can help (as I just demonstrated by providing an accurate distinguishing feature between gametes and zygotes that would label one as a unique organism and the other not), but there is no science that provides a dispositive answer.

For the record, I am not a part of any organized religion.  You have merely shown a bias.  Someone disagrees with you on abortion, you automatically dismiss them as religious and anti-science.

You may not be religious but you're still using their arguments. You're trying to turn feelings and morals into black and white principles and it just doesn't work like that. People and society are way too complex to say everything that happens after the sperm meets the egg is human life and to terminate that would be murder. 



EricHiggin on 18 May 2019
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

I never said the interviewer was a lefty, but the way he was questioning Ben was in opposition to him and he was acting like many of the lefties do, which would be why Ben acted and responded like he did. A conservative there is also not the same as a conservative in America either.

Below...

You're always pointing out my devotion to the right. I wonder why people take sides when they show they aren't bound to either, yet you do everything to ignore that fact and put a label on them.

It's not easy to have a meaningful conversation with someone when they are pretending to be something they're not wouldn't you say? Just like trying to have a meaningful conversation when you're constantly being portrayed as something you're not?

I have no clue what you are, what I do know is that for you labels means everything.  Everyone is a lefty this or conservative that.  And since you chose the word Lefty all the time but denote the right as conservative, I have to wonder about your choice of words.  You may believe you are in the middle or whatever but usually people never know they show themselves the longer you converse with them.  I never called you left, right, middle conservative liberal or any such thing, instead I let you show me who you are and you have never let me down.

As for the interviewer, you didn't have to say what he was, you jumped at the chance to label him because he was giving Ben what usually Ben gives to people he consider as liberals.  You got on your high horse jumping at the chance and fell into the trap the same way Ben did.  The interviewer wasn't acting as something he was not, instead he was challenging Ben on who he is trying to portray in his book compared to the statements he has made in the past.  

Well how do we humans converse if we don't put words and meanings to anything? I could use the word liberal from now on instead of lefty, but what about the liberals or libertarians, etc, who insist they are so different that they do not wish to be clumped in with the rest who have strayed so far to the left of center? Minority rules? If you 'let me' show you who I am, and I do and never let you down apparently, then you must know what I am, otherwise your statement makes no sense. If you know what I am and say I'm always an apologist, then who is it I am always apologizing for? Didn't you start out by saying you have no clue what I am?

Didn't I already point out in the last post that I didn't describe the interviewer as a lefty? So I somehow labeled him without actually labeling him? Did I or didn't I? Do you know what I'm about or don't you? If the interviewer was acting like a typical conservative Ben wouldn't have gone on the offensive. Since you're all about past instances to prove present points, where has Ben acted in this manner towards a typical conservative before? And no, the far right doesn't count. Again, a typical UK or EU conservative is not the same thing as a typical American conservative. Chips or gift doesn't mean the same thing over there as they do in America.

Just so I'm clear here. The 'conservative' interviewer is allowed to take an opposing position to 'push Ben into a corner' and make him show his 'true colors', and that's totally legit and is what happened, with no other potential reasoning, and yet the conversation we're having right now couldn't be the same, considering my initial point favored the interviewer? How sure are you?



jason1637 on 18 May 2019
collint0101 said:
jason1637 said:

Well none is saying they have to provide for the child. Just be a decent eneough human being to let them live.

That actually sounds terrible. Life is one thing but quality of life is another and fact of the matter is our society is unfortunately unwilling to put systems in place to better the lives of these children after they're born. Like I've said probably 3 other times before this I don't like abortion but unless we see a huge political push to guarantee a decent standard of living for these children I'm going to remain pro choice because often times the alternative is crime, poverty, overburdened foster care, ect. Pro life is only concerned about whether or not a child is born but I doubt anyone here can find a pro life group that's also pushing for parental guidance classes or increased maternity leave

So you're pro choice beacause you're worried about their quality of life? That's like saying we should end thir lifes because they are gonna be poor. Why not whipe out the homeless while you're at it?



jason1637 on 18 May 2019