By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Hypocrisy on Abortion?

 

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

Yes 8 26.67%
 
No 22 73.33%
 
Total:30
zero129 said:
Torillian said:

If that's required for you to take one's opinion on this I have a three year old child and I don't find fault with Rol's reasoning. 

Your male?. i wonder how you would feel if your wife/girlfriend decided you're childs life wasnt important 3 years ago because at the time the child wasnt conscious.

Would you of been ok with that decision?.

Abortion is killing. im all for choice and the woman has the choice to not get pregnant in the first place.

I would be sad but I'd get over it. In the end, as the dude, you can't require your girlfriend or wife to take on pregnancy and child birth if she's not 100% into it. It's a tough process that culminates in an incredibly painful and sometimes (though thankfully rarely these days) fatal event. 

As a dude it can be easy to say "well you got pregnant you're going to have to deal with it" when that has nothing to do with us. 



...

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
zero129 said:

Do you have children?.

No, but that shouldn't relevant to the bolded part where I said that a fetus is not a conscious being.

I can expand on my previous post further by pointing out that children at the stage of having attained consciousness do not have the same rights as an adult. For example, children are not allowed to sign contracts without the co-signing of a parental figure.

The fetus is not a conscious being and neither are you or anyone else under the proper effect of anesthesia. So if a doctor kills a patient under anesthesia then the doctor committed no crime and should not face any consequences because the doctor didn't kill something conscious that "suffered".

If you say that being under anesthesia is a temporary state then so is the state of being a fetus.

Children don't have the same responsibilities and rights as adults, but that sure as hell doesn't mean anyone can go and kill them without society batting an eye.

The limits to the things that a children can do are precisely attempts to keep the child healthy and alive, it is not some arbitrary attempt to rid the child of his humanity.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

AbbathTheGrim said:
RolStoppable said:

No, but that shouldn't relevant to the bolded part where I said that a fetus is not a conscious being.

I can expand on my previous post further by pointing out that children at the stage of having attained consciousness do not have the same rights as an adult. For example, children are not allowed to sign contracts without the co-signing of a parental figure.

The fetus is not a conscious being and neither are you or anyone else under the proper effect of anesthesia. So if a doctor kills a patient under anesthesia then the doctor committed no crime and should not face any consequences because the doctor didn't kill something conscious that "suffered".

If you say that being under anesthesia is a temporary state then so is the state of being a fetus.

Children don't have the same responsibilities and rights as adults, but that sure as hell doesn't mean anyone can go and kill them without society batting an eye.

The limits to the things that a children can do are precisely attempts to keep the child healthy and alive, it is not some arbitrary attempt to rid the child of his humanity.

That's exactly how I got away with murder. I shot my first wife in the head while she slept. No consciousness, no suffering. Same thing as abortion.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

RolStoppable said:
AbbathTheGrim said:

The fetus is not a conscious being and neither are you or anyone else under the proper effect of anesthesia. So if a doctor kills a patient under anesthesia then the doctor committed no crime and should not face any consequences because the doctor didn't kill something conscious that "suffered".

If you say that being under anesthesia is a temporary state then so is the state of being a fetus.

Children don't have the same responsibilities and rights as adults, but that sure as hell doesn't mean anyone can go and kill them without society batting an eye.

The limits to the things that a children can do are precisely attempts to keep the child healthy and alive, it is not some arbitrary attempt to rid the child of his humanity.

That's exactly how I got away with murder. I shot my first wife in the head while she slept. No consciousness, no suffering. Same thing as abortion.

I can't agree with what you find acceptable, but I have to admit that your views are consistent.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

"Democrats have used the argument that developing babies in the womb can be thought of as parasites?" Really? Are you serious?

You chose a group of nobodies for the sample, and.you decided to call them Democrats? This OP was already started on misinformation and fact-twisting.

For the record, I strongly support a woman's right to choose, and I find UBI ridiculous.

Last edited by Moren - on 18 May 2019

Around the Network
tsogud said:
o_O.Q said:

"Before I tell you why you're wrong OP answer me this, are you pro-choice or anti-choice and why?"

i actually think women should be free to murder their unborn children

"It's the woman's body so she should be able to decide what to do with it and have final say. "

fair enough, do you think rich people should pay more taxes in keeping with their responsibility to their communities?

You didn't answer my question, why do you think that way?

And yes, the very wealthy should be taxed more to better our society as a whole. There's no reason in a civilized society that multi-billionaires, whose profit comes at the expense of the people, should be treated better and be able to get huge tax cuts and breaks while the very same people that they profited off of die because they can't afford healthcare. It's a give and take relationship and so far the wealthiest have just been taking, they need to give back to the society that propped them up in the first place.

"You didn't answer my question, why do you think that way?"

i said i agreed with you that mothers should be able to murder their unborn children

" There's no reason in a civilized society that multi-billionaires, whose profit comes at the expense of the people, should be treated better and be able to get huge tax cuts and breaks while the very same people that they profited off of die "

so resources should be channeled from people who have more to people who have less

the developing child in the womb needs resources from the mother to survive, why in this case where the person in question is much more vulnerable and in far more need do you renege on your position and go in the opposite direction?

and the mothers also profit from society btw as every single person does

"so far the wealthiest have just been taking"

how do you think people become wealthy?



morenoingrato said:
"Democrats have used the argument that developing babies in the womb can be thought of as parasites?" Really? Are you serious?

You chose a group of nobodies for the sample, and.you decided to call them Democrats? This OP was already started on misinformation and fact-twisting.

For the record, I strongly support a woman's right to choose, and I find UBI ridiculous.

"You chose a group of nobodies for the sample"

The vast majority of democrats who support ubi also support abortion

abortion is fundamentally a process that treats the unborn baby as a parasite to be discarded... do you disagree with that?



sethnintendo said:
How about this hypocrisy? Repuplicans are anti welfare and anti abortion. Well you can't have it both ways... You'd think republicans would be in favor of abortion if it kept the poor off welfare.

"How about this hypocrisy? Repuplicans are anti welfare and anti abortion. Well you can't have it both ways..."

actually you can if you restrict the sexual freedoms of women

the amusing thing for me is that both groups are for restricting freedom, but the democrats pretend they are not and they also pretend to care about people as a fundamental value but are completely ok with the murder of unborn children



o_O.Q said:
sethnintendo said:
How about this hypocrisy? Repuplicans are anti welfare and anti abortion. Well you can't have it both ways... You'd think republicans would be in favor of abortion if it kept the poor off welfare.

"How about this hypocrisy? Repuplicans are anti welfare and anti abortion. Well you can't have it both ways..."

actually you can if you restrict the sexual freedoms of women

the amusing thing for me is that both groups are for restricting freedom, but the democrats pretend they are not and they also pretend to care about people as a fundamental value but are completely ok with the murder of unborn children

How are democrats restricting freedom?  Freedom of the unborn baby I assume.  There are so many damn humans on this earth I don't really think it matters if a few unwanted babies are terminated.  One can argue the reduction in crime rate that happened after Roe v Wade was mainly because you didn't have a bunch of neglected and unwanted babies turning to a life of crime.

I also have issue with one of the quotes in your op.  Someone somehow states "in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, "

That is news to me.  I could have sworn parasites harm the host and offer no benefit.  If there was benefit to both then it is labeled symbiotic relationship.  If it is so often that parasites and hosts mutually benefit then why the heck have I never heard of such a case.  You can't mix symbiotic relationship and parasite definitions.  They are two separate relationships.



AbbathTheGrim said:
RolStoppable said:

No, but that shouldn't relevant to the bolded part where I said that a fetus is not a conscious being.

I can expand on my previous post further by pointing out that children at the stage of having attained consciousness do not have the same rights as an adult. For example, children are not allowed to sign contracts without the co-signing of a parental figure.

The fetus is not a conscious being and neither are you or anyone else under the proper effect of anesthesia. So if a doctor kills a patient under anesthesia then the doctor committed no crime and should not face any consequences because the doctor didn't kill something conscious that "suffered".

If you say that being under anesthesia is a temporary state then so is the state of being a fetus.

Children don't have the same responsibilities and rights as adults, but that sure as hell doesn't mean anyone can go and kill them without society batting an eye.

The limits to the things that a children can do are precisely attempts to keep the child healthy and alive, it is not some arbitrary attempt to rid the child of his humanity.

You are a conscious being who is temporarily unconsious, your conscious exists but is not active unless you're brain dead. There's the difference between never being born at all vs being born and then killed, the comparison you offer makes no sense. 

All you're doing is discussing potential in regards to an undeveloped fetus, it has no conscious and it never had one. It has no will and it never had one. You might as well be discussing the sperm that you loose every time you ejaculate or use contraception. Each would have a potential different outcome if it was to inseminate an egg but that is never realised, just like an aborted feutus, the human you anticipate was never realised or developed. Its absolutely fine that we have an emotion & sentiment towards something which never was more than biology matter & potential but we should at least acknowledge that is what we're discussing.

Ultimately its a philosophical discussion that people have to mature enough to discuss. Why is it ok that you kill millions of bacteria, kill plants, kill animals. Life is not simply life. Every human draws distinction in where we give priority. We give priority to our own existence over that of other species and living matter, we also give priority to our own existence over underdeveloped fetus' which hasn't yet developed the processes, autonomy & emotions that we assign to other humans. I keep hearing people who are anti-abortion talk about consistency, so I expect every single one of them is against the loss of all and any form of life including the food they eat.