How is abortion a problem? It's only a problem for you if you go out of your way to get into other people's business and lives. For millions of people, abortion is and was, a solution. DP's P&R is currently my place of choice for releasing anger (frustration with society). That and the new AK47 I took out to the range this weekend
You're much too young to understand. At your age, really, what on earth do you have to be frustrated about "with society"? Like I said, sounding like a Republican more and more every day. I guess that is why you now choose to no longer take refuge outside the US. You figured out that those "rights" you believe have been taken away are still with you.
50% of all pregnancies end in abortion - and mostly for just selfish purposes, so the woman isn't exposed. It's lame and it's murder for the same reason as a guy murdering former mates or something; to protect his (well, her I guess) own reputation. It's sick and it needs to stop for all non-mother-threatening purposes.
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1625747&postcount=96 You must understand the previous posts made by YO, to understand my post.^^^ He was saying if you're anti-abortion, you're pro-welfare, pro-taxes..pro-other bullshit. I was using his line of thinking, based on his foreign policy tendencies. I wasn't asserting there was truth in it, I was just giving him something similiar to look at. Both are ridiculous. So yes, Ferret, that's what I intended for him to get out of it.... 'way out there'.
I was beginning to think what I wrote wasn't clear; although I'm reminded of the many times that Ferret, and a few other, didn't understand what I'm writing. Then I start to see a pattern....it's usually those whom think from the 'left'. I don't recall anyone on the 'right' finding my writing puzzling. They may not think it's perfect, and I don't really intend to make it such...but it's understandable. Perhaps it's the concepts I'm relaying. *shrug*
Well you do have to take into account that they have probably spent the better part of their lives having someone else decide what is good for them. It takes time to learn how to think for yourself. I'm sure they're trying. I like to give them the benefit of the doubt anyway.
If you care to dispute it, then go ahead, but we both know the truth. Forcing people to have unwanted children by outlawing abortion, is going to directly affect your taxes and the welfare system. I showed the simple math from a single year.. over $2 billion saved in welfare alone. Then take into account the amount of abuse and neglect that will take place in homes with unwanted babies, the amount of mothers who will try to abort themselves dangerously, etc. If your against choice then your for all of it's nasty side effects too, there's no way around it.
Millions of years of evolution and instinct are undeniably, overwhelming forcing people to have sex. Sure you can pretend it's easy for humans to ignore one of the most basic instincts built into every one of us.. but it's not. Then you start playing both sides of the fence.. you're for condoms and birth control, but do you want it taught in schools? . These conservatives don't want sex education and then wonder why teens don't use protection... The ideal situation of course would for there to be no unwanted pregnancies to begin with, but that's not going to happen any time soon no matter how much you want it to. So you're either for the practical solution (legal abortion) or the impractical solution (government in people's lives, forcing people to give birth to unwanted babies, using up more welfare, higher child abuse and neglect rates, etc).
If saving money that personally affects your welfare benefits is of such great concern (I doubt that it is) and justifying murder to save money is acceptable, then we should get tougher death penalty laws in place and stop locking away murderers, rapists and pedophiles where similar amounts of money can be saved each year. Line em up, pull the switch, addios amigo! Not only will it save those precious welfare dollars that seem so important, but it would also be a deterrent. When people are faced with grave consequences for their actions, they usually think twice. Murder? Take a seat and fry. Prey on little kids? Sit yo big ass down to receive some electricity. Rape someone? Won't happen again, bud, take a seat at the fryer's club. Your argument might be valid except that you've clearly made a stance against the death penalty in the past, opting to keep the worst scum our country offers alive at all costs. Perhaps that argument hits a little closer to home? That's disturbing to me. Your argument has been that with our legal system, we can't ever know for absolute 100% certainty of their guilt. So on one hand, we have innocent babies who are guilty of nothing more than having irresponsible selfish parents who know the consequences of having unprotected sex, yet do so anyway. We can be absolutely 100% sure that a baby in the womb has never committed a crime. On the other hand, we have hardened criminals that our legal system, through a jury of peers, has determined to be guilty of horrendous crimes. These crimes include murder, rape, pedophiles and any variation of such things that most find repulsive. If saving money is the be all/end all to the argument, it seems more than reasonable to me that those who commit the most repulsive crimes should be put to death. The money savings would be overwhelming and it would solve another ficticious "problem you have with America" by reducing the number of people in prison. This, verses killing innocent babies who have no crime, other than selfish parents who chose murder over responsibility. Given the choice, I'd rather give the innocent baby the opportunity to make something of their life, to have the priviledge of making right and wrong choices, rather than keeping those who had that opportunity, but failed, alive. It just seems common sense. A baby is guilty of nothing, but deserves murder if irresponsible parents are too selfish to take care of their responsibility? Where as a rapist, murderer, pedophile should be kept alive at all costs, despite having the opportunity the murdered baby never had? I just can't wrap my mind around the illogical thought process that says "murder innocent babies to save a brotha a dollar," while the same person says "keep murderers, pedophiles and rapists alive at all costs because we should sympathize with them." Someone help me here...how does one come to such backwards thinking conclusions? Save your money, pull the switch on unwanted criminals. Give the chance they gave up to the innocent babies. Better yet, put those that chose murdering of innocent babies in the electric chair too and give them a taste of their own medicine. After all, if you are willing to play God and determine whether an innocent baby should die, someone else should be able to determine whether you live as well. Equality, right? That's what liberals supposedly stand for?
thats because people on the right always agree with whoever is on their "team", regardless if what you posted doesn't make sense or they don't agree with it. Rightwing people seem to be more group orientated, once they established who they think is "with" them and they perceive is "against" them, they automatically agree or disagree without actually thinking for themselves. coming from someone who spouts off talking points and even copys insults from talking heads on TV thats a heck of statement.
what does this have to do with the abortion topic? umm actually no, his morals are based on logic so they actually are more true the morals based on some arbitary superstious belief. everyones morals are only in there head Why? why should someone comprimise their beliefs in a discussion? yeah so says you, who continously dances around with I'm on the fence postions. Not everyone is so wishy washy about their beliefs. I find pseudo intellectual posts kind of comical myself, which is why I am glad your keep posting, Ricky. So essentially what your saying Rick is that if you don't have arbitrary religious beliefs to back up your "morals" then you should essentially sway with the wind and go along with whatever the masses think is moral? That is the gist of your unnecessarily wordy statement isn't it, that atheists cannot feel strongly about things?
There you go again calling a fetus a baby. It's ok gtech, I don't expect your position on abortion to be logical, after what your parents did, I know it hits home... must be hard
Rape and murder are crimes committed against fellow human beings with rights. Abortion is a female terminating something inside her own body. Is it really hard to see the difference?
I was comparing his line of thought to it. I said that in my response. This question shouldn't be necessary, as you should have understood that by reading what I wrote. I'll call this the millionth time you've asked an unnessary question. Maybe a little less. Wow,...look at your next comment. Funny how they go together. Since they're only of his head, they're subjective...therefore, the question is: since when has truth come from moral subjectivity ie opinion? Logic applies to nature, and all things that connect to it. Logic doesn't apply to morals perse, as moral concepts have no common denominator (unless they're connected to standards). What is 'good' or 'bad' without man? Such a concept doesn't exist without 'conciousness' or 'god'. Study Epistemology to understand what I'm saying, if you don't understand what I wrote there. Continue reading... From realization that his beliefs are of his own mind-creations. The comprimise itself may only involve the acceptance of his fallibility, especially on moral grounds. I accepted this nearly on everything, and is one of the reasons I'm capable of looking at other views with out a dogma of beliefs in my way. Perhaps as a 'doubter' it's that more apparent, than an outright athiest...whom thinks they know the universe. 'I pity the fool'. Good that you annoint them as beliefs. Nope. I say this again and again, yet you're not getting it in your mind. What the hell is blocking it from entering, I don't know!? You could believe anything you want, but you shouldn't relay it with 'Righteousness' if you're a disbeliever...because it makes you look like a fool. I don't sway with the wind on immigration, and my general view of how the government should be. But I don't base it on 'morals', I base it on standards . Morals are restricted to cultural sects, while standards are much more universally appealing. For illegal immigration: I could say that our schools will be flooded w/children whom won't have parents whom put a lot of money into [school] taxes...and that's not a moral judgement, it's a physical standard of nature. Sure, people will judge it upon their own moral system, but they can't help but do so. The difference is I'm not going to say illegal immigration is morally wrong, just as I wouldn't say (as doubter) that abortions are moral. Are you noticing the subtle difference...? They should base their arguement on standards, not subjective morals (it just makes more sense). Sometimes that happens, but ever so often I hear the 'preacher-man' come out of the secularists. The 'pseudo-comment' doesn't make sense coming from you, since you can barely grasp the concepts I give to you; muchless you have a difficult time understanding simple sentences.