Why doesn't the Right stand up for anyone's rights except the unborn zefs?

Summerwind · Nov 27, 2015

For example if one of those abortions that the right thinks should be stopped, resulted instead in a mother dying or even the baby having substantial disabilities, and the family now has only one income, ... y'know here let's assume this was supposed to be a birth to an existing family, of whatever size, thought they could afford a (or another) child, but now is down to one income. IF the mother dies, the one income is obvious, but if the mother lives and the child is disabled, either they pay out for the child's extensive care (since in the Right's perfect world there is not government assistance), or one of the parents has to stay home. But the Right couldn't give a crap, "don't have kids you can't afford." And heaven's forbid should both the mother die in childbirth AND the child is substantially disabled. The Right's answer is essentially, "tough crap."

Upon conception there are things that just can't be guaranteed even 9 months down the road, even if best intentions and financial qualifications were present at the start, much less 2, 10, 15 years into the future. And yet the Right couldn't care less, not even on day one of a perfect child's birth. Yeah, if an impoverished woman has a child, ultimately the taxpayers pay for that birth, but only the Right complains about it.

The Right isn't pro-life, they only care about those things that they literally cannot care for because it's inside a woman, oh, but it's worth noting here, they also complain about the woman carrying the child getting taxpayer sponsored pre-natal care.

I don't know what the real reason is that they want to ban abortion, but it has nothing to do with valuing life, they clearly don't.

David_N · Nov 27, 2015

Great thread.
Carlin sums it up:

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing

Glen Contrarian · Nov 27, 2015

Summerwind said:
For example if one of those abortions that the right thinks should be stopped, resulted instead in a mother dying or even the baby having substantial disabilities, and the family now has only one income, ... y'know here let's assume this was supposed to be a birth to an existing family, of whatever size, thought they could afford a (or another) child, but now is down to one income. IF the mother dies, the one income is obvious, but if the mother lives and the child is disabled, either they pay out for the child's extensive care (since in the Right's perfect world there is not government assistance), or one of the parents has to stay home. But the Right couldn't give a crap, "don't have kids you can't afford." And heaven's forbid should both the mother die in childbirth AND the child is substantially disabled. The Right's answer is essentially, "tough crap."

Upon conception there are things that just can't be guaranteed even 9 months down the road, even if best intentions and financial qualifications were present at the start, much less 2, 10, 15 years into the future. And yet the Right couldn't care less, not even on day one of a perfect child's birth. Yeah, if an impoverished woman has a child, ultimately the taxpayers pay for that birth, but only the Right complains about it.

The Right isn't pro-life, they only care about those things that they literally cannot care for because it's inside a woman, oh, but it's worth noting here, they also complain about the woman carrying the child getting taxpayer sponsored pre-natal care.

I don't know what the real reason is that they want to ban abortion, but it has nothing to do with valuing life, they clearly don't.

No, the Right is not pro-life - they're "pro-birth". Once born, you're on your own...unless, of course, you're a child of a WASP family with the the approved political and religious beliefs....

Scrabaholic · Nov 27, 2015

Not all people on the right are anti choice.

Summerwind · Nov 27, 2015

Scrabaholic said:
Not all people on the right are anti choice.

Perhaps, but the Right's platform undoubtedly is.

David_N · Nov 27, 2015

Scrabaholic said:
Not all people on the right are anti choice.

I'm almost certain this thread is directed at social "conservatives."

JayDubya · Nov 27, 2015

Socialist bull**** and an ignorant, bigoted slur right off the bat.

Then we have Carlin's hatemongering retardation.

And then the abject stupidity of suggesting that opposition to needless killing is somehow opposition to the concept of "freedom of choice," itself having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of abortion.

That is a hat trick of absolute failure. Amazing, truly.

By all means, you socialist pro-aborts are welcome to try and justify the idiocy above.

You can do so as follows: please point out the "hypocrisy" of consistently protecting the right to life of all human beings of all ages or the "'hypocrisy" of not supporting social welfare programs for anyone at any age.

When you can establish how this consistency - consistency, of course, being an antonym of hypocrisy - is somehow the opposite, then and only then will your words above not be unfathomably stupid.

Honestly... Stop making it so easy and get something resembling a rational argument.

bubbabgone · Nov 27, 2015

Summerwind said:
For example if one of those abortions that the right thinks should be stopped, resulted instead in a mother dying or even the baby having substantial disabilities, and the family now has only one income, ... y'know here let's assume this was supposed to be a birth to an existing family, of whatever size, thought they could afford a (or another) child, but now is down to one income. IF the mother dies, the one income is obvious, but if the mother lives and the child is disabled, either they pay out for the child's extensive care (since in the Right's perfect world there is not government assistance), or one of the parents has to stay home. But the Right couldn't give a crap, "don't have kids you can't afford." And heaven's forbid should both the mother die in childbirth AND the child is substantially disabled. The Right's answer is essentially, "tough crap."

Upon conception there are things that just can't be guaranteed even 9 months down the road, even if best intentions and financial qualifications were present at the start, much less 2, 10, 15 years into the future. And yet the Right couldn't care less, not even on day one of a perfect child's birth. Yeah, if an impoverished woman has a child, ultimately the taxpayers pay for that birth, but only the Right complains about it.

The Right isn't pro-life, they only care about those things that they literally cannot care for because it's inside a woman, oh, but it's worth noting here, they also complain about the woman carrying the child getting taxpayer sponsored pre-natal care.

I don't know what the real reason is that they want to ban abortion, but it has nothing to do with valuing life, they clearly don't.

Soooooo ... at, say, 22 weeks losing a baby that you wanted is a tragedy but finding someone to terminate it at 22 weeks ain't no big thing.
True?

Summerwind · Nov 27, 2015

bubbabgone said:
Soooooo ... at, say, 22 weeks losing a baby that you wanted is a tragedy but finding someone to terminate it at 22 weeks ain't no big thing.
True?

True because until birthed the value of the zef is solely determined by the woman whose womb it is feeding off of.

Lursa · Nov 27, 2015

Glen Contrarian said:
No, the Right is not pro-life - they're "pro-birth". Once born, you're on your own...unless, of course, you're a child of a WASP family with the the approved political and religious beliefs....

Yes, they are more about 'quantity' rather than quality of life.

More boots on the ground in hopes of following whatever religion or belief system they follow I suppose. And just as dehumanizing as they claim pro-choice supporters are...we arent reducing the unborn to numbers....or punishment ("she deserves to pay the conseqences for opening her legs").

Lursa · Nov 27, 2015

bubbabgone said:
Soooooo ... at, say, 22 weeks losing a baby that you wanted is a tragedy but finding someone to terminate it at 22 weeks ain't no big thing.
True?

It's a huge thing...she wont find a doctor to do it. There are like 4 in the entire US that will, and only for medical reasons (the mother's health or a severely defective fetus).

Do you happen to know how many elective abortions take place after say, 18-19 weeks in the US? Let us know how many before you make a big fuss over something that doesnt happen.

Such late term abortions are more dangerous and painful for a woman than childbirth at that point. Women do not 'casually' decide to have abortions that late.

Lursa · Nov 27, 2015

JayDubya said:
By all means, you socialist pro-aborts are welcome to try and justify the idiocy above.

You can do so as follows: please point out the "hypocrisy" of consistently protecting the right to life of all human beings of all ages or the "'hypocrisy" of not supporting social welfare programs for anyone at any age.

Odd, "human beings" of all ages are protected by law in the US:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother
of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

Where is the hypocrisy?

Oh, I remember, it's when people would demand the govt force women to remain pregant but then would refuse to pay to help support those kids after demanding they be born.

("Would" in both cases meaning 'if they had the choice,' which they dont fortunately).

JayDubya · Nov 27, 2015

Lursa said:
Yes, they are more about 'quantity' rather than quality of life.

You say this a lot. You don't offer any support for it.

Quantity vs quality is a criteria relevant to end of life planning; you applying it to selectively culling perfectly healthy human beings is pretty demented. Not that advocating for killing the sick is any better...

or punishment ("she deserves to pay the conseqences for opening her legs").

You're not quoting anyone real with your straw man bull**** there.

As far as calling kids "punishment," that would be your pro-abort president and your peers.

JayDubya · Nov 27, 2015

Lursa said:
Odd, "human beings" of all ages are protected by law in the US:

Thank you for including the quotation marks there so you should immediately be able to understand why you're wrong.

Lursa · Nov 27, 2015

JayDubya said:
You say this a lot. You don't offer any support for it.

Quantity vs quality is a criteria relevant to end of life planning; you applying it to selectively culling perfectly healthy human beings is pretty demented. Not that advocating for killing the sick is any better...

You're not quoting anyone real with your straw man bull**** there.

As far as calling kids "punishment," that would be your pro-abort president and your peers.

Yeah...food, how's that for an example? Or a safe place to live? God forbid they have the nerve to require this "quality" of life.

You would force these unwanted, unaffordable kids into the world...and then remove any govt support network for them. You have admitted this, many times, so I dont really know why you return to try and justify it. It's hypocrisy at it's lowest.

Summerwind · Nov 27, 2015

JayDubya said:
You say this a lot. You don't offer any support for it.

Quantity vs quality is a criteria relevant to end of life planning; you applying it to selectively culling perfectly healthy human beings is pretty demented. Not that advocating for killing the sick is any better...

You're not quoting anyone real with your straw man bull**** there.

As far as calling kids "punishment," that would be your pro-abort president and your peers.

Based on what report, criteria, or research are you claiming that all or even most abortions are on "perfectly healthy" zefs? I mean if I had aborted mine at 8-10 weeks instead of deciding to keep it and miscarrying at 12 weeks, no one would know that the fetus wasn't viable, which we only know because of the miscarriage.

Thrilla · Nov 27, 2015

Summerwind said:
For example if one of those abortions that the right thinks should be stopped, resulted instead in a mother dying or even the baby having substantial disabilities, and the family now has only one income, ... y'know here let's assume this was supposed to be a birth to an existing family, of whatever size, thought they could afford a (or another) child, but now is down to one income. IF the mother dies, the one income is obvious, but if the mother lives and the child is disabled, either they pay out for the child's extensive care (since in the Right's perfect world there is not government assistance), or one of the parents has to stay home. But the Right couldn't give a crap, "don't have kids you can't afford." And heaven's forbid should both the mother die in childbirth AND the child is substantially disabled. The Right's answer is essentially, "tough crap."

Upon conception there are things that just can't be guaranteed even 9 months down the road, even if best intentions and financial qualifications were present at the start, much less 2, 10, 15 years into the future. And yet the Right couldn't care less, not even on day one of a perfect child's birth. Yeah, if an impoverished woman has a child, ultimately the taxpayers pay for that birth, but only the Right complains about it.

The Right isn't pro-life, they only care about those things that they literally cannot care for because it's inside a woman, oh, but it's worth noting here, they also complain about the woman carrying the child getting taxpayer sponsored pre-natal care.

I don't know what the real reason is that they want to ban abortion, but it has nothing to do with valuing life, they clearly don't.

well, that was dumb.

Lursa · Nov 27, 2015

JayDubya said:
Thank you for including the quotation marks there so you should immediately be able to understand why you're wrong.

It was pretty clear from the definition posted. If you chose to apply a different definition, feel free but abortion can only be stopped thru legal means (and then it actually wouldnt stop) so the most realize that one must use the legal (or the scientific ones they are founded on) definitions in such discussions.

You should try it sometime.

Lursa · Nov 27, 2015

Summerwind said:
Based on what report, criteria, or research are you claiming that all or even most abortions are on "perfectly healthy" zefs? I mean if I had aborted mine at 8-10 weeks instead of deciding to keep it and miscarrying at 12 weeks, no one would know that the fetus wasn't viable, which we only know because of the miscarriage.

It's dishonest anyway, since he also does not believe in abortion if there are health or mental defects in the unborn.

Thrilla · Nov 27, 2015

Lursa said:
Yeah...food, how's that for an example? Or a safe place to live? God forbid they have the nerve to require this "quality" of life.

You would force these unwanted, unaffordable kids into the world...and then remove any govt support network for them. You have admitted this, many times, so I dont really know why you return to try and justify it. It's hypocrisy at it's lowest.

it's only hypocrisy of you believe government support programs are the only way to provide help to people in need....just sayin'

in any event, do you believe the government should provide every single person with a home, food, pay their bills, and provide them healthcare and an unspecified "quality of life"?
( note, i'm talking about every person, not just poor people... every. single. person.)

Lursa · Nov 27, 2015

Thrilla said:
it's only hypocrisy of you believe government support programs are the only way to provide help to people in need....just sayin'

in any event, do you believe the government should provide every single person with a home, food, pay their bills, and provide them healthcare and an unspecified "quality of life"?
( note, i'm talking about every person, not just poor people... every. single. person.)

Lursa said:
Seems sort of obvious that if private donations and charity were enough, we wouldnt need taxpayer-funded programs to help the poor. Yet even with them, they are not enough.

But hey, 'more' hungry kids living in dangerous neighborhoods, too tired and hungry to learn properly and less able to take advantage of opportunities for betterment is better for sure! What could demonstrate more regard for 'human life?' :doh

.....

I dont see anyone demanding or even petitioning the govt to provide 'everyday people with what you wrote. And people are still paying for health care...believe me, I am. Mine's not subsidized for ****.

JayDubya · Nov 27, 2015

Lursa said:
Yeah...food, how's that for an example? Or a safe place to live? God forbid they have the nerve to require this "quality" of life.

You would force these unwanted, unaffordable kids into the world...and then remove any govt support network for them. You have admitted this, many times, so I dont really know why you return to try and justify it. It's hypocrisy at it's lowest.

Oh by "quality of life" you were just talking about more socialist bull**** and being stupid and conflating consistency with hypocrisy appropriate of nothing. It's your "kill the poor for their own good" brand of utilitarian crap.

Thanks for the refresher, now I remember why I accurately state you have never supported your idiotic statement there.

JayDubya · Nov 27, 2015

Summerwind said:
Based on what report, criteria, or research are you claiming that all or even most abortions are on "perfectly healthy" zefs? I mean if I had aborted mine at 8-10 weeks instead of deciding to keep it and miscarrying at 12 weeks, no one would know that the fetus wasn't viable, which we only know because of the miscarriage.

I didn't make that claim.

I don't use your retarded, hateful slur either.

That said, considering that the overwhelming majority of these homicides are done for personal convenience or financial gain - as evidenced by anonymous self-reporting statistics gathered by the pro-abort group named after that ****ing monster Alan Guttmacher - I am stating the fact now...

Not that that point particularly mattered, as I went on to say in the previous post.

Lursa · Nov 27, 2015

JayDubya said:
Oh by "quality of life" you were just talking about more socialist bull**** and being stupid and conflating consistency with hypocrisy appropriate of nothing. It's your "kill the poor for their own good" brand of utilitarian crap.

Thanks for the refresher, now I remember why I accurately state you have never supported your idiotic statement there.

I'm no socialist but I am a rational person and I recognize that all people need what you call 'socialist bull****': food and shelter. And when a woman is forced to give birth and cant afford the kid, and the people who demanded she give birth then refuse help with food and shelter? Yeah, there are 'labels' for that but they arent political and they arent allowed on the forum.

JayDubya · Nov 27, 2015

Lursa said:
I'm no socialist

Of course not; Bernie Sanders is the only one left, apparently. :roll:

Nevertheless you are advocating for seizing property from one citizen for no reason other than to buy goods and services for someone else. "From each according to ability to each according to their need."

You also do what all socialists do when complaining about their rivals, pretend voluntary charity and moral human beings do not exist.

Why doesn't the Right stand up for anyone's rights except the unborn zefs?

Hot Flash Mama

certified batshit crazy

Hot Flash Mama

Struggler

Hot Flash Mama

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Struggler

Struggler

Tenacious

Hot Flash Mama

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Struggler

Struggler

Tenacious

Struggler