• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Satanic Temple: Texas fetal burial rules violate our religious freedom

Militant_Vegan_ said:
you want someone else to adopt em. we get it. no orphans for you and your prolapse.
Click to expand...

Excuse you? I get that you like Jezebel, and honestly, that informs me SO MUCH about the worthiness of your position.
 
Last edited:
Orly? said:
I know you would just LOVE that and start a program to give all your voter bases free freezers..
Click to expand...

Naw......not all, just the women,:lamo
 
JayDubya said:
:shrug:

Irrelevant question.
Click to expand...
No.

It is the KEY question.

Because if we prevent abortions, we will have more children being born, and someone has to take care of them.
 
Orly? said:
They are their parents responsibility.. Take care of them or go to jail for neglect..
Click to expand...
If the parents cannot or will not take care of them, and go to jail for neglect, who takes care of the children?
 
The Mark said:
If the parents cannot or will not take care of them, and go to jail for neglect, who takes care of the children?
Click to expand...

death benefits for every miscarriage, because they will automatically be insured up detection of the existence of the zygote.
 
The Mark said:
No.

It is the KEY question.

Because if we prevent abortions, we will have more children being born, and someone has to take care of them.
Click to expand...

Parents are obliged to take care of the kids they create. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, they must make arrangements for someone else to assume that care.

One should not engage in sexual reproduction - heterosexual vaginal intercourse - if they're not willing to take care of the offspring that they know full well can result.


You're arguing that the irresponsibility of parents justifies killing innocent human beings. It doesn't.
 
JayDubya said:
Parents are obliged to take care of the kids they create. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, they must make arrangements for someone else to assume that care.

One should not engage in sexual reproduction - heterosexual vaginal intercourse - if they're not willing to take care of the offspring that they know full well can result.
Click to expand...

and then there's reality.
 
JayDubya said:
Parents are obliged to take care of the kids they create. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, they must make arrangements for someone else to assume that care.

One should not engage in sexual reproduction - heterosexual vaginal intercourse - if they're not willing to take care of the offspring that they know full well can result.


You're arguing that the irresponsibility of parents justifies killing innocent human beings. It doesn't.
Click to expand...
No, I'm arguing that the inevitable - unintended pregnancies - has only three possible results.
  1. Woman carries child to term
  2. Miscarriage
  3. Pregnancy is aborted

Of that list, the second is out of our control (beyond controlling a woman's behavior during pregnancy, and even that is not a sure thing, besides being invasive as hell and probably violating multiple constitutional rights...and still not a sure thing), and the third is unacceptable to you.

That leaves option 1. Ignoring for the sake of this argument the potential rights violation inherent in forcing someone to do something they do not want to do, we'll continue with to your argument about it being the parent's responsibility.

You're arguing from the point of view that they shouldn't happen, but history and all evidence indicates that they WILL happen.
So we must address the issue from that perspective.

You're also arguing that the parents should take care of the child, but history and all evidence indicates that that WILL NOT always happen. And sometimes cannot (like, if the parent is dead, for example dies in childbirth, or from complications thereof).



So, in a situation where the pregnancy has already begun, and the parent(s) cannot or will not take care of the child.
Who does?
Obviously, foster parents.

My concern is that there will not be enough foster parents, so we'll end up with large orphanages, which will inevitably cause some problems for the children in them unless closely monitored.
Not to mention costing the state a decent sum.

Frankly, it's much cheaper to provide funding for abortions, and counseling about the surrounding problems to anyone who expresses interest, to help them make an informed decision.
Downside being, of course, that a potential child does not get born.
But is it better to force the mother to carry the child to term, then place it in an orphanage?


Unless you seriously think that encouraging careful use of contraceptives and/or avoidance of sex will prevent the issue.

Hasn't yet.
 
the short sighted GOP types always talk like they support innocent unborn, but they won't afford them full rights and care. not smart.
 
Orly? said:
It is a human as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg..
Click to expand...

just not in any sense that elevates us above are live stock
 
Orly? said:
I want the government to pay for much much less for ever other US citizen too..

Stop the free **** period..
Click to expand...

yes you want to help simple organisms and turn your back on intelligent beings
 
JayDubya said:
Parents are obliged to take care of the kids they create. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, they must make arrangements for someone else to assume that care.

One should not engage in sexual reproduction - heterosexual vaginal intercourse - if they're not willing to take care of the offspring that they know full well can result.


You're arguing that the irresponsibility of parents justifies killing innocent human beings. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

once they develop to a certain point
 
JayDubya said:
:shrug:

Some people are dumb and reckless, they can deal with the consequences.
Click to expand...

but other people have to deal with pro life nonsense and consequences to
 
Orly? said:
Not until a year or so after birth anyway..
Click to expand...

yes and that means we need to give more rights to some animals or take them away from under one year olds

take your pick
 
blarg said:
yes you want to help simple organisms and turn your back on intelligent beings
Click to expand...

The problem is that the inteligent beings are getting abortions while the simple organisms are having babies to get more welfare..



Watch it.. Or your going to be out of the loop on a ton of references..
 
Last edited:
Orly? said:
The problem is that the inteligent beings are getting abortions while the simple organisms are having babies to get more welfare..

Click to expand...


come back when you have a reaosn to extend rights reserved for people to human life at the point of conception
 
Orly? said:
They say you should change your birth date hu?

I think that is a silly point you are trying to use to distract from the fact that humans are being killed..

The satanists probably want the for a ritual or something disgusting..
Click to expand...

well no probably not you dont seem to want to pay attention to what the satanic temple actuly is
 
blarg said:
come back when you have a reaosn to extend rights reserved for people to human life at the point of conception
Click to expand...

That is not the debate..

How about, why not? They should have rights..

But then you want to go off on some tangent about giving them free stuff they can't even use, being pregnant women already get welfare benefits.. Nonsense..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom