• 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!

What evidence is there that pro-life supporters do not care for fetuses after they are born?

Crusader13 said:
Living standards are better today than they've ever been, yet crime, depression, drug abuse etc are at all-time highs. Figures.



So because Republicans are wary of how the country spends its finite resources, and support building prisons to keep child abusers and criminals out of society, that means we don't care about children? No logic found. Please explain.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to check some facts here. Crime is not at an all time high. It is in fact at a historical low.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45236.pdf

As for Republicans being wary of how the country spends its finite resources, I call huge bull on that. If anything, it is Republicans who are always willing to spend our resources and make claims such as "well our world isn't overpopulated because everyone in the world could easily fit inside the state of Texas" (either forgetting or not aware of the fact that overpopulation has absolutely zilch to do with where people can physically fit in the world). If Republicans truly cared about finite resources, they wouldn't put the economy and more accurately greed over conservation of those finite resources, nor would they be so against abortion and birth control, with claims that people need to have more babies.
 
nota bene said:
There is probably no way to know. Many of us who give money as private donations also don't claim tax deductions for them.
Click to expand...

On both sides, especially since you can only claim such givings as tax deductions if those things exceed the standard deduction (unless you want to claim less deductions on your taxes), and this normally requires something besides donations to obtain, in many cases owning land/a house/major property, which many people don't or having major medical bills. I donated thousands to charity just from payroll deductions in most of my years on active duty, and not once was I able to claim such things, since the standard deduction was simply more than that.
 
roguenuke said:
On both sides, especially since you can only claim such givings as tax deductions if those things exceed the standard deduction (unless you want to claim less deductions on your taxes), and this normally requires something besides donations to obtain, in many cases owning land/a house/major property, which many people don't or having major medical bills. I donated thousands to charity just from payroll deductions in most of my years on active duty, and not once was I able to claim such things, since the standard deduction was simply more than that.
Click to expand...

As I say, I wouldn't know because I don't claim deductions for charitable donations. But tithing is deductible and doesn't require one to be a property owner, only to itemize. Does Tithing at Church Count as a Charitable Donation? - Budgeting Money
 
minnie616 said:
Many of us not only give to our church but also give to several Charities.

BTW:

I usually give anonymously.

A gift should be given from the heart.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.
 
nota bene said:
As I say, I wouldn't know because I don't claim deductions for charitable donations. But tithing is deductible and doesn't require one to be a property owner, only to itemize. Does Tithing at Church Count as a Charitable Donation? - Budgeting Money
Click to expand...

And in order to itemize, you would have to donate over $10K just as a single person.

Plus, since tithing can be used for anything, the argument that it is not necessarily going to help children (and easily claimed that the majority of tithing a person does is not going to that), then it wouldn't be fair to even consider the majority of tithing to be benefiting children just because someone is donating money to their church.

Donations in general can be made for anything, not just benefiting children, so it is not at all accurate to consider comparisons in donations as a measure for who is helping children more or even to suggest that because a certain group donates (based on tax deductions taken for those donations) that they are helping children more or at even any sort of level as another group. The only way you could connect the two things is if you show specifically groups donating to children or causes that support/aid children as their primary function.
 
roguenuke said:
Then why do we euthanize pets when they are in pain? Why bother doing that if death is worse than any pain any living thing can feel? Or do you believe that death is only worse for people?
Click to expand...

Then why do we euthanize pets when they are in pain? Why bother doing that if death is worse than any pain any living thing can feel? Or do you believe that death is only worse for people?

If you have to ask a question like this, you shouldn't be in charge of neither a pet nor a human.
 
Crusader13 said:
Then why do we euthanize pets when they are in pain? Why bother doing that if death is worse than any pain any living thing can feel? Or do you believe that death is only worse for people?

If you have to ask a question like this, you shouldn't be in charge of neither a pet nor a human.
Click to expand...
I have no clue what you are trying to say.
 
year2late said:
I have no clue what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

Figures - because you have no knowledge of the difference (particularly in terms of emotional intelligence) between a cat and a human.

Humans are cursed with the ability to analyze the past, present and future to the point where they can find satisfaction in life even without the physical ability to live it. Old people who have lost all but their basic cognitive functions and live in pain everyday can still find joy in life from experience pleasurable things - seeing sexual images, watching their children get married and prosper, smelling their favourite food, hearing their favourite song which resonates emotionally with them etc.

Cats don't have this. Neither do dogs. Animals live in the moment, so when the remaining moments of their life are going to be ****, pain-filled, stagnant bore-fests they don't have the ability to look past that and enjoy life anymore.
 
Crusader13 said:
Figures - because you have no knowledge of the difference (particularly in terms of emotional intelligence) between a cat and a human.

Humans are cursed with the ability to analyze the past, present and future to the point where they can find satisfaction in life even without the physical ability to live it. Old people who have lost all but their basic cognitive functions and live in pain everyday can still find joy in life from experience pleasurable things - seeing sexual images, watching their children get married and prosper, smelling their favourite food, hearing their favourite song which resonates emotionally with them etc.

Cats don't have this. Neither do dogs. Animals live in the moment, so when the remaining moments of their life are going to be ****, pain-filled, stagnant bore-fests they don't have the ability to look past that and enjoy life anymore.
Click to expand...

So, by your reasoning, if a person decides there is no joy in the things you listed (etc) then they should be able to opt for assisted suicide. Also, the person is the best judge of what they are willing to tolerate, so they should be able to have an advanced directed saying to end it all (based on their own predetermined criteria, right?

I mean after all, you do not think you are the judge of what a person can or cannot experience joy in......
 
Crusader13 said:
Figures - because you have no knowledge of the difference (particularly in terms of emotional intelligence) between a cat and a human.

Humans are cursed with the ability to analyze the past, present and future to the point where they can find satisfaction in life even without the physical ability to live it. Old people who have lost all but their basic cognitive functions and live in pain everyday can still find joy in life from experience pleasurable things - seeing sexual images, watching their children get married and prosper, smelling their favourite food, hearing their favourite song which resonates emotionally with them etc.

Cats don't have this. Neither do dogs. Animals live in the moment, so when the remaining moments of their life are going to be ****, pain-filled, stagnant bore-fests they don't have the ability to look past that and enjoy life anymore.
Click to expand...

You have never seen a dog that is in pain wag it's tail upon hearing a friendly word?

Myself, I am a human being and if I am in intractable pain, I would want someone to end my suffering. Thankfully, I will be able to do that legally when the time comes.
 
Pozessed said:
We see the accusation often. The accusation that pro-life supporters only care about the unborn and stop caring or at least care less once the child is born. What is your evidence for or against such claims?

I'd like to posit the adoption and foster care rates as evidence that they do not care about the children once they are born.
I'd also like to posit the high risk of abuse that orphans and foster care children experience as evidence they do not care about children after they are born.

The fact that we have foster care and group homes for orphans could be evidence that some do care about what happens to born children. But those types of charity would come to be regardless of the abortion issue imo.
Click to expand...

Well their personal charity is admirable but...

1. Let's see them vote for benefits for single parent families, poor families and those forced to give birth under anti-abortion laws. No 'bootstrap' excuses; society demands they give birth so society helps in the result.
2. Lets see them stand firm for the voting rights of minorities to whom many of the births will take place
3. lets the them demand a commensurate investment in education all the way to college and beyond if necessary
4. lets see greater support for healthcare

talk the talk? walk the walk.
 
Crusader13 said:
Nothing that a child will ever go through would be worse than killing it. Nothing. Especially in some of the barbaric and brutal ways abortions are carried out. You're literally saying that dismembering children inside the womb or plucking them out and leaving them to rot in a bucket of acid is somehow better for that child than having it grow up with ripped shoes.

That doesn't even approach the bounds of logic, and it's morally deplorable. Poverty is usually temporary, and even so the children in it still have a desire to live. So no, you're not doing that child a favour by killing it. Nice try though.

Poverty is subjective anyway. The lower class in America lives way better than the upper class in most countries. Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg could quite easily look at us working class people and say that we're living in poverty and therefore our lives don't matter. Ultimately what you're doing is determining the value of one's life by their social class.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what many fiscal conservatives believe anyway. They worship the ultra-rich as much as they worship fetuses.
 
Phys251 said:
That's exactly what many fiscal conservatives believe anyway. They worship the ultra-rich as much as they worship fetuses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as much as I believed in trickle down way back when...trickle down did little to help out those in need. We are losing our middle class and making millionaires into billionaires.

Those that abort are usually poor or working poor - housing insecure. A day or two wage away from losing a place to live. They are also more likely than not to be struggling to care for a child at home .

On some level I do not think most of the ultra rich give a rat's ass about the fetus. They use pro-life folks as a voting block rather than anything else. They will say what they need to say to stay rich. YMMV. I mean seriously....does anyone believe Trump is really pro-life (other than on paper) . How many mistresses had he paid off to abort. It looks like he even urged Marla Maples to abort (Tiffany).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom