• 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!

House GOP drops controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary

I'm not deaf to the tone of telling the people in this thread about financing contract killing. That's a pretty sharp series of notes, with a violent rhythm.

I am also sadly not deaf to the droning sound of the same-old, tired, sympathy-baiting spam I've had put in front of me in almost every damn thread for years, but like living near an airport, you can learn to tune it out.
 
Phys251 said:
Slow clap for the arrogance and tone-deafness that you two are showing. If you two boys would set your pride aside and actually listen to her for a change, she might not have to keep repeating herself! But I guess you two know how to govern her body more than she does. And there's nothing at all creepy about that. /snark
Click to expand...

minnie and myself don't agree that is for sure, however, I am not sure that she couldn't speak up herself if she felt slighted by what I said. And let's think about that for a moment...All I was saying to her is her own story as far as the debate goes has no place, it is an appeal to not only authority, but emotion. Both logical fallacies. Like I said to you, if you have a problem with it, why should I care? I wasn't addressing you personally, and here's a news flash for you, you and I probably wouldn't agree about abortion either...Shocking, I know...So, save your sarcasm, and your quick quips, they fall on deaf ears.
 
j-mac said:
minnie and myself don't agree that is for sure, however, I am not sure that she couldn't speak up herself if she felt slighted by what I said. And let's think about that for a moment...All I was saying to her is her own story as far as the debate goes has no place, it is an appeal to not only authority, but emotion. Both logical fallacies. Like I said to you, if you have a problem with it, why should I care? I wasn't addressing you personally, and here's a news flash for you, you and I probably wouldn't agree about abortion either...Shocking, I know...So, save your sarcasm, and your quick quips, they fall on deaf ears.
Click to expand...

You don't want to listen to her, so why should I listen to you? I'm serious about that. True listening doesn't mean just allowing those with whom you agree to speak.
 
j-mac said:
minnie and myself don't agree that is for sure, however, I am not sure that she couldn't speak up herself if she felt slighted by what I said. And let's think about that for a moment...All I was saying to her is her own story as far as the debate goes has no place, it is an appeal to not only authority, but emotion. Both logical fallacies. Like I said to you, if you have a problem with it, why should I care? I wasn't addressing you personally, and here's a news flash for you, you and I probably wouldn't agree about abortion either...Shocking, I know...So, save your sarcasm, and your quick quips, they fall on deaf ears.
Click to expand...

Was there a reason you avoided addressing the other 3/4 of her post?
 
Lursa said:
:shrug: It's silly to think they need more of any of the things I named, plus alot of other infrastructure just for abortion. That's a desperate reach.

Not worth seriously considering but it is a common talking point from those objecting to abortion....another one of those things that 'sounds good' but doesnt really make a difference.
Click to expand...

:shrug: well, gosh, if they would ever open their books then we would know where they spent the money, now, wouldn't we? :)
 
Phys251 said:
Now, now. No need for the childishness. We had something good going; let's try and get back to that.
Click to expand...

You started by accusing the pro-life of basically being a bunch of big ole fat meany liars. It was and remains an idiotic argument, which is why I showed you what the mirror image of it was, in order to demonstrate that to you. Both pro-life and pro-choice folks usually come to this debate with good motivations. Choose to mass-smear the other side :shrug: well, intelligent folks will stop taking you seriously.

Alright, raising the child tax credit. That is a good start. Let's perhaps cap that increase at a certain number, say, 4 or 5, to avoid rewarding families such as the Duggars.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
Lursa said:
I note that you ignored my response to your glib and innaccurate characterization of poverty.
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever glibly or inaccurately describing poverty. Much less do I understand why that is your response to me pointing out that the claim that the pro-life movement doesn't really want to reduce abortions is ridiculous.

So humane of you to think the govt should demand it of women that get pregnant and then just leave their to grow up like this, with a greater likelihood of becoming less educated, more criminal, and more of a burden on society financially in general.
Click to expand...

This is what is known as a strawman argument combined with an appeal to emotion. However, yes, I do think that it is a humane position to take that we should not kill children because it would either make our lives less difficult or because they would otherwise grow up in rough circumstances.
 
cpwill said:
I don't recall ever glibly or inaccurately describing poverty. Much less do I understand why that is your response to me pointing out that the claim that the pro-life movement doesn't really want to reduce abortions is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Odd, I copied it for you twice and bolded it.

cpwill said:
This isn't "dictating personal behavior" for the pro-life portion of this nation. This is about stopping mass-murder. I would vote the country into absolute socialism if it meant getting rid of abortion. Ppeople who are poor and occasionally hungry are at least alive.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
This is what is known as a strawman argument combined with an appeal to emotion. However, yes, I do think that it is a humane position to take that we should not kill children because it would either make our lives less difficult or because they would otherwise grow up in rough circumstances.
Click to expand...

No it's not, because it was in the context of the previous quote (and bold). And I guess it's a matter of opinion whether it's more humane to not even bring those unborn into the world than to have them make the lives of many others difficult, miserable, etc including suffering themselves. Some will find it all worth it. Some will not.

What is known is that society overall benefits from women being the ones to choose and not bringing kids into the world if they arent ready or wont make a good parent. What isnt documented is how abortion negatively affects society.

And in the long run, that's what I find the more compelling argument.
 
cpwill said:
:doh Dumb. Nothing is there that couldn't have been worked out, and limiting abortion past pain-capable is a popular position in the US. Force the President to veto it or Senate Democrats to filibuster it, and make them go on record as well to the left of the American populace.
Click to expand...

Popularity doesn't change the fact that it is a scientific impossibility for a fetus to be pain-capable prior to 28 weeks of gestation. At least the left is intellectually honest about this issue and doesn't try to use photoshopped images and pseudo-science as a smokescreen for a purely religious agenda.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Odd, I copied it for you twice and bolded it.
Click to expand...

Ah. There is the problem - the point wooshed completely by you. I was stating that socialism causes poverty and hunger, but that both were preferable to death, which is why socialism is preferable to me as a conservative to mass-abortion.

As someone who has had both options (hunger and death) presented to him, allow me to assure you that no, in fact, I can't think of a single time when I went to bed hungry that I thought "man, it would be so much better if I were to be killed on deployment, rather than have to face temporary fiscal problems". Mostly I thought things like "I am really glad that one day I will not have to do this." and "I wonder if we still have that potato in the back of the pantry". We weren't completely impoverished, mind you. Had a couple of $2-3,000 cars, an apartment that kept out all the bad weather, hand-me-down furniture, and the like. Except for a few months, we've never been unemployed, etc.

And kids can get expensive :). But you know what? Trading their lives for reduced hardship is wrong.

No it's not, because it was in the context of the previous quote (and bold). And I guess it's a matter of opinion whether it's more humane to not even bring those unborn into the world than to have them make the lives of many others difficult, miserable, etc including suffering themselves. Some will find it all worth it. Some will not.
Click to expand...

That..... blows my mind. Have you ever faced hardship?

What is known is that society overall benefits from women being the ones to choose and not bringing kids into the world if they arent ready or wont make a good parent. What isnt documented is how abortion negatively affects society.

And in the long run, that's what I find the more compelling argument.
Click to expand...

This must be a left/right thing. I tend to start from the assumption that the rights of the individual generally trump what is most convenient for society.
 
Napoleon said:
Popularity doesn't change the fact that it is a scientific impossibility for a fetus to be pain-capable prior to 28 weeks of gestation. At least the left is intellectually honest about this issue and doesn't try to use photoshopped images and pseudo-science as a smokescreen for a purely religious agenda.
Click to expand...

:lamo


Yeah. :) Because when I think about the absolute hysteria that comes along with even any attempt to align our abortion policy with that of Europe's, what I think about is all the intellectual honesty going on :lol:
 
cpwill said:
Ah. There is the problem - the point wooshed completely by you. I was stating that socialism causes poverty and hunger, but that both were preferable to death, which is why socialism is preferable to me as a conservative to mass-abortion.

As someone who has had both options (hunger and death) presented to him, allow me to assure you that no, in fact, I can't think of a single time when I went to bed hungry that I thought "man, it would be so much better if I were to be killed on deployment, rather than have to face temporary fiscal problems". Mostly I thought things like "I am really glad that one day I will not have to do this." and "I wonder if we still have that potato in the back of the pantry". We weren't completely impoverished, mind you. Had a couple of $2-3,000 cars, an apartment that kept out all the bad weather, hand-me-down furniture, and the like. Except for a few months, we've never been unemployed, etc.

And kids can get expensive :). But you know what? Trading their lives for reduced hardship is wrong.



That..... blows my mind. Have you ever faced hardship?



This must be a left/right thing. I tend to start from the assumption that the rights of the individual generally trump what is most convenient for society.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent post Will, and highlights the true reason for what I would say, 98% of all the abortions in this country, and that is that they are a convenience issue...That to me is morally reprehensible.
 
cpwill said:
You started by accusing the pro-life of basically being a bunch of big ole fat meany liars. It was and remains an idiotic argument, which is why I showed you what the mirror image of it was, in order to demonstrate that to you. Both pro-life and pro-choice folks usually come to this debate with good motivations. Choose to mass-smear the other side :shrug: well, intelligent folks will stop taking you seriously.
Click to expand...

Stop being so hypersensitive. The "pro-life" movement is full of hypocrisy; am I supposed to sugarcoat that somehow to make y'all feel better? No. Not gonna happen, especially when one considers what y'all are pushing for. Stop expecting us to just be nice, because y'all sure as hell aren't.

Why?
Click to expand...

Why not? What business does a couple have bringing 7, 8, 9 or more kids into this world? Unless they're super-rich--and one must note that super-rich couples practically never have this many kids any more--this is going to create problems that spill over into society at large. Now I'm not advocating a mandatory cap on the number of children--far from it--but let's stop kidding ourselves that having a ton of kids is a good thing.
 
Phys251 said:
Stop being so hypersensitive. The "pro-life" movement is full of hypocrisy; am I supposed to sugarcoat that somehow to make y'all feel better? No. Not gonna happen, especially when one considers what y'all are pushing for. Stop expecting us to just be nice, because y'all sure as hell aren't.



Why not? What business does a couple have bringing 7, 8, 9 or more kids into this world? Unless they're super-rich--and one must note that super-rich couples practically never have this many kids any more--this is going to create problems that spill over into society at large. Now I'm not advocating a mandatory cap on the number of children--far from it--but let's stop kidding ourselves that having a ton of kids is a good thing.
Click to expand...

What do you think happens to a country when the birth rate falls lower than the death rate, or is outpaced by immigration?
 
j-mac said:
What do you think happens to a country when the birth rate falls lower than the death rate, or is outpaced by immigration?
Click to expand...

Easy: Modest-sized families. But that has become the norm nowadays, as most women don't view themselves as baby factories. And I find your question about immigration to be insinuating.
 
Phys251 said:
Easy: Modest-sized families. But that has become the norm nowadays, as most women don't view themselves as baby factories. And I find your question about immigration to be insinuating.
Click to expand...

The answer is easy, and you're trying too hard...When birth rates are outpaced by death rates, and immigration, the country either dies out, or is taken over...That simple...
 
Phys251 said:
Easy: Modest-sized families. But that has become the norm nowadays, as most women don't view themselves as baby factories. And I find your question about immigration to be insinuating.
Click to expand...

There were reasons back-in-the-day for large families being the norm. And I find your insinuation that those women who want to have many children regard themselves as "baby factories" pretty insulting.
 
cpwill said:
Ah. There is the problem - the point wooshed completely by you. I was stating that socialism causes poverty and hunger, but that both were preferable to death, which is why socialism is preferable to me as a conservative to mass-abortion.
.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
This isn't "dictating personal behavior" for the pro-life portion of this nation. This is about stopping mass-murder. I would vote the country into absolute socialism if it meant getting rid of abortion. Ppeople who are poor and occasionally hungry are at least alive.
Click to expand...

Wow, this country was founded on so much more. The thought of involuntary socialism disgusts me, and to want and expect EVERYONE to live like that and just in order to take choice away from women, to subject EVERYONE to a much lower standard of living? *shudder*


I think you make a fantastic point. Instead of just desiring to reduce women or families that cant afford more kids and must live in poverty and unsafe neighborhoods (hey even welfare doesnt get you out of there) you would prefer to condemn EVERYONE to live that way! Everyone would actually have to accept the same consequences that you desire to force on women. Good point indeed. Actually it is more fair. Not completely of course.

All because you believe the unborn are as important as the born. Well, that's your opinion and it's fairly common. I dont. And I dont believe condemning all people to a society of lackluster mediocrity for the unborn....it's called quality of life over quantity.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
This must be a left/right thing. I tend to start from the assumption that the rights of the individual generally trump what is most convenient for society.
Click to expand...

Yes. Individuals are born. And I support the rights of the born.

It is not possible to give both the unborn and the born equal rights.
 
j-mac said:
What do you think happens to a country when the birth rate falls lower than the death rate, or is outpaced by immigration?
Click to expand...

So lots more kids born with higher risks of poverty, not finishing their educations, ending up criminals, being additional burdens on society....that's much better for the economy?

Quality of life is more important than quantity, but that's just my opinion.

The reality is that in 40+ years, the abortion rate has steadily gone down and more women choose to give birth than have abortions.

So please give up the 'sky is falling' abortion drama. No one has shown any harm to society by abortion. However we know that children of single mother homes or families in poverty (where they cant afford more kids) have higher risks of juvenile delinquency, dropping out of school, lower rates of getting higher ed and careers instead of jobs, becoming criminals, staying in the welfare cycle, etc. So the idea of using the law to demand more be born into such situations is ludicrous IMO.
 
j-mac said:
The answer is easy, and you're trying too hard...When birth rates are outpaced by death rates, and immigration, the country either dies out, or is taken over...That simple...
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good reason why we should have respected the Natives instead of decimating them.

nota bene said:
There were reasons back-in-the-day for large families being the norm. And I find your insinuation that those women who want to have many children regard themselves as "baby factories" pretty insulting.
Click to expand...

Facts are insulting? Well then. You learn something every day around here.
 
Lursa said:
So lots more kids born with higher risks of poverty, not finishing their educations, ending up criminals, being additional burdens on society....that's much better for the economy?

Quality of life is more important than quantity, but that's just my opinion.

The reality is that in 40+ years, the abortion rate has steadily gone down and more women choose to give birth than have abortions.

So please give up the 'sky is falling' abortion drama. No one has shown any harm to society by abortion. However we know that children of single mother homes or families in poverty (where they cant afford more kids) have higher risks of juvenile delinquency, dropping out of school, lower rates of getting higher ed and careers instead of jobs, becoming criminals, staying in the welfare cycle, etc. So the idea of using the law to demand more be born into such situations is ludicrous IMO.
Click to expand...

So, just say it out loud...you consider abortion a matter of convenience....

Phys251 said:
That sounds like a good reason why we should have respected the Natives instead of decimating them.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now its a matter of past transgressions eh? How in the world do you put the two even in the same thread, unless you have seething contempt for this nation.
 
j-mac said:
So, just say it out loud...you consider abortion a matter of convenience....
Click to expand...


If a woman doesnt want to lose out on her education or miss work and lose her job during pregnancy, or have to move to an unsafe neighborhood with her other children to afford rent or not to go college or not be able to pay her bills....that is not up to you or anyone else, you are not the one dealing with the consequences. Do you teach your own kids that those things in life are just 'conveniences?' Or are they important responsibilities in life that determine the direction and quality of their lives? A woman does not have to give those things up or delay them and struggle and maybe never reach her own potential just because other people consider the unborn more important than her.
 
Lursa said:
If a woman doesnt want to lose out on her education or miss work and lose her job during pregnancy, or have to move to an unsafe neighborhood with her other children to afford rent or not to go college or not be able to pay her bills....that is not up to you or anyone else, you are not the one dealing with the consequences. Do you teach your own kids that those things in life are just 'conveniences?' Or are they important responsibilities in life that determine the direction and quality of their lives? A woman does not have to give those things up or delay them and struggle and maybe never reach her own potential just because other people consider the unborn more important than her.
Click to expand...

Then she should have kept her legs closed....But I see you think it is ok to murder a child as long as you have a career to further, or an education to finish....Your thought process here to me on that is disgusting....
 
j-mac said:
Then she should have kept her legs closed....But I see you think it is ok to murder a child as long as you have a career to further, or an education to finish....Your thought process here to me on that is disgusting....
Click to expand...

So the kid is just punishment for having sex then? OK, I may not place as much value on the unborn but I certainly value kids. So you might look in the mirror regarding that 'disgusting' comment.

And you couldnt even answer my question honestly..."Do you teach your own kids that those things in life are just 'conveniences?' Or are they important responsibilities in life that determine the direction and quality of their lives? "

It's probably too much to ask why you think you have the right to judge a woman and decide the unborn is more entitled to all those things than her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom