|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on May 19, 2019 8:29:11 GMT
I started a thread about the abhorrent abortion laws being passed in places like Alabama and there was no shortage of believers here saying that the no matter what the child was innocent and had a right to be defended.
When I asked if that meant that they would support socialised medicine and large welfare payments for them all of a sudden they went quiet.
So which is it? Should we have laws ensuring the protection of defenseless children? Or only when it doesn't inconvenience you in any way?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 19, 2019 8:42:44 GMT
Why should society pay for it?
I pay for my own food. Do you think your food should be free?
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on May 19, 2019 9:08:11 GMT
Why should society pay for it? I pay for my own food. Do you think your food should be free? If society is demanding that you have to take the product of rape - possibly incestuous rape - to term, are you genuinely saying that society has no responsibility other than imposing its will? It's like saying "yes - you've been raped and that's bad. Now to add insult to injury you are expected to pay for it all yourself too." They may as well have said "fuck you - we don't give a shit about you or your baby once it's born - but we're sure as hell going to stick our oar in until it's born".
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 19, 2019 9:23:04 GMT
Quite possibly the stupidest argument I’ve heard against the pro-life position yet.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 19, 2019 9:34:08 GMT
Why should society pay for it? I pay for my own food. Do you think your food should be free? If society is demanding that you have to take the product of rape - possibly incestuous rape - to term, are you genuinely saying that society has no responsibility other than imposing its will? It's like saying "yes - you've been raped and that's bad. Now to add insult to injury you are expected to pay for it all yourself too." They may as well have said "fuck you - we don't give a shit about you or your baby once it's born - but we're sure as hell going to stick our oar in until it's born". Oh, so it's rape. And not just regular rape, but incestuous rape at that.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on May 19, 2019 9:34:10 GMT
Quite possibly the stupidest argument I’ve heard against the pro-life position yet. It's not arguing against it. It's asking if the pro-life group would/should support more widespread socialist policies if their position is based on the welfare of children. Of course if their position is solely a religious one and their welfare arguments are just a smokescreen then they don't apply.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on May 19, 2019 9:35:28 GMT
If society is demanding that you have to take the yproduct of rape - possibly incestuous rape - to term, are you genuinely saying that society has no responsibility other than imposing its will? It's like saying "yes - you've been raped and that's bad. Now to add insult to injury you are expected to pay for it all yourself too." They may as well have said "fuck you - we don't give a shit about you or your baby once it's born - but we're sure as hell going to stick our oar in until it's born". Oh, so it's rape. And not just regular rape, but incestuous rape at that. Are you okay with abortions in the case of rape? Cos Alabama isn't....
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 19, 2019 9:39:18 GMT
Oh, so it's rape. And not just regular rape, but incestuous rape at that. Are you okay with abortions in the case of rape? Cos Alabama isn't.... No, I'm not very okay with that. Are you okay with teenage sluts who spread their legs and then have the baby killed at taxpayers' expense because they're just not ready for the motherhood thing yet?
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on May 19, 2019 10:31:55 GMT
I started a thread about the abhorrent abortion laws being passed in places like Alabama and there was no shortage of believers here saying that the no matter what the child was innocent and had a right to be defended. When I asked if that meant that they would support socialised medicine and large welfare payments for them all of a sudden they went quiet. So which is it? Should we have laws ensuring the protection of defenseless children? Or only when it doesn't inconvenience you in any way? I am against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, the mother's health issues, etc. For whatever (stupid) reason Americans see any kind of socialism as devil's work, so to even suggest that means you are one of his minions. My take on what is happening is middle America/Fundamantalist Chritsians, is/are pushing back against a lot of the lefts stances on issues. I wouldn't be surprised (I'd be horrified) if Trump wasn't elected again.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 19, 2019 10:47:13 GMT
It's asking if the pro-life group would/should support more widespread socialist policies if their position is based on the welfare of children. I'm pro-choice, and I don't think this argument holds up. It's not a general "welfare of children" platform that they rest on. The pro-life position argues that laws against taking life should protect those inside the womb as well as those outside. That doesn't mean that supporting "more widespread socialist policies" must logically follow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 10:51:08 GMT
Are you okay with abortions in the case of rape? Cos Alabama isn't.... Are you okay with teenage sluts who spread their legs That is an appalling way to describe young people who make the mistake of having unprotected sex, and probably have no knowledge of the morning after pill, etc. It's a failure of good sex education in homes and schools. Stop 'slut' shaming.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 19, 2019 10:55:54 GMT
Quite possibly the stupidest argument I’ve heard against the pro-life position yet. It's not arguing against it. It's asking if the pro-life group would/should support more widespread socialist policies if their position is based on the welfare of children. Of course if their position is solely a religious one and their welfare arguments are just a smokescreen then they don't apply. You pro-abortion creeps will try every trick in the book in order to justify child murder.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 19, 2019 12:09:13 GMT
Lol at OP pretending he doesn't ignore statements that don't jibe with his worldview.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 13:23:37 GMT
I started a thread about the abhorrent abortion laws being passed in places like Alabama and there was no shortage of believers here saying that the no matter what the child was innocent and had a right to be defended. When I asked if that meant that they would support socialised medicine and large welfare payments for them all of a sudden they went quiet. So which is it? Should we have laws ensuring the protection of defenseless children? Or only when it doesn't inconvenience you in any way? Anti abortion people mostly don’t give the slightest bit of a crap about the lives of children. They want women under government control and punished for sex, nothing more. Once that’s no longer in play the kids can die in the streets as far as they’re concerned.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on May 19, 2019 13:51:58 GMT
Why should society pay for it? I pay for my own food. Do you think your food should be free? If society is demanding that you have to take the product of rape - possibly incestuous rape - to term, are you genuinely saying that society has no responsibility other than imposing its will? It's like saying "yes - you've been raped and that's bad. Now to add insult to injury you are expected to pay for it all yourself too." They may as well have said "fuck you - we don't give a shit about you or your baby once it's born - but we're sure as hell going to stick our oar in until it's born". Theoretically...THEORETICALLY, a victim of rape who is forced to carry her pregnancy to term could arrange for adoption. I could well imagine there are thousands, if not millions of couples who would gladly accept such a baby.
link
So, and this has nothing to do with my opinion is on whether a 13-yr old who became pregnant from rape/incest should be forced by law to carry such a pregnancy to term, it would seem to me that the latter half of your concern should be addressed. There are couples who, as I understand it, would gladly pay for all medical costs and gladly take the newborn off the rape victim's hands immediately upon delivery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 14:00:13 GMT
No victim of rape should ever under any circumstances have to carry a rapist's child.
That's just sick.
And men should stop making decisions for women... Keep your cock in your trousers, use protection, or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 19, 2019 14:09:54 GMT
If society is demanding that you have to take the product of rape - possibly incestuous rape - to term, are you genuinely saying that society has no responsibility other than imposing its will? It's like saying "yes - you've been raped and that's bad. Now to add insult to injury you are expected to pay for it all yourself too." They may as well have said "fuck you - we don't give a shit about you or your baby once it's born - but we're sure as hell going to stick our oar in until it's born". Theoretically...THEORETICALLY, a victim of rape who is forced to carry her pregnancy to term could arrange for adoption. I could well imagine there are thousands, if not millions of couples who would gladly accept such a baby.
link
So, and this has nothing to do with my opinion is on whether a 13-yr old who became pregnant from rape/incest should be forced by law to carry such a pregnancy to term, it would seem to me that the latter half of your concern should be addressed. There are couples who, as I understand it, would gladly pay for all medical costs and gladly take the newborn off the rape victim's hands immediately upon delivery. Can’t believe somebody even has to point such an obvious fact out to the brainwashed liberal imbecile OP.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on May 19, 2019 14:20:31 GMT
Theoretically...THEORETICALLY, a victim of rape who is forced to carry her pregnancy to term could arrange for adoption. I could well imagine there are thousands, if not millions of couples who would gladly accept such a baby.
link
So, and this has nothing to do with my opinion is on whether a 13-yr old who became pregnant from rape/incest should be forced by law to carry such a pregnancy to term, it would seem to me that the latter half of your concern should be addressed. There are couples who, as I understand it, would gladly pay for all medical costs and gladly take the newborn off the rape victim's hands immediately upon delivery. Can’t believe somebody even has to point such an obvious fact out to the brainwashed liberal imbecile OP. Yeah, it takes someone OTHER THAN flaming pro-lifers to bring sanity to the conversation. Of course the adoption-is-an-option mantra doesn't address why the theoretical 13-yr old victim or rape/incest should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Do you think she should be forced to do that?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 19, 2019 14:36:48 GMT
Can’t believe somebody even has to point such an obvious fact out to the brainwashed liberal imbecile OP. Yeah, it takes someone OTHER THAN flaming pro-lifers to bring sanity to the conversation. Of course the adoption-is-an-option mantra doesn't address why the theoretical 13-yr old victim or rape/incest should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Do you think she should be forced to do that? Yes I do, for a few reasons. A) The child is still a living human being regardless of the circumstances of its conception. Therefore should have same fundamental right to life as anybody else. B) Terminating the baby is even more violent than the rape itself. C) The rape is never the fault of the child. It is the rapist that should be punished not the child. D) Aborting the child ultimately won’t bring healing to the rape victim anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 14:43:57 GMT
Yeah, it takes someone OTHER THAN flaming pro-lifers to bring sanity to the conversation. Of course the adoption-is-an-option mantra doesn't address why the theoretical 13-yr old victim or rape/incest should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Do you think she should be forced to do that? Yes I do, for a few reasons. A) The child is still a living human being regardless of the circumstances of its conception. Therefore should have same fundamental right to life as anybody else. B) Terminating the baby is even more violent than the rape itself. C) The rape is never the fault of the child. It is the rapist that should be punished not the child. D) Aborting the child ultimately won’t bring healing to the rape victim anyway. You're so full of shit.
|
|