Interesting by fact on abortions
- Thread starter Saltwater60
- Start date
My issue with the above its not a proper comparison. I don't want the government making health care decisions, but I do want the government to protect unborn children.
There's nothing "women's healthcare" about killing an unborn child.
Where is that child's rights? Who advocated for the children?
What children?
I totally understand your point, but not everyone agrees that pregnancy equals child.
Naturally, about 30% of pregnancy fail in Miscarriage.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yeah, the GOVERNMENT decided that a fetus is not a child.
Robin
Robin
How abot a girl I knew in high school.
She had 4-5 abortions.
After school when she tried to get pregnant she had several miscarriages.
The doctors told her that all the abortions damaged her woman parts so she may never carry a baby to term.
She had a couple surgeries to repair said woman parts.
Another miscarriage.
All of this you are paying for, all paid for by welfare.
Her desire to procreate was seen as a RIGHT, so medicade paid for 2 elective surgeries.
Between miscarriages and surgeries probably a quarter of a million.
I know about miscarriages. I've personally dealt with them.
Willfully terminating/killing a growing unborn child is all together different
And?
I'm firmly against paying for it, as I am against all types of welfare, but the only time people conflate the 2 is because they have no good reason for what gives them the right to decide what is right and wrong for other's bodies.
I did too!
Burzum
.223 Rem
The Founders were not concerned with this issue likely due to the high degree of infant mortality and death from childbirth and its complications in Colonial America, HOWEVER the US Constitution is like an open book exam, all the answers are there, or were before activist judges became bench-legislators.
Under the 10th Amendment, this issue should have been decided by the states and its citizens, whether you are a Libertarian Conservative like Tomi Lahren who does not like BIG government controlling a woman's body, or you feel that it is atrocious treatment of a human life, every taxpaying citizen should have the right to vote on it at the state level, then if one feels passionately either way you can always find a state that reflects your views/values.
This issue has lead the way for total a-holes on both sides of the aisle to manipulate people into voting for them, had we followed the US Constitution, "abortion" would have never poisoned the body politic, it would have remained local where it belonged.
Under the 10th Amendment, this issue should have been decided by the states and its citizens, whether you are a Libertarian Conservative like Tomi Lahren who does not like BIG government controlling a woman's body, or you feel that it is atrocious treatment of a human life, every taxpaying citizen should have the right to vote on it at the state level, then if one feels passionately either way you can always find a state that reflects your views/values.
This issue has lead the way for total a-holes on both sides of the aisle to manipulate people into voting for them, had we followed the US Constitution, "abortion" would have never poisoned the body politic, it would have remained local where it belonged.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Golly gee, no surprise there.I did too!
robin
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I think they should allow it into the 15th month. Let people have sort of a 6 month trial period.
Next time some lib talks about it to you, tell them that, and watch them suddenly get outraged about the idea of killing babies.....
So, then, you agree that FUAC has the ability to infringe on your Second Amendment Rights? You agree that, if you don't like it, you have to pack up your belongings, and your family, and flee your home?
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
There are two people involved in the above situation. There is the child that was raped and we KNOW she has constitutional rights, and then there is an unborn child and we are not sure if they do or do not have constitutional rights. Even if they do; the question becomes who's more important - the child that was raped or the unborn baby? I feel the most important person in this is the child that was raped.
Now as you know I don't believe in invisible sky-daddies or the stories of goat herders from the iron age. But even if for a moment I play devil's advocate and say there really is this invisible being observing humans from this heaven place; I have to say actions speak louder than words. This god committed genocide against ever first born male in an entire country to fuck with one Pharoah. He committed genocide against I think 4 cities by turning by turning ever living human into salt. Then he drowned an entire planet and killed every living thing no matter what continent they were one. So if there was a god; it's a sick and demented being that enjoys genocide. And even turned his back on human genocides commited against each other. Hitler killed his chosen people and he didn't lift one single finger to help.
So that's why I don't buy into any argument about "god's advocate". God is an invisible version of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Idi Amin, or Pol Pot. Let's not consider that "he" would want. I have to go with whatever is best for that innocent child that was inseminated through no fault of her own.
You're barking up the wrong tree if that was trying to convince me of all people about "god." I have the same argument. If god did exist, of which there is no evidence for, then it's not a god I'd want to follow, considering history. And shove the "free will" tap dancing square up your ass. (Not you Snappo, just the apologists.)
Now, this line:
has 2 possible views in my book.
Either the fetus is not a human, which it is not, and has no "right to life", or it IS a human and therefor has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to inhabit the body of another human. Cut it out and let it die on it's own.
Non humans do not have human rights, and humans have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to the body of another human.
Seems pretty simple.
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
That's a REALLY good point; though I cannot find statistics either on rape / incest. The problem is; can they break out abortion to be approved only under certain circumstances but denied because of others? Best I could find was this one site that says 1% of all abortions are due to incest / rape. So for 900,000 abortions yearly in USA, 9,000 of them were rape / incest babies. But 3% were also due to health problems with the mother (mother might die). And 3% were fetus health problems. So 7%, or 64,000 abortions for reasonable causes. And here's a fucked up number in the below link I gave you - 42% of all pregnancies are aborted because they couldn't afford the baby or just didn't want the responsibility. Our culture is so fucked up. And Trump wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood - the people who are actually handing out the free condoms, birth control pills, etc. It's like he actually wants 900,000 abortions per year to keep happening. They should give out birth control at the PP buildings, the welfare offices, every high school and junior high school etc and see if they cannot lower 900,000 abortions to 100,000 abortions.
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States
Does Trump want to get rid of PP, or cut off government funding?
Because I agree with one, disagree with the other.
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
I figure it's not human, but it's gonna be. Did SCOTUS ever look at when the US Constitution kicks in and a fetus becomes an American human that's protected by USC? Maybe a specific week of pregnancy where the baby can be viable outside the womb? I lost my twins girls the day of their birth but they were delivered at 32 weeks. We weren't near a prenatal hospital and they never stabilized enough to get transported to another hospital. So I would say NOT 32 weeks. Maybe like 36 weeks?
And this little black baby is "gonna be" a criminal when it grows up, because statistics.
No thanks. It's either a human, or it's not.
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
I think he only cares about the cash aspect. He wasn't saying "roll in the national guard and level the buildings". He was saying "reduce their operating expenses to $0 and let them go away or find some other way to get money". Planned Parenthood gets revenue from patients; but 60% of patients are on government Medicaid. If they fold; then the estimated 579,000 unwanted pregnancies they prevent with free condoms and free birth control gets thrown into the present abortion numbers which are 950,000 per year.
I only care about the cash aspect, in regards to what the government should be doing on the issue.
They really should have no say otherwise.
Just like 71% of the people were against Obamacare prior to the dems railroading into law, check out this:
File:Map of US abortion laws pre-1973.svg - Wikimedia Commons
DescriptionMap of US abortion laws pre-1973.svg
Abortion laws in the United States prior to Roe vs. Wade
Red Illegal.
Purple Legal in cases of rape.
Blue Legal in cases of danger to woman's health.
Green Legal in cases of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus.
Yellow Legal upon request.
All I'm say is, for any and all that hope the Safe Act will be overturned forget it, once shit is changed very hard to change it back!
Let's kill babies and yes if it has a heart beat it's a human, but let's protect some scumbag that kills someone from the death penalty. Ass backward thinking.
I do believe in cases of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus an abortion should be allowed. Not for birth control!
File:Map of US abortion laws pre-1973.svg - Wikimedia Commons
DescriptionMap of US abortion laws pre-1973.svg
Abortion laws in the United States prior to Roe vs. Wade
Red Illegal.
Purple Legal in cases of rape.
Blue Legal in cases of danger to woman's health.
Green Legal in cases of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus.
Yellow Legal upon request.
All I'm say is, for any and all that hope the Safe Act will be overturned forget it, once shit is changed very hard to change it back!
Let's kill babies and yes if it has a heart beat it's a human, but let's protect some scumbag that kills someone from the death penalty. Ass backward thinking.
I do believe in cases of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus an abortion should be allowed. Not for birth control!
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
Valid point. Although I think only 39% of the little black babies will become criminals. But I would say "human when viable outside the womb".
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
The question of "what should government fund" has been debated since we became a country. Classical Liberalism says "as little as possible". The Founding Fathers were Classical Liberalists; as are present day Libertarians. The right wing wants government to pay for religion by giving 100% tax avoidance to any group claiming to be a church. Atheists like myself say not-for-profits should pay taxes like anyone else. The left says government should pay for social programs; much like Engels and Marx said "Each according to their need, each according to their ability". The right says that social programs are a bad thing. I say "some social programs are necessary when considering the bigger picture". That's why I would be considered a Centrist and Classical Liberalist. If PP goes away, 600,000 more unwanted children appear. Each with parents that didn't want them and therefore each with a definite money drain on the government. It's more expensive to get rid of PP than to keep it.
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
I agree. That's the rules I would wrap around the legality of abortion. Not sure SCOTUS will ever change their minds or look at the subject again. At least not in our lifetime.
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
You think carrying a rape or incest baby for 9 months has no effect on the mental health of the woman? There is most definitely a woman healthcare aspect to every pregnancy; even the wanted ones. A 14 year old carrying a baby will destroy her body and mind; and in the case of rape or incest she will be ruined for life.
Actually, atheists, such as myself as well deal with a belief in god, or more to the point a lack thereof. Has nothing to do with taxation. You think everyone should pay their fair share, including churches. Great. I think nobody should pay anything. Well, to a point. I get what you are saying on the "don't let churches be exempt" thing, and I agree, but I say go the other direction. Let everyone be exempt. Splitting hairs? Sure, but many people wrongly label atheists. In reality it just deals with a lack of belief in a god or gods.
It's literally impossible for elimination of government funding to PP to be more costly than keeping it, unless you support other social welfare programs to prop the fallout up. I do not.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Gee, a Dartho / Snappo love fest, ain't it sweet!
Robin
Robin