| Author | Message | ||
     Spdrxb |
That is another whole tangent. The thread was on abortion and talking about playing "God" over a helpless life. Not loosing life while executing a military or political agenda. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
As per FB's post, your own statement, Adopting a newborn in America can take years, and a friend of mine's experience trying to adopt locally, the system is broken because it takes too long to go from application to acceptance. The reason it can take years is because of SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Why is developing human life worth more than any other life? Anybody here hunt,fish,and not eat everything? Use mousetraps,kill snakes etc.. just because they are "in the way" tell me the difference? Ummm.....because a human is a sentient person. When a fish, snake or mouse conceives of and creates the cure for Polio, I'll consider not killing them. Here are my friends with their three new kids from Ethiopia:  | ||
| Sifo |
I have friends who have adopted twice from the Philippines because of the wait time here in the US. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
freedom calls for responsiblity My cousins Kenny (41) 3 divorces 9 children chronically unemployed, drunk and gambler of any money he does get; makes a living off of scamming the system, and suing for 'injuries' Kevin (37) 2 divorces 7 children 2 with special needs cuz it runs in the family. dishonorably discharged from the military, fired from a union job (janitor- I have no idea what it takes to get fired from a union gig, but he found it) Keith (34) Incarcerated check fraud Identity theft, never married, 6 kids. I also have a family of cousins from my ather aunt Jim, Jackie, John, Janet (special needs), Joe (adult ritalin), Jill all that are on their way to self populating their own trailer park My family Brad 45 special needs, not married no kids me 42, never married, no kids, snipped this family tree ends here. Brandy, (half sister) 39 married, 1 kid and she is 'done' - fixed. where there is no responsibility, there should be no freedom; because you obviously are too stupid to make a valid choice for yourself; ! we put more emphasis on driving a car than we do on having a kid. your first indication is to quit rewarding bad behavior by increasing DSHS stipends for food, housing and AODL for additional children, it is seen as a perverse paycheck, and beilieve me they are looking to get that baby momma check. | ||
| Moxnix |
Forgive the topic, but I toss it out to show how some people have been successfully inoculated to tolerate deaths of others in real life. Over the past ten years over 6 million people in the Congo have been killed by machetes, bullets, bombs, rockets, etc., with the accompanying rape of females. TIA. If one is willing to discount 40 million abortions in the US since RVW, who's going to lose sleep over a measly 6 million strangers in Africa. It doesn't even make the news. Better to point out the faults of those beastly Christian fundamentalists in America as a one size fits all target for scorn and ridicule. I'm still awaiting a massive voluntary request by the so-called pro choice hordes to have themselves retroactively aborted. For the betterment of humanity, you understand. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Damn Slick. Could you see this from your back yard?  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What is the peak of hypocrisy is the fact that women's rights advocates push for abortion on demand. 50% of aborted babies are female. | ||
| Seanp |
>>> Not sure from where or why you are grabbing the "religious" aversion being different from your own. Religion abhors abortion for the very reasons you state. I have no aversion to religion. I'm simply pointing out that one can be anti-abortion and not be a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. I am neither right-wing, nor a Christian fundamentalist. >>> You claim that you oppose abortion, but your argument advocating for it indicates otherwise. I'm simply looking at all aspects of the issue. >>> Are you saying that it is not unjust murder, but that it'd be nice to have the babies around to grow up, something nice to see? I don't remember typing "abortion is not unjust murder". That's odd. >>> The inference there is that abortion is a solution to an economic problem. Absolutely not. The inference is that in order to get rid of abortion, it will require a multi-faceted solution, only part of which is economic. You can't just think that if abortion is suddenly made illegal, all the babies that would have been murdered otherwise would have happy, healthy homes. I know that in order to enact a major change like eliminating abortion, it will take a massive logistical effort. You can't just blindly advocate to ban abortion and not see the ramifications of that. No matter how much faith, belief or desire you have, it's not going to take care of the hundreds of thousands of babies that are born instead of murdered each year. (Technically, according to the numbers on babycenter.com, there are over 4 million babies born each year. If we take those numbers, and compare it to the 20% abortion numbers from lifenews.com, that would be 1,000,000 babies aborted each year. I'm being generous and understanding that if abortion were illegal, only a third or so of those babies would still be conceived.) >>> The reason it can take years is because of SUPPLY AND DEMAND. How would this change with an influx of unwanted babies? Let's say that, using the numbers on lifenews.com, there are 1,000,000 babies killed each year in abortions. (We won't even get into Cityxslicker's first-term-D&C abortions.) Now let's say that if abortion were suddenly illegal, 2/3 of those women who aborted their children would avoid getting pregnant. Now let's say that of those 333,333 women who still get pregnant, 33,333 (simply because I like round numbers) want to keep their babies. That leaves an annual influx of 300,000 babies into the welfare system. How do we streamline the adoption system to get those 300,000 babies to desiring, deserving families? | ||
| Sifo |
>>> The inference there is that abortion is a solution to an economic problem. Absolutely not. The inference is that in order to get rid of abortion, it will require a multi-faceted solution, only part of which is economic. You can't just think that if abortion is suddenly made illegal, all the babies that would have been murdered otherwise would have happy, healthy homes. I know that in order to enact a major change like eliminating abortion, it will take a massive logistical effort. You can't just blindly advocate to ban abortion and not see the ramifications of that. No matter how much faith, belief or desire you have, it's not going to take care of the hundreds of thousands of babies that are born instead of murdered each year. (Technically, according to the numbers on babycenter.com, there are over 4 million babies born each year. If we take those numbers, and compare it to the 20% abortion numbers from lifenews.com, that would be 1,000,000 babies aborted each year. I'm being generous and understanding that if abortion were illegal, only a third or so of those babies would still be conceived.) By stating that you have to address the economics in order to make abortion illegal you are in fact making abortion a solution to an economic problem. I'm not saying to ignore the economic problems. I am saying that economics should play no part in evaluating the taking of human life. I know you are playing devils advocate here, but justifying abortion with economics is despicable. It is right on the level of the Nazi's doing medical experiments on Jewish prisoners. | ||
| Seanp |
First of all. Second of all, the economics aren't playing a "part in evaluating the taking of human life." But realistically, there's no way to address this issue and not take economics into account. I am making no judgment as to the value of human life here. Indeed, I think it would be worth any price to save even one life. But this is reality, and reality is not my ideal world, nor is it any of ours. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The 'family' is all in rural ozarks in the neither regions of AK, TN, LA, and AL; what you would call at best 'hill people' the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.... was two farms over from where my great aunt lived. When I was there for a 'reunion' in 76, we took a 'field trip' there. Lesson was that it was a shame he ever got caught um yeah, they are all peaches. Having seen my fair share of ethnic clensing, I can indeed tell you the value of human life aint squat. When you get to mechanizing it, the killing is just too expensived for a bullet for every head, so you fire bomb and bulldoze neighborhoods, Helicopter straifing runs, 3 pm shelling 'exercises' shut the water off, shut the electricity off, cut the supplies coming into town, and perch snipers to pick off the animals.... yep, when a dictator wakes up and decides its time for killing, it is a little thing for him to do. If you have seen it, you will never get the stench out of your mind. WWII wasnt the end of genocide, it was just the end of Nazi Germany administered killing.... make no mistake, the methods have indeed 'improved' with technology. | ||
| Blake |
Spdr, >>> On the other hand I think we are all hypocrites. Why is developing human life worth more than any other life? Not sure human life is "worth" more in a secular objective sense. I would say it is valued more and held as more sacred by other humans. Well, on second thought, human life is indeed worth more due to the benefits that humans provide to other humans. Having other humans to facilitate medical, engineering, construction, entertainment, cleaning, farming, serving, etc, etc, etc... is WAY more valuable to me than any other life on the planet. That's not to say that other life shouldn't also be respected and appreciated, except for chiggers; chiggers are hell-spawn. Regardless of worth, why should human life be valued more by other humans? Because if it weren't, murder and chaos would rule, and the survival of the species would be in jeopardy, misery would run rampant, life would suck. >>> Anybody here hunt, fish, and not eat everything? Use mousetraps, kill snakes etc.. just because they are "in the way" tell me the difference? We don't kill mice "just because they are in the way"; we kill them because they destroy our homes and spread disease. When anything invading our domain constitutes a serious threat to our health and well-being, we are justified in defending ourselves. The same would be true for poisonous snakes around our homes. Better would be to remove them I suppose. I've done that with mice. Before I knew what they were, I'd toss the Brown Recluse spiders outside when I found one. Your point seems to be that we should excuse one crime, the murder of unborn babies by pointing to others (disrespectful killing of other life)? How about we oppose it all? That said, mankind has laws separate, above and beyond those of nature. We treat nature according to nature's laws, just as nature treats us. Survival of the fittest is what guarantees the long term health and well-being of all life on the planet. So we are not hypocritical in abiding by nature's laws, no more so than any other living organism on the planet. We simply play by the same rules. Some animal surprises and or frightens us, it might get killed. We're no different than a horde of animals in that respect. | ||
| Sifo |
Second of all, the economics aren't playing a "part in evaluating the taking of human life." But realistically, there's no way to address this issue and not take economics into account. Those are conflicting sentences. Perhaps you should decide if economics should play into the right/wrong of abortion or not. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
How do we streamline the adoption system to get those 300,000 babies to desiring, deserving families? As you pointed out, two things happen. First behaviors are altered. People think twice before giving the green light to the behaviors that create pregnancies. Second, the systems are in place for those seeking to place their child up for adoption to be paired with those who wish to adopt. There can be up to 9 months for a mother to decide that she wants to place her child up for adoption and for the adoption agency to screen the parents. It's not hard. If they can track a kidney, heart, or eye for transplant in a matter of hours, they can track a child being born 9 months out. As homosexual couples become more mainstream, children for adoption will be sought. | ||
| Blake |
>>> I don't remember typing "abortion is not unjust murder". That's odd. I'm asking you a question, trying to understand your basis for opposing abortion. If I've not stated it accurately, please clarify. My question again was... Are you saying that it is not unjust murder, but that it'd be nice to have the babies around to grow up, something nice to see? | ||
| Blake |
Sean, It's not at all out of line to equate something to nazism when it indeed is exactly that. Justifying murder based on mere economics may even be worse than the despicable rationale of the nazis for their holocaust. | ||
| Blake |
Sean, How about we take care of one problem at a time. Frankly, I don't think your concern is justified. Before RvW, we managed okay. That said, I offered a very practical and in my view very reasonable solution to your concerns. Maybe you missed it, accountability, responsibility... "People who spawn new human life need to be held responsible. If they don't want the baby, and can find no willing adopters for it, then they need to pay for someone to take care of their child. It is called responsibility. People MUST be held to account for THEIR choices and actions." What's wrong with that solution? The insurance industry ought to get on board with it once the applicable law is in place. They'll be selling pregnancy insurance to pay for raising unwanted children. By the way, how many mothers who go through with the birth do you imagine will still be unwilling to raise their child? Answer: VERY few. How many mothers who have gone through giving birth to what at one time they viewed as an unwanted child are as likely to allow themselves to become unwantedly pregnant again? Answer: A LOT fewer than those who now have multiple abortions. Behavior is pretty simple. Reward the good and you'll get more good. Punish the bad and you'll get less bad. Make the consequences of bad behavior more severe and you'll get less bad behavior. | ||
| Seanp |
>>> Perhaps you should decide if economics should play into the right/wrong of abortion or not. Regardless of the cost to ban it, abortion is wrong. I'm not justifying abortion by saying that getting rid of it will be expensive. Happy? We'll take the economic factor out of the equation and just trust that it would work itself out somehow. Have faith. >>> Second, the systems are in place for those seeking to place their child up for adoption to be paired with those who wish to adopt. If the systems are in place, are you saying the supply is so low that the demand outstrips supply here with American babies? Is that why so many people have to outsource adoption? (This is a genuine question, not a belligerent attack...) >>> Are you saying that it is not unjust murder, but that it'd be nice to have the babies around to grow up, something nice to see? I'm saying that I'm not sold on the fact that it's murder per se; however, it is the taking of a potentially fruitful and productive life that might otherwise help all of humanity. To be honest, I'm still on the fence about when life actually starts. I know it's not at birth, but I don't think it's at conception, either. How is an egg that was just fertilized different from a single-cell creature, except in its potential to become a human being? That being said, I honestly couldn't tell you the specific time it does happen. Therefore, perhaps conception is a good point to call "the beginning of life". And, logically it follows that it's murder. But that's still not my reason for being against abortion. That would lead to the question about defining murder and differentiating it from general killing, such as in self-defense and war. And that's a discussion that would go forever. Re: the Nazis - see my comment about justifying (not justifying) abortion for economic reasons. I'll just drop any mention of economics, because obviously things will just work themselves out. >>> By the way, how many mothers who go through with the birth do you imagine will still be unwilling to raise their child? With a quick Google search, I could find no statistics one way or another on a similar group - surrogate mothers. I'm sure there's some sort of data that shows what percent of surrogates change their minds, but it would take more research. Accountability and responsibility are all well and good for you and I and the others here who have internalized these values. However, there is a good-sized percentage of the population who I feel has little of either trait. I don't know that trying to force these values on the people would encourage internalization. Instead, it might inflame rebellion. | ||
| Blake |
Further to your own comments... >>> The inference is that in order to get rid of abortion, it will require a multi-faceted solution, only part of which is economic. None of it is economic. Simply stop the abortion and force the parents to be responsible for their behavior. THEY then must deal with the economic issue. THAT is the exact correct level for that issue to occur. >>> You can't just think that if abortion is suddenly made illegal, all the babies that would have been murdered otherwise would have happy, healthy homes. I'm only concerned that they be allowed to live. It is up to their parents or those who the parents pay to raise the child as to the particulars of the child rearing environment. The states through SCHIP provide for health care for the children of the financially struggling among us. >>> I know that in order to enact a major change like eliminating abortion, it will take a massive logistical effort. Wrong. It will take mandating and enforcing that parents be responsible for their children. Those laws and the institutions to enforce them are already in place. >>> You can't just blindly advocate to ban abortion and not see the ramifications of that. I haven't. Though I might say that you cannot just blindly advocate against the euthenasia of our unproductive poor old folks without seeing the ramifications of having to continue supporting them. >>> No matter how much faith, belief or desire you have, it's not going to take care of the hundreds of thousands of babies that are born instead of murdered each year. I expect that those responsible for them shall be rightly made to bear that burden. >>> I'm being generous and understanding that if abortion were illegal, only a third or so of those (1,000,000) babies would still be conceived. But you are not being realistic or generous when assuming that all of those babies would be up for adoption. That is certainly not the case. I'd figure that most mothers, after having given birth, held and nursed their new babies, would be staunchly disinclined to give up their child; not all, but most. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Accountability and Responsibility are not popular and are not your solution... because you cant get a government to adhere to any of it, cant get a funding grant, and wont be able to tax/fine for non compliance. but if you love individual freedom, then indeed it does come at the price of personal responsibility and accountability | ||
| Slaughter |
Thought I'd add to the post count and not change anybody's opinion either. Anybody's opinion changed with THIS POST? (didn't think so) Carry on sportbikers... | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If the systems are in place, are you saying the supply is so low that the demand outstrips supply here with American babies? Is that why so many people have to outsource adoption? (This is a genuine question, not a belligerent attack...) Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Aborted babies = Not adoptable Live babies = Adoptable I was actually supposed to be adopted. Or rather my parents were on the waiting list to adopt due to infertility. They evidently got bored waiting, and I was conceived. Practice makes perfect. | ||
| Blake |
Sean, If it isn't murder, then what credible legal opposition to abortion can we make? If it isn't murder, then llogically I'd have to side with the "Pro-Choice". I have no doubt that abortion is murder. You raise a good point that I very much appreciate. I think what you are saying is that abortion absolutely is murder at any point beyond which the unborn child could survive outside the womb. Beyond that, I think what I hear you saying is that you aren't sure if it is murder or not. I can appreciate that view, even if I don't agree with it. My view is that we should err on the side of life. Yeah, I stole that from George W.  While I'm unwilling to compromise my principles and beliefs, I am willing to compromise wrt the law, on what is mandated illegal versus legal. I'm not an all or nothing idealist in that respect. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Accountability and responsibility are all well and good for you and I and the others here who have internalized these values. However, there is a good-sized percentage of the population who I feel has little of either trait. I don't know that trying to force these values on the people would encourage internalization. Instead, it might inflame rebellion. Kinda hand-wringing aren't you? Let truth, and justice be our guide; put the sound principles and morals that we know are true and just ahead of fear. Shouldn't we be perfectly fine with confronting any such rebellion? I sure am. We're facing it right now, right here, are we not? | ||
| Eaton_corners |
I have found the answer to this whole debate. It comes down to all of US deciding to become the same kind of people who founded our nation. http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/articles/artic les/blessedisthenation.html | ||
| Blake |
Steve, Thanks to this discussion, I've been forced to think about some of the related issues raised here by others, and I've learned a lot through this productive discussion. Why don't you join in? I value your contributions here no matter the topic. | ||
| Eaton_corners |
A quote from the home page of the link I posted above. There are no cheap political solutions to the holocaust presently ravaging our nation. Like slavery before it, abortion is preeminently a Gospel issue. The Cross of Christ is the only solution. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Accountability and responsibility are all well and good for you and I and the others here who have internalized these values. However, there is a good-sized percentage of the population who I feel has little of either trait. I don't know that trying to force these values on the people would encourage internalization. Instead, it might inflame rebellion. Are you kidding me? No one who has these values wants them. They recognize that not having these values results in bad things. I'd MUCH rather blow off work, sleep in, eat cheetos and play Call of Duty all day, but eventually they haul off my stuff, my wife leaves me and takes the kids, and I end up on the street. So let me get this straight, taking away the consequences of bad behaviors helps to instill accountability and responsibility? Doesn't seem to be working very well. Let's do it the way our grand parents did. You screw up, bad results happen. You make better choices next time or you don't screw up. Pretty simple. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Reading some Chekhov, you know for fun  150 years ago there was a 'famine' as detailed in the account of his 'The Wife' So the settlers had decided to sell off their belongings and their cabins and make way further out onto the frontier, because the land that had been alotted to them was barren and failed to produce..... having made it only as far as the river (the story doesnt say which river) they had to turn back And in town, their houses were now full, and new residents had moved in, and their was not enough food to go around. So they were starving and dying. (the jest of the letter in the opening script) So what is to be done? The minister called to his wife and his scholar friend to advise. He had some money to send, but it was paultry because he himself had a bad season, and their was no money from the government because the allocations had already been made and the readdition of the previous members had doubled the 'calamaty' But he comes to an interesting conclusion. 'They had money from selling their goods and wares, and it has done nothing to solve the problem, what would adding my money to the situation solve, it is not enough to save them, it is not enough to prepare them for next year. The scholar friend says that this is not a banking problem, you cant throw money at it and hope that it will resolve it, all you are doing is adding more zeros to the hole. So what should we do? - Nothing? Indeed Ax why is it your concern, you were not the one that failed to plant on time, you were not the one that failed to till, or irrigate, you are not the one that forced them to sell the house and chase to the frontier. But I am a humane man, I should do something ! Ax, but what ever you do, be prepared to do more next time, and again, until you yourself can do no more. (he leaves it there) As with most Chekhov, he never gives you the solution, he just makes you hate yourself for getting involved. and so defund it, quit paying for it, quit rewarding it, quit coddling it. I was not party to the fornication, I should not be party to the delivery, life, and sustance of the kid(s). You made the choice to have a kid, suck it up and take the responsibiilty . If you cant afford a kid, keep your legs shut and your pants on and move along. (I like the idea of DNA matching and billing the father and of course the mother for welfare babies, cant pay.... well we have wonder new barack o prisions, because it is now tax evasion and you going to jail.) (if they can send you to jail for not paying your insurance premium, they should be able to send you to jail for making baby drama. ) | ||
| Eaton_corners |
Blake, I find that these discussions allow me to see issues from other perspectives and causes me to consider my own convictions. I do, as others have stated, see an extreme decline of morals in our country that leads to such atrocities as abortion. I do not believe government programs or public service announcements can correct this. One of my favorite quotes by John Adams shows that he thought the same. (Our Constitution is good only for a moral and religious society), may or may not be his exact words but, it indicates that he thought the general population needed to hold to certain principles to be able to maintain civility. I am also reminded during these discussions that it is not a physical battle but, a spiritual one. |
