I can understand the argument that because the baby is inside of and supported by its mother, and nobody has a right to live off another, its mother has the right to kick it out.
I also understand(and agree with) an argument saying that when your body conceives a child, you accept a contract(a natural contract, I guess?) in which you agree to carry it until it can either support itself or dies on its own.
I really have no problem with the government adopting abortion laws based on either of those(although welfare and other government benefit recipients may want to be careful with that first one).
The argument I don’t understand(and which seems to be the most prevalent) is that it’s the mother’s body, and she has the right to do with it what she wants. The child is not the mother’s body. I don’t even know how that has become an argument for abortion. It’s ridiculous.
So if the rule is “they are a parasite” or at least “living off of” someone else, does that also include children until they leave the home, those on government assistance, those under some form of care, etc.?
I see LOTS of potential with this ever-growing idea of abortion.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
So if the rule is “they are a parasite” or at least “living off of” someone else, does that also include children until they leave the home, those on government assistance, those under some form of care, etc.?
I see LOTS of potential with this ever-growing idea of abortion. [/quote]
I would say it does-that’s why I said people better really think about their reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with abortion.
I used to oppose abortion because I think it is murder(I still do, personally), but I don’t want to let the government establish laws making us responsible for others.
I now oppose abortion because the mother’s body accepts a natural contract to carry that child until it can support itself, or it dies naturally(whichever comes first).
Those who support abortion because, “it’s the woman’s body,” are demonstrably wrong. That is a senseless position.
Here is a question for the anti-abortion crowd that they never seem to have an answer for. Who are going to take all these kids if abortion is done away with??
How so? Would it make you feel better if I said I have the right to kill my own children? They are still 100% dependent on me after all.
[/quote]
This is not a valid point at all
Your children are dependent on you while you are there to support them. If you and your wife/partner were to die, your children would be put into an orphanage or, if fortunate enough, would be raised by your family. They are not uniquely dependent on you. They are dependent on whoever it is that is taking care of them.
If my wife and I were to die, my children would not die just because we are no longer there.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
At the point it is in the womb - it is part of the females body.
[/quote]
No it’s not. This is basic biology and really not worthy of discussion. The moment a zygote forms it is a completely independent life with its own unique DNA and in this case the very first stage in every human’s development.
How so? Would it make you feel better if I said I have the right to kill my own children? They are still 100% dependent on me after all.
[quote]
But sure if that individual is inside of you and part of your physical body go for it. Like I said I don’t agree with the act, but who am I or you to tell any woman what she can or can’t do with her body?[/quote]
In no way whatsoever is the individual human being a part of a woman’s body. So you also support full term abortions?[/quote]
You’re right, it’s simple biology, but it’s clearly a subject you’re not very familiar with. However, it can’t be independent because otherwise there would be no point in a gestation period would there? If something can’t respire for itself or eat for itself, how can you make the argument that it’s completely independent?
We know for a fact that the actions of the mother can have direct implications on the wellbeing of the foetus. Foetal alcohol syndrome, and the effect of tobacco smoking on foetal development are key examples among many of this feature.
However the fact remains, that until the moment of birth, and arguably after birth as well, that a foetus exists as a parasitic organism upon the mother, relying on the energy production and respiratory prowess to survive.
Your argument is fucking bullshit, especially considering that if it were to be taken to its extreme, you’d be accusing mothers that miscarry of manslaughter.
I offered a suggestion in some other thread about what to do with all of the kids. I suggested cleaning out our prisons, either through death penalties or community service dependent on crime - those in the mid-range would live in tent camps and perform hard labor for their sentence, death if they attempt escape. Then, convert the prisons into larger orphanages. Better money spent in my opinion.
Second, I think they should put something in the water that renders people infertile (public birth control) and you have to pass a test or get a license to have kids. Just as simple as getting a Concealed Carry permit, you just have to pass a background and credit check. If you can support a child, you get a pill that counters the stuff in the water.
A child is still dependent on someone until they are capable of being independent. So can’t we just pass the “right to abort” on to the next party responsible for the child? Or the person on welfare, or the handicapped person, etc. I mean, they are parasitic now not to the person who helped create them - but now parasitic on total tax-paying strangers - its even worse.
If folks want to be pro-abortion, then you’re kill with killing a living thing. Whether justified as human or not, is neither here nor there . We kill millions of things a year that are cognisant of their existence, why should a human be no different?
As far misscarriages, one is accidental and caused biologically by the “host” to sustain the “parasite,” the other is a willful neglect or decision to end the “parasite” because of inconvenience. Having known at least two women who’ve had miscarriages, I can assure you, it is a very difficult experience, especially when they still have to give “birth” to a dead organism.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Holy Jonathan Swift Modest Proposal, Batman, do we ever have an answer for this question:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
Here is a question for the anti-abortion crowd that they never seem to have an answer for. Who are going to take all these kids if abortion is done away with??[/quote]
Right here:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Your children are dependent on you while you are there to support them. If you and your wife/partner were to die, your children would be put into an orphanage or, if fortunate enough, would be raised by your family. They are not uniquely dependent on you. They are dependent on whoever it is that is taking care of them.
If my wife and I were to die, my children would not die just because we are no longer there.
[/quote]
This is uncanny! We have one pro-abortion feller solving another pro-abortion feller’s dilemma!
Thank you, T-Nation! Let the people rejoice!
[/quote]
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
Here is a question for the anti-abortion crowd that they never seem to have an answer for. Who are going to take all these kids if abortion is done away with??[/quote]
Here is a question for the pro-abortion crowd that they never seem to have an answer for. If you were a helpless, unwanted innocent 25 year old would you understand why they came and took you to the ovens?[/quote]
False dichotomy, you fail again. Invocation of Godwins law, means you lose. Your inference that the two situations are even vaguely related shows you absolute intellectual incompetence.
The test of a truly free and equitable society is one in which all members have an ability to control their own reproduction. That means where various methods of contraception are available, including abortion as an easily accessible, and un-stigmatised option. Anything else and you’re still trying to assert some sort of power and control over the lives of other members of society with no real claim to the power.
It’s better that contraception is around, and we can prevent birth when and where we want.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Holy Jonathan Swift Modest Proposal, Batman, do we ever have an answer for this question:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
Here is a question for the anti-abortion crowd that they never seem to have an answer for. Who are going to take all these kids if abortion is done away with??[/quote]
Right here:
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Your children are dependent on you while you are there to support them. If you and your wife/partner were to die, your children would be put into an orphanage or, if fortunate enough, would be raised by your family. They are not uniquely dependent on you. They are dependent on whoever it is that is taking care of them.
If my wife and I were to die, my children would not die just because we are no longer there.
[/quote]
This is uncanny! We have one pro-abortion feller solving another pro-abortion feller’s dilemma!
Thank you, T-Nation! Let the people rejoice!
[/quote]
Like I’ve said in few posts that have been deleted, you pro-life cunts should protest palliative care homes and funeral parlours, not abortion clinics.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
Here is a question for the anti-abortion crowd that they never seem to have an answer for. Who are going to take all these kids if abortion is done away with??[/quote]
Here’s a crazy thought, how about the people that create those kids.
and you’ll say, “Well a lot of them are poor and can’t afford them.”
and I’ll say, “Then garnish their wages for the next 18 years to pay for the kid(s).”
and you’ll say, “What if they don’t have a job/are on food stamps?”
and I’ll say, “Then throw them in a work camp or sterilize them.”
and you’ll say, “That’s barbaric, we can’t take their freedom away like that.”
and I’ll say, “We are taking a defenseless childs LIFE away not to mention their freedom so…”
and then insults will fly back and forth, if they haven’t already.
Man I just saved us like 45 minutes.
Edit: Let’s try this again with the correct person, so you know, I’m not a cunt.
Gots a question. If a young mother has her baby then pitches it in the garbage can? Is she guilty of a crime? If so, why is this any different from abortion? They baby was dependent upon her and she neglected to not aid it in its survival. How is this a crime? Also, if I shoot and kill a pregnant woman, how many murders am I guilty of?
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Gots a question. If a young mother has her baby then pitches it in the garbage can? Is she guilty of a crime? If so, why is this any different from abortion? They baby was dependent upon her and she neglected to not aid it in its survival. How is this a crime? Also, if I shoot and kill a pregnant woman, how many murders am I guilty of?[/quote]
[quote]cryogen wrote:
Here is a question for the anti-abortion crowd that they never seem to have an answer for. Who are going to take all these kids if abortion is done away with??[/quote]
Here’s a crazy thought, how about the people that create those kids.
and you’ll say, “Well a lot of them are poor and can’t afford them.”
and I’ll say, “Then garnish their wages for the next 18 years to pay for the kid(s).”
and you’ll say, “What if they don’t have a job/are on food stamps?”
and I’ll say, “Then throw them in a work camp or sterilize them.”
and you’ll say, “That’s barbaric, we can’t take their freedom away like that.”
and I’ll say, “We are taking a defenseless childs LIFE away not to mention their freedom so…”
and then insults will fly back and forth, if they haven’t already.