Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I cannot come up with an argument that is 100% logical and science based to defend my position [/quote]

I doubt this very much. It may be–is–ugly as all hell, but follow a “science” guy like Dawkins to the philosophical terminus of his conception of morality and you’ll find a “logical” and science-based argument for abortion (or, at any rate, argument against abortion’s immorality).[/quote]
I don’t get your point. [/quote]

Yep, I didn’t have one. Completely mistook your words for something they weren’t. (Dumb of me to read a quoted excerpt and not the original post it came from.) Nevermind, lol.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

this is not a medical statement this is a legal issue

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

in this exchange deleate everthing that is NOT your question and I will answer it
[/quote]

More avoiding, priceless and lazy…

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

this is not a medical statement this is a legal issue
[/quote]

So therefore, if a law was passed tomorrow that said all black people need to be dragged through the streets behind pickups to their death, you would support it then?

I always knew you were a democrat. Laws trump people’s right to life…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Offspring do provide benefit for their parents, but for the first several years (or decades in the case of humans) that benefit is largely immaterial (emotional and spiritual benefits more than contributing to the survival of the family), aside from the obvious (and appropriate to your profession) tax advantages. [/quote]

I take exception to the emotional and spiritual benefits being termed immaterial here. I’ve just seen too much positive come from babies entering into people’s lives to call something that profound and life changing “immaterial”.

I’d also argue that a family with a pregnant female or infant/toddler will likely take more care in ensure its survival than a family of just a coupling of adults… As in the desire to see the child grow up healthily and happy will lead the parents to make choices and partake in activities that positively effect their survival and well being. Mommy might sell her street bike and by a safer care, daddy might not volunteer for the underwater welding job on the oil rig and take the safer job in the factory down the street, etc…

I think you discount the less obvious and less physical benefits children bring to their parents erroneously to favor simple observations like “mom breast feeds the child, so it is a parasite.”

[/quote]

If you don’t like the word “immaterial” then I will amend the statement to read “intangible”. They are practically synonyms, but perhaps carrying a less dismissive nuance.

Having literally helped bring three children into the world (home births with just me, my wife and a 90-year-old midwife: I boiled the water, wiped off the blood and the shit and the snot from my wife as it presented itself, assisted as the midwife extricated the umbilical cord from around my suffocating son’s throat, and then cut that cord), and then having helped raise and educate those children into the people they have become, I think I have a pretty good idea of the costs and benefits of parenthood, thank you very much.

Children are parasites. They are the best possible parasites that will ever come into one’s life, but parasites they are. We accept the relationship (which is frought with hazards both tangible and intangible) voluntarily, in most cases, in exchange for the joy that they bring us in the short term, and the very tangible benefits we expect they will bring in the long term.

And that, as Forrest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Offspring do provide benefit for their parents, but for the first several years (or decades in the case of humans) that benefit is largely immaterial (emotional and spiritual benefits more than contributing to the survival of the family), aside from the obvious (and appropriate to your profession) tax advantages. [/quote]

I take exception to the emotional and spiritual benefits being termed immaterial here. I’ve just seen too much positive come from babies entering into people’s lives to call something that profound and life changing “immaterial”.

I’d also argue that a family with a pregnant female or infant/toddler will likely take more care in ensure its survival than a family of just a coupling of adults… As in the desire to see the child grow up healthily and happy will lead the parents to make choices and partake in activities that positively effect their survival and well being. Mommy might sell her street bike and by a safer care, daddy might not volunteer for the underwater welding job on the oil rig and take the safer job in the factory down the street, etc…

I think you discount the less obvious and less physical benefits children bring to their parents erroneously to favor simple observations like “mom breast feeds the child, so it is a parasite.”

[/quote]

If you don’t like the word “immaterial” then I will amend the statement to read “intangible”. They are practically synonyms, but perhaps carrying a less dismissive nuance.

[/quote]

I’d be careful using the term “intangible” with an accountant. We deal with a lot of “intangibles” that are of EXTREME value and have a huge affect on things.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

But if you eat fertilized eggs, you are in fact eating chicken abortions. [/quote]

Do people actually eat fertilized chicken eggs?[/quote]

Yes. You can buy them at any natural foods store.

In the Philippines they take it a step farther. Google “balut”.

Yes, I have eaten it.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

But if you eat fertilized eggs, you are in fact eating chicken abortions. [/quote]

Do people actually eat fertilized chicken eggs?[/quote]

Yes. You can buy them at any natural foods store.

In the Philippines they take it a step farther. Google “balut”.

Yes, I have eaten it. [/quote]

Interesting, is there supposedly some benefit?

Something tells me I should wait until I get home for that google. What I can say is, I lived in Japan and Thailand for a limited time, so I can imagine…

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

If you don’t like the word “immaterial” then I will amend the statement to read “intangible”. They are practically synonyms, but perhaps carrying a less dismissive nuance. [/quote]

I’m a CPA. Those words aren’t synonyms, not even close, in my world lol.

I’m not discounting your experience. I am discounting your evaluation in this thread. I’m not in any way trying to disrespect you or say you aren’t a wonderful parent. All I’m saying is, using the child is a parasite line here, and your rational here, is largely ignoring factors in order to fit your round position into the proverbial square hole.

How are you not contradicting yourself here.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Offspring do provide benefit for their parents, but for the first several years (or decades in the case of humans) that benefit is largely immaterial (emotional and spiritual benefits more than contributing to the survival of the family), aside from the obvious (and appropriate to your profession) tax advantages. [/quote]

I take exception to the emotional and spiritual benefits being termed immaterial here. I’ve just seen too much positive come from babies entering into people’s lives to call something that profound and life changing “immaterial”.

I’d also argue that a family with a pregnant female or infant/toddler will likely take more care in ensure its survival than a family of just a coupling of adults… As in the desire to see the child grow up healthily and happy will lead the parents to make choices and partake in activities that positively effect their survival and well being. Mommy might sell her street bike and by a safer care, daddy might not volunteer for the underwater welding job on the oil rig and take the safer job in the factory down the street, etc…

I think you discount the less obvious and less physical benefits children bring to their parents erroneously to favor simple observations like “mom breast feeds the child, so it is a parasite.”

[/quote]

If you don’t like the word “immaterial” then I will amend the statement to read “intangible”. They are practically synonyms, but perhaps carrying a less dismissive nuance.

[/quote]

I’d be careful using the term “intangible” with an accountant. We deal with a lot of “intangibles” that are of EXTREME value and have a huge affect on things. [/quote]

An intangible asset is still an asset. I never implied that it is not valuable, just that it is intangible, defined as “unable to be touched or grasped.” A child is tangible. The emotional satisfaction one derives from its existence is not.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

An intangible asset is still an asset. I never implied that it is not valuable, just that it is intangible, defined as “unable to be touched or grasped.” A child is tangible. The emotional satisfaction one derives from its existence is not.
[/quote]

Now contrast that with immaterial…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I’m a CPA. Those words aren’t synonyms, not even close, in my world lol. [/quote]

Yep. Which is why I amended my statement. “Immaterial” carries the nuance of “irrelevant” and that is not the implication I wished to convey, rather its philosophical meaning of “spiritual as opposed to physical”. The statement “God is immaterial” is true in a philosophical sense, and indeed in a literal one, inasmuch as God does not have a physical form, but I would not argue that God is irrelevant, even to someone who professes disbelief in deities.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Offspring do provide benefit for their parents, but for the first several years (or decades in the case of humans) that benefit is largely immaterial (emotional and spiritual benefits more than contributing to the survival of the family), aside from the obvious (and appropriate to your profession) tax advantages. [/quote]

I take exception to the emotional and spiritual benefits being termed immaterial here. I’ve just seen too much positive come from babies entering into people’s lives to call something that profound and life changing “immaterial”.

I’d also argue that a family with a pregnant female or infant/toddler will likely take more care in ensure its survival than a family of just a coupling of adults… As in the desire to see the child grow up healthily and happy will lead the parents to make choices and partake in activities that positively effect their survival and well being. Mommy might sell her street bike and by a safer care, daddy might not volunteer for the underwater welding job on the oil rig and take the safer job in the factory down the street, etc…

I think you discount the less obvious and less physical benefits children bring to their parents erroneously to favor simple observations like “mom breast feeds the child, so it is a parasite.”

[/quote]

If you don’t like the word “immaterial” then I will amend the statement to read “intangible”. They are practically synonyms, but perhaps carrying a less dismissive nuance.

[/quote]

I’d be careful using the term “intangible” with an accountant. We deal with a lot of “intangibles” that are of EXTREME value and have a huge affect on things. [/quote]

An intangible asset is still an asset. I never implied that it is not valuable, just that it is intangible, defined as “unable to be touched or grasped.” A child is tangible. The emotional satisfaction one derives from its existence is not.
[/quote]

But you said intangible = immaterial. In context of the disussion that means you are saying the emotional benefit has little to no value. An intangbile asset, like love, can far out weigh a tangible asset, like milk.

So because an intangilbe asset is difficult to quntify it should be discounted?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I’m a CPA. Those words aren’t synonyms, not even close, in my world lol. [/quote]

Yep. Which is why I amended my statement. “Immaterial” carries the nuance of “irrelevant” and that is not the implication I wished to convey, rather its philosophical meaning of “spiritual as opposed to physical”. The statement “God is immaterial” is true in a philosophical sense, and indeed in a literal one, inasmuch as God does not have a physical form, but I would not argue that God is irrelevant, even to someone who professes disbelief in deities. [/quote]

Fair enough.

I think you discount the intangible benefits babies provide the parents when discussing the parasite or not a parasite aspect of the human paternal relationship. :wink:

I don’t mean this in a derisive way, but who are you Varqanir to decide the “Intangible, spiritual, or whatever,” benefit of a mother/child relationship should be dismissed when discussing if a child is a parasite or not?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

this is not a medical statement this is a legal issue
[/quote]

So therefore, if a law was passed tomorrow that said all black people need to be dragged through the streets behind pickups to their death, you would support it then?

I always knew you were a democrat. Laws trump people’s right to life… [/quote]

I would think my law would be a more natural law. Infanticide has always been around and I will not judge another for deeming it best not to bring a child into their circumstances

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

this is not a medical statement this is a legal issue
[/quote]

So therefore, if a law was passed tomorrow that said all black people need to be dragged through the streets behind pickups to their death, you would support it then?

I always knew you were a democrat. Laws trump people’s right to life… [/quote]

I would think my law would be a more natural law. Infanticide has always been around and I will not judge another for deeming it best not to bring a child into their circumstances
[/quote]

Slavery has always been around. I will not judge another for deeming it best to sell a person because of thier circumstances.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

this is not a medical statement this is a legal issue
[/quote]

So therefore, if a law was passed tomorrow that said all black people need to be dragged through the streets behind pickups to their death, you would support it then?

I always knew you were a democrat. Laws trump people’s right to life… [/quote]

I would think my law would be a more natural law. Infanticide has always been around and I will not judge another for deeming it best not to bring a child into their circumstances
[/quote]

Murder has always been around (ooopps killing), I will not judge another for taking a life because of their circumstances.

What about this falls under natural law?