Originally posted by Putinbot1
Neph triggers the idiots again! Kudos Neph!
Really man? Is this provocation really necessary? We’re trying to get a decent debate going here. Last thing we need is for the sensible posts to be burried with a “u triggered, no u, no u” ad infitum loop.
Mind taking it somewhere else please?
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Sorry, I triggered you too Nibedicus.
Sigh. Guess some people can't let go of their basic M.O.
Meh. Hate to do it as you do make decent debates sometimes. But /ignore.
Anyway, hope no one falls for the baits and we can all continue this debate. 🙂
Eager to actually discuss the abortion debate again to see where we all stand (if possible).
Am not for the bribe thing.
As an adult, you decides on day to get drunk and have unprotected sex, and the result is you getting pregnant, that’s on you. I shouldn’t have to pay so you could undo your mistake.
The only time I would pay with no fuss, is if you were raped, or caring the baby to term in dangers your life.
Am not pro, nor anti abortion, but I shouldn’t pay for your mistake.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Sigh. Guess some people can't let go of their basic M.O.Meh. Hate to do it as you do make decent debates sometimes. But /ignore.
Anyway, hope no one falls for the baits and we can all continue this debate. 🙂
Eager to actually discuss the abortion debate again to see where we all stand (if possible).
He's a chronic troll. He hasn't just been trolling KMC for years, his name shows up on other websites, too. He's....tame and harmless, actually. Don't let him get to you.
Originally posted by SquallX
Am not for the bribe thing.As an adult, you decides on day to get drunk and have unprotected sex, and the result is you getting pregnant, that’s on you. I shouldn’t have to pay so you could undo your mistake.
The only time I would pay with no fuss, is if you were raped, or caring the baby to term in dangers your life.
Am not pro, nor anti abortion, but I shouldn’t pay for your mistake.
Obviously, we disagree, but I think your position is fair.
While I do think the amount of abortions in the US is alarming, exactly how does eliminating a means of having a legal or safe one boasts better results? Wouldn't it be better to promote a means of living where the need of abortion is less likely?
As for the bribe thing, exactly what good does this actually do in the long term if it actually went through? If there are concerns about using federal funds for Planned Parenthood, then maybe we can find methods where citizens can set up a payment plan. Or alternatively look at exactly how much of citizens taxes are used as federal and device a budget that would solve such a tax burden.
Originally posted by SquallX
Am not for the bribe thing.As an adult, you decides on day to get drunk and have unprotected sex, and the result is you getting pregnant, that’s on you. I shouldn’t have to pay so you could undo your mistake.
The only time I would pay with no fuss, is if you were raped, or caring the baby to term in dangers your life.
Am not pro, nor anti abortion, but I shouldn’t pay for your mistake.
There you have it, folks. It is not about protection, it is about punishment. It is not about the sanctity of life, it is about ensuring women face consequences for having unsanctioned sex.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There you have it, folks. It is not about protection, it is about punishment. It is not about the sanctity of life, it is about ensuring women face consequences for having unsanctioned sex.
What a perverse way to spin an argument. I woulda thought his message was about ownership and responsibilities of choices made, not your particular point of assigning punishment.
Originally posted by snowdragon
What a perverse way to spin an argument. I woulda thought his message was about ownership and responsibilities of choices made, not your particular point of assigning punishment.
His argument is perverse. If it was about the sanctity of life, then he would not permit abortion under any circumstances. Instead, he outright admits that it is about making women suffer consequences, even though abortion is a completely legal and valid alternative.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
His argument is perverse. If it was about the sanctity of life, then he would not permit abortion under any circumstances. Instead, he outright admits that it is about making women suffer consequences, even though abortion is a completely legal and valid alternative.
Weird, I got a different interpretation when he said this:
Am not pro, nor anti abortion, but I shouldn’t pay for your mistake.
This statement pretty much says that he isn't speaking to the sanctity of life in his post, he's speaking to someone else's carelessness and passing the responsibilities onto taxpayers.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There you have it, folks. It is not about protection, it is about punishment. It is not about the sanctity of life, it is about ensuring women face consequences for having unsanctioned sex.
2. The point of principle is not "I don't want women having sex therefore I want to punish them" the point of principle is that if you make an unforced uncoerced decision that incurs consequences, you don't get to shift the burden for that decision onto somebody else, you don't get to tell the taxpayer they must subsidize the consequences of your sex life, and in the view of someone who is pro-life you don't get to shift the consequences of that decision onto the child you have conceived by aborting it.
3. This doesn't mean someone whose pro-life is happy about women suffering for their sex lives. I personally am not a moral fan of casual sex or abortion, but I would be really really happy if birth control advanced to the point where unwanted pregnancies were no longer a thing, because that would mean no pre-born humans being aborted, no mother being saddled with a burden she's not optimally ready for, no taxpayer being forced to subsidize someone else's mistakes. I'd be happy if the consequence was eliminated altogether but since that isn't possible then it should be shouldered by the person whose decision lead to the consequence. Virtually nobody is in favor of unwanted pregnancy happening.
4. If this is what you're claiming to be the true motivation of the pro-life crowd, you better watch yourself, because that's a very dark and twisted motivation your impugning close to half of the country with. If half of the country was that demented we'd have a very different culture and set of laws that would more closely resemble the middle east than modern western society.
5. Talk to a lot of pro-life people and I don't think they would dispute that the man should also bare the financial burden of the child, if not stay with the woman and raise the child with her.
It really doesn't seem like you're interested in an honest conversation when you say this, it seems like you're instead trying to castigate those who disagree with you politically with the most twisted motive you can imagine. And I think that's a very dishonest and despicable tactic to use.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Weird, I got a different interpretation when he said this:This statement pretty much says that he isn't speaking to the sanctity of life in his post, he's speaking to someone else's carelessness and passing the responsibilities onto taxpayers.
[list=1][*]Despite claiming to be neutral, only supporting abortion in instances of rape and the health or life of the mother is a Pro-Life position. And it reveals the disengenuousness thereof: they purport to be about principle, but are willing to compromise that principle so as to not appear ideologically extreme. He unwittingly admitted their true position, which is that women should face consequences for getting pregnant, even though they do not have to.
[*]Abortion is not funded by taxpayers. However, most women who seek abortion services are living at or below the federal poverty level. Carrying the pregnancy to term would result in a cost to tax payers in the form of social programs, whereas terminating the pregnancy would cost the tax payers nothing, and would actually be a net savings. So if that is his metric, it is a complete failure.[/list]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]Despite claiming to be neutral, only supporting abortion in instances of rape and the health or life of the mother is a Pro-Life position. And it reveals the disengenuousness thereof: they purport to be about principle, but are willing to compromise that principle so as to not appear ideologically extreme. He unwittingly admitted their true position, which is that women should face consequences for getting pregnant, even though they do not have to.
I wasn't aware you're a mind reader who can sniff out his true policy positions and intentions.