Heartbeat-Abortion Bill Ohio

[vla1ne]

First of all, most women don't even know they're pregnant for the first 4 - 6 weeks, and like I said stats will prove to you that "more careful enjoyment of recreational genitalia interaction" happens when abortions are made readily available without a million and a half hoops to jump through or Christian doctors trying to block you at every possible avenue, or in the case of some people straight up denying services they should be providing you.

 

Also like I said this idea of people just carelessly getting abortions left and right, and blindly barging into it has no factual or statistical basis. You are creating a mass narrative based on your own personal perceptions/experiences without wanting to see the other side of the story.

 

is it really more responsible to use an abortion as contraceptive than it is to use any other method of contraception? stats do prove that women rarely know they're pregnant for the first 4-6 weeks, which is why the whole 6 weeks thing bugs me, but that's the exact reason i call it irresponsible, you've had sex, and regardless of contraceptive, you need to monitor, for pregnancy, kids don't just pop up out of nowhere, why are you not monitoring? can you not afford to? then instead of asking for free abortions, why not ask for funding to purchase products that monitor abortions? that's what i'm getting at, it's not irresponsible to be caught unawares, it's irresponsible to know that you can be easily caught unaware, and do nothing to remedy the situation. if you've had sex, and you so much as suspect pregnancy, check. this isn't draconian measures, and it's not even slippery slope, get checked if you so much as suspect pregnancy, many tests aren't that expensive, and i'd be more willing to have those covered under insurance and government funding than i would abortion past either six weeks or first trimester.  if pro-choice people were asking for better coverage of things like pregnancy tests, that would be far more responsible than simply asking for abortions to be legal at all times, i can understand why you don't want it to be illegal though, so i can't argue too much on the whole legal/illegal front. even so, i still support first trimester limits on government funded abortions, and as for women not knowing, how is that responsible? monitor your condition.

 

also, it's not just christian doctors, it's taxpayers who don't want their money going into something they absolutely do not support, it's people who literally see that fetus as a life, to whom you are essentially asking to pay for murders they don't believe in. i do agree with that second part though, if you work in a job, your job is to provide services, not obstruct them, and if you cannot, or will not do so, you would be better off leaving said job.

 

did i not already give credit to the other side? my view was that i don't like abortions later in term, but if you are willing to pay out of pocket past that first trimester instead of using taxpayer money, then i don't particularly care. if you can't pay out of pocket, too bad, i'd still rather not pay for you. i don't want it to be illegal, i just don't want to pay for it. because again, i'd rather not put money into something that i do not support. prior to first trimester, go ahead, abort away, past that, if you've got the money, go ahead, abort away. you're using your own money at that point, so i consider that taking responsibility.

 

 

also, before anything is said on it, i would support the measures that i currently do even if it were men having children, the sex doesn't matter, the principals do. responsibility is not sitting back and waiting until the baby's almost born to regret the decision, it's assessing costs, and making the best decision for yourself, your partner, and the potential child. if you can't do that by the end of the first trimester, then that's a personal problem, and the government (and those paying taxes into the system, who don't support it at all) should not have to pay for your dallying. and if you cannot afford an abortion, that's all the more reason to monitor early is it not?

 

"Recreational genitalia interaction."

 

Vlaine you couldn't have just said sex, could you?  

i did later, but how many conversations do you get to say recreational genitalia interaction in? had to use it at least once. couldn't help it.

[a bad post]

First-of-all like I said you have no proof that people are using abortion as a form of contraception if you are going to make that claim show statistics for it or stop trying to push a false narrative. 

 

Second-of-all not a dime of you taxpayer dollars goes to abortions. Legally money given to people and organizations from the federal government cannot be used to fund an abortion, so people do pay out of pocket (or their insurance pays for it if it covers it).

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

First-of-all like I said you have no proof that people are using abortion as a form of contraception if you are going to make that claim show statistics for it or stop trying to push a false narrative. 

 

Second-of-all not a dime of you taxpayer dollars goes to abortions. Legally money given to people and organizations from the federal government cannot be used to fund an abortion, so people do pay out of pocket (or their insurance pays for it if it covers it).

Pretty sure a threat to the mother's life is a Hyde amendment exception

So yeah, you're wrong. Federal money does go to abortions

[Dad]

Pretty sure a threat to the mother's life is a Hyde amendment exception

So yeah, you're wrong. Federal money does go to abortions

 

But threats to the mother's life is very rare.  Implying that all federal funds went to abortions would mean every abortion is necessary and a medical urgency.  But you already said that was false :/

[Delibirb]

If I may.

 

Personally, I am not overly fond of abortions for "I don't wanna" reasons. Ideally I think, every child should be given the opportunity to succeed, even unborn ones, and on social levels I would like to say I would fight for that.

 

However, the legality of abortion is, in my opinion, not something the government should have any interest in controlling, let alone any ability to control.

 

What every debate of abortion boils down to is the morality of it. That is, whether it is immoral to abort a fetus or, at what stage does it become immoral. There is no "lawful" reasoning, not really; abortion is not "murder" in the eyes of the law, because they haven't been born yet, are not yet citizens, and so to the law, to the government, they effectively do not exist. This cannot be contested. It is a question of at what point is it morally wrong to abort. That should be something the individual decides, based on their religion, financial status, etc. Religious organizations (The main lobbyists for the federal prohibition of abortion, along with people with religious agendas, regardless of what you may think to the contrary) can of course give their position to their followers, excommunicate people who disobey their ideologies, as they are allowed to, but no one should be able to use the law to prevent an abortion, at any stage. It's not only ridiculous and unjust, it is an unnecessary waste of resources to put such control into place and maintain it, over something so legally arbitrary.

 

As alive as a fetus may be at any given stage, if they have not yet been born, they are not citizens in the eyes of the law, and what happens to them should not only be none of the law's business, but none of it's concern.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But threats to the mother's life is very rare.  Implying that all federal funds went to abortions would mean every abortion is necessary and a medical urgency.  But you already said that was false :/

Not a dime was incorrect

If I may.

 

Personally, I am not overly fond of abortions for "I don't wanna" reasons. Ideally I think, every child should be given the opportunity to succeed, even unborn ones, and on social levels I would like to say I would fight for that.

 

However, the legality of abortion is, in my opinion, not something the government should have any interest in controlling, let alone any ability to control.

 

What every debate of abortion boils down to is the morality of it. That is, whether it is immoral to abort a fetus or, at what stage does it become immoral. There is no "lawful" reasoning, not really; abortion is not "murder" in the eyes of the law, because they haven't been born yet, are not yet citizens, and so to the law, to the government, they effectively do not exist. This cannot be contested. It is a question of at what point is it morally wrong to abort. That should be something the individual decides, based on their religion, financial status, etc. Religious organizations (The main lobbyists for the federal prohibition of abortion, along with people with religious agendas, regardless of what you may think to the contrary) can of course give their position to their followers, excommunicate people who disobey their ideologies, as they are allowed to, but no one should be able to use the law to prevent an abortion, at any stage. It's not only ridiculous and unjust, it is an unnecessary waste of resources to put such control into place and maintain it, over something so legally arbitrary.

 The

As alive as a fetus may be at any given stage, if they have not yet been born, they are not citizens in the eyes of the law, and what happens to them should not only be none of the law's business, but none of it's concern.

Sure

 

First pass a law recognizing fetuses as humans

Then outlaw

[Dad]

First pass a law recognizing fetuses as humans

 

You're trying to make Stem Cell research illegal, aren't you?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You're trying to make Stem Cell research illegal, aren't you?

No, murder victims can donate organs. Should be up to the parents in the case of SCR

[Delibirb]

Sure

 

First pass a law recognizing fetuses as humans

Then outlaw

My point is that that is a waste of resources and accomplishes nothing beneficial for the government, nor does it help them govern. What reason exists for a governing body to care about the existence of fetuses? Even if they are classified as humans, there's no paperwork to be filed when one becomes pregnant, no official document to state that you expect a new citizen to exist in 9 months. There is literally no paper trail to locate a fetus. Make them legally human all you want, the law does not know it exists until it is born, it should not care whether it doesn't make it, or in what way it doesn't.

 

And I've mentioned before, but you really do not help along your position or the debate as a whole with, frankly, half-assed, short, ill-thought responses. Rebut! Argue against my points, reiterate your own with additional information that is more relevant to my arguments; don't expect to be taken seriously sitting on mere quips! This is your present problem, why you can't be taken seriously, because you do not take your points or the debate seriously!

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

My point is that that is a waste of resources and accomplishes nothing beneficial for the government, nor does it help them govern. What reason exists for a governing body to care about the existence of fetuses? Even if they are classified as humans, there's no paperwork to be filed when one becomes pregnant, no official document to state that you expect a new citizen to exist in 9 months. There is literally no paper trail to locate a fetus. Make them legally human all you want, the law does not know it exists until it is born, it should not care whether it doesn't make it, or in what way it doesn't.

 

And I've mentioned before, but you really do not help along your position or the debate as a whole with, frankly, half-assed, short, ill-thought responses. Rebut! Argue against my points, reiterate your own with additional information that is more relevant to my arguments; don't expect to be taken seriously sitting on mere quips! This is your present problem, why you can't be taken seriously, because you do not take your points or the debate seriously!

Because it's a unique form of life that is already differentiated from the mother. By day 22, the heart’s already beating with the child’s blood, which may be of a different blood type than the mother. So where in here exactly do you think it’s okay to silence that kid because you have a personal convenience issue? 

 

Government Motive? This is not a matter of a 'women's right to choose." A slave owner didn't get to 'choose' to hold slaves; Nazi didn't get to 'decide' which Jews got to live. And don't give me the, 'It's legal, therefore it's okay.' Lots of things were legal; lots of things in human history have been legal that were totally evil.

 

The only motive that you should need is the one that the government affords you, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

There doesn't need to be a paper trail to locate a fetus. I'm not sure what point you're making there. There's not a paper trail to track every gram of cocaine sold. Where there is, is a reactive penalty if an individual is caught trafficking in certain illegal activities. In this case, the paper trail doesn't matter as much as there being a method to stop the actual abortion from taking place. 

 

You critique my quips fairly, but I don't see you at all going after the opposition responding in similar quips. If I'm such a detriment here, why aren't any of these folks responding to Tenta or Deadpool for example. Maybe, just maybe, I have to respond in quips because I'm one person who has to respond to 5-6 people who focus solely on me. Just a thought 

 

If you're truly motivated to help this section, I suggest you start by calling out ironic quips that are actually encouraged by members of the staff by likes and the kind. Like Tenta's post about men dictating abortion 

 

 

To be honest, I'd be happy to kill Helpless Defenseless Mini-Me if I didn't think Mini-Me could make it in the big bad world out there, or if I could neither afford to raise him nor put him up for adoption, or for whatever other situational reason would require we kill him. This next part is a bit unrelated at first, but I saw on the first page that you mentioned VP Whoever-The-funk talking good sheet about adoption systems. And that's great; it really is. We definitely need better adoption systems, but we also need to cut down on how many humans we already have, and how many more are to come. If you're going to make the argument of saying abortion is murder, I'll do ya one better and say going all-in pro-life is direct support for the overpopulation of Earth to an even worse extent than what we've already got.

 

And if you're going to respond to me in this thread, at least have the dignity to quote me this time. You didn't do it in the last thread and it was a real pain in the ass to check your "Wank to Trump-cave" every now and then to see if you'd answered my brief stints with disproportionately short and unsatisfactory answers.

In every era, there's been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.

 

The fact remains, people want those kids. Which is why people should equally push for easier adoption, and better coverage of mothers.

 

Malthusianism has been proven incorrect many times over, not entirely sure why you're bringing that up now. At the very least, Malthusian logic won't catch up with the world before we start exploring other planets and finding better ways to use space on earth

 

I'm not entirely sure what you problem is, and I don't /really/ interact with you, so you're gonna have to fill me in on the meaning of the euphemisms you have created for the sake of humor (?) such as the "Wank to Trump-cave"

 

 

first and foremost, i don't much like the thought of abortions, but i somewhat support the right to have one. if it's in your body, then you have a right to take it out at nearly any point in time. if that's murder in some peoples eyes, then so be it, tell them to shove it into their own bodies if they love it so much. if you're the one growing it, you have full rights to throw it out of you at pretty much any time. that being said, i still don't support having one past the first trimester, and can understand the reasoning behind six weeks bill. just because you can have an abortion, doesn't mean you should be able to wait until the third, or even second trimester to have it. this (hopefully) prompts more careful enjoyment of recreational genitalia interaction. i can understand why some people are upset though, and to that i would likely support not making it illegal, but simply no longer supporting the expense off of any government funding. that way those who want one past 6 weeks/ first term can go and do it with their own funds, and those who monitor their bodies more carefully will be covered in case something, somehow goes wrong.

May I enquirer how this is any different than the logic slave owners used to describe slaves

 

The same similar pattern of logic was used there. Law said a certain designation of life was not an equal form of life. This allowed a certain demographic to be a truer form of life, which in turn gave them control over all aspects of the less form's life. 

 

From here, the superior true form of life was able to arbitrate all facets of the inferior lifeforms life. The gentle progression has gone from "my property, my choice" to "my body, my choice"

 

[Delibirb]

Because it's a unique form of life that is already differentiated from the mother. By day 22, the heart’s already beating with the child’s blood, which may be of a different blood type than the mother. So where in here exactly do you think it’s okay to silence that kid because you have a personal convenience issue? 

 

Government Motive? This is not a matter of a 'women's right to choose." A slave owner didn't get to 'choose' to hold slaves; Nazi didn't get to 'decide' which Jews got to live. And don't give me the, 'It's legal, therefore it's okay.' Lots of things were legal; lots of things in human history have been legal that were totally evil.

 

The only motive that you should need is the one that the government affords you, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

There doesn't need to be a paper trail to locate a fetus. I'm not sure what point you're making there. There's not a paper trail to track every gram of cocaine sold. Where there is, is a reactive penalty if an individual is caught trafficking in certain illegal activities. In this case, the paper trail doesn't matter as much as there being a method to stop the actual abortion from taking place. 

 

You critique my quips fairly, but I don't see you at all going after the opposition responding in similar quips. If I'm such a detriment here, why aren't any of these folks responding to Tenta or Deadpool for example. Maybe, just maybe, I have to respond in quips because I'm one person who has to respond to 5-6 people who focus solely on me. Just a thought 

 

If you're truly motivated to help this section, I suggest you start by calling out ironic quips that are actually encouraged by members of the staff by likes and the kind. Like Tenta's post about men dictating abortion 

I only pointed out your poor argumentative skills because I was responding solely to you, who responded solely to me. I had only just jumped into the conversation because, seeing how many pages had already been gone through, I felt it would be more appropriate to throw my hat in blindly than trudge through material that would be irrelevant by the present. I specify you in regards to the past because you're the only one on your side much of the time, and you offer nothing for the opposition to bounce back with. Debate is give and take, and you don't give anything back. Yes, there are others opposing you doing the same thing, but from what I gather, they either A: Did better to start with and got worse as your behavior exhausted them; or B: Were not actively trying to argue any points and are not the major speakers of their respective side, so are irrelevant to the debate. You are the primary representative of your position much of the time. Have a bit of respect for your points. I do not mean to antagonize you in this regard, but it is a problem I am becoming increasingly more aware of, and while others should follow suit, you are a bigger fish in this section and your setting an example will likely nudge others in the right direction.

 

Returning to the actual topic.

 

Most of your first responses to my position are irrelevant. You're reiterating that your belief is that the fetus is alive. Which, regardless of whether I agree with or not, is irrelevant to my point. You do eventually respond to my actual position, but the lack of a paper trail showing the existence of cocaine is quite different from paper trails showing a person is going to exist soon.

 

Cocaine creates a number of problems for government, which I will not be getting into here as that is quite a different topic, so it is logical that they seek out the existence of cocaine which should not exist and, by all records, does not. The existence, or lack thereof, of a fetus, has no bearing on a governing body's ability to maintain peace and progress, nor the safety of the people it governs. Again, the fetus being alive or not is irrelevant, it is not yet a person by the definitions of the law; it has no citizenship, no assets, it likely doesn't have a name yet if abortion is on the table. The government holds no responsibility to the safety of that child until it leaves its mother's womb. Even if you believe it should, what might you have done to accomplish that? There would need to be paperwork to show that the fetus is in the womb, there would need to be some identification. Essentially a conception certificate. There would have to be, you can't try someone for murder if there was no record of a victim ever having existed. But to request such a thing is laughable.

 

Again, I'm not personally on board with abortion, I will argue against the practice on a social level to the end of time. However, it is unreasonable for a government to control it when it does not affect its responsibility to its citizens.

 

This is my point, and so I present to you this prompt to guide you in continuing this debate. Do understand this is in no way a tease or insult to you or your ability to debate. I simply want to ensure that there is material for you to argue against in a streamlined manner, such that I may have that same privilege following what I expect to be a thought-provoking response.

 

In what way does abortion hinder a government's ability to offer life, liberty, and happiness to the people it serves, or, if you still believe the government should recognize fetuses as citizens - and therefore still believe that the act of abortion is a failure of the government to protect its people - in what way would you have that done that is not only respectful of the privacy of the governed, but is also efficient and effective?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Regarding the fetus is alive portion. 10 years ago, we would have been unable to save the fetus at the stage of development we can today. 50 years ago it would have been even starker. As we inch closer and closer to ectogenesis, the limits of viability have become pushed. So did fetuses get more human as science progressed?

 

 

At which point did this child become human? When we can save it outside the mother? Because that's a variable. Not a constant

 

I think you misunderstood my point on cocaine (or any drug for that matter). I was attempting to propose a method to keep track of fetuses. You can attempt to track every fetus conceived, which is likely quite difficult. Similarly it's very difficult to keep track over every gram of cocaine trafficked through the United States. Instead of chasing after the problem, you can be waiting for it, which is personified in drug-busts during trade, and the government restricting the period in which an abortion can be performed.

 

I reject the premise that you need a paper trail when you can pass blanket legislation to protect organisms with a innate potential to become human in a reasonable period of time. 

 

Illegal immigrants technically don't exist in America under the laws, but don't you think a police officer would stop me from murdering one on the street if he saw the conformation? The illegal won't have any papers on him suggesting he was american or human at that point.

 

The government hinders LLH when the father has little say in the matter, can we acknowledge at the very least he is in fact a person? And I would argue that with the ever receding limits on what we can state as viable, that a fetus too should in large portion be considered a human.

 

If you reject the notion that humanity should be tied to viability, then we have a case of a wrongly convicted man.

 

Dr. Kermit Gosnell and now convicted murdered preformed third trimester abortions, of individuals like this baby girl (asked Nai permission to post this)

 

[spoiler=aborted Fetus]

 

 

 

 

He was convicted of murder. If fetus aren't human, should his conviction be overturned?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

REM sleep and dreaming are not the same thing, for the record.

 

Also, out of curiosity, do you think unborn children should be able to be claimed as a dependent?

[vla1ne]

First-of-all like I said you have no proof that people are using abortion as a form of contraception if you are going to make that claim show statistics for it or stop trying to push a false narrative. 

 

Second-of-all not a dime of you taxpayer dollars goes to abortions. Legally money given to people and organizations from the federal government cannot be used to fund an abortion, so people do pay out of pocket (or their insurance pays for it if it covers it).

i was not trying to push it as narrative, if i gave that impression then i will say now that i was not trying to claim it as a narrative ( ie "women are using abortion as their main form of contraception" was not my actual intent.) my statement was meant as in "abortion is, outside of true accidents (as in BC somehow failing, even when used properly), health of the mother, and rape an irresponsible practice." it means that you have went ahead and had sex, without preparing, and hoped for the best, then you are simply irresponsible, in fact, you would be extremely irresponsible under that context, and don't deserve any form of support that would take money from others, so basically, if you're irresponsible, pay for your own mistakes. and yes, that is a fair statement, because last i checked (about 50 minutes ago by the time of this post being posted) 46% of women did not use ANY birth control when asked whether or not they had any contraceptive. (http://www.contracept.org/abortifacient.php)

 

funny enough, i remembered this shortly after i went to work. so this was my own momentary ignorance. jon stewart and stephen colbert already busted that myth for me a few years back and i still used it here after forgetting, you are pretty much correct here. winter already used the minor nitpick i had with your statement, so i'll leave that there considering my post had enough detail, i assume you then know what my stance is following this correction: if you're using your own money, then i don't care.

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what you problem is, and I don't /really/ interact with you, so you're gonna have to fill me in on the meaning of the euphemisms you have created for the sake of humor (?) such as the "Wank to Trump-cave"

 

 

May I enquirer how this is any different than the logic slave owners used to describe slaves

 

The same similar pattern of logic was used there. Law said a certain designation of life was not an equal form of life. This allowed a certain demographic to be a truer form of life, which in turn gave them control over all aspects of the less form's life. 

 

From here, the superior true form of life was able to arbitrate all facets of the inferior lifeforms life. The gentle progression has gone from "my property, my choice" to "my body, my choice"

that sounds like a wonderfully wet and sticky place. if it's not a sausage party, i'd like to Visit sometime.

 

because slaves were not only already grown people, they were taken from the lives they were already leading, likely against their known will. same goes for children born into slavery, they were literally taking people who they had no rights or responsibility to take, and forcing them to work under somebody for the rest of their lives, on the other hand, with abortions, your own actions created the cluster of cells that you deem necessary to remove. if you decide to have it removed from your body, can it survive without you (not survive like feed itself, survive like perform basic human functions, such as breathe and eat.)? if not, then i see no reason to care. (and before the point is brought up, if an already born person enters a vegetative state, that is a different issue entirely, they are already fully alive, they have already developed connections, they have likely already grown up, so nobody else is actually responsible for them, for the next 18 years either, they simply suffered an accident and it is hoped that they can recover,) then i see no reason to object to the decision.

 

the argument for slaves was that they were inferior beings, yes, but that was not true, in this case, it is literally an inferior being. and until it is born, it remains so. it is 100% reliant upon the body and whim of the mother, no matter what, unlike slaves, who would have been fine on their own, and were not 100% reliant upon the master, but 100% restrained and retrained by them to be obedient. a fetus does not possess, that same self-sufficiency, and while it may attain it after birth, (or shortly before birth if we factor in third trimester) before birth, it is the sole possession, of the would-be/soon-to-be mother who created and still harbors it. it is not the same as killing an already born child, or owning slaves, owning slaves is to take freedom from one who owes you nothing, and forcing them to depend upon your whims, killing an already born child, is to take the life of one who is now no longer 100% dependent upon you to live, you could at that point give them up for abortion to the same effect.

 

 

it's kinda like the saying "in for a penny, in for a pound" if you aren't in it for a pound (as in taking responsibility for said unaborted child's life) then why jump in it for a penny (preventing the abortion) it's all well and good to say that you care for that life, but imo, if i'm gonna stop you from aborting that child, then murderer, or messiah, i cannot complain, no matter what that child grows up to be, because my obstruction is what forced the gamble in the first place. and since i know myself, i know i'm not in it for a pound, if you're in it for a pound, you are, whether you like it or not, supporting the existence of things like welfare programs that create reliance on tax money. adoption's always an option, but at the same time, people have children whom they use as anchor babies, and far more reasons beside. the full weight of that pound is heavy, and since i am not willing to shoulder it, i'll just drop the penny.

 

 

Regarding the fetus is alive portion. 10 years ago, we would have been unable to save the fetus at the stage of development we can today. 50 years ago it would have been even starker. As we inch closer and closer to ectogenesis, the limits of viability have become pushed. So did fetuses get more human as science progressed?

 

 

At which point did this child become human? When we can save it outside the mother? Because that's a variable. Not a constant

 

I think you misunderstood my point on cocaine (or any drug for that matter). I was attempting to propose a method to keep track of fetuses. You can attempt to track every fetus conceived, which is likely quite difficult. Similarly it's very difficult to keep track over every gram of cocaine trafficked through the United States. Instead of chasing after the problem, you can be waiting for it, which is personified in drug-busts during trade, and the government restricting the period in which an abortion can be performed.

 

I reject the premise that you need a paper trail when you can pass blanket legislation to protect organisms with a innate potential to become human in a reasonable period of time. 

 

Illegal immigrants technically don't exist in America under the laws, but don't you think a police officer would stop me from murdering one on the street if he saw the conformation? The illegal won't have any papers on him suggesting he was american or human at that point.

 

The government hinders LLH when the father has little say in the matter, can we acknowledge at the very least he is in fact a person? And I would argue that with the ever receding limits on what we can state as viable, that a fetus too should in large portion be considered a human.

 

If you reject the notion that humanity should be tied to viability, then we have a case of a wrongly convicted man.

 

Dr. Kermit Gosnell and now convicted murdered preformed third trimester abortions, of individuals like this baby girl (asked Nai permission to post this)

 

[spoiler=aborted Fetus]

 

 

 

 

He was convicted of murder. If fetus aren't human, should his conviction be overturned?

to answer the first question, nope. they have always been merely fetuses. that we can keep them alive and grow them in vats does not change that. if anything, your argument then should be that we change the way abortions are performed so that the fetus after removal is then moved into a facility where it can reach completion. since we've gotten better at keeping them alive, once that becomes possible, that's what we'll do. and please do not say it's too costly, or anything like that, if you care about fetuses, (i do not, but i can understand why you do) then the cost should not be important to you, because as i said above, "in for a penny, in for a pound" and the weight of that pound includes supporting that fetus up to, and after birth, since you are the one saying to keep it. (again, i understand why you care so much, and i don't much like abortions myself, but it's not my car, so when and where the oil is thrown out doesn't matter to me so long as it doesn't damage anything in my own garden.)

 

as stated above, if you can find the variable, and isolate it, then the weight is then added to you, to help care for that child instead of the mother once removed. the mother does not want it, if you do, then it's on you to take on the task that the mother abandoned.

 

track fetuses? how, and if it requires placing anything inside of another person's body, you are literally making the argument for abortions by removing the freedom of already grown humans to monitor and act upon their own bodies.

 

so long as you yourself take up that responsibility to care for said fetuses, i can agree fully with you.

 

apples to oranges. fetus does not have any effect upon america, that is what is meant by "they do not exist" illegal immigrants do. in addition, immigrants do not require parental care. they're clearly human, unless proven otherwise, fetuses are "potential humans", illegals are humans, just from a different part of the world. a fetus, as already stated, can become human, but they are not there just yet.

 

as for llh, please elaborate, i'm not too up to date on my terms. as for fathers having say, i support financial abortions as they have in other parts of the world, where the father pays a lump sum up front, and has full rights to walk out of the deal. it balances the entire mechanic, if mothers can get abortions against he will of the father, then i see no reason to not support the reverse, preventing either side from being saddled against their will with a child they didn't want, and may have never even known about.

 

that image is of something that was extremely close to birth, in other words he was exterminating fetuses that were practically ready for birth. the gray area is very small there. at that point, said child could have been removed, and supported instead of removed and killed. his conviction was likely in light of that fact. we have more than enough tech to support a fetus at the third trimester, especially late third trimester, as that one appears to be, it would not have been hard or even impractical, to remove the fetus at that stage, and simply support it till it was adoptable, and as such, the punishment seems appropriate to me. the fetus was practically born at that point, and it was still knocked off.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

REM sleep and dreaming are not the same thing, for the record.

 

Also, out of curiosity, do you think unborn children should be able to be claimed as a dependent?

Kinda, assuming a 6 weeks limit, if you can get a doctor to certify that you're pregnant after the mark where you can no longer get a convenience abortion, you should be able to declare the fetus as a dependent 

 

 

i was not trying to push it as narrative, if i gave that impression then i will say now that i was not trying to claim it as a narrative ( ie "women are using abortion as their main form of contraception" was not my actual intent.) my statement was meant as in "abortion is, outside of true accidents (as in BC somehow failing, even when used properly), health of the mother, and rape" an irresponsible practice. it means that you have went ahead and had sex, without preparing, and hoped for the best, and yes, that is a fair statement, because last i checked (about 50 minutes ago by the time of this post being posted) 46% of women did not use ANY birth control when asked whether or not they had any contraceptive. (http://www.contracept.org/abortifacient.php)

 

funny enough, i remembered this shortly after i went to work. so this was my own momentary ignorance. jon stewart and stephen colbert already busted that myth for me a few years back and i still used it here after forgetting, you are pretty much correct here. winter already used the minor nitpick i had with your statement, so i'll leave that there considering my post had enough detail, i assume you then know what my stance is following this correction: if you're using your own money, then i don't care.

 

 

that sounds like a wonderfully wet and sticky place. if it's not a sausage party, i'd like to Visit sometime.

 

because slaves were not only already grown people, they were taken from the lives they were already leading, likely against their known will. same goes for children born into slavery, they were literally taking people who they had no rights or responsibility to take, and forcing them to work under somebody for the rest of their lives, on the other hand, with abortions, your own actions created the cluster of cells that you deem necessary to remove. if you decide to have it removed from your body, can it survive without you? if not, (not survive like feed itself, survive like perform basic human functions, such as breathe and eat.) if not, then i see no reason to care. (and before the point is brought up, if an already born person enters a vegetative state, that is a different issue entirely, they are already fully alive, they have already developed connections, they have likely already grown up, so nobody else is actually responsible for them, for the next 18 years either, they simply suffered an accident and it is hoped that they can recover,) then i see no reason to object to the decision.

 

the argument for slaves was that they were inferior beings, yes, but that was not true, in this case, it is literally an inferior being. and until it is born, it remains so. it is 100% reliant upon the body and whim of the mother, no matter what, unlike slaves, who would have been fine on their own, and were not 100% reliant upon the master, but 100% restrained and retrained by them to be obedient. a fetus does not possess, that same self-sufficiency, and while it may attain it after birth, (or shortly before birth if we factor in third trimester) before birth, it is the sole possession, of the would-be/soon-to-be mother who created and still harbors it. it is not the same as killing an already born child, or owning slaves, owning slaves is to take freedom from one who owes you nothing, and forcing them to depend upon your whims, killing an already born child, is to take the life of one who is now no longer 100% dependent upon you to live, you could at that point give them up for abortion to the same effect.

 

 

it's kinda like the saying "in for a penny, in for a pound" if you aren't in it for a pound (as in taking responsibility for said unaborted child's life) then why jump in it for a penny (preventing the abortion) it's all well and good to say that you care for that life, but imo, if i'm gonna stop you from aborting that child, then murderer, or messiah, i cannot complain, no matter what that child grows up to be, because my obstruction is what forced the gamble in the first place. and since i know myself, i know i'm not in it for a pound, if you're in it for a pound, you are, whether you like it or not, supporting the existence of things like welfare programs that create reliance on tax money. adoption's always an option, but at the same time, people have children whom they use as anchor babies, and far more reasons beside. the full weight of that pound is heavy, and since i am not willing to shoulder it, i'll just drop the penny.

 

 

[Currently typing response, posted early by accident, please wait warmly until response is prepared]

But the same machines that can keep a vegetated human with a chance of survival alive, can keep a fetus alive.

 

The point with the slaves is, back in the day there was plenty of "science" to show that slaves were inferior, and there were plenty of laws to dehumanize them. Can we really with certainty dismiss fetuses when 1) the science of what is "human" isn't set in stone 2) laws suffer the same problems as they did in the era of slavery

 

I've made it clear that I'm in for the pound, and willing to go for two pounds if that's what it takes. We need to stop putting a monetary value on human lives because otherwise we're just slowly progressing back into a 21st century version of slavery

[vla1ne]

But the same machines that can keep a vegetated human with a chance of survival alive, can keep a fetus alive.

 

The point with the slaves is, back in the day there was plenty of "science" to show that slaves were inferior, and there were plenty of laws to dehumanize them. Can we really with certainty dismiss fetuses when 1) the science of what is "human" isn't set in stone 2) laws suffer the same problems as they did in the era of slavery

 

I've made it clear that I'm in for the pound, and willing to go for two pounds if that's what it takes. We need to stop putting a monetary value on human lives because otherwise we're just slowly progressing back into a 21st century version of slavery

which i addressed while editing why did you not wait warmly to respond? so i suppose that's already settled.

 

yes, but the science back then, was not only nowhere near as advanced or detailed. it was tinged with both religion and prejudice. it's fair to say that modern science is by far more advanced, that's not to say it's flawless, but it's more than far enough along to rely upon under the current context. we kno more than enough about cells to back the claim that they are not "human" as we would define a fully grown human, or even as we would define a child up to a certain point which i also covered, y you no warm wait? what's human may vary, but there do exist criteria that are rather set in stone, such as breathing, eat food as a grown person of small child would, or even survive off of some form of life support,  (yes, humans exist who cannot breathe, or do a number of the other things that i have listed, but they are either the exception to the rule, the flaws in the system, or suffered an accident that damaged their ability to do so naturally, and as such, they get a bye for this particular discussion) a fetus does not possess any of this. also, name said problems in the law please. 

 

and i can respect that. that's what i ask of anybody who is pro-life, and if you can accept that pound, then i can respect your view. as for monetary value, tell that to the organ and blood market. humans have a monetary value, both internal and external, and while that may or may not make life more/less romantic, looking away from said values is how we get programs and people that can't support or deal with the hell that is reality such as SJW's, who have distorted said differences in values badly, but  that's neither here nor there, i'll save it for jesus if he asks.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I think "convenience abortion" is a term that is harmful to rational discussion. It is never convenient, unless you are some kind of monster, but that is absolutely the minority.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

which i addressed while editing why did you not wait warmly to respond? so i suppose that's already settled.

 

yes, but the science back then, was not only nowhere near as advanced or detailed. it was tinged with both religion and prejudice. it's fair to say that modern science is by far more advanced, that's not to say it's flawless, but it's more than far enough along to rely upon under the current context. we kno more than enough about cells to back the claim that they are not "human" as we would define a fully grown human, or even as we would define a child up to a certain point which i also covered, y you no warm wait? what's human may vary, but there do exist criteria that are rather set in stone, such as breathing, eat food as a grown person of small child would, or even survive off of some form of life support,  (yes, humans exist who cannot breathe, or do a number of the other things that i have listed, but they are either the exception to the rule, the flaws in the system, or suffered an accident that damaged their ability to do so naturally, and as such, they get a bye for this particular discussion) a fetus does not possess any of this. also, name said problems in the law please. 

 

and i can respect that. that's what i ask of anybody who is pro-life, and if you can accept that pound, then i can respect your view. as for monetary value, tell that to the organ and blood market. humans have a monetary value, both internal and external, and while that may or may not make life more/less romantic, looking away from said values is how we get programs and people that can't support or deal with the hell that is reality such as SJW's, who have distorted said differences in values badly, but  that's neither here nor there, i'll save it for jesus if he asks.

YCM glitched on me

 

please warmly wait while I respond

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

to answer the first question, nope. they have always been merely fetuses. that we can keep them alive and grow them in vats does not change that. if anything, your argument then should be that we change the way abortions are performed so that the fetus after removal is then moved into a facility where it can reach completion. since we've gotten better at keeping them alive, once that becomes possible, that's what we'll do. and please do not say it's too costly, or anything like that, if you care about fetuses, (i do not, but i can understand why you do) then the cost should not be important to you, because as i said above, "in for a penny, in for a pound" and the weight of that pound includes supporting that fetus up to, and after birth, since you are the one saying to keep it. (again, i understand why you care so much, and i don't much like abortions myself, but it's not my car, so when and where the oil is thrown out doesn't matter to me so long as it doesn't damage anything in my own garden.)

 

as stated above, if you can find the variable, and isolate it, then the weight is then added to you, to help care for that child instead of the mother once removed. the mother does not want it, if you do, then it's on you to take on the task that the mother abandoned.

 

track fetuses? how, and if it requires placing anything inside of another person's body, you are literally making the argument for abortions by removing the freedom of already grown humans to monitor and act upon their own bodies.

 

so long as you yourself take up that responsibility to care for said fetuses, i can agree fully with you.

 

apples to oranges. fetus does not have any effect upon america, that is what is meant by "they do not exist" illegal immigrants do. in addition, immigrants do not require parental care. they're clearly human, unless proven otherwise, fetuses are "potential humans", illegals are humans, just from a different part of the world. a fetus, as already stated, can become human, but they are not there just yet.

 

as for llh, please elaborate, i'm not too up to date on my terms. as for fathers having say, i support financial abortions as they have in other parts of the world, where the father pays a lump sum up front, and has full rights to walk out of the deal. it balances the entire mechanic, if mothers can get abortions against he will of the father, then i see no reason to not support the reverse, preventing either side from being saddled against their will with a child they didn't want, and may have never even known about.

 

that image is of something that was extremely close to birth, in other words he was exterminating fetuses that were practically ready for birth. the gray area is very small there. at that point, said child could have been removed, and supported instead of removed and killed. his conviction was likely in light of that fact. we have more than enough tech to support a fetus at the third trimester, especially late third trimester, as that one appears to be, it would not have been hard or even impractical, to remove the fetus at that stage, and simply support it till it was adoptable, and as such, the punishment seems appropriate to me. the fetus was practically born at that point, and it was still knocked off.

 

I would love that to happen, that's ectogenesis. I think I've been pretty consistent in my views about taking care of our kids their whole lives instead of just until they leave the womb

 

I'm saying we DON'T need to track fetuses if we limit where they can go. If we outlaw abortion, the only place the legally can go is labor

 

A woman caught getting an illegal abortion can be dealt with with the force of law, as can the doctor providing said abortion 

 

The illegals comment was in response to tracking. It's hard to track them, but it's not hard to enforce a law violation you see occurring

 

Fathers are cut out of the equation. A financial payment isn't good enough, if the dad wants to keep the child, and the mother doesn't. The mother wins always. Just because the father backs out of a down payment doesn't ensure the abortion does or doesn't happen.

 

That's early 3rd trimester. When does a fetus become human vla1ne. Because at the start of your response you made it sound like they would always remain fetuses. What spares this child from being a mere non-human fetus 

[vla1ne]

I would love that to happen, that's ectogenesis. I think I've been pretty consistent in my views about taking care of our kids their whole lives instead of just until they leave the womb

 

I'm saying we DON'T need to track fetuses if we limit where they can go. If we outlaw abortion, the only place the legally can go is labor

 

A woman caught getting an illegal abortion can be dealt with with the force of law, as can the doctor providing said abortion 

 

The illegals comment was in response to tracking. It's hard to track them, but it's not hard to enforce a law violation you see occurring

 

Fathers are cut out of the equation. A financial payment isn't good enough, if the dad wants to keep the child, and the mother doesn't. The mother wins always. Just because the father backs out of a down payment doesn't ensure the abortion does or doesn't happen.

 

That's early 3rd trimester. When does a fetus become human vla1ne. Because at the start of your response you made it sound like they would always remain fetuses. What spares this child from being a mere non-human fetus 

 i'll elaborate later in the post, for this but to start with, atm, ectogenesis is not a perfect practice as-is, and as such, should not be imposed upon anyone until all risks, and kinks are worked out of it. i already know you're consistent, and therein lies a bit of the problem, your consistency here is respectable, but at the same time, it creates impasses at areas that really should not be impasses, or at least shouldn't be as massive of an impasse as your objections create (again,i'll elaborate where it ties in, but for now that's the gist of it)

 

see, the problem there is you are literally telling people they have to give birth, even if they have the means to remove the fetus at no expense of anybody else. this is essentially the imposing of unneeded, and unwanted morals, and forcing birth upon those who may not wish to endure such. accidents do happen, and sometimes people truly do miss the window to remove the fetus. which is the reason the window length was perfect at 1 trimester, it's a reasonable length of time, and while your own morals may object to such, it is not exactly your place to force somebody to give birth if they do not want to, which is why abortion laws are as controversial as they are, you are telling somebody to go through what may be dozens of hard hours labor, or even subject themselves to the hell that is third term pregnancy/ cesarean sections/ ect, for your own sense of morals,  where were it you in a similar position that were untasteful to you, you would likely tell somebody to bug off if they came in telling you to suffer for hours for something you didn't even want.

 

this is where the first point links in (it ties into the second paragraph as well, but not as well as here) you have to compromise, see, it's either legal abortions, or coat hangers in the back alley, we've seen this already, throughout history, you ban something like this, and people will find any way they can to get around it, to some, no punishment would be enough to make them desire suffering birth. it is a choice that does not, and should not belong to either the child or another person (outside of the father, within reason) here, your own objections, and those of lawmakers who think along similar lines, creates a divide, you believe the fetus has rights, whereas others do not, and the divide is that you are looking at it from what appears to be a more emotional standpoint, where many others look at it biologically, a fetus is simply not human, or at least not a fully developed human, if there is any time where you will be better off for removing said potential human, it would be at the very start, you don't want to wait 15-18 years, and kill the kid, nor do you want to suffer through birth just to kill it, and adoption's nice and all, but it follows along with the first portion of the first line of response, it's not even a working system right now. nor is ectogenesis, the compromise comes in realizing that you are placing the cart far before the horse, the would-be mother does not want the child, and so long as she can rid herself of it, the method is likely irrelevant. your own stance though, is that if the would-be mother desires to be rid of the child, she deserves some form of punishment for murder, and there is the part where the impasse is just unreasonable, your way right now, is to ban abortion, and then fix the system, but that means only you win, you have effectively made innocent people criminals, and haven't even put in place the repairs to fix the system, the proper solution to your current impasse is to fix the adoption system and perfect ectogenesis first, and then transfer what would have been an abortion into the department of an ectogenesis transfer, in this way, you guard your own morals, and have more than enough motivation to perfect and fund ectogenesis for the pro-lifers out there. understand where i went with that?

 

 

yes, as it should be, and if a father wants out, but the mother doesn't, with financial abortion, the reverse becomes true as well. so again, the system would work, your beef though, i believe, is with the abortion part, and to that, i point to the above paragraph, where all the problems are already solved, the child can then be born for the father alone should the mother walk out, or the mother can still have her abortion or child, should the father walk out. 

 

 

it becomes human once it fulfills the criteria i already placed, if said fetus fulfilled the criteria, (aka, birth-ready) then it was a functioning human, and again, could have been placed upon life support instead of terminated upon removal, and again, i believe that's why the doctor who committed the third trimester abortions was convicted, because death was no longer the only option available, not was it any longer the most viable option (outside of cost). at the start, my meaning was that a fetus slowly becomes a human, which is why i used the term "human potential" i you think of it like a loading screen, early on, it's literally nothing more than a small blur that will eventually be a full screen, but is not just yet, little by little, it grows into the full picture human, and along the line, it becomes fully human before birth, generally in the later parts of the third trimester, but still possible in the early third, and maybe late second, at no point near the middle could you say with much confidence that said the child is fully human, because it's still loading the features, but you can say that it will become human, and later on, can easily say that it's human, after it makes it past certain criteria, such as fully functioning organs, the ability to live outside of the parent's body (with no machine aid), and so-on. it slowly becomes human, and that's why early abortions mean little to me, the resemble nothing, while later abortions can twang a string or two from time to time simply because they have a resemblance to actual human (which they will be/ have already grown somewhat into.).

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ninety-two % of women said social or "other" factors were the reason behind their abortion. Only seven percent said physical problems or possible health problems with the baby were the reason, and only 0.5% said they were seeking an abortion because they had been raped.

 

Bad timing was the most common reason women gave for having an abortion-they weren't ready to have another child. Not being able to afford a child, (or another child) was the second most important reason given.

 

The gov has a duty to step in and support those 92%

 

That's a worthy cause to increases taxes for if that's what it'll take. But like you mentioned a while back, a good portion of women don't even use birth control. Making that free along will drive down accidental abortions a lot. 

 

It's not my morals Val1ne, it's just they're going for convenience abortions. I support the 7% who have no control over their situation. I don't think the other 92% should either be let off scott free OR kicked to the curb. So the compromise is, the government will take care of you. Check-ups will be paid for, you can declare dependent status, and if you keep the child, you can get paid leave for 6-12 weeks

 

There's no reasonable reason to get a back ally coathanger abortion if the government is covering you and compensating you.

 

I am forcing them to have children, because America's growth is slowing down drastically. And the ramifications from that on the financial markets are tangible 

 

25% Not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong - we'll make it worth your time, and you don't have to keep the child

 

23% Can't afford a baby now -we'll make it worth your time

 

19% Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown -fine, you won't have to keep the child

 

8% Don't want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems - the government will take it off your hands

 

7% Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young - the government will take it off your hands

 

4% Would interfere with education or career plans - the government will take it off your hands

 

4% Physical problem with my health - get the abortion

 

3% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus - get the abortion

 

 

 

 

 

6% Other

 

(Statistics taken from: Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives, by Lawrence B. Finer et al. published by the Guttmacher Institute, 2004 )

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

You support planned parenthood, right?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You support planned parenthood, right?

I support parts of planned parenthood, as in the non-abortion portions 

 

My stance is the same as Trumps, like the 97% the claim is for non-abortion deals, but the 3% is a deal breaker 

[vla1ne]

 

[spoiler=words]

Ninety-two % of women said social or "other" factors were the reason behind their abortion. Only seven percent said physical problems or possible health problems with the baby were the reason, and only 0.5% said they were seeking an abortion because they had been raped.

 

Bad timing was the most common reason women gave for having an abortion-they weren't ready to have another child. Not being able to afford a child, (or another child) was the second most important reason given.

 

The gov has a duty to step in and support those 92%

 

That's a worthy cause to increases taxes for if that's what it'll take. But like you mentioned a while back, a good portion of women don't even use birth control. Making that free along will drive down accidental abortions a lot. 

 

It's not my morals Val1ne, it's just they're going for convenience abortions. I support the 7% who have no control over their situation. I don't think the other 92% should either be let off scott free OR kicked to the curb. So the compromise is, the government will take care of you. Check-ups will be paid for, you can declare dependent status, and if you keep the child, you can get paid leave for 6-12 weeks

 

There's no reasonable reason to get a back ally coathanger abortion if the government is covering you and compensating you.

 

I am forcing them to have children, because America's growth is slowing down drastically. And the ramifications from that on the financial markets are tangible 

 

25% Not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong - we'll make it worth your time, and you don't have to keep the child

 

23% Can't afford a baby now -we'll make it worth your time

 

19% Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown -fine, you won't have to keep the child

 

8% Don't want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems - the government will take it off your hands

 

7% Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young - the government will take it off your hands

 

4% Would interfere with education or career plans - the government will take it off your hands

 

4% Physical problem with my health

 

3% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus

 

<0.5% Was a victim of rape

 

<0.5% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion

 

<0.5% Parents want me to have an abortion

 

<0.5% Don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant

 

6% Other

 

 

ok, the government does not have much of a duty to stop women from getting abortions, but i get the feeling that's not your meaning, i think you mean the government has a responsibility to provide alternatives to abortion (whether or not if it intends to ban abortion) correct? if so (or even if not so), i personally think it actually has no actual responsibility in any of those areas, and should only ever be able to intervene in the former (abortions) if the latter (contraceptives, adoption, and the like) are completely fixed.

 

the 92% is a pecentage, but that's likely not the full story, that 92% covers those whom the contraception failed as well, in other words, yes, they got said abortion for social reasons, but the circumstances leading to the pregnancy differed for all of them, for some, they didn't use contraception, for others the contraception failed, and so-on, their reason for getting an abortion may be the same, but the reason they got pregnant is not, which is why abortion needs to be available.

 

i agree that it should be the absolute last option, and should neither be taken lightly, or resorted to if you don't have to, but it would be unfair of me to say you have to put your life on hold to give birth to a child just to give them away instead of have an abortion. we are not short on humans, we are short on skilled workers, and our population going down is not by any means a bad thing s long as it means the potpulation that remains is actually being properly raised. abortion is, as unfortunate as it is to put it this way, still an effective method of population control. we don't need more people, we need better people, and birthing every child born isn't a winning plan for that. we already can see what the baby booms are doing, and will do to SS once the full weight comes down upon the system, why place even more strain upon the system than there needs to be? but that's neither here not there for now, you cannot, force another person to give birth against their will. you can remove your own wallet from the scenario, as can others but telling another grown adult what to do with themselves when pregnant, goes far beyond any line f acceptability.

 

worth their time is having the child removed and going back to work in a day, labor, especially for so little reward, is not incentive, you're making them suffer, taking their kid, and telling them to go back to work, it's basically less than half a carrot after a severe stick beating.

 

 

that's welfare in a nutshell, and it's already a bad system, not onl because it promotes irresponsible childbirth, but because it damages family units, you have a child, you get money, and you undermine the role of parents as providers, because of the government, i'd rather support the abortion, and have them make something of themselves, so that the government can keep it's hands out of the equation as often as possible.

 

and the list goes on. if this is your argument against abortion, you're essentially advocating that the government becomes a nanny to the people, all over abortions, instead of simply fixing the the clearly broken parts (adoption) and putting in a new system to streamline and satisfy all involved in the abortion process (ectogenesis).

 

you're simply making the problem too complex, when the solutions are already almost here, just wait one or two decades for the solutions that are already on their way. such as ectogenesis and better birth control including a new version of mens birth control similar to the pill for women, being just on the horizon. especially the men's birth control, once that sheet drops, if it gets the same overall coverage and distribution as women's birth control does, i guarantee unplanned pregnancy rates will drop so low that abortion could get banned outright the next day and barely anybody would notice.

, 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Honestly, even in its current incarnation, planned parenthood probably reduces nationwide abortion rates by increasing awareness and availability of contraception.

 

Keep in mind, this can't be proven, but planned parenthood does a sheet ton of work compared to the abortions provided.