quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Wait... the abortion for illegals, is that retroactive?

Are you suggesting illegal immigrants be killed?

Illegal immigrants deserve to be deported, if all they have done is enter the country illegally.

If you want to talk about killing illegal immigrants just because they are illegal immigrants, find another website. I believe one is called The Daily Stormer.

I hope you were only joking, but that shit ain't funny.

The way I read it, Rightwire is making a larger point. That is that if life is disposable in the womb and the principle is absolutely true, then it can be applied universally. Life inside, life outside. That being a valid perspective that many hold, your rebuke rings hollow in light of what we read in this very thread. The timeline is merely arbitrary.

The way you read it, is not the only way it may be read. The issue at hand is free abortions paid for by the tax payer, and secondarily abortion itself. Whether illegals get those abortions is tertiary, and if his statement was solely about abortion, then why add "illegals."

My statement absolutely stands. If he was joking, it's a bad joke, if he's serious he can say those things somewhere else. Words have multiple meanings, and my concern has more to do with SigForum being a publicly viewable website. "Retroactively aborting illegal immigrants" is not something worth entertaining.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
No one is murdering chickens to make a breakfast burrito.

No, the industrialized slaughter of chickens is for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Where were you going with this?

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Subject to termination:

If any of the above (or even something 1/1000th as large) was discovered on Mars by the rover, all headlines would read 'Life Found on Mars'.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Wait... the abortion for illegals, is that retroactive?

Are you suggesting illegal immigrants be killed?

Illegal immigrants deserve to be deported, if all they have done is enter the country illegally.

If you want to talk about killing illegal immigrants just because they are illegal immigrants, find another website. I believe one is called The Daily Stormer.

I hope you were only joking, but that shit ain't funny.

The way I read it, Rightwire is making a larger point. That is that if life is disposable in the womb and the principle is absolutely true, then it can be applied universally. Life inside, life outside. That being a valid perspective that many hold, your rebuke rings hollow in light of what we read in this very thread. The timeline is merely arbitrary.

The way you read it, is not the only way it may be read. The issue at hand is free abortions paid for by the tax payer, and secondarily abortion itself. Whether illegals get those abortions is tertiary, and if his statement was solely about abortion, then why add "illegals."

My statement absolutely stands. If he was joking, it's a bad joke, if he's serious he can say those things somewhere else. Words have multiple meanings, and my concern has more to do with SigForum being a publicly viewable website. "Retroactively aborting illegal immigrants" is not something worth entertaining.

Of course you are right, Arc. It is a bad thought. I Don't want SIGforum tarnished in the slightest. I hope I would not have made such a post. I still think Illegal aliens was only an example, but see how easily it could be read the other way. Now, if it is ugly for illegal aliens then........

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
As with gun homicides, there is no 0%. Also, the closer you get to 0, the more effort needs to be exerted. There can never be no abortions.

The most effective way to reduce abortions, is sex education and contraception.

As far as hearts, and conscience, we should all attend to our own individual lives as our hearts and conscience guide us to. If you're comfortable using the law or government to enforce your own moral standing, but don't like it when the left does the same to ban guns...

Surrendering rights to the government is a bad thing, even if they are ones you aren't using.

What we can all agree on, is that no taxpayer dollars should pay for abortions. If you want an abortion, you need to pay for it yourself. If you can't pay for it, find someone who will voluntarily give you the money or perform the procedure.

The key, is that abortions will persist, and without medically safe ones available women will injure or kill themselves trying to abort that baby.

Then there are cases of rape or incest, or like my friends whose child would not survive. These folks are not the people who have idly had sex and simply want to erase the result. Such things should not be lumped in with the typical derision of those who seek abortions.

Within ones own family or marriage, abortions may not be an option. For my wife and I, it wouldn't be unless that child was going to live a brief life knowing only pain and never seeing the outside of a hospital. Or perhaps not the outside of the womb. Asking my wife to take that child to term is not something I would do, to her or that child.

I accept that people will have abortions, I shouldn't be expected to pay for it in any way.

Arc,
I understand where you are coming from:
As with gun homicides, there is no 0%. Some people will commit homicide no matter what the laws are.

My point is that that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws against homicide.

Sometimes, homicide is justified, and when it is we don't call it murder. I would submit that when the life of the mother is in danger abortion is justified. Not so much when the convenience of the mother is really the issue.

When you say:
"If you're comfortable using the law or government to enforce your own moral standing, but don't like it when the left does the same to ban guns..."
I will have to counter that it's a poor analogy.
If the moral question is the protection of human life, I would ask what else is law for?
The issue of using government to ban guns does not equate. The gun is a tool. The gun hasn't killed anyone, it is merely the instrument. It's the act of killing that we want to stop. If we are going to enact laws to stop (limit, I agree we cannot stop it) abortion, it's the act of killing that we want to stop, in order to protect and preserve innocent life. To do so, we don't propose that we ban coat hangers, which are merely an instrument.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Of course you are right, Arc. It is a bad thought. I Don't want SIGforum tarnished in the slightest. I hope I would not have made such a post. I still think Illegal aliens was only an example, but see how easily it could be read the other way. Now, if it is ugly for illegal aliens then........

Considering the current political climate, erring on the side of not encouraging either simply trolls, all the way to members being doxed or DDOS, it's best to just steer away from saying things where your meaning is that unclear.

Considering also the typical fate of a thread here with "abortion" in title, we should keep an even keel.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
My point is that that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws against homicide.

Sometimes, homicide is justified, and when it is we don't call it murder. I would submit that when the life of the mother is in danger abortion is justified. Not so much when the convenience of the mother is really the issue.

It's not enough to just say "Abortion is murder, murder is wrong, no more abortions." If you agree that medically necessary abortions should be allowed, that's something.

When it comes down to people having abortions simply because the child is unwanted, well, what then happens to the child? If the answer to that, is that said child spends some or all of their life as a ward of the state, then there is a taxpayer cost associated with that.

If you're against abortions, and against taxpayer funded programs like welfare and other social services, then what is the point? Someone elses baby can't be aborted, but once it's out of the womb then it's not a problem? We aren't running out of kids who don't have homes, and if we care about life, we need to take care of those children. If you want to see that unwanted children become productive adults, it's not enough to assume private charity, or the parents who don't want that child, will do the job.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
When you say:
"If you're comfortable using the law or government to enforce your own moral standing, but don't like it when the left does the same to ban guns..."
I will have to counter that it's a poor analogy.
If the moral question is the protection of human life, I would ask what else is law for?
The issue of using government to ban guns does not equate. The gun is a tool. The gun hasn't killed anyone, it is merely the instrument. It's the act of killing that we want to stop. If we are going to enact laws to stop (limit, I agree we cannot stop it) abortion, it's the act of killing that we want to stop, in order to protect and preserve innocent life. To do so, we don't propose that we ban coat hangers, which are merely an instrument.

You can't ban abortion. You can ban safe, legal abortions. My point about the tactics and logic of the Left in how they attack gun rights is accurate. They believe that they are morally correct, and they are convinced that no guns mean no violence. They are comfortable ignoring all kinds of data, because they believe life is like a kindergarten classroom, where if timmy hits bobby with a toy, you take all the toys away.

My interest is honing the arguments against gun control, and actually getting to a realistic place about what can and should be done about abortion. If we all understand that passing a law banning AR-15s neither removes them from society or stops deranged people from planning mass shootings, why are abortion laws magically effective?

There should be no taxpayer funded abortions. Abortions that are purely voluntary should be paid in full at the time of execution. Abortions that are medically necessary should be paid for by health insurance.

In a perfect world, there would be no abortions. Or any other type of murder, state sponsored or otherwise. We will never live in a perfect world.

If men could get pregnant we wouldn't even be having this conversation

In a world full of unicorns and rainbows, all babies would be born to legal US families wanting them and would be nurtured by 2 parents, given a good education and all the tools necessary to excel and be good citizens, with no burden to the tax payers of the States. But we don’t live in a perfect world.

Children are born every day into abusive environments, addicted in the womb to drugs and will flounder for years in foster care system until being dumped out at 18, if they are the lucky ones. Sex trafficking, murder, abuse, early death, gangs. All become wards of the state and cost millions upon millions of dollars. And some, a minority, but still, will be put to death later in life by the State in some death row prison. 1000s of children are never adopted and just end up again, wards of the state on Medicaid, unemployment and social welfare.

And should we force a mother that has a fetus that is brain dead from the meth, opioids or crack she was ingesting to still have it and then have the state take care of it. Because, remember, murder is murder, it is a life by any definition.

This is not a pro/con post on abortion, but understand you will be paying for most of these kids with your tax dollars, one way or another. And very few of these unwanted (and they are unwanted by 99% of the US) babies end up being pillars of society. So I strongly suggest that before you stop abortions, you solve the problem of what to do with these unwanted kids first. You wanted them, you deal with them. Maybe I am just jaded, having represented way too many of these unwanted kids in the court system, and never once did I see some Pro-Life advocate come in and support us in court, or testify on our behalf. (and don’t assume I am pro-choice)

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
If men could get pregnant we wouldn't even be having this conversation

I know women who are repulsed at the thought of killing unborn children.

If there are all of these unadopted babies out there, then why do we adopt from Russia and other countries?

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
If men could get pregnant we wouldn't even be having this conversation

I know women who are repulsed at the thought of killing unborn children.

So do I but MOST women want safe legal abortion available for those who want one.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
If there are all of these unadopted babies out there, then why do we adopt from Russia and other countries?

According to U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in 2015, there were 427,910 kids in the foster care system.

Why do people adopt from other countries. I can only answer for 2 people that I know that adopted from Asia, easier, according to them. Cant speak for anyone else.

Interesting fact I found, as of 2015, about 269,000 entered the foster system and about 243,000 "exited" (their term)but only 53,000 adopted.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
If men could get pregnant we wouldn't even be having this conversation

I know women who are repulsed at the thought of killing unborn children.

So do I but MOST women want safe legal abortion available for those who want one.

You really believe that MOST women are ok with elective late term abortions, and that those same women are ok with the government forcing them to pay for it through taxes or insurance premiums? I know plenty of women who have a problem with that. In fact, MOST of the women I know.

At the end of the day, that is the crux of this thread. Whether the government should force everybody to fund unrestricted access to abortion, regardless of a person's feelings on the matter. Not so much the legality of abortion itself.

quote:

You can't ban abortion. You can ban safe, legal abortions. My point about the tactics and logic of the Left in how they attack gun rights is accurate. They believe that they are morally correct, and they are convinced that no guns mean no violence. They are comfortable ignoring all kinds of data, because they believe life is like a kindergarten classroom, where if timmy hits bobby with a toy, you take all the toys away.

Right. They go after the instrument.... because homicide is already illegal, and it hasn't stopped murder.

That's where I think the analogy with guns breaks down. Your argument is that banning abortions wouldn't stop abortion. And I agree, it wouldn't. As you say "You can't ban abortion. You can ban safe, legal abortions." I agree with you. But the argument against abortion is a moral argument, not that it would end all abortion. Just as the argument against murder is a moral argument, not that it would end all murder.

So the analogy to guns would be this:
Murder is illegal. People still commit murder. People use guns to commit murder. Ban guns. (It doesn't stop murder because people will find a way).
Abortion is illegal. People still commit abortion. People use coat hangers to commit murder. Ban coat hangers. (It doesn't stop abortion because people will find a way.)

quote:

As far as hearts, and conscience, we should all attend to our own individual lives as our hearts and conscience guide us to. If you're comfortable using the law or government to enforce your own moral standing, but don't like it when the left does the same to ban guns...

As for winning hearts and minds....
take a look at this graph:



There are fewer abortions today, in Missouri, than there were in 1973. That's pretty good!

quote:

What we can all agree on, is that no taxpayer dollars should pay for abortions. If you want an abortion, you need to pay for it yourself. If you can't pay for it, find someone who will voluntarily give you the money.

Absolutely!

I would also hope that we could agree that it's an issue for the States. How we handle this moral issue in Missouri may be different than how you handle it in Massachusetts.... and that's OK. I think that's how the Founders intended these types of issues to be handled: by the States, rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all centralization and nationalization of issues.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
If there are all of these unadopted babies out there, then why do we adopt from Russia and other countries?

According to U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in 2015, there were 427,910 kids in the foster care system.

Why do people adopt from other countries. I can only answer for 2 people that I know that adopted from Asia, easier, according to them. Cant speak for anyone else.

Interesting fact I found, as of 2015, about 269,000 entered the foster system and about 243,000 "exited" (their term)but only 53,000 adopted.

I think we need to focus on making adoption more accessible instead of making abortions more accessible.

It shouldn't be easier to adopt a child from half way around the world then it is from around the block.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
So do I but MOST women want safe legal abortion available for those who want one.

There are no safe abortions. In every case the baby dies.
What about the father? His wants don't matter?
Its her body. WRONG!!!! Its a new life. If it were her body how can the father be determined by DNA testing?
Is the DNA the same as the mother or the father? Nope. Similair but not the same.
Please try and understand a little simple biology before you go off on how murdering children can be "safe".

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
If men could get pregnant we wouldn't even be having this conversation

I know women who are repulsed at the thought of killing unborn children.

So do I but MOST women want safe legal abortion available for those who want one.

...I know plenty of women who have a problem with that. In fact, MOST of the women I know.

The women you know aren't most women. Polling shows most women want abortion available. That's not the same as saying they want an abortion for themselves.

As someone said earlier, these threads never end well but if men could get pregnant abortions would be available at the VFW post, at the gym, while we get oil changes, etc.

Hopefully this thread can remain open until I get to a keyboard.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
If men could get pregnant we wouldn't even be having this conversation

I know women who are repulsed at the thought of killing unborn children.

So do I but MOST women want safe legal abortion available for those who want one.

...I know plenty of women who have a problem with that. In fact, MOST of the women I know.

The women you know aren't most women. Polling shows most women want abortion available. That's not the same as saying they want an abortion for themselves.

As someone said earlier, these threads never end well but if men could get pregnant abortions would be available at the VFW post, at the gym, while we get oil changes, etc.

It is true that with a general question like "Do you think abortion should be safe and legal?", most women (barely, by a few percentage points) will answer in the affirmative. That is because the life threatening deformity and rape/incest concerns are buried inside of that broad question. Separate out those two issues, and suddenly the wide support for abortion plummets. For example, support among women for elective, late term abortion is only 26%. Support for partial birth abortion is even lower. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

I would think, from looking over polling trends, that most women would disagree with Oregon's direction; that is, to allow unrestricted, on-demand abortion at the general population's expense.

This next bit is completely academic, since men don't carry children (yet). The idea that men would be more cavalier about this issue if it affected them physically is a bit misandric, and belittles the strong feelings many men have on this issue. Many men have historically gone to battle and died, gotten up and gone to work everyday, and generally sacrificed all their lives for their wives and children. The idea that men wouldn't put up with the discomfort, pain, or inconvenience of childbirth is unfounded. Why is it that men suffer 93% of all workplace accidents/deaths vs women? Because men willingly do the difficult and dangerous jobs. I have seen no evidence that men shirk from difficult activities any more than women, and I have no cause to believe otherwise on this issue. The line that "If men carried the children all families would be single child families" is just a standup comedian's joke. Purely hypothetical discussion anyway.

Perhaps we're not so far apart on this anyway. You're just looking at it from a higher altitude, so to speak. My real beef here is the government, any government, making someone fund this procedure against their will. It is not misogyny simply because someone feels that this should be a personally funded procedure, but the left will shout you down for having this view.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
So do I but MOST women want safe legal abortion available for those who want one.

There are no safe abortions. In every case the baby dies.
What about the father? His wants don't matter?
Its her body. WRONG!!!! Its a new life. If it were her body how can the father be determined by DNA testing?
Is the DNA the same as the mother or the father? Nope. Similair but not the same.
Please try and understand a little simple biology before you go off on how murdering children can be "safe".

Let's not play word games. When people say "safe legal abortions," it is clear that the safety we're talking about, is the mothers. Key word being abortion. If it weren't an abortion, it would be a birth. so "there are no safe abortions" is melodrama. There is also no need to talk down to someone about "simple biology."

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
The women you know aren't most women. Polling shows most women want abortion available. That's not the same as saying they want an abortion for themselves.

As someone said earlier, these threads never end well but if men could get pregnant abortions would be available at the VFW post, at the gym, while we get oil changes, etc.

Most women want abortion to be legal and available, whether or not they themselves believe it to be an option. If it were men who got pregnant, things would indeed be different.

Perhaps at some point, there will be a "male pill," and what do you bet that it will be free and widely available? Meanwhile female contraception has been and still persists as an issue.

Education and contraception is the best way to prevent abortions. Far more effective than legislation, or moralizing.

A joke -

Two men are sitting at a bar.

One says to the other "Man, my wife and I, our sex life is getting boring, there's just no spark."

The other man says "Hey, spice things up in the bedroom, next time, turn her over, you know.."


"What, and get her pregnant?"