Total posts: 2,472
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Well a full grown person still has personhood, no matter the state of their body and that should be respected
Does a fetus have personhood? If not why not?
Think of robin hood. Was he heroic or villainous?
If he did that now, it would be villainous because he robbed from those that earned their wealth. However, since he did it in the midevil times, when the monarchs inherited and taxed their way to success, I would consider him a positive figure. I don't know too much about him, so I might change my mind.
Well we can't quantify whether emotions are "worse".
It is safe to say that being stressed out for 9 months is better then being dead.
The only cases in which inflicting death is undeniably wrong is when the participant is unwilling.
The fetus is unwilling.
In the case of abortion specifically, to me, there must be a personal existence for death to be considered either bad or good.
A fetus has personal existence. A fetus exists.
You've been rejected by parents, so you are denied the typically unconditional love of parents.
The parents can write a letter stating why they aren't taking care of you. This can include the economic reasons and the hope that someone who is more financially stable can take care of you.
Which can be described through personalities, emotions, memories and experiences.
Or can be defined by something like chromosomes and cell specialization.
foster care adoptions cost between 0-2000.
A poor person isin't spending $2000 on a kid they can't afford to raise. There are other ways the foster system makes sure your fiscally and morally ready to raise a child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
If I rap battle here and lose, then I stay high on the leaderboard. If I do a debate on it, I would go down on the leaderboard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I can rap battle you on this forum if you want. I don't think I can do a debate on it though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
My questions are all beyond your capacity to answer and you therefore are obligated to run away, poor you.
No, you were just being extremely rude and I hope that you become pro life in the future. BTW, just because your pro life does not make you a rapist. I would argue in fact that strong pro lifers are significantly less likely to be rapists because they know the consequences of sex; abortion, something they would want to avoid.
What do you think of aborting a fetus because they are not the right race, gender, or because the fetus might have a disability?
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I don't agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I can't rap well. Other people think I can but I don't think I'm good at roasting other people I barely know anything about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I doubt Trump will be president in 12 years. I have heard that he might win in 2020 because of left wing strawmans. Republicans shouldn't get so cocky. Liberals thought Trump would lose and they were wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It would be enough to pay off some of the debt so Germany wouldn't be on their ass
If the Greek debt goes down from about 343 billion Euros/$391 billion(https://commodity.com/debt-clock/greece/) to $338 billion Euros/$385 billion, that won't be enough for Germany.
Although Chios does have economic potential, I as POTUS would offer $10 billion in exchange for Chios and Milos. The US can build a nuclear power plant in Greece if that's part of the deal.
My offer:
Greece Gets from the US
$15B dollars
Nuclear Power Plant
Defense vs Turkey
US Gets from Greece
Chios
Milos
Ability to set own Mestiha farms up to sell in US
Chios and Milos aren't that big and their population is small, so I don't want to pay too much for the islands.
I would propose another offer taking place between Greece and Buulgaria:
Greece gets from Bulgaria:
-$4B a year for 20 years. This brings down the Greek debt to $300 Billion, maybe Germany would stop complaining.
Bulgaria gets from Greece:
A panhandle from Greece owned Thrace in order to be able to access the Mediterranean without passing through Istanbul. This brings down the Turk economy to some extent since they are getting less influence through their Istanbul port.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
That would be the only option I would consider is selling an island or two.
How much money would Greece get for selling an island or two? Not enough to pay off their debt.
Even so, it would have to be a land that Greece does not care about.
Do the Greeks care about their Thrace territory? If so, why? Bulgaria could buy it on a mortgage to help pay off the Greek debt while providing Bulgaria with coastline to the Aegean sea. Both parties benefit. Bulgaria gets coastline to the Aegean sea that helps them bypass Istanbul/Constantinople for purposes of trade, and Greece has much of their debt paid off from the selling of the Thrace territory, about half of it.
If Greece sold an island to America but in exchange, America had to provide an increase in military tools to fend off Turkey
How much money are we talking about? And what island are we talking about? If I were POTUS, I would offer $6 billion from the US gov funds in exchange for Crete. Like you said, Greece has many islands. I'm fine with America defending freedom worldwide. We already do that for other places.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What if Greece sold some of their land to a nation other then the US? I'm sure Bulgaria might like some access to the Aegean sea in western Thrace if they bought a panhandle connecting the country directly to the Mediterranean Sea. It could be sold for about $4 billion per year for 50 years. It would benefit Greece since it cuts down on their debt by a lot while sacrificing very little and it benefits Bulgaria because after 10 years, they would own direct access to the Aegean sea.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I would rather have a term be 4 or 10 years. If people want to change, they should do it on a year by year basis. I also would like to see someone other then a democrat or a republican as president. It would be good for the country.
I think healthcare could be affordable by trying to get religious institutions to pay for it for those that can't afford it. The poor people would contribute what they can to their health insurance, and the church pays for the rest. If you don't think they can, they probably will be able to if RIEP(Religious Institution Enhancement Policy) comes into effect. What this is is it is the government encouraging that people tithe to the church or their religious organization. Atheists can tithe to whoever they want. It's encouraged, not mandatory. Democrats want to help the poor out, many on the left would tithe. Many Republicans would also tithe since Republicans tend to be religious.
Even with RIEP, lets say for the sake of argument that religious institutions can't pay for it. It still helps reduce the cost of health insurance significantly for poor people, leaving much less work for the government to do.
Can we project global military power without spending half our taxes on unproductive weapons, etc.
What is an unproductive weapon? We don't need more nukes then what we already have, but what would you think of robot soldiers?
Created:
What is the Alec Style of government? Imagine people voted like this:
-48% for a Republican
-45% for a democrat
-7% for a Libertarian.
The republican candidate gets 48% of the term, the democrat gets 45% of the term, and the libertarian gets 7% of the term for them and their party to rule the country in their image instead of the republican getting the entire term when most of the country didn't vote for him.
This also will lead to the breakup of major political parties, allowing for more ideological diversity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Your a close minded troll. Your ironically being ignored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
If the person was brain dead and was on anesthesia, then they need that life support to survive.A brain dead person is already dead though right? So it's not really survival
So then if a full grown person has heart problems and their heart stops working, and they need life support to survive. Is it okay to kill someone who is very dependent on others to survive?
But it's not just about society. It's also about complex characteristics of humanity that can't be quantified. For example, what value do you give to a small act of altruism to another person?
If they are a criminal who did something moderately bad, it is safe to assume that they have very little altruism. Does this mean that killing them is okay?
Bearing an infant to term and birth also critically impact mothers.
Emotions are temporary. Abortion also causes negative emotions. Death is permanent. It is better for a woman to endure some emotions temporarily from giving birth then for her to endure possibly worse emotions from an abortion and an innocent kid dying?
Then surrendering the child to the system. The mother is not fine. Nor is the baby. It has been introduced to the world in the cruelest way possible, unloved and without any advantages, and with every disadvantage possible.
The alternative would be surrendering the baby to planned parenthood. It has not been "introduced to the world in the cruelest way possible". It would be worse if the baby was dead. Death is one of the worst things, if not the worst thing you can do to someone. The fetus won't get messed up in the system so they won't be at an disadvantage.
Abortion. This is not the acting of killing a kid. In permissible pregnancy phases to abort, there are no personalities, emotions, memories or experiences to kill. It's a state of non-existence (in the sense of personhood) and there is no suffering.
Abortion is the action of killing a fetus or someone more developed in the womb. An ant has personalities, emotions, memories and experiences. Is it the same to kill an ant as it is to kill a human? No. There has to be another way to figure out who is a human and who is not. My suggested method is chromosomes and cell specialization (to filter out cancer cells).
You could definitely make a good argument for personhood for soon to be born fetuses.
How soon would you classify this? If you aren't drawing the line at conception, then where would you draw the line? Believe it or not, I don't support "life" being at conception. I would consider it at 5 weeks, when the cells specialize. The thing is abortions are performed after 5 weeks because they are impossible to occur before then; we don't have the technology for it. Since the only abortions that can exist are those after 5 weeks, I prefer that they are all illegal.
When it comes to child and family, money is no object.
For families who don't have enough money, money is an object. This filters out the poor people so they aren't adopting so the kid gets a better life.
It costs $20,000 to $40,000 to adopt a child (https://adoption.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-adopt-a-child). I was a little off.
Pro-life abortion laws represent an explosive growth in population.
They represent a slight growth in population. With Roe V Wade, the US population would be 320 million. Without it, it would be 375 million. 375 million people would benefit the US more because of urbanization and more technological development would take place.
Interesting how you didn't respond to my picture of an aborted baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
If you can't understand the difference between abortion and rape that is understandable as an anti abortionist you believe you have right over the woman's body just like a rapist does.
There is a difference between abortion and rape. Abortion is worse then rape. Abortion kills an innocent human and ruins their life by having it not exist, all rape does is it worsens an existing life. If a fetus is a human being, then killing them should be classified as murder.
You keep avoiding the question, it's really pathetic.
Your question is:
Tell me what gives you the right know to what happens in any woman's body?
Because... there is an innocent human being in there that needs protection from tyrannical women who decide to kill them in order to survive.
Pro lifers are no different to rapists. They both feel they have the right to any woman's body.
A pro lifer defends innocent human life. A rapist rapes innocent human life. Moreover a pro lifer doesn't care about a woman's body. They don't care about the arm. They don't care about the leg. They don't even care about the uterus. they care about protecting the life form that is in it. Ever notice how everyone who supports abortion is already born. The same is not true with regards to the pro life side and them not being pregnant. There are many pro lifers who will get pregnant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Forcing a women to have a child is slavery.
Forcing a kid to die infringed on the rights that a non controlling party should have. A woman enduring 9 months of pain from something she chose to do is not as bad as a fetus losing their life from something they did not choose to do, especially if a woman can set the kid up for adoption. You state, "bodily autonomy" however why not give this body autonomy to a fetus? They depend on the mother yes, but so does a 1 month old. Should a mother be allowed to kill a 1 month old? You have to live with your actions. If you have sex without an IUD, then you should face the consequences of bearing a child. It's entirely your fault you had sex in the 1st place.
I therefore wouldn't call the "pro choice" side pro choice. I would call them pro-irresponsibility.
Comparing crime and cancer is stupid.
What does this mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Then stay out of it.
Would you "stay out of" a black person being enslaved? What is the difference between abortion and slavery, (excluding the magnitude of both)?
Whose morality? Yours?
It's a scientific claim. Science confirms that a fetus is a human being. If someone believed that rape was okay, they are allowed to believe that? Yes. Are they allowed to act on their morality to the extent of raping someone? No. Because of this, the government should enforce their anti-rape views on would be rapists.
Just as the government should enforce anti-rape views on rapists, they should enforce anti-abortion views on women(and men too). How do they enforce it on men? By not allowing them to ditch the women that he gets pregnant.
Your morality and ethics claim that women are second class and don't deserve the rights you demand for yourself.
Democrats support aborting babies because they are a minority, female, or disability status(https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h299). This means that the pro abortion rights crowd supports treating women like 2nd class citizens.
You demand that women don't have rights, you are a liar.
When have I said that? I have said that killing babies is wrong, no matter who does it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
How do you know the woman is pregnant and what does it have to do with you?
It has nothing to do with me. This is what makes the pro life movement selfless. They have nothing to gain or to lose from their position, so their position comes entirely from morality, ethical consistency, and science. Despite this, they advocate for others to have rights. You can make a similar argument for slavery. If slavery doesn't affect me, should I still allow others to be slaves? No. Just because something doesn't affect me doesn't mean I shouldn't advocate against it. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal. Women couldn't vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
But a person is self-sustaining without anesthesia.
If the person was brain dead and was on anesthesia, then they need that life support to survive.
That would be an unsafe assumption <.<. Personally, it would take for some truly reprehensible acts for me to consider their "threshold" to be below 0.
I didn't know the definition of threshold, even after looking it up. I assumed it was the sum of their positive and negative actions. If someone robbed $2, it would be safe to assume that they are a burden on society, even if it's slight. Is it justified to kill them for being a burden on society?
Having a baby has a critical impact on a mother's life and can severely impact both the mother's mental and physical state, as well as her finances and relationships.
Then she can set the kid up for adoption or she can use the 5 filter policy to relocate the child to someone consensual willing to take care of them.
Where either you do do it and suffer for it
Why would you be sad for setting up a kid up for adoption? If you miss the kid, you can still visit the kid from time to time in the foster system if you want. Besides, I don't mean to be rude, but it seems that your logic here is:
-Setting a kid up for adoption-> Causes a mother some emotional pain that she gets over eventually, knowing that the kid will have a better life then what she could have provided the kid at her fiscal level. Something to be avoided.
-Killing the kid-> Making the woman in many situations even more depressed and sometimes the woman even commits suicide because of their abortion. Something that should be rare but to be preferred over adoption.
This probably isn't correct and perhaps I am saying too much, but if this is your logic, I don't think that it is sound.
I consider existence to be predicated by the presence of any memories at all.
I don't think this is accurate because if you are to value someone's life by whether or not they have memories to begin with, then you would consider an ant to be of equal value to a human because both the ant and the human have memories. I'm saying that memories aren't a good way to determine someone's intrinsic worth. There must be another way to determine intrinsic worth. I'm suggesting chrosomes and cell sp
Foster kids get parents. http://www.adopt.org/adoption-statistics, it states that over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years.I mean.. this is still less than the average
I believe that adopting a kid from the foster system is expensive and I'm assuming you do too. If it costs $50,000 to adopt a kid, who would be willing to pay for that? The person who barely has that money? Or the person who has hundreds of thousands of dollars? The person with hundreds of thousands of dollars. The foster system I think is set up this way so only the people with hundreds of thousands of dollars would be the ones adopting, since they are the only ones who can afford it. In other words, it is safe to say that they are above average in terms of their wealth.
GDP isn't a magical number that automatically increases the quality of life of the people however. It's simply an objective measure of a countries economy.
What causes the economy to grow? People. Too many would hurt, but when your population matches the carrying capacity, then that is the sweet spot. America is far from our sweet spot.
If infrastructure cannot keep up with population growth, the populace suffers as a result.
Then infrastructure can keep up with the population growth. This is partly why urban areas tend to have a higher GDP per capita then rural areas. You cite India. However, India is an extreme example. It's a Goldilocks zone. Too populated, many people starve. Too non-populated, and your civilization barely industrializes since less minds are developing stuff. This is why technological progress started accelerating at around the same time the population exploded in it's numbers. If Abortion were illegal since Roe V Wade existed and no one aborted, the USA would have 375 million people instead of 320 million. At 375 million people, we have half of the population of Europe, which is pretty rich and developed.
More importantly foster kids are definitely objectively impacted in someway: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/5/1145
That is because the foster kids have had a history of abuse. However, the new foster kids that would go into the system that are basically the would be aborted kids wouldn't have suffered abuse as kids. In other words, if they don't suffer abuse as kids because they got saved from abortion, then they don't become messed up.
I would like to conclude with this image of what abortion really is:
You're probably one of the most thorough and polite pro choicers I have met online.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
So, was Trump right or wrong about Obama?
He was wrong about Obama's birth location.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
When Trump says a claim, I might believe it. When he said Obama was born outside of the US, I fact checked that and found he was born in Hawaii.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Typical Trump supporter, never fact checks anything Trump says. Clueless.
Do you fact check everything AOC says?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
And you must be a man cause you are a dick.
Your having worse conduct then I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Finally, you present arguments.
No you want bodily autonomy for men but not for women, that's hypocritical.
I personally believe that if a man causes a woman to get pregnant, that he should not be allowed to ditch her and must provide emotional support for the duration of the pregnancy. If a woman can't get out of a pregnancy, a man shouldn't be allowed to either and I'm fine with that.
How do you know the woman is pregnant and what does the condition of her body have to do with you.
Using this logic, why would cops even exist? It's not like the criminal hurts them. They exist to give rights to others. Just as the pro life movement is trying to give rights to others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
But at least it would give them a reason to cry
Why would you want the other side to cry.
they should be separated from their children who are locked in cages
I thought people on the left like yourself were against revenge. I'm against punishing people for something they did not do.
you know redneck racists need a reality check
I would say SJWs need a reality check more then the right because they want to censor all they disagree with, they want identity politics, and they do this in the name of "progress" even though their behavior and ideologies are tribalistic and regressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's still immoral and expensive to lock people up for voting for Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Are you male or female?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I think mustardness is a woman because I think mustardness based off of the way that he/she conducted themselves in the forums, was very emotional and I think that mustardness is emotional on this not because of their sex, but because I think he/she did something that I am afraid to mention on this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, thank God Mustardness does not run the country!
I'll be surprised if mustardness even runs a job. If her employer finds out about this, she'll be fired. She should stop digging her own grave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Do not speak to me about moral integrity until you stop virutal rape
He is not raping you. That's not what rape is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
where theres a will, theres a way.
Apart from the fact that this proposal is communist and tyrannical, the only way I can think of will be extremely expensive. If you lock 150 million people (including myself) away for political views, this will cost about $6 trillion to maintain annually. This new program alone will raise taxes by 2.5x the current tax rate. Keep in mind that Trump supporters tend to pay taxes so by locking them up, you forfeit about half of your tax revenue. This would mean that for the renaming Trump haters, they would have to pay 5x as much in taxes. By proposing this tax raise on nothing but locking Trump supporters up, your forfeiting all of the other causes that tax revenue goes towards. By proposing this tax increase, your aren't minding the business of taxpayers because you are demanding that they pay you money. You are forcing them to pay money towards this insane idea that you have; and if someone can be called a rapist for being pro life(it's about saving the unborn baby), then you should be called a thief for supporting taxes at all, let alone raising taxes by the mot I've ever seen on all of America. You also would have to cut various social programs to make room for locking all Trump supporters(maybe like me?)
Welfare gone. Food stamps gone. Funding for planned parenthood gone. It sounds at first something that only the far left would back, but when analyzing the economic implications of it, how could anyone back this idea? It means striping the left of their favorite company in the world; planned parenthood. It means no more birth control. All that money that you invested in Birth control would have to go towards imprisoning Trump supporters.
This idea is both expensive and immoral. Thank God you don't run this country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I am a Caucasian conservative. How do I need to be "seriously mentally impaired"? You're honestly a radical straw man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What is wrong with being a white conservative?
Created:
Posted in:
Otherwise, please take a hike with other Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzees LINK to their Frankstein clinic that we hope to get Locked Away! from moral and civilized soceity.
Isn't it immoral and expensive to lock away 45% of the population for their political views? How is this different from communist China?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Honestly, your mind is disgusted. This whole chain is evidence of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Thanks for being one of the only polite liberals on this chain. I would say a significant portion of liberals that I have talked too online about abortion would be jerks about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
A person on anesthesia has just been knocked out temporarily.
A fetus in the womb is there temporarily. If a person on anesthesia was there for 9 months, is it okay to kill them?
Moreover my threshold is quite simple. Have that sum be over 0.
It would be safe to assume that a criminal's threshold is below 0. Does this justify a death sentence, even if their crime was only robbing $2 worth of goods?
For example, were a fire to break out in a hospital ward and only one person between a little girl and an old man in a coma were able to be saved, While all life is sacred, some lives are just implicitly more so, even if not explicitly said.
Although I would save the little girl, the abortion battle isn't about who's life is more valuable; the mother or the fetus. The battle on which is more valuable out of the following conditions: A mother's convenience or a fetus's life.
Such decision processes are already inherently integrated.
Not sure if I agree. The teen may rely on their parents, but I don't think they cover the extra filters (for lack of better term).
How is that not emotional blackmail? Forcing someone to make a choice which results in either abandoning an innocent child of a loved one, or heavily degrading their own lives and the childs regardless
Adoption in many situations should be optional. If you have the ability to take care of the child, you can decide if you want to set the kid up for adoption or not. Also, this claim goes on the assumption that people get messed up in the system.
It's not a question of being dead. It's question of existing at all.
A fetus exists. The only way a pre born human wouldn't exist is if they weren't conceived. Conception is the marker of if they exist or not. Even pro choice people believe that a fetus exists, they just don't believe that they are human.
is defined by memories and experiences
There are 2 objections to this definition of "existence" or "life" whichever one you meant.
1: Someone with amnesia doesn't have memories. Does this mean they should be killed for not having memories?
2: An old person has more memories then a younger person. Does this mean they are more valuable?
"if" they get parents. What happens if they don't?
Foster kids get parents. http://www.adopt.org/adoption-statistics, it states that over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years.
In terms of averages, they make less of economic impact than their non-disadvantaged peers
They still contribute. I don't want to waste the GDP that people produce to the economy.
Quality of person should be factor. If you flood a country with a million degenerates, the gdp is not going up
Foster kids aren't degenerates. I know a few of them and they aren't messed up individuals. Most get adopted to well off families.
Are these people contributing sufficiently in proportion to how much assistance they require?
I imagine like most adults, they will contribute more then they cost as a group.
Created: