Barney

Admittedly I've been under the impression being pro-life was about being pro-life, and/or anti-death.

"Pro-life" is a sensationalist moniker, much like "pro-choice."

...is that really oppression against women?

The only thing your studies demonstrated was that abstinence programs weren't effective in getting teens to practice abstinence, not that abstinence wasn't effective

Once again, how is she being "forced" to assume this cost?

For going through with a pregnancy they will be paid far less for equal work the rest of their lives [22].

There's a motherhood penalty, and it's justifiable.

Of course it’s also their children whose lives are damaged, as was reported in the Journal of Pediatrics: 'existing children of women denied abortions had lower mean child development scores and were more likely to live below the Federal Poverty Level' [23]."

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Not sure what you are talking about cycle stuff

What does cycle mean?

Why would they take one less vote? 

I have not read up on the shootings you're referencing. Link?

I've not read up on them either. I assumed from your statements that you were referring to deaths at the hands of vigilante patrols at the border. Was my assumption wrong? Were you referring to deaths while being held in custody?

And by all means blame the parents. It does not change the reality of harm to other peoples children, which to my understanding is what pro-lifers are concerned about with abortions (save for the ones who are in it out of a hatred for women, which I genuinely hope are a minority).

It's not about preventing all harm to all children at all times. It's about holding parents responsible for their obligation to their children...

Pro-life politicians have a bad habit of preferring abortions to those methods (links are available in the previously cited debate).

I looked them over. I couldn't find the link where pro-life politicians preferred abortions in lieu of the alternatives I mentioned. Can you cite the exact link?

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
   
2. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/05/530922642/in-texas-abstinence-only-programs-may-contribute-to-teen-pregnancies
   
3. https://thinkprogress.org/teen-pregnancies-highest-in-states-with-abstinence-only-policies-8aa0deeebb41/
   

1. https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/21/colorado-abortion-rates-keep-declining-free-iuds-and-easier-access-to-the-pill-are-the-reason/
   
2. https://www.mynspr.org/post/colorado-debates-whether-iuds-are-contraception-or-abortion#stream/0
   

Firstly because as precious as the unborn may be, newborns should never be worth less. So it's ethical to give newborns a warm welcome into our shared community, rather than metaphorically spitting on them (technically just forcing their parents toward poverty, which then sets said child on a path to a worse life, while damaging the lives of any siblings they may have... and yes, research has proven this, feel free to ask for a link).

...How are any of them "forced" into poverty?...

Secondly because it is pro-life people demanding those expenses come into existence.

No. Those expenses are a byproduct of raising children as a result of that which they demand (food, clothing, shelter, etc.)

Thirdly because said cost would be extremely minor when shared. Given that pro-life people like to have more children, the overall average cost to them might even be decreased (in turn raising the quality of life for their own children).

The relative weight of the cost is irrelevant. The issue is the deference of cost to anyone other than the parents. And if you're going to argue that they can't afford raising children, then perhaps it's more prudent to counsel abstinence in light of one's impending poverty, rather than subsidizing their indiscretions by promoting "getting rid of it."

The ideas are not mutually exclusive. However trying to prevent abortions with penalties has been proven to result in unsafe abortions (as seen in countries with repressive reproductive laws).

How many of those women in said countries with "repressive" reproductive laws live in functioning family environments where they can facilitate the raising of children, rather than disposing of them? And yeah, there are women who'd mutilate themselves rather than carry a pregnancy to term, but let's remind ourselves: the women are doing that to themselves, no one else. When she carries out, an abortion, the unborn child is not doing it to itself.

And home births more than double the death rate, so should be something to which any pro-lifer is opposed.

What is the death rate of an abortion?

Harder access to guns for the immoral people with a history of violence and gun abuse;

Except, these regulations affect legal access, not illegal access.

much like your suggestion of raising the cost of abortions to make them harder to attain

It's not the same. You're increasing the cost to law abiding citizens, who by an overwhelming majority do not use their weapon to harm others.

Of course you can insist my previous source on this did not meet its' BoP, and I can't make you agree with it.

I need not insist it. There has yet to be any demonstration that stringent regulations result in fewer deaths. My agreement is irrelevant.

How can you eradicate Christianity, without also eradicating Catholicism, Judaism and Islamism etc.

They all originate from and maintain the same basic foundation.

lol he's done this before?

As pointed out earlier, children are included in the border deaths. One pro-lifer defended those deaths on the basis of them being criminals.

What culpability do the parents of those children bear, risking fatal injury from those who'd shoot them? And are you conflating the notion of border control with shooting children?

Regarding the voluntary sex angle: pro-life opposition to birth control continues to both result in more abortions, and increase government spending (thus increased taxes).

Are condoms, abstinence, and withdrawal before insemination restricted?...

....Planned Parenthood, an organization which boasts counseling on safe sex, receives federal funding.

I specifically referenced the cost of having a child, as an expense which should logically be covered if abortions were illegal.

Why "should" that cost be incurred by anyone other than the parent(s)? That would be like my saying, "I want to murder my son. If you don't let me, you have to bear the costs of raising him."

I'm talking about making birth less unaffordable, thus disincentivizing abortion.

Perhaps, the best way to provide disincentives to abortion is to increase the cost of getting an abortion? ... And home births are quite inexpensive.

Guns make killing easy, much like the common argument from pro-lifers regarding legal abortions (and in some cases birth control). Granted I am not saying they should endorse universal gun bans, merely occasional mild inconveniences of closed loopholes in existing laws to save lives.

This operates only under the assumption that these regulations would make an immoral demographic less immoral. 120,000,000 adults are possessors of legal firearms sans a universal background check. Around 14,000 per year include fatal injury, most of which consists of suicides. Car accidents, heart disease, and diabetes kill more people annually. And those who'd argue that more stringent regulations would result in fewer instances of violence have yet to meet their burden of proof.

Please reread the first line of your first post (#5). Whereas you now agree with my initial assessment by saying "certain rights are more important than others when they conflict," you initially called anyone who believes in effectively the same notion of rights "confused."

I think you have me confused with someone else

1. ...the issue with the border is centered around the notion of illegal entrance, not entrance in and of itself. It's the difference between jumping a gate, and being invited and having the gate open, with which having voluntary sex would align more.

2. ...How would that make fewer women want abortions?

3. Guns don't kill people; people kill people...

I would of course not endorse an abortion at 9 months without medical complication.

how about 269 days of gestation without complications ok to abort?

scientific community's understanding of fetal development

statistics are a bell curve even with this is it not?

or is the development exactly the same for every baby and everyone that has been born?

Glad you finally agree women have rights to begin with

you're doing it again, i never, ever, ever said women didn't have rights, honestly can't you control and check yourself a bit better?

your link "sheriff and police departments have policies to not process eviction orders if the weather is below a certain temperature"

I don't see where you can evict someone so they'll die because of the weather.

Putting the rights of one person on hold for the benefit of another, is still just that; even if you think it's worth it.

...So certain rights are more important than others when they conflict.

In 98.7% of abortions the fetus has not reached the phase in development where pain is possible

so you accept that we know all there is to know about human development?  Does everyone and everything develop at the same rate?

You seem to object to abortions when they can feel pain, is that correct?  If so how strong is your objection?  Strong enough to er on the side of caution?

Best friend of course. What's your point?

Obviously, you have the freedom of speech to say this. But there's virtually no way a normal person, if actually presented with that exact situation, would choose as you're claiming...

What you're talking about sounds like emotional bonds. Why should your emotional bond to some random woman's fetus, outweigh her lack of said bond when she's the one measurably affected?

Does not compute. You're claiming I said literally the opposite of what I did. A person has obligations towards close family, near-infinitely more so one's own child, whether they particularly like said family member or not. One's unborn child falls under this category and therefore is unlike a stranger.

Call it you feeling obligated if you want, and the woman in question still doesn't have it.

????

What are your thoughts on such being partly extended to pregnant women and newborns?

...religious organizations to pay for, they could do it off of donations, which are also consensually given, as opposed to tax dollars, which are obtained by coercion.

I mean maybe pass a law that they must be painted a bright color to be less scary. 🤣

I want them to look scary so bad characters don't mess with you, or are less likely too.

If someone is trespassing in my house, I have the right to evict them from my property, even if it's winter so they'll die without my hospitality.

are you sure that's true?  For example, you can't legally set up lethal traps to protect your property.  Just like police you are not legally obligated to risk your life to protect another.  There's other examples, so I'm not sure that your example is legal.

Many pro-lifers wish it to be legally mandated that she lose her freedoms upon pregnancy (granted I would too for late term pregnancies, as I do believe in protecting beings whom feel pain).

that is not how I see pro lifers approach their argument.  Your are looking at the issue from the point of view that this is about the woman.  Someone pro life would look at this issue from the point of view of the baby.

...and in some cases a brutally painful death.

For the adults your argument holds up, but for the "defenseless, innocent" children it does not. 

How so? I think it is stronger for 

defenseless, innocent" children.

They "could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens." 

 But there is no connection between those citizens and the illegal. But in the case of the woman, she voluntarily engaged in sex that could result in pregnancy.

The embryo is at least 50% genetically the same as the mother. There is no such connection between the citizen and the illegal. Further, unlike the illegal and the citizens home, the baby has never been outside the mother. Your analogy is false on several levels.

I am only talking about unwanted pregnancies.

This is the weakest part of your argument. For what does "unwanted" mean? ...  At what point along the chain of voluntary decisions that lead to a baby can a woman say she doesn't want a baby?

In any case, you currently have zero obligations to any of the groups.

Untrue. I always have moral obligations to other people, but because I am limited, my obligations to people more closely related to me get met first.

I even pointed out what I thought any pro-lifer would take to be a major benefit: "and likely make less women want abortions"

But at what cost? Aborting female children will also have the "major benefit" of likely making fewer women want abortions. Is that acceptable to you? The ends do not always justify the means.

1. In terms of the inherent obligations one has for another, one's son or daughter cannot be compared to a random stranger, or even to somebody you consider yourself friends with. Its most fundamental basis is neither affection nor emotion and exists in the absence of either.

For example, who would you sooner die for (if you had to choose)? Your three month old, or your best friend of 15 years?

1.banning abortion wont stop abortions

What about gun control

2.liberals always on a gun control crusade after a school shooting

but defend killing kids in abortion?

The slavery issue may be compelling by your argument, but it can be argued that on the side of the fetus

“nor shall any State deprive any personof life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” 

I think there should also be a pro-choice for men as well, forcing the pro-life woman to offer a child for adoption rather than have his wages garnished for 18 years.

I'm curious how beliefs in stripping women of their rights for the benefit of strangers (AKA "the unborn")

that maybe your belief but it's not for pro life people, maybe that's why you are confused.

In your opinion pro-life people no longer want abortion to be illegal. Noted.

it's your opinion that it's stripping a woman of her rights, pro life people don't see it that way

...your opinion is that someone has the right to kill another if they are unwanted or inconvenient, that how you want to play it?

Let's say a user uses the account (or uses that account on their IP and then with the same IP on their other account does things) in a way that is vulgar, threatening, obscene, rule-breaking, law-breaking and such.

What legal documentation and clauses will you have in place so that the rest of us are not associated with their activities on it? 

1) I support open borders on economic grounds.  I'd ban welfare and abolish the counterproductive war on poverty, which has kept people poor.

2) I'm fine with medicare for all since it's cheaper than the alternative by 50%.

3) Background checks are fine.  However, banning AR 15s would help enable a tyrannical government that would do way more damage than a few mass shootings here and there.

If you don't want to respond because of the other comments that you'd have to respond too, I understand.