Pence becomes 1st vice president to address March for Life

Status
Not open for further replies.
FZZ said:
I question ever seeing a democrat dominated executive, legislative, and judicial branch simultaneously in our lifetime

Republicans will rig this system in their favor

Government has been failing the voices of minorities and women since the inception of this country
Click to expand...
I've seen this argument a lot recently, and I always found it funny. Like were you (and others) not paying attention 8 years ago? The republicans were in a worse position than the democrats are today, and they recovered just fine. Shit they didn't even have to change anything, and they still did quite well this election.

The judicial branch is the real question, because the republicans have a good chance to stack it in their favor given RBG's consition. I guarantee you there will be a combined senate and presidency within the next 8-12 years however.
 
The arguments most often used in favour of allowing the choice to abort are completely ineffective in the face of 'a foetus is a human life that deserves protection', if that is what someone believes. If you want to change that person's mind, that is the belief you have to undermine. 'Choice over your own body' and 'what about the mental health of the mother' are not strong arguments here. 'Abort to save the life of the mother' - how often is that applicable these days, I'm not sure.

Gutek said:
Only a sociopath would ask a woman to bear the child of her rapist.
Click to expand...

Either a sociopath or someone who thinks a foetus has a soul and that God forbids the ending of a human life except in very particular circumstances. If you carry on with the sociopath angle you're not going to change their mind.
 
ssolitare said:
Adoption is incredibly expensive and selective though.
Click to expand...

I get why it's selective to a degree, but I always thought the money exchange was total bullshit though. You'd think you'd want the family to keep that money so they could use it for the betterment of the child if that's what you really care about.

That being said I always thought the idea of adoption or Republicans being shitty to people after birth doesn't actually have any effect on the logic train of thought on abortion.
 
cereal_killerxx said:
It is my belief that the baby inside her is another person. A separate body. Besides, I think adoption is a really good option nowadays. There are 40 parents looking to adopt for every 1 child available.

I was almost aborted when I was a baby. If that had happened, I wouldn't exist right now. If that had happened to any of you, you wouldn't be alive right now either. And I think you're all awesome!
Click to expand...

Pregnancy literally carries a risk of death, maiming, mental affliction, etc. Even with current medicine.

You think adoption is always option because you think pregnancy is a just a choice of y/n do i keeps. It requires a woman to basically put their body through a grinder, it's unpredictable, and be fine one day and you're dead the next. Or the development goes wrong and you have a stillborn or miscarriage.

It's inhumane to make somebody face that and force them to go through with it to make yourself feel better.
 
You can be against abortion and be pro choice. Just don't get an abortion if you're against it, don't take the choice away from a woman who isn't against it. How hard is that to understand?
 
jfkgoblue said:
Wasn't she heavily involved in the abolishment movement? She did call abortion the murder of children though.
Click to expand...

International Iron Man said:
Because she saw white women getting abortions preventing the spread of white dominance over the earth.
Click to expand...

Susan B. Anthony may have been pro or anti abortion, but she certainly spent no time discussing it or politicizing it. In that way, it's not really important. If she didn't care enough to make it an issue, I don't see why her opinion on it matters.

The idea that she was is because of the conservative group wrongly naming themselves after her in order to seem more feminist, as well as pro life women making the same argument.
 
Metalingus5150 said:
You can be against abortion and be pro choice. Just don't get an abortion if you're against it, don't take the choice away from a woman who isn't against it. How hard is that to understand?
Click to expand...

Society has always enforced morality through laws to reduce the sum of suffering even when that does not seem to directly affect voters or lawmakers. We ban cruelty to animals, even if that person has complete ownership of that animal.
 
Beefy said:
Unborn child yes. Their are many reasons why a woman doesn't want to have a child and she deserves the right to choose.
Click to expand...

Why should that right suddenly change as soon as the baby is born assuming you already in your logic chain thought it was a human to begin with?

Would you be OK with the woman killing the born child? If not at what point do you switch? Immediately at birth or before or when?
 
KirbYuuYuu said:
Reposting from the article
Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress vow to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provided more than a third of the nation's abortions in 2014. They also hope to ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Trump has pledged to sign both measures if they reach his desk.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Fuck you Republicans, Planned Parenthood does a shit ton of good. Just, fuck you.
 
Also, sites like Lifenews are also in the network of groups that run the fake "pregnancy crisis" centers who lie to women with shit like "having a miscarriage immunizes you from having any more".
 
psychowave said:
If you're a man I hope you never masturbate or have sex with protection or else you're killing millions of potential human beings. If you're a woman, well, better get pregnant as often as you can or else you're wasting your eggs.
Click to expand...
The DNA of a new human individual isn't created until fertilization. An unfertilized egg isn't a human anymore than an unfertilized chicken egg is a chicken. It only has a portion the DNA of the potential individual that could result after fertilization and development.

This is basic science. When human life becomes worthy of protection & rights is a matter of philosophy, not science, but I doubt you seriously believe an unfertilized egg or sperm needs human rights and protections.

That would be a very rare belief, even pro-life absolutists argue that life begins at conception/fertilization.

On the topic, it is nice that the VP addressed the March although they should take care not to become too identified with the Republican Party. There are plenty of people marching today who support rights that the current GOP is not identified with.

I can see this conflation is happening a lot in this thread with people identifying only a certain brand of conservative evangelical with pro-life beliefs; this march was actually a historically Catholic event although it is trying to become more ecumenical. Catholics also advocate for and help with refugees, health care, adoption, and other things that people here are claiming they don't support.

See for instance http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/pastoral-plan-prolife-activities.cfm which calls for "support for legislation that provides morally acceptable alternatives to abortion, including funding to expand education, health, nutrition, and other services for disadvantaged parents and their children" alongside the standard pro life goals. They also put a lot of work in running stuff like Catholic Charities, nonprofit hospitals, and other services themselves.
 
samn said:
The arguments most often used in favour of allowing the choice to abort are completely ineffective in the face of 'a foetus is a human life that deserves protection', if that is what someone believes. If you want to change that person's mind, that is the belief you have to undermine. 'Choice over your own body' and 'what about the mental health of the mother' are not strong arguments here. 'Abort to save the life of the mother' - how often is that applicable these days, I'm not sure.



Either a sociopath or someone who thinks a foetus has a soul and that God forbids the ending of a human life except in very particular circumstances. If you carry on with the sociopath angle you're not going to change their mind.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. There is no changing their minds.
 
Vanillalite said:
Why should that right suddenly change as soon as the baby is born assuming you already in your logic chain thought it was a human to begin with?

Would you be OK with the woman killing the born child? If not at what point do you switch? Immediately at birth or before or when?
Click to expand...

Because it's no longer using someone else's body in order to survive?

The point you switch is when the individual woman and doctor discuss fetal viability, affects on the woman's health, and options that are available and the woman makes that choice.

Everything between conception and birth are shades of gray. Why would we want blanket laws that affect everyone on this when every situation is completely different?

samn said:
Is that because they're sociopaths or is it because they have deeply held beliefs about the sanctity of human life?
Click to expand...

Deeply held beliefs my fucking ass. Most of them have beliefs brought about by propaganda spread via the Republican party in order to create a wedge issue and an immovable voting block.
 
samn said:
Either a sociopath or someone who thinks a foetus has a soul and that God forbids the ending of a human life except in very particular circumstances. If you carry on with the sociopath angle you're not going to change their mind.
Click to expand...

Okay, delusional then.
 
Seth Enosh said:
The DNA of a new human individual isn't created until fertilization. An unfertilized egg isn't a human anymore than an unfertilized chicken egg is a chicken. It only has a portion the DNA of the potential individual that could result after fertilization and development.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know all that, thank you. A fertilized egg isn't much more similar to a baby than an unfertilized one. They're both potential human beings, but both far from becoming one.
Life begins when the fetus can survive outside of a womb, at which point it is an independent human being. Until then, it's no more than a bunch of cells inside the woman's body, much like any of her organs.
 
There's a lot of snarky posts about how Pro-Lifers are all just big dumb hypocrites, but either through GOP brainwashing or legitimate conclusion, they literally see it as murder. There is no argument here, you either see it as murder or you don't.
 
cereal_killerxx said:
My apologies. It's actually 36 to every 1. And the data is from 2012 but I can't imagine it's changed that much.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/09/thirty-six-couples-wait-for-every-one-baby-who-is-adopted/
Click to expand...

Okay so, from that painfully obviously biased cite, i back tracked through the rabbit hole to find the actual study that they are talking about.

Turns out that it's a business insider article that no longer exists. If it ever existed at all in the first place, which I honestly kinda doubt.

In fact, the ONLY place that you can actually find this claim are on OTHER "Abortion is BAD" sites.

So yeah, to be perfectly honest, I don't believe this claim at all. There is always a lack of people willing to adopt, it's why our foster systems are full ot the point of breaking.
 
Vanillalite said:
Why should that right suddenly change as soon as the baby is born assuming you already in your logic chain thought it was a human to begin with?

Would you be OK with the woman killing the born child? If not at what point do you switch? Immediately at birth or before or when?
Click to expand...

Are you just trying to play devils advocate? I deem a baby as being born as soon as it is able to breath and survive on it's own. I myself was born a month early.
 
Apathy said:
Grats women of the US, you're incapable of making your choices with your body. Gotta let old white men tell you exactly what to do.

These fucking disgusting republicans.
Click to expand...

You can't just blame the republicans. The blame is also on the people that voted these people in. What amazes me, is women voted for republicans. Women voted to literally take their own lives away.

It makes no sense.
 
Vanillalite said:
Why should that right suddenly change as soon as the baby is born assuming you already in your logic chain thought it was a human to begin with?

Would you be OK with the woman killing the born child? If not at what point do you switch? Immediately at birth or before or when?
Click to expand...

There's a couple of arguments here.

Firstly, when it's in the womb it is dependant on the mother and poses a risk to her health and well being. Giving birth to a child isn't exactly some easy thing, even if medical technology has made it safer than it has been historically. Once it is out of the womb, there are options, it can be put up for adoption, etc. In the womb, the mother must still go through a medical operation and has the right to reject that medical operation.

I would also say the right to life is in part a function of mental awareness. Noone has a problem with people pre-emptively writing that they wish to be removed from life support. It's understood that in such a state of mind, the value of your life could be seen as diminished, (typically by the person themselves) and they choose for the plug to be pulled. We also often pull the plug on people who are brain dead, but machines keep their organs working. It's about mental state, and the mental state of a fetus is far different from that of a born child.
 
StayDead said:
You can't just blame the republicans. The blame is also on the people that voted these people in. What amazes me, is women voted for republicans. Women voted to literally take their own lives away.

It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

White women did. This is what happens when white women care more about fucking minorities over than they care about their own bodily autonomy.
 
xxracerxx said:
Fuck you Republicans, Planned Parenthood does a shit ton of good. Just, fuck you.
Click to expand...

At this point, planned parenthood needs some form of defense. Even if it means looping off part of its functions.

At this point, there's an offer for abortion to make the abortion talking point moot for political usage
 
4 is a cutie said:
Considering the lack of concern towards the women who have to go through with pregnancy, i'd say both
Click to expand...

Some might, yes, but many will be concerned, and yet their principles would obviously always trump their concern, and this is the only position that makes sense to someone holding those principles.
 
Beefy said:
Are you just trying to play devils advocate? I deem a baby as being born as soon as it is able to breath and survive on it's own. I myself was born a month early.
Click to expand...

There are babies that are born that can't breathe on their own though without the help of breathing machines and such.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. The devil in this argument is literally in the details which I find people gloss over with surface level arguments.
 
Earthstrike said:
There's a couple of arguments here.

Firstly, when it's in the womb it is dependant on the mother and poses a risk to her health and well being. Giving birth to a child isn't exactly some easy thing, even if medical technology has made it safer than it has been historically. Once it is out of the womb, there are options, it can be put up for adoption, etc. In the womb, the mother must still go through a medical operation and has the right to reject that medical operation.

I would also say the right to life is in part a function of mental awareness. Noone has a problem with people pre-emptively writing that they wish to be removed from life support. It's understood that in such a state of mind, the value of your life could be seen as diminished, (typically by the person themselves) and they choose for the plug to be pulled. We also often pull the plug on people who are brain dead, but machines keep their organs working. It's about mental state, and the mental state of a fetus is far different from that of a born child.
Click to expand...

No, it is about adults having control over their bodies.

Or one could say that the person carrying the baby don't want to have the trouble of having 9 months a parasyte inside because she is not feeling like it.

And in the same way a full adult grown person can deny a life saving organ transplant that if not transplanted it means the person will die for sure and that not be considered a murder, a full adult grown person can deny giving anything from their body to a parasyte of cells.
 
Earthstrike said:
There's a couple of arguments here.

Firstly, when it's in the womb it is dependant on the mother and poses a risk to her health and well being. Giving birth to a child isn't exactly some easy thing, even if medical technology has made it safer than it has been historically. Once it is out of the womb, there are options, it can be put up for adoption, etc. In the womb, the mother must still go through a medical operation and has the right to reject that medical operation.

I would also say the right to life is in part a function of mental awareness. Noone has a problem with people pre-emptively writing that they wish to be removed from life support. It's understood that in such a state of mind, the value of your life could be seen as diminished, (typically by the person themselves) and they choose for the plug to be pulled. We also often pull the plug on people who are brain dead, but machines keep their organs working. It's about mental state, and the mental state of a fetus is far different from that of a born child.
Click to expand...

Is the mental state that different though? Is the mental state of a baby 5 mins out of the womb that much different than 5 mins before in the womb?

I agree with the poster above that it's full of grey area. I think this example though paints it more black and white if you say immediately as soon as it's born.
 
Vanillalite said:
There are babies that are born that can't breathe on their own though without the help of breathing machines and such.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. The devil in this argument is literally in the details which I find people gloss over with surface level arguments.
Click to expand...
Someone already answered you before but you ignored it :
RDreamer said:
Because it's no longer using someone else's body in order to survive?

The point you switch is when the individual woman and doctor discuss fetal viability, affects on the woman's health, and options that are available and the woman makes that choice.
Click to expand...

Vanillalite said:
Is the mental state that different though? Is the mental state of a baby 5 mins out of the womb that much different than 5 mins before in the womb?
Click to expand...
If a child is "born" then it means it's viable outside of the womb and no one is suggesting killing those.
 
samn said:
Some might, yes, but many will be concerned, and yet their principles would obviously always trump their concern, and this is the only position that makes sense to someone holding those principles.
Click to expand...

They're fine to have those principles but they should not force anyone else to behave as they do. Hate the sin and go about your day like with any other subject.
 
azyless said:
Someone already answered you before but you ignored it :
Click to expand...

I got different answers on this though as the person above said it was about mental state.

Plus it's not as if babies can survive on their own as it is. Though you could say babies can survive independently without a specific person though ie it needs someone to feed them but it doesn't specifically have to be whomever is carring the baby prebirth.
 
samn said:
Is that because they're sociopaths or is it because they have deeply held beliefs about the sanctity of human life?
Click to expand...

I can't make that call.

But USUALLY (obviously not always) the other beliefs they hold show that they cannot possibly care about the sanctity of human life to the extreme level that they care about abortion.
 
Vanillalite said:
There are babies that are born that can't breathe on their own though without the help of breathing machines and such.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. The devil in this argument is literally in the details which I find people gloss over with surface level arguments.
Click to expand...

But their lungs are nearly developed enough to be able to breath, hence why they are given a chance. They still have to in the end be able to breath on their own or they are left to die. Hospitals won't even bother if the baby is born too early as they know they have no chance. Again a woman has the right to do what she wants up until the point the baby can survive by itself or survive after a little help. As science gets better then the cut off should be lowered, but that is a different story.
 
Vanillalite said:
I got different answers on this though as the person above said it was about mental state.

Plus it's not as if babies can survive on their own as it is. Though you could say babies can survive independently without a specific person though ie it needs someone to feed them but it doesn't specifically have to be whomever is carring the baby prebirth.
Click to expand...
You don't see the difference between literally hosting another organism inside of you and feeding a baby ?
 
Metalingus5150 said:
You can be against abortion and be pro choice. Just don't get an abortion if you're against it, don't take the choice away from a woman who isn't against it. How hard is that to understand?
Click to expand...

pretty much, people need to stop trying to push their beliefs on everyone when they involve taking rights away from people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

It's the 1st day of Summer!
2
68
561
12Goblins replied
Naked Gun Trailer - August 1st.
News  2 3 4
151
7K
Jinzo Prime replied
Story time about life recently.
29
486
anthony2690 replied
Married sex life ......can be awesome?
39
1K
Mistake replied
I'm drunk and pondering life on this planet
30
345
Plies replied
Top Bottom