I've answered this clearly many times... No... I don't want people to go out and kill off the hungry. I'm not down with interfering with anyones struggle to survive. But I don't want to be forced to help their struggle either.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
For those of you who support abortion...
- Thread starter netsecurity
- Start date
-
- Tags
- abortion
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I've answered this clearly many times... No... I don't want people to go out and kill off the hungry. I'm not down with interfering with anyones struggle to survive. But I don't want to be forced to help their struggle either.
Homicide is already illegal.
Who is "you folks"?
You keep pointing to the utilitarian argument as justification for abortion. I.e., it's okay because it is beneficial to the species (or you personally). I don't think you've exactly outlined clearly why something like slaughtering the hungry - which you also claim is good for the species - is something you only like in theory.
I'm not sure why you claim that abolishing abortion means trying to rescue everyone. Saying "You can't drown your three year old in the bathtub just because feeding them cuts into your cigarette budget" doesn't mean that I'm going to personally adopt every three year old with crappy parents.
Who are "the experts" that should decide when someone is not a person? And how do they make that determination?
It seems to me that if there is a significant question as to when babies become people, we should address that issue first, right?
Also, experts or no, you will find very little in the way of agreement when it comes to when a baby becomes a person. Most of the argument centers around viability with medical support, but as medical technology improves that target moves.
So because you're not willing to advocate the slaughter of the hungry in Africa, should we assume you're willing to step up and foot the bill for them? How about people taking responsibility for their own actions? How about we leave supporting the hungry to private charities for whom that is important? If that isn't important to you, don't contribute to those private charities. Everyone's happy!
Lucky, this is clearly an issue you have some passionate feelings about, but the logic you attempt to employ to defend those feelings is inconsistent at best. You argue that abortion is moral because it is utilitarian, then argue against utilitarian genocide. You argue that if someone opposes abortion, they should be responsible for supporting the children not killed, but you state that you aren't willing to pay for the hungry in Africa - even though you don't think that they should be killed.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I just posted about 5 of those charities
Did you contribute? The problem I have is that I am FORCED by the government to foot the bill. Who pays for foreign aid? Who pays for Welfare programs? Who pays for Foster Children? They aren't all privately subsidized!
You want to abolish abortion I'm assuming? Well, are you going to pay for it? Its obviously not going to be free... or cheap.
What do you want from me dude... I've done the best I could to answer all of your questions with the utmost honesty. I've sit back and endured the criticism and haven't asked anything from you. What do you want?
You ask me intimate questions about whether or not I want to see hungry people die or if I want to allow mothers to drown their 3 year old in the bath tub. Its that what you think I want? I don't want abortion... or starvation or war... but I don't get to decide those things. I don't get to create the world. What exactly is your goal... To paint me some kind of evil, moral-less person who gets off on others peoples misfortune or misery?
I don't take pleasure in the realities of this world, but I have come to accept them for what they are. I don't air brush them or make up some fantastical solution that sounds good on paper and comes across cleanly on a forum board, but isn't realistic.
The fact is... I'm honest enough to say that at this point in my life I'm not willing to sacrifice a whole hell of a lot for some unfortunate kid born in Africa and I'm not willing to contradict myself by willingly supporting solutions that would welcome the government to steal more from me than they already do.
That doesn't make me a bad person, or some callous *******. I wish I was in the position to contribute more to society. I've served my country, I serve my family and I serve my friends and when i get a chance to make a positive contribution to my society, I serve that too.
I'm not a greedy person or even a selfish person (by societal standards). I'd happily give the shirt off of my back to someone if I felt it would make a difference... but I chose to do it on MY TERMS and I prefer it stay that way.
If you can't accept that answer, then thats your prerogative. I'm satisfied with the person I've become and I've worked hard to develop my standards and beliefs. I didn't inherit them from a book or because society told me that they were right.
Because we have more compassion for wildlife than we do our fellow man?
Hmm... unlikely. Ever stumble on a nest with any momma bird nearby? You'll get dive-bombed and screeched at til you leave it alone. I'll leave you to your own conclusion about that.
You said a mouthful there, pal. And how.
Sure, I completely understand, but that is the problem that needs to be addressed. Also, the problem of governments subsidizing these programs doesn't go away because parents can choose to abort their baby. Indeed, even with legal abortions the welfare programs provide financial incentive in many cases to not abort babies.
Are those really intimate questions? They were intended to be very simple questions with simple answers. As well, those questions were simply applying your own logic and rationale to other situations that - with the exception of the age of the victims - appear to totally fit your requirements.
Please don't misunderstand me. I know you don't want mothers to drown their kids in the bathtub, but I think you know quite well that I was merely applying your stated logic to situations other than abortion. If you have a problem with the application of the your logic in nearly identical circumstances, maybe that is where the real problem is.
The problem is the government stealing from you for these programs, not the government outlawing, restricting or reducing accessibility to abortion. In addition, what African nations do or don't do with regard to abortion is a separate issue entirely. If we provided government subsidized, drive-through abortions to any mother who wanted it in the USA, it would not change anything with regard to our foreign aid policies.
But let's get to the crux of the issue. You have already admitted that you don't know the answer to the question: "When does a baby become worthy of social protection?" Yet even admitting that you can't answer that question, your solution is to generally defend the practice of abortion - despite not knowing (or caring) if current policies are resulting in what is effectively allowing people who should be protected to be killed.
That's great, though in direct contradiction to your previous statements about being selfish. Even so, good on you. I fully support that. Government enforced charity is little more than theft and each person should be free to give or not give as they see fit. You and I are totally on the same page here. But that isn't the point, and abortion doesn't eliminate or even significantly reduce your taxes.
You don't think your standards and beliefs are a product of things you've read or social influences? That's very intriguing. Are they divinely inspired or something?
Lets simplify everything....
1. Cost benefit and Morality do not go hand in hand. My concerns are about cost / benefit... not Morality (whether Christian or other). The reason I don't want to see Abortion abolished is because I don't want to pay for it. At that point I could care less about the morality involved.
2. Considering that abortion isn't outlawed, you want to know at what point do I want to see the fetus gain rights over the host (mother)... My answer... I don't care. For all of you people who care... be my guest to figure it out. I'm not interested in doing the research to make that decision. Dr.'s seem to think at about week 20 fetus start to feel pain... without much thought about it, that seems like a logical place. If you want to say the cutoff point is when a baby can sustain life outside the wwomb... go for it. I simply am not that interested as long as its logical. The same way I could care less what color my fiance paints the bathroom... As long as its not obnoxious, I probably will let her make that decision.
3. Genocide/Eugenics? Nasty stuff.... I'm not a big proponent of interfering with the lives of others... if they are a drain on society its because we allow them to drain society. My solution isn't to round them up and kill them. Its to cut them off... to not allow them to drain society.
I'm not sure what contradictions you see in there... but I'm sure you will invent one.
I think it only fair I get to ask you a couple of questions...
1. Cost benefit and Morality do not go hand in hand. My concerns are about cost / benefit... not Morality (whether Christian or other). The reason I don't want to see Abortion abolished is because I don't want to pay for it. At that point I could care less about the morality involved.
2. Considering that abortion isn't outlawed, you want to know at what point do I want to see the fetus gain rights over the host (mother)... My answer... I don't care. For all of you people who care... be my guest to figure it out. I'm not interested in doing the research to make that decision. Dr.'s seem to think at about week 20 fetus start to feel pain... without much thought about it, that seems like a logical place. If you want to say the cutoff point is when a baby can sustain life outside the wwomb... go for it. I simply am not that interested as long as its logical. The same way I could care less what color my fiance paints the bathroom... As long as its not obnoxious, I probably will let her make that decision.
3. Genocide/Eugenics? Nasty stuff.... I'm not a big proponent of interfering with the lives of others... if they are a drain on society its because we allow them to drain society. My solution isn't to round them up and kill them. Its to cut them off... to not allow them to drain society.
I'm not sure what contradictions you see in there... but I'm sure you will invent one.
I think it only fair I get to ask you a couple of questions...
1. Do you want to see abortion outlawed?
2. If yes... are you willing to pay for it and if so... what % of your income? If no... at what point do you think we should recognize the fetuses right to live over the mothers wishes to abort and why?
2. If yes... are you willing to pay for it and if so... what % of your income? If no... at what point do you think we should recognize the fetuses right to live over the mothers wishes to abort and why?
For what it's worth, here're my answers:
Yes. I shouldn't pay for anything you do, in your like, that our current laws allows to be visited upon me via tax dollars. If you have 10-15 kids, it's up to you to figure out how to raise them. Your carelessness shouldn't be placed on the community. Just as with kids, I shouldn't have to pay for the fact you may wish to ruin your life with drugs, gambling, or your lousy work ethic--your decisions, your responsibilities.
At the moment of conception, there are 2 human beings on the earth. Each has a right to life. The only exception would be if the existence of one poses an existential threat to the life of the other.
Given the current state of our country... If abortion is outlawed tomorrow do you think the inherent costs will eventually fall on your lap in one way or another?
Whether its increased welfare costs or increased institutional costs (for housing kids, teens and potentially prisoners).... Keep in mind we are talking about an additional 1.3 million US citizens a year and the majority of them will fall into the "system" somewhere.
Who am I to judge which innocent person gets the right to life? Once you "get it", from that first nano-second on, I nor anybody else has the right to take it away from you until you do something, of your own free will, to forfeit it.
Thats not what I asked... I didn't ask you to judge anyone. I asked you if you think given our current society, do you think that eventually you will end up paying for all of the extra unwanted children?
I think thats a fair question.... I'm not trying to corner you in anyway and I promise I wont say "Gotcha".
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0[/ame]
I believe the correct term is infanticide, not abortion. But really, just call it murder and be done with it. I reject the concept of changing the language just to make people feel better about killing another human being—one who is unable to defend his/her self.
There is something absolutely despicable about a woman who will not defend the life of her own child. A father who encourages the mother of his child to destroy that child is equally evil and devoid of any element of "manhood" or "manliness" or humanity. The physician who will kill an infant for profit is only a modern version of Josef Mengele <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele>.
I know I will catch it hot for this post. I will speak the truth, regardless. Truth is truth even if 99% of the world denies it. Pope Urban VIII ordered Galileo to deny that the world revolved about the sun, and demanded Galileo recant his heliocentric theories <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei>. No matter what the pope said, the world did revolve about the sun. Even so, killing an unborn child is murder and evil no matter how much anyone protests or argues otherwise.
There is something absolutely despicable about a woman who will not defend the life of her own child. A father who encourages the mother of his child to destroy that child is equally evil and devoid of any element of "manhood" or "manliness" or humanity. The physician who will kill an infant for profit is only a modern version of Josef Mengele <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele>.
I know I will catch it hot for this post. I will speak the truth, regardless. Truth is truth even if 99% of the world denies it. Pope Urban VIII ordered Galileo to deny that the world revolved about the sun, and demanded Galileo recant his heliocentric theories <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei>. No matter what the pope said, the world did revolve about the sun. Even so, killing an unborn child is murder and evil no matter how much anyone protests or argues otherwise.
Last edited:
I agree that they don't go hand in hand. The difference is that I think morality (not necessarily religious morality, but cultural morals) comes before cost-benefit. If something is morally wrong - like drowning a three year old in a bathtub, for instance - it doesn't matter if there is an ultimate cost savings.
Do you disagree with that?
An honest, if myopic reply.
I'm good with cutting people off rather than killing them. You'll also get no arguments from me on the genocide/eugenics being nasty stuff, and I'm glad we can agree on that.
Why is it always an all or nothing proposition with you folks?
As a matter of "choice" ... i.e. for birth control, convenience or cost savings? Yep, I support the restriction of abortion.
For extremely rare exceptions relating to medical dangers and perhaps situations such as rape/incest? I believe there are times where it is the least bad option and should be safe and legal in those circumstances.
At minimum we are facing a moral grey area very much along the lines of non-voluntary euthanasia and to treat it flippantly as as unimportant as the color of a bathroom has some pretty strong negative implications.
Generally speaking, no. Why should I pay for it? When have I advocated that? Nor do I believe you should be required to pay for it via taxes or any other mechanism.
Of course, in the case of family, someone close to me, or someone I care deeply about, you bet I am willing to help support them. As far as a percentage of my income ... it depends on the situation. As much as I could afford without harming my own family.
Given that you have already stated that you simply don't care at all, I'm not sure why you'd ask. On the other hand, it is the first relevant question you have put forward so far, so I'll do my best to give you my best, most honest answer, to wit, I don't know.
I know enough to know that I don't know the answer. In fact, I'm not sure that there can be a clear cut "right" answer. Moreover, I doubt you could get any sort of consensus from experts on the matter either - except perhaps on the far ends of the spectrum. For instance, in the case of a healthy baby in the process of being naturally born? Most folks would agree that's probably not time to break out the brain-sucking vacuum or the spine snipper. In the case of the sperm with a running start? Most folks would agree you aren't slaughtering an innocent baby at that point. In the continuum between those extremes, you'll find very little in the way of real consensus.
As with a situation like criminal execution or non-consensual euthanasia, if we must err, we should endeavor to err on the side of caution.
That's my view, anyway.
Maybe.
But that's the result of our welfare state. And that should not be a reason to help ensure the innocent the right to life.
Then again, some of those 1.umpteen million might do something extraordinary. Something that will offset the utilitarian drain on society by the remainder.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- Keith_Indy
- den57
- d.kaufman
- harvey4
- joe138
- Born2vette
- red_zr24x4
- kaiser9815
- dougha5
- macolesby
- jwamplerusa
- dieselrealtor
- dwain
- dan1856
- ironjaw77
- bgcatty
- Demoderb1989
- ECS686
- gpasp101
- purple72
- Jose I317
- c604
- indiucky
- Onebad06vtx
- Malware
- Zjhagens
- PTSC
- Kinkopet33
- Creedmoor
- Scott58
- J D
- Sagamore - One
- 55fairlane
- Rburney
- Ark
- archer_advice
- BigMoose
- Juday
- Robert B.
- printcraft
- cosermann
- Joniki
- HoughMade
- Doug28450
- Jmtbug21
- bacon#1
- XDdreams
- carsgunsandgirls
- El Conquistador
- Reece'sPieces