| Author | Message | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     Sifo |
I once heard it said (and rightly so IMO) that the right and left approach the abortion issue from very different mind sets. The right first asks, is it right, then asks should it be legal. The left starts with, it must be made legal, then asks is it right. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Teeps, >>> No good will come from this thread. There is no reason for discussion as, both sides of this issue are passionate and will never agree. That is contrary to my own experience. When people see the truth of the issue, MANY do indeed have a change of heart or at least begin to rethink the issue. I myself am the perfect example. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
R100, Drudge had a link to a good article on the issue a week or so ago. Lucky for me I read it.  I respect your effort to protest the ongoing mass-murder for profit. Thank you for doing that. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sifo |
One aspect that seems very hypocritical to me on the abortion issue is the vastly different view of it based on sex. Yes, I know that a man can't have an abortion, but hear the argument. Right now a female involved in an unwanted pregnancy can simply walk away from it up to the point of birth. She can do this regardless of the wishes of the father of the child. We are currently making laws that bind the father to be responsible for the child solely base on the choice of the mother to not abort it. This seems very unfair and possibly even unconstitutional to treat people differently based on their sexual orientation. Why can't the father also have the decision to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy, right up to the point of birth? Are we not supposed to be a nation of equal rights for all? Any thoughts? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wolfridgerider |
Don't fall victim to the myths that humanity amounts to some kind of plague on the planet sad thing to say... that's how I feel about most peeps on the planet... using each other as stepping stones to go where? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Xdigitalx |
If it is truly an aborted life, no matter how it was conceived, life is life. Then there should be a funeral for every abortion. Where is that Wikileaks guy? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sifo |
sad thing to say... that's how I feel about most peeps on the planet... using each other as stepping stones to go where? End of life counseling will soon be readily available to help you resolve your dilemma.  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Seanp |
I am in no way advocating abortion, especially as a preventive measure for "defective" life. However, even the babies that are healthy yet unwanted have to go somewhere. Do we open government-sponsored orphanages? Do we make it easier to adopt? Do we force the irresponsible mothers to keep their babies? What do we do with all of these babies? According to the article in question, there were ~87,000 aborted babies in NYC in 2009. (On a side note, I wonder what the numbers were for 2010, arguably a tougher year, financially.) And Cityxslicker claims that the number of "abortions" is a fraction of the number of total babies killed through a D&C procedure in the first trimester. Let's say that there were another 13,000 abortions conducted through a first trimester D&C. That would make an extra 100,000 babies in NYC in 2009. According to a NYT blog from this past summer, it costs $220,000 to raise a child in NYC. So that works out to $22 billion to raise a child to the age of 18. This is assuming, of course, that these are all healthy children who don't need major medical attention (of course they get Obamacare automatically). I'm not saying that we should abort babies for economic reasons, but I just want to know what people's solutions are to raise this $22,000,000,000? (Oh, and there would most likely be a huge new bureaucracy set up to take care of all these orphans. You know that won't be cheap...) Something I've learned as a leader is that you don't point out a problem unless you're willing to work on or figure out a solution. Finally, my last aside is this - what the heck is that Archbishop doing saying that we should make abortion "rare"? WTF? Shouldn't he say we need to ban ALL abortion? That's like saying we should ban "most" murders... One more thing - why does the link say 41 percent, yet the article says 39? That's odd. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sifo |
If it is truly an aborted life, no matter how it was conceived, life is life. Then there should be a funeral for every abortion. I have know of funerals for miscarriages, and my step father didn't want a funeral for himself. Seems like a personal choice to me. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cityxslicker |
there has been illicit fornication in America since the time of the Scarlet Letter; lets not assume that the 'good old days' were indeed any less stupid. you play the game, you pay the price. And you will notice with the shiatty economy... the thinking families that have forethought and planning are in declining birthrates, because kids are if taken care of properly EXPENSIVE. 'Well it was saturday, I was drunk, she was high, her skirt was short and we did it weeehaa. Cool thing is she doesnt even know my name so I am scott free ! so where we going next weekend?' exactly why I dont go to bars to 'drink or party' and in a soylent 'green' solution, I am betting that there is indeed a Kcal v Jules conversion for the amount of energy that an incinerated corps will generate, when the government figures out that they can harvest bodies for an energy source and off set naturual resource depletion- your days are done' | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sifo |
I am in no way advocating abortion, especially as a preventive measure for "defective" life. However, even the babies that are healthy yet unwanted have to go somewhere. Do we open government-sponsored orphanages? Do we make it easier to adopt? Do we force the irresponsible mothers to keep their babies? What do we do with all of these babies? Perhaps it's best not to travel down that road of moral relativism. What do we do with the elderly once they are no longer productive members of society? The first question should always be "Is it the right thing to do?". I can never see snuffing out an innocent human life as the right thing to do. Adoptions for newborns isn't much of a problem. According to a NYT blog from this past summer, it costs $220,000 to raise a child in NYC. Just because that's what people spend on average raising a child doesn't mean that's the cost of providing the basics. Much of that high average comes from folks that just can't spend enough on their kids. That's their choice if they can afford it, but it's not necessary. I'm not saying that we should abort babies for economic reasons, but I just want to know what people's solutions are to raise this $22,000,000,000? (Oh, and there would most likely be a huge new bureaucracy set up to take care of all these orphans. You know that won't be cheap...) Your $ figure is assuming zero percent adopted and a "nothing is too good for my child" attitude. Not realistic at all. Something I've learned as a leader is that you don't point out a problem unless you're willing to work on or figure out a solution. The solution of killing innocent human life? The solution is to not do it. How long until we are looking for a solution to the problem of X millions of senior citizens being euthanized every year. The solution is to not go down that road. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Seanp |
>>> The first question should always be "Is it the right thing to do?". I can never see snuffing out an innocent human life as the right thing to do. The first question, yes. And the first question a person should ask themselves every day is, "is it the right thing to do to have a bunch of unnecessary expensive things like a motorcycle when there are starving children out there in the world?" I'll admit it, I could tithe a whole lot more, but I like my toys. I'm sure that we could all sell our expensive motorcycles and feed an entire orphanage in Kenya. It's the right thing to do, but it's not the thing we're going to do if it hurts our wallet or our personal enjoyment. Unless you're Mother Theresa or her equivalent, you've already put your own economic needs and desires ahead of someone's life. >>> Adoptions for newborns isn't much of a problem. The system right now is broken. With an influx of 100,000 babies (just in NYC) per year, the system would be overloaded. The only option would be to streamline the system or to increase the size of the bureaucracy. Either you'll get a bloated, inefficient system that costs the government money, or you have a bunch of unqualified parents adopting babies they aren't prepared to raise. >>> Your $ figure is assuming zero percent adopted and a "nothing is too good for my child" attitude. Negative. My figure is from a USDA study that takes into account basic needs of the child (housing, food, transportation, clothing, medical, and child care) as 90-93% of the cost, and miscellaneous (personal care items, entertainment, and reading material) as the other 6.5-8.5%. So it's certainly not the numbers based on a spoiled rich kid. Tell you what, I'll be generous and take out that 8.5% and say the kid, as a ward of the state, doesn't get an XBox. So it's still going to cost $200,000 per child. >>> How long until we are looking for a solution to the problem of X millions of senior citizens being euthanized every year. The solution is to not go down that road. Hello, slippery slope! First of all, I never said abortion is the solution. And I don't know where you're getting this "euthanize the old folks" idea. However, "the solution is not to do it" is like saying "the solution for drunk driving is to not drive drunk". On a side note - why doesn't BadWeb recognize the word "euthanize"? It shows as a misspelling. Odd... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ft_bstrd |
There are enough eligible parents to adopt each and every unwanted child. Even those with handicaps. In the last 12 months, we have 5 different sets of friend families travel to foreign countries and adopt children. These children come from Haiti, Ethiopia, China, and Ukraine. The average price per child to adopt is $20,000 (It's a scam by the sponsoring country to bilk money out of rich Americans.) The question of care for children has NEVER been one off where to place them. The question has ALWAYS been that the birth mother simply didn't want to have to go through the hassle of carrying a child to term. It's a straw man argument to provide cover for people to act irresponsibly and then sever themselves from the "consequences" (like being "punished with a baby" per Mr. Obama). One of the members on this board both placed an unwanted child up for adoption as well as adopted an unwanted child. Abortion was an option in both cases, but the route taken has provided a loving home and living children in both cases. This member would probably have been a poor father then and is a fantastic father now. Abortion at worst should be a state's rights issue and at best should be outlawed. On a separate note, the budgetary shortfalls in both social security and medicare nearly perfectly match the missing population that has been aborted. There are approximately 50,000,000 missing Americans. Assuming the average income of $32,000, that's $1,600,000,000,000 ($1.6T) missing from our economy. This means that 11% of the economy is missing. The budget deficit (even with BO's shenanigans was 12.3%). Get the picture? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Seanp |
FB - why did your friends travel to a foreign country to adopt? Why didn't they adopt an American child? Were there none available or was the system the obstacle? As far as the deficit matching the missing income from aborted babies, according to lifenews.com, the national average is now 20% of births are aborted, but it was 33% twenty years ago. So in reality, we'd have 33% more people age 20+, or about 158,000,000 more Americans paying into SS. That's a whole lot of cash - about $5,056,000,000,000 ($5.1T). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ft_bstrd |
Yes, the wait time for American babies is prohibitively long. Although it costs more to adopt from a foreign country, the time from decision to child is shorter. Regardless, of the estimated financial numbers, there are HUGE swaths of our society missing due to abortion and Roe v. Wade. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Danger_dave |
Fortunately right wing christian fundamentalists don't make all the rules. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Moxnix |
We make up for population losses through abortion by having millions of illegals welcomed with open arms. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Skinstains |
Awesome ! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ft_bstrd |
Right wing Christian fundamentalism has no bearing here. It's simply a matter of right and wrong and the proper treatment of life. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Sean, >>> The first question, yes. And the first question a person should ask themselves every day is, "is it the right thing to do to have a bunch of unnecessary expensive things like a motorcycle when there are starving children out there in the world?" There are poor folks, so we should be okay with murdering unborn babies??? If that isn't your intended logic, then please explain. There will always be poor folks. I certainly agree that we would all be better off if we could gain more appreciation for what is most important in life. One thing I disagree with is the idea that "giving" to the poor is a solution for anything but that day's needs. Better to help provide the incentive and environment for "the poor" to fend for themselves. I think we all agree with that. That relates to the issue of abortion too. The more difficult and painful we make the consequences of irresponsible behavior, the less of that behavior we will see. Abortion today is used by many as birth-control after the fact. None of the concerns raised about the effects of overturning RvW are valid. Prior to RvW, America was hand's down THE most prosperous nation on the planet. Adopting a newborn in America can take years. There is no way $12.2K a year on average is needed to raise a child in NYC. That is ludicrous. I'd sure like to see the budget break-down for that estimate. Regardless, it doesn't justify killing a baby. It justifies a staunch effort to raise the morals and responsibility of our society. The "hypocrisy" issue was discussed earlier. It just occurred to me that much of the veggie-vegan PETA crowed are likely also pro-abortion "rights". Talk about HYPOCRISY! It's off the charts. >>> The system right now is broken. I am sick of hearing that useless statement. What exactly is "broken"? From my view, what has been largely destroyed are the strong family-centered moral fabric and reverence for human life that our nation's government once championed. In it's place we've devolved to glorifying hedonism and brutal murderous selfishness. People who spawn new human life need to be held responsible. If they don't want the baby and can find no willing adopters for it, then they need to pay for someone to take care of their child. It is called responsibility. People MUST be held to account for THEIR choices and actions. Ya don't think the rate of unwanted pregnancies would drop like a rock if people knew that they would have to take financial responsibility for the possible result? Do you imagine that all abortions are by indigents who would be unable to provide for a child? Well, having to provide for a child is a HUGE motivator to be productive in life. HUGE! You don't know where the idea that killing old unproductive folks comes from given your statements about the cost of caring for unwanted children? Really? How much do you imagine we'd save in Medicare and Social Security if we could euthanize old unproductive poor people instead of having to support them? It's the same EXACT argument that you seem to be making for killing unborn babies; the only difference is that at least the old folks had a chance to live for a significant time on this earth. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
>>> Fortunately right wing christian fundamentalists don't make all the rules. 1. Opposition to abortion is not limited to "right wing Christian fundamentalists", whatever that is. 2. The issue should be about what is true and what is just under the law. The particulars of those who support one side or the other are entirely immaterial. 3. The aim of this pro-life advocate is not to demonize anyone. The aim is to advocate for the unborn. Who among us would not have chosen the right to live should our mother have wanted us killed before our birth? Why do we deny that right to the most innocent and helpless? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Seanp |
Blake, First of all, I'm not pro-abortion by any means, though not for the same reasons as most people. Instead of the religious aspect, I look at it as a waste of human life. All of those babies could be productive, happy members of society. Every person contributes in some way to this great group we call humanity, and to miss the contributions of some aborted babies hurts us all as humans. >>> I'd sure like to see the budget break-down for that estimate. The budget estimates I'm quoting are from a USDA survey available here. >>> What exactly is "broken"? As per FB's post, your own statement, Adopting a newborn in America can take years, and a friend of mine's experience trying to adopt locally, the system is broken because it takes too long to go from application to acceptance. >>> How much do you imagine we'd save in Medicare and Social Security if we could euthanize old unproductive poor people instead of having to support them? I still cry slippery slope on this. Old folks are an expense that we're already paying, whereas unborn children would introduce a new expense into our system. If we already had a euthanasia system in place, and were debating whether we should get rid of it or not, then the analogy might be correct. However, the governmental End-Of-Life plan hasn't been put into action yet... Regardless, I agree that abortion is wrong, (though probably for different reasons) and we're not at odds there. However, I would like to know how we can fix it, and make it so that 100,000 kids a year in NYC aren't killed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Isn't one of prime responsibilities of our government to help protect those who are unable to protect themselves? The very justification for our nation's existence states clearly that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Sean, You conveniently ignore the point raised multiple times concerning the effect of legalized abortion on demand. It was illegal in many states prior to RvW. Not sure from where or why you are grabbing the "religious" aversion being different from your own. Religion abhors abortion for the very reasons you state. For some reason some folks discount anything taught, true or not, if it is part of any religious belief system, especially Christian. You claim that you oppose abortion, but your argument advocating for it indicates otherwise. Are you saying that it is not unjust murder, but that it'd be nice to have the babies around to grow up, something nice to see? Is it just or unjust for the baby? Truth is my aim in this discussion, not religion, not anything else, just truth. From your survey, exactly as Jeremy pointed out, it is survey of expenditures, not a measure of what is actually minimally necessary to raise a child. Interestingly, it provides some revealing data. See page 19... Percent of Gross Income Spent on Children
What the above shows is that on average, the cost of adding a child to the family per the USDA is no more than 7% of family gross income. That some choose to spend more is not reflective of the actual need. Regardless, murder is the ultimate injustice. Government condoned, facilitated, and protected mass-murder of the most innocent and defenseless is an outrage. (Message edited by blake on January 08, 2011) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Spdrxb |
This is a heavy thread.I usually avoid them. Abortion is one of those subjects that raises great passion for many reasons. I am in no way am trying to degrade any of the previous posts. For the record I am opposed to abortion I think its wrong. On the other hand I think we are all hypocrites. Why is developing human life worth more than any other life? Anybody here hunt,fish,and not eat everything? Use mousetraps,kill snakes etc.. just because they are "in the way" tell me the difference? Abortion might be wrong, but the reasons for doing so (for some people) might be the as easy as using a mouse trap. That is sad please pardon the comparison. (Message edited by spdrxb on January 08, 2011) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sifo |
First, let me say I'm glad this thread hasn't gone into personal attacks, except for two responses that I noticed. This topic can be discussed rationally. Sean, you are saying that to eliminate abortion we need "solutions" to an economic problem. The inference there is that abortion is a solution to an economic problem. If you don't see that as a slippery slope then I really don't know what more to say. I pointed out euthinizing of the elderly as a "next step" down that slippery slope of seeing snuffing human life as a solution to an economic problem. Fortunately right wing christian fundamentalists don't make all the rules. I notice that no one has taken on the scientific issues that I pointed out. Society has rationalized the killing of human life so solve minor inconveniences, mostly economic. This really is one of the most egregious horrors that the world has ever seen. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sifo |
On the other hand I think we are all hypocrites. Why is developing human life worth more than any other life? Anybody here hunt,fish,and not eat everything? Use mousetraps,kill snakes etc.. just because they are "in the way" tell me the difference? Over the years there have been many human beings that I've felt it would be nice if they weren't "in the way". I don't think society would benefit as a whole if we were allowed to kill those that we felt were in the way of our liking though. Are you really equating a human life to that of a mouse? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Spdrxb |
Not exactly..Human life as a whole no.Two adults is not the same. Just that some people can decide that a "helpless life" to some humans is disposable and easy to get rid of reguardless of species. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fahren |
And yet we, as a society, are ok with the death of innocents in a military offensive to "preserve freedom?" Can you accept the killing of innocents using an Orwellian term, "Collateral Damage?" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sifo |
And yet we, as a society, are ok with the death of innocents in a military offensive to "preserve freedom?" Can you accept the killing of innocents using an Orwellian term, "Collateral Damage?" You are comparing apples and oranges here. Collateral damage doesn't refer to intentionally killing innocent human life. |
