Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Abortion

CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:07:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Isn't the most logical action to have a fund that covers the 'exceptions' that is provided by taxpayers, and anyone falling outside of those exception be on their own? Other than exceptions, it should be totally legal for anyone who wants to pay out of pocket. Is anyone opposed to this?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:09:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:07:18 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Isn't the most logical action to have a fund that covers the 'exceptions' that is provided by taxpayers, and anyone falling outside of those exception be on their own? Other than exceptions, it should be totally legal for anyone who wants to pay out of pocket. Is anyone opposed to this?

Yes.

I don't want to be paying for any "exceptions" though my taxes, as I deem abortion a evil in which I can not be complicit for any reason.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:10:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:07:18 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Isn't the most logical action to have a fund that covers the 'exceptions' that is provided by taxpayers, and anyone falling outside of those exception be on their own? Other than exceptions, it should be totally legal for anyone who wants to pay out of pocket. Is anyone opposed to this?

Would this be a federal tax, local tax, or state tax?
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:11:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Uh, no.

How about this? If someone wants to have an abortion, they first need to show their support of abortion by being belatedly aborted?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:15:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:11:29 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Uh, no.

How about this? If someone wants to have an abortion, they first need to show their support of abortion by being belatedly aborted?

Belatedly: coming or happening later than should have been the case.

In this case, he is talking about abortion before birth, when it should be the case. Not later on after they have been born.

Or at least I think he is.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:18:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:15:25 PM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:11:29 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Uh, no.

How about this? If someone wants to have an abortion, they first need to show their support of abortion by being belatedly aborted?

Belatedly: coming or happening later than should have been the case.

In this case, he is talking about abortion before birth, when it should be the case. Not later on after they have been born.

Or at least I think he is.

It was a witty response.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:19:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:18:10 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:15:25 PM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:11:29 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Uh, no.

How about this? If someone wants to have an abortion, they first need to show their support of abortion by being belatedly aborted?

Belatedly: coming or happening later than should have been the case.

In this case, he is talking about abortion before birth, when it should be the case. Not later on after they have been born.

Or at least I think he is.

It was a witty response.

Lol...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:20:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I did see abortion as murder, then I'd take anything I could get, whilst still campaign just as hard. In my actual position, I'd say that many cases e.g. damage to the individual should be state-paid by NHS with non-medical reasons be doable privately.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:47:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The federal government can easily reallocate income tax funds to cover the 16million and make cuts in areas that have no benefit us as individuals, without altering the current brackets.

Speaking for myself, I cannot recall being human until i can recall being human, and that was undoubtably after birth, so the life before/after birth thing is subjective. You might as well base it upon your own experience. When do you consider yourself to have been officially human? Do you remember being an atom? A molecule? A sperm cell? A Zygote? An Embryo? A Fetus? A Baby? Just use your own experience.

And if you say abortion is an evil, but you still enjoy all of your personal possessions, then your opinion is totally debunked on the premise of pure hypocrisy and therefore won't be considered by... anyone, really. So don't bother.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:49:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:47:23 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
The federal government can easily reallocate income tax funds to cover the 16million and make cuts in areas that have no benefit us as individuals, without altering the current brackets.

Speaking for myself, I cannot recall being human until i can recall being human, and that was undoubtably after birth, so the life before/after birth thing is subjective. You might as well base it upon your own experience. When do you consider yourself to have been officially human? Do you remember being an atom? A molecule? A sperm cell? A Zygote? An Embryo? A Fetus? A Baby? Just use your own experience.

And if you say abortion is an evil, but you still enjoy all of your personal possessions, then your opinion is totally debunked on the premise of pure hypocrisy and therefore won't be considered by... anyone, really. So don't bother.

Oh wow...

First, do you remember your first day of life? If not, is it therefore ok to kill newborns?

Second, why does enjoying personal possessions mean you can't be against abortion?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 3:01:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:49:45 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:47:23 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
The federal government can easily reallocate income tax funds to cover the 16million and make cuts in areas that have no benefit us as individuals, without altering the current brackets.

Speaking for myself, I cannot recall being human until i can recall being human, and that was undoubtably after birth, so the life before/after birth thing is subjective. You might as well base it upon your own experience. When do you consider yourself to have been officially human? Do you remember being an atom? A molecule? A sperm cell? A Zygote? An Embryo? A Fetus? A Baby? Just use your own experience.

And if you say abortion is an evil, but you still enjoy all of your personal possessions, then your opinion is totally debunked on the premise of pure hypocrisy and therefore won't be considered by... anyone, really. So don't bother.

Oh wow...

First, do you remember your first day of life? If not, is it therefore ok to kill newborns?

Second, why does enjoying personal possessions mean you can't be against abortion?

The state of separation that exists between fetus and baby is overly apparent, however does not exist between a newborn and a 1 year old. So if you take what i said hyper-literally then technically it would be fine to kill newborns. This is not what i am proposing, and had assumed that the state of development as a human at 2 years old is clearly within the same bracket of a newborn, that is: The Infantile Stage. So the question is again, where do you draw the line at which a molecule turns into an infant? For me, it's at birth.

Secondly, enjoying material possessions as i called it is fine. However if you derive the idea that abortion is evil, you must have gotten this notion from the bible. If that's the case then you are picking and choosing from the bible and therefore I see this as hypocritical. Unless of course, you have a well defined reason for abortion being evil outside of the bible.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 3:03:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 3:01:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
The state of separation that exists between fetus and baby is overly apparent, however does not exist between a newborn and a 1 year old. So if you take what i said hyper-literally then technically it would be fine to kill newborns. This is not what i am proposing, and had assumed that the state of development as a human at 2 years old is clearly within the same bracket of a newborn, that is: The Infantile Stage. So the question is again, where do you draw the line at which a molecule turns into an infant? For me, it's at birth.

So, a 40-week old baby taht is still in the womb, you have no problem killing it?

Secondly, enjoying material possessions as i called it is fine. However if you derive the idea that abortion is evil, you must have gotten this notion from the bible. If that's the case then you are picking and choosing from the bible and therefore I see this as hypocritical. Unless of course, you have a well defined reason for abortion being evil outside of the bible.

Ok, so a general, broad-brush criticism of everybody that is against abortion.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 3:06:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 3:03:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 3:01:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
The state of separation that exists between fetus and baby is overly apparent, however does not exist between a newborn and a 1 year old. So if you take what i said hyper-literally then technically it would be fine to kill newborns. This is not what i am proposing, and had assumed that the state of development as a human at 2 years old is clearly within the same bracket of a newborn, that is: The Infantile Stage. So the question is again, where do you draw the line at which a molecule turns into an infant? For me, it's at birth.

So, a 40-week old baby taht is still in the womb, you have no problem killing it?

Correct.

Secondly, enjoying material possessions as i called it is fine. However if you derive the idea that abortion is evil, you must have gotten this notion from the bible. If that's the case then you are picking and choosing from the bible and therefore I see this as hypocritical. Unless of course, you have a well defined reason for abortion being evil outside of the bible.

Ok, so a general, broad-brush criticism of everybody that is against abortion.

No, i know that the person I criticized was a Christian...
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 3:08:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 3:06:04 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
No, i know that the person I criticized was a Christian...

If you're talking about me, I didn't get it from the Bible.

Also, there are good reasons for being against abortion outside of the Bible. The Bible never mentions abortion at all.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 4:03:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 3:06:04 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
So, a 40-week old baby taht is still in the womb, you have no problem killing it?

Correct.

People like you scare me... you are a twisted being.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:36:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 4:03:42 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 3:06:04 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
So, a 40-week old baby taht is still in the womb, you have no problem killing it?

Correct.

People like you scare me... you are a twisted being.

Death and killing are way too scary to some people. Abortion is not genocide, it's a measure used for preventing a horrible life for multiple people. You don't seem to actually value the realistic lives of the mother or child, all you care about is your artificially fashioned moral dilemma based on your emotional response to the idea. People like you don't scare me, but they are annoying.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 1:24:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:09:13 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:07:18 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Isn't the most logical action to have a fund that covers the 'exceptions' that is provided by taxpayers, and anyone falling outside of those exception be on their own? Other than exceptions, it should be totally legal for anyone who wants to pay out of pocket. Is anyone opposed to this?

Yes.

I don't want to be paying for any "exceptions" though my taxes, as I deem abortion a evil in which I can not be complicit for any reason.

You wouldn't know exactly where your taxes were going. You could just as easily be paying for a road to be built. Would you be ok with it if only pro-choice peoples' taxes went to exceptions while yours and and other pro-lifers' taxes went to other things?
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 1:26:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:47:23 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
The federal government can easily reallocate income tax funds to cover the 16million and make cuts in areas that have no benefit us as individuals, without altering the current brackets.

Speaking for myself, I cannot recall being human until i can recall being human, and that was undoubtably after birth, so the life before/after birth thing is subjective. You might as well base it upon your own experience. When do you consider yourself to have been officially human? Do you remember being an atom? A molecule? A sperm cell? A Zygote? An Embryo? A Fetus? A Baby? Just use your own experience.

And if you say abortion is an evil, but you still enjoy all of your personal possessions, then your opinion is totally debunked on the premise of pure hypocrisy and therefore won't be considered by... anyone, really. So don't bother.

I think it's less about when you are human(since technically you are human from conception) and more about when one is actually a person. A human is a mere organism, personhood implies more.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 1:30:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:36:49 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/12/2012 4:03:42 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 3:06:04 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
So, a 40-week old baby taht is still in the womb, you have no problem killing it?

Correct.

People like you scare me... you are a twisted being.

Death and killing are way too scary to some people. Abortion is not genocide, it's a measure used for preventing a horrible life for multiple people. You don't seem to actually value the realistic lives of the mother or child, all you care about is your artificially fashioned moral dilemma based on your emotional response to the idea. People like you don't scare me, but they are annoying.

You are being a bit extreme and not thinking about other consequences. Once a baby is in the third trimester, it is so dangerous for the mother to have an abortion that I don't think it is worth it to allow abortion then. Plus if they've waited this long for an abortion they are likely pretty irresponsible. Also, after the child is born, it would be extremely emotionally tolling to kill the child for everyone involved in its birth. So while hurting the child won't really affect the child too much as a person, it will greatly harm those around it.