SGG's What's Your Issue Poll

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

By the way, kick ass thread we have going on here. I heart you guys and your ability to have mature discussions.

I had been meaning to talk about this too.

On behalf of all the mods, I want to commend the entire board for allowing us to bring back political discussion and vehemently disagree in a civilized manner.

I hate to say that all the problems we had in the past with political talk was because of just one member, but maybe it was.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I had been meaning to talk about this too.

On behalf of all the mods, I want to commend the entire board for allowing us to bring back political discussion and vehemently disagree in a civilized manner.

I hate to say that all the problems we had in the past with political talk was because of just one member, but maybe it was.

The Jinx. Now Lehman hits it in the water.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

First, there certainly is a religious aspect, no doubt. And the right hides behind the Bible all the time, but it's more than that. It's moral, not just religious.

All humans began as fertilized eggs. The moral outrage does not stem from the fact that you're killing something (however you define that something, some would define that something as a fertilized egg as a child, others wouldn't). The moral outrage stems from the fact that you're never even giving this living thing a chance to know love, happiness, compassion, and freedom. Abortion robs "fertilized eggs" of the chance to know life. This living organism inside the womb would be born, and in all likelihood would grow up happy, were it not for abortion. Just think of what that person could become... a firefighter, a nurse, a teacher, the next President of the USA, a Redskins fan...

How can robbing them of that opportunity sit well with you? Religion enters the equation, but it goes well beyond that.

As for your mother's miscarriage, that sucks man. Ask her how she felt when that happened to her. Chances are she was very saddened, and experienced a sense of loss. Why? Because she was robbed of the opportunity to get to know THAT child, and that child never got the chance to know the love of it's mother. After a miscarriage, parents don't just shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, we'll just make another one." It's sad because of the opportunities lost for the life that could have been.

I'm not robbing anybody of anything. It's the parent who is making the decision to have an abortion that bares the responsibility. It sounds corny but it's their body, their embryo, all theirs until the embryo is actually a child (formed). Ideally you would want them to have the child, love it and care for it but that's not how the real works works. You make it sound like abortion is an easy decision that people make on a whim. It's a tough decision and when someone makes that decision to have an abortion they really do have a reason they find valid to have an abortion. Banning abortion is definitely not the answer though. I mean, if abortion is baned, it will still continue underground like the good old days.

My mother was upset about the miscarriage because she really wanted to have a child. On the flip side, I know people who have had a miscarriage that were glad about it because they were contemplating a abortion.

On a side note, the Darwinian in me thinks abortion is an effective social force, one which helps control population growth. All other animals on the planet have predators except humans. We are at the top of the food chain and if we don't control our population we're pretty much screwed down the line. Take China for example, that's one massive population. If abortion was banned there and couples were not limited to 1 child there wouldn't be enough resource to feed, cloths, and support the population. Something that should be avoided at all cost IMO.

This reminds me of how a lot people complain about illegal immigration. Americans wants a piece of the pie and they would rather not share it with the Mexicans. No one wants to fight 1000 people over a measly job. No one wants to drive their kid 10 miles away because their local school is crowded. The whole issue of immigration is about over population and the distribution of resources amongst many people.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

On behalf of all the mods, I want to commend the entire board for allowing us to bring back political discussion and vehemently disagree in a civilized manner.

I hate to say that all the problems we had in the past with political talk was because of just one member, but maybe it was.

I second that. I love discussing this kind of stuff in a civil manner with smart people like Smootsmack, Saden, Schneed, Daseal, Hog, and the list goes on and on.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

And I hear you say that liberty and freedom come before your own personal conservative beliefs on the issue. I agree that freedom should be at the very core of every law we make in the United States.

But the question is which freedom supersedes the other here? Which is more important, the mother's freedom to do what she pleases with her body, or the "fertilized egg's" freedom to follow nature's course and be born into the world to pusue life and all its joys without being stopped?

The freedom of the mother supersedes that of the embryo. I would have to violate her rights in order to protect the embryo.

As for your future value argument, I don't buy it. You could argue the world would have been better of if Hitler was aborted.

[saden1]

Here is a wonder argument against the whole notion of future potential if you are interested.

JME -- Sign In Page
username: bugmenot
password: bugmenot

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

The freedom of the mother supersedes that of the embryo. I would have to violate her rights in order to protect the embryo.

As for your future value argument, I don't buy it. You could argue the world would have been better of if Hitler was aborted.

The bolded piece is the fundamental difference in our arguments, and is why we have to just allow ourselves to disagree. I have the exact opposite view, that the rights of the embryo to live supercedes the rights of the mother to choose. To me it makes sense, because the mother just has to sacrifice her body for 9 months, and then the emotional trauma of giving the baby up for adoption, but then she lives her life and moves on. But the embryo is forced to sacrifice it's entire existence if aborted. When weighing the sacrifices, I think the woman should be forced to suck it up. But if you think the mother's right supercedes the embryo's, then there's no reconciling our arguments.

As for the future value thing, you're grasping at straws. What are the chances that any child grows up to be the next Hitler? Or let's expand that, what are the chances that any child grows up to be a detracting member of society in any way (a criminal, a bum, etc.)? There are a lot more healthy, happy, and normal people in society than there are bums. So if you want to talk straight up odds, chances are the child is going to grow up to be a good person with a solid life.

Besides, Hitler had a chance to become a good man, but he chose to be the piece of shitake mushroom. That's his fault, but at least he had a chance to choose how to live his life.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

... until the embryo is actually a child (formed).

When is this exactly?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

Here is a wonder argument against the whole notion of future potential if you are interested.

JME -- Sign In Page
username: bugmenot
password: bugmenot

I read through part of it (it's too long, sorry), and I don't agree with the basic premise that there can be any reason "to not have the baby" strong enough to outweigh the reason to let it live.

The only reason strong enough to justify abortion is if the pregnancy has a higher-than-normal chance of killing the mother.

Otherwise, what reason could possibly exist that would outweigh the embryo's nearly-assured future of a life full of freedom and happiness?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

When is this exactly?

Great question.

[Daseal]

SChneed et all: My stance on abortion certainly includes the mothers right to choose, but that has been covered. You still haven't answered my questions. Would you be willing to up your taxes significantly to help support the extra poverty there is now? I'm not saying every abortion is killing a useless child, not at all. However, I think it's hard to say that poverty in general wouldn't get much worse. We're quickly running out of natural resources and we're using the earth up at an alarming rate.

Everyone says how appalled they are with my statement, but no one can tell me that it's incorrect. Sometime we need to step back and take a slightly less personal look at things. It's not like I'd ever force an abortion on anyone. However, if someone things they're not fit to take care of a child and it's better not for them to bring a kid into the world they can't care for.

As far as tons of people looking to adopt babies. Wrong. Lots of people are looking for white babies. There are tons of children in the United States and elsewhere in foster care, etc that can't find homes.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Daseal

SChneed et all: My stance on abortion certainly includes the mothers right to choose, but that has been covered. You still haven't answered my questions. Would you be willing to up your taxes significantly to help support the extra poverty there is now? I'm not saying every abortion is killing a useless child, not at all. However, I think it's hard to say that poverty in general wouldn't get much worse. We're quickly running out of natural resources and we're using the earth up at an alarming rate.

Everyone says how appalled they are with my statement, but no one can tell me that it's incorrect. Sometime we need to step back and take a slightly less personal look at things. It's not like I'd ever force an abortion on anyone. However, if someone things they're not fit to take care of a child and it's better not for them to bring a kid into the world they can't care for.

As far as tons of people looking to adopt babies. Wrong. Lots of people are looking for white babies. There are tons of children in the United States and elsewhere in foster care, etc that can't find homes.

Actually homie, I did answer your question. Yes I'd be willing to pay the extra $100 or $200 per year to support the ones who will end up on welfare/Medicaid.

In post #64 I said:

And yes, I'd gladly support the "dregs" with increased welfare taxes. Some issues are more important than money, and denying someone the right to a happy life is more important than an extra hundred or two bucks in my pocket each year.

Many kids do end up in foster care, you're right. But does foster care doom 100% of them to an unhappy life? Some still end up finding happiness, and robbing them all of that opportunity to find happiness and love in the world is wrong to me.

Give the poor souls a little credit, some people manage to rise above even the longest odds. At least let them try.

[Schneed10]

Besides, if so many foster children actually thought death would be a better alternative to life, wouldn't most of them be killing themselves?

[Schneed10]

According to this unbiased website, there were 760,000 abortions in 1996 in the United States. That represents only those that were recorded, so only those performed legally. And it was 11 years ago, so there could be more today.

Abortion Statistics - By Age.

So let's assume there are 1,000,000 abortions in the US and do a little math here. Let's say every single one of them required welfare and Medicaid each year, a ridiculous assumption, but let's go with it. Let's assume welfare provides about $10,000 in benefits each year, and Medicaid provides on average about $3000 in benefits. That amounts to $13 billion needed to cover them.

Now, there are about 300 million people living in the US. When you take out those under 18, those over 65 receiving social security, and those without jobs, you're left with something like 150,000,000 taxpaying citizens.

So divide $13 billion by those taxpayers, and you're talking $86 per taxpayer per year. That's $7.22 a month, or $1.67 per week. Hardly a consequential amount of money.

And that's based on the ridiculous notion that every single baby currently being aborted would become complete drains on society.

The taxes are not an issue.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

When is this exactly?

When the mother decides? Personally, I'd like for a decision to be made within 4 months, 6 months max.