concealer404

iTrader: (3)

So..... TDLR: Democrats are baby killers amirite?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Personal responsibility? Have you met many Americans? We're a nation that's heading further away from personal responsibility every day.



That's true, and it's an argument which I hear mostly from people who support such arguments with Biblical references.

Interestingly, the Bible actually has quite a lot to say about when life begins, and how it is defined. And it's not conception. It's breath.

A person becomes alive when they draw their first breath, and they cease to be alive when they breathe no more. That's what the Bible literally says.

References:

Genesis 2:7
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 6:17
"Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

Job 33:4
The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Psalms 104:30
Thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.


So, yeah, under a purely Biblical definition, a fetus born breathing is alive. And under pretty much any definition, killing someone who is alive is wrong. (So long as they're not a criminal, or a citizen of some other country that the US doesn't like, or someone who looks menacing wearing a hoodie, or certain other exceptions.)



Think about what happens during a botched abortion. I mean, put yourself into the position of the fetus. You've been stabbed quite a lot, poisoned with harsh chemicals, and otherwise taken a beating. If you survive, you're gonna be blind, severely crippled, and mentally retarded. Life ain't gonna be kind to you.

But yeah, it's totally better to mandate that heroic measures must be taken to ensure that you can enjoy a life of suffering and hardship as a ward of the state (because, remember, your parents tried to kill you in the first place, ain't no chance you're ever gonna have a normal family to take care of you.)



Republicans: the party of making sure that people have to endure hardship.

z31maniac

Because Republicans think paying for cheap birth control is terrible, socialized medicine and we shouldn't be having any of it?

Because Catholics believe contraception is prohibited under their interpretation of the bible.

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

To the verses I'd also add, Psalm 139:16...
Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

But yeah, no need to quote this even though I'd like to dig deep into Bible versus - it'd be more accessible to those that don't view the Book as anything of value to argue on the pragmatic things such as that last part - I agree with you. I can't imagine the type of trauma that baby was put through, but it begs the question.

If there is a chance that the baby would be born living and breathing, shouldn't the option of having an abortion be off the table in the first place?

"Abortions are ok because the baby isn't viable therefor not enough to argue as life. But we need to make sure there's a law in the case the baby doesn't die, we can go ahead and kill it after the fact."

"Then wasn't the baby viable?"

"Err..."

Republicans: the party of making sure that people have to endure hardship - This made me chuckle damn hard. Yes. Also true. I'm also against disowning your child when they make a life changing mistake - what the hell happened to unconditional love? Etc. I'm one to make laws that prevent the things that I morally disagree with happening...from happening - BUT it's also on the pretense that IF a person makes a mistake, it's not life ending (example...girl has sex for reasons xyz, parents disown her - she's left on her own at the age of 15). Let's try to figure something out. That is where the conversation should be, but it's designed to keep us from ever getting there. Or so it seems...

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

to both points: why in the world should taxpayers have to pay for it?

I'm literally talking about personal responsibility and you're talking about handouts from the govt?!

z31maniac

I'm literally talking about spending a few dollars to stop tens, if not hundreds of thousands, in expenditures. Seems like a sound investment.

And the 2nd point has nothing to do with tax payers paying for it. Catholics don't believe in contraception regardless of who is paying for it.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

It's the year 2019. We're soooooooooo past the "should we actually pay for any of it?" argument.

The actual question, based in reality, is "Which would you rather pay for? $4/mo birth control or another kid on welfare?"

As someone who seems to care about not giving out handouts or the financial bottom line more than anything, which of those two is LESS of a problem by that guideline, to you? Then consider how that presents itself as odds to the "no birth control/abortion!!!" efforts by the Republicans. Can't have it both ways.


Think just how crazy the following is in the context of the real world:

ERMGHERD OBAMACARE HAS BURF CONTROLLLLLLLLL THAT'S IMMORAL!!!!

NO HANDOUTS!!!! THAT'S SOCIALIST!!!

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Hate her or not.. shes quite savage asking these questions.

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

The argument's separate. Abortion is a type of birth control. Birth control does not only mean abortion. It's the definition of life we're talking about. If a baby is viable - then wouldn't the logical next step be to consider it alive?

I'm all for condoms, the thing in your arm, an IUD, etc - as they work with the argument WAYYYYY EARLIER than late term abortion. And that's open for debate - and still is. What I am saying is that this particular portion (mid/late term abortions) shouldn't even be open to debate. The baby is viable, therefor is alive, and "killing" it is effectively murder. Getting rid of mid/late term abortion - or dare I say, getting rid of being able to kill a baby that has a >50% chance of being alive once delivered - shouldn't even be questioned. It's no longer birth control, it's murder. And before you say "hooking up the baby to a machine to help it along, doesn't count as viable" - then we should also get rid of life support...right?

I'm not arguing 1st trimester abortion - that's for another day. This is separate from condoms, birth control pills, IUD, etc (which prevent conception from ever happening in the first place - OR terminate within the first hours/days of conception). We need to be able to separate these issues.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

It's not necessary, just something I keep in my back pocket. It seems as though most of the time that I hear arguments against all abortion entirely, they are predicated on a (mostly Christian / Catholic) religious belief that "life begins at conception." And this, to me, is an example of cherry-picking which parts of scripture you believe. Putting aside allegorical references, most of what the Bible has to say about the actual, literal point at which a person becomes alive is when they first draw breath. Thus, a full-term fetus which has not yet passed through the birth canal is not, according to the Bible, alive.



I find this tangential to conversations about the bill being discussed, and the false claims that Democrats are in favor of infanticide. The bill was a ruse, which addressed a non-existent problem, in order to polarize republican voters and draw attention away from matters of actual importance.


Very much this. As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay for Welfare Wendy to have an abortion than to pay for her to raise her bastard child. But that's not relevant to discussion of the recent vote.

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

Random question - unsure if it fits this realm of thought, but if breath defines life, then the moment you need life support you are therefor dead? And a doctor or anyone should be free to end you without consequence?

I think it'd be more of a ruse if New York didn't pass what it did, and then follow up with Virginia Governor said what he said along with the congressional aide (I think that was her) said what she said in clarifying the bill.

Are we still talking about all terms - or only first term? Probably would be good for everyone to define it before going on deeper with it. Then again - that might be exactly what we're doing...defining "abortion." The argument from me is that at some point (when the baby would be viable after birth either via canal or c-section) abortion no longer is abortion and therefor is considered murder. I would also add (for this argument's sake) that life begins at capable breath (can they breath should they exit the womb?). Assistance or no assistance depends on the acceptability of life support. Ultimately I'm ok with birth control (condoms, iud, etc) - early term abortion is still up in the air for me...mid/late term is a big nono, and I wouldn't want to take part in any of that funding. I've got kids of my own, and friends who've had premies...and we'd be hardpressed to think that they weren't alive at any point. A friend of mine had to have his kid delivered at 5 months because mom had an infection. She didn't want to abort due to her beliefs - and chose to deliver the baby. He lived for a few minutes in dad's arms. He was very much alive to them.

You actually mentioned a good term I forgot about - bastard. That was the other end of this argument just against abortion in general. This is a completely separate argument from what was discussed just recently - but, I'd be "for" making the guy 100% liable financially (til death separates him) for the baby. Takes 2 to tango. Maybe if a guy knew that any baby that would come from said intercourse would be his financial responsibility...he'd also have sex less...or more thoughtfully... but this is beyond the scope of today's topics.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

I wasn't necessarily addressing the abortion thing directly, but it's not much of a separate issue, either, as i was going down the financial "no handouts" route.. But if we don't go down that road and instead choose to make this a moral discussion based on beliefs in which neither of us change the other's mind at any point in the future, forever, we should first clarify that we know the difference between "i don't want this anymore" and "this is going to kill you if you take it to term" regarding late term abortions. Which really.... presents a scenario that is much less up for debate. Besides, that's a philosophical/religious discussion, and shouldn't be involved in politics in the first place. But it is, because apparently we've abandoned separation of Church and State. And i'm realllllyyyyy not interested in discussing religion. That's not this thread.

But you know, in the news, and in the head of some people in here: Democrats kill babies! They allow 4th trimester elective abortions!

dleavitt

iTrader: (1)

And we've come full circle to the whole "personal responsibility" thing, which neither major political party want. Democrats because it would reduce the need for Big Government, and Republicans because it would...reduce the need for Big Government. And take away abortion as a political rallying cry.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

The NY thing is ridiculous to me. Literally EVERY person who has attempted to engage me in discussion/argument over it (i work in an office that is made up of seemingly 95% women, and some of them think i like to talk about this stuff for some reason), flat out doesn't understand what that even was.

There wasn't/isn't anything radical about that. At all. The only reason you heard about it was because it was spun, yet again, as DEMOCRATS WANT TO KILL BABIES!!!!

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

Yes exactly. Absolutely - hence me only wanting to talk about mid/late term abortions. Holding onto only medical viewership. If the baby can live - then, should it be given the rights of all living beings? We should first determine when is that baby considered alive.

Because then...the question "I don't know if I want this anymore" - doesn't matter...since baby's alive. It's not your choice anymore. It's got rights.

Now if it's going to kill you if you take it to term - is there a scenario where they don't figure that out early? And if they figured it out late - (in the realm of viability - aka baby's alive) - isn't C-section always an option? That's what typically happens in an emergency situation and momma's compromised.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

Yeah and the point i'm making is "I don't know if i want this anymore" isn't a valid reason for a late term abortion, anyways. So we're alllll just out here arguing about something that isn't reality.

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

It was only spun by the few outlets that are still pro-Trump

The main thing that it did was add a word at the end "abortion up until birth if it risks the mother's life...OR HEALTH." And health was the broad term. The main question would be why it needed to be there in the first place. I have kids, I get it... my mental health was very much compromised at each birth and first few months, haha. Economic health. Etc. Maybe it would've helped if they just explicitly stated "physical biological health." From what I've gathered, thus far, is that whenever the mom's health was at risk, C-section was always an option. But you'd only go that path if you thought the baby was alive. Why go through a C-section if my baby isn't technically alive? That's alot of hassle for me, etc. That's still the crux of the matter.

Then virgina man was quoted...we'll deliver him/her, keep him/her comfortable, and figure out what we want to do next...(obviously not quoted).

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

disagree.

disagree. That's not the actual question. at all.

logic doesn't extend.

think about how crazy this is:

I'm not going to have a baby via various EASY methods without the help of the government.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

That wording mirrors what's already in place for many states. That's my whole point here. This isn't anything new. None of it is.

And you go through a C-section if the baby isn't technically alive during times that would deem it medically necessary or at the very least, way safer than other methods. C-section to remove a dead fetus is a thing.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

Please quote your sources. Welfare programs are not going away. You're paying for whatever happens in some way no matter what. This is reality.



Then what?



Sure. Also crazy. I'd like to pay my share of $4/mo for everyone to have the option to not do that.

What's your solution? Ban breeding? Seems like a good way to create more criminals.