I answered it. I always answer their questions... because I can. Notice how silent the OP has been?
Quote: @"Skodin" said:
Well it shows that other people can decide the (moving) line between what is permissible or not with other people’s bodies. Why can’t people just admit this is being hypocritical if women who are pregnant are not given $500. You can’t count it as a life if you are going to protect it but not pay for it. You can only get money if the child was out of the womb before the checks go out?
It’s hypocrisy at it’s finest.
As someone who doesn’t want government intrusion on what I do, what I have, what I believe in, no I don’t think the government should be able to tell humans what to do with their bodies. It’s not my right nor theirs. I don’t agree with late term abortions, we should have a better system to assist those who are in that situation, versus shaming them/forcing them to go to other states/forcing them to have it and ultimately keep it.
Everyone gives a damn about that fetus until it’s out of the womb, when it’s out, particularly if it is not white and Christian (statistics, not stereotyping), then who gives a shit, cut WIC, cut sensible resources, cut entitlements.
Moving the goalposts based on a belief system for legislative policy seems to be quite flawed and this is a shining example of it.
Clearly you have no idea what the word hypocritical means if you believe there’s any hypocrisy here.
This has to be the dumbest question I have seen in months. It’s not a little bit stupid, it’s epic.
As stated, additional payments go to child dependents. An unborn human is not yet a child dependent for taxation/government purposes. Our legislators could certainly extend money to the unborn, but would have to specifically indicate that in the bill. You shouldn’t need this explained to you. It should be self explanatory.
A few other things you clearly don’t understand. The term “fetus” isn’t a thing. It’s a word that describes a developmental stage in a HUMAN BEING. That’s a scientific fact not in dispute. Science is extremely clear on the fact that life begins at conception. There’s no debate to be had.
An abortion is the killing of a human being. Period, end of story. It’s not the female’s body. It’s a completely separate entity. Again, scientific fact.
If someone wants to argue that a woman has the right to kill a human being that is developing in her body, that’s valid. Incredibly disgusting in my opinion, but at least it’s making an honest argument. Personally, I consider it to be a blatantly obvious murder. That’s the rational and logical observation. It’s ending the life of another human being.
As far as when it occurs, that isn’t relevant. At 1 year old or 28 weeks, it’s still ending the life of a human being.
I’ve seen the absurd argument that people aren’t really “pro life” because they “don’t care about the babies after they’re born” in the past. This is not an argument by any stretch of the imagination. It’s an irrational statement devoid of even a modicum of evidence that is completely a product of your own imagination. There’s no hypocrisy involved. Those pro life are the only people I know that care for ALL vulnerable human beings. Just because they have differing policy ideas they feel are more effective than what is currently being done, does not equate to not caring about life after birth. Again, that’s a figment of your own imagination. It is not based in reality.
It’s baffling to me that a person would even try to rationalize abortion by claiming others opposed to killing that human being don’t care. You want to know who doesn’t care, look in the mirror. You are the only one who doesn’t care, because you support the killing of completely innocent human beings.
We are subjected to irrational arguments like yours when it comes to abortion, because abortion is completely indefensible. No matter how you dress it up, you are advocating for killing innocent, defenseless human beings.
*** Crickets ***
Maybe the OP should just refuse to discuss this topic (like some of our other "open-minded" posters here), since it's one that they are CLEARLY wrong about.
Quote: @"Havoc1649" said:
@"Skodin" said:
Well it shows that other people can decide the (moving) line between what is permissible or not with other people’s bodies. Why can’t people just admit this is being hypocritical if women who are pregnant are not given $500. You can’t count it as a life if you are going to protect it but not pay for it. You can only get money if the child was out of the womb before the checks go out?
It’s hypocrisy at it’s finest.
As someone who doesn’t want government intrusion on what I do, what I have, what I believe in, no I don’t think the government should be able to tell humans what to do with their bodies. It’s not my right nor theirs. I don’t agree with late term abortions, we should have a better system to assist those who are in that situation, versus shaming them/forcing them to go to other states/forcing them to have it and ultimately keep it.
Everyone gives a damn about that fetus until it’s out of the womb, when it’s out, particularly if it is not white and Christian (statistics, not stereotyping), then who gives a shit, cut WIC, cut sensible resources, cut entitlements.
Moving the goalposts based on a belief system for legislative policy seems to be quite flawed and this is a shining example of it.
Clearly you have no idea what the word hypocritical means if you believe there’s any hypocrisy here.
This has to be the dumbest question I have seen in months. It’s not a little bit stupid, it’s epic.
As stated, additional payments go to child dependents. An unborn human is not yet a child dependent for taxation/government purposes. Our legislators could certainly extend money to the unborn, but would have to specifically indicate that in the bill. You shouldn’t need this explained to you. It should be self explanatory.
A few other things you clearly don’t understand. The term “fetus” isn’t a thing. It’s a word that describes a developmental stage in a HUMAN BEING. That’s a scientific fact not in dispute. Science is extremely clear on the fact that life begins at conception. There’s no debate to be had.
An abortion is the killing of a human being. Period, end of story. It’s not the female’s body. It’s a completely separate entity. Again, scientific fact.
If someone wants to argue that a woman has the right to kill a human being that is developing in her body, that’s valid. Incredibly disgusting in my opinion, but at least it’s making an honest argument. Personally, I consider it to be a blatantly obvious murder. That’s the rational and logical observation. It’s ending the life of another human being.
As far as when it occurs, that isn’t relevant. At 1 year old or 28 weeks, it’s still ending the life of a human being.
I’ve seen the absurd argument that people aren’t really “pro life” because they “don’t care about the babies after they’re born” in the past. This is not an argument by any stretch of the imagination. It’s an irrational statement devoid of even a modicum of evidence that is completely a product of your own imagination. There’s no hypocrisy involved. Those pro life are the only people I know that care for ALL vulnerable human beings. Just because they have differing policy ideas they feel are more effective than what is currently being done, does not equate to not caring about life after birth. Again, that’s a figment of your own imagination. It is not based in reality.
It’s baffling to me that a person would even try to rationalize abortion by claiming others opposed to killing that human being don’t care. You want to know who doesn’t care, look in the mirror. You are the only one who doesn’t care, because you support the killing of completely innocent human beings.
We are subjected to irrational arguments like yours when it comes to abortion, because abortion is completely indefensible. No matter how you dress it up, you are advocating for killing innocent, defenseless human beings.
Well stated Havoc.
Just to further touch on that lame idea that pro-life people don't care about babies after they are born because they have the strange notion that personal responsibility should start at the act that caused the baby on through the event when the baby leaves the confines of the mothers womb. A simple belief in a different approach to care and who is responsible for raising the child (govt vs parents) is not the same as killing a child.
It would be the same to say that if you are against abandoning puppies that you are willing to adopt any and every animal that is in a shelter right now.
My wife and I would LOVE to adopt children. We can't afford it, thanks to the liberal policies that are in place to "protect" the children (which ensure that fewer of them get adopted).
|
