Home

S/O Thanksgiving... Pro-Life, Pro-Choice in America
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


sushilover




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:24 pm
imorethanamother wrote:
Because it means that pro-lifers are short sighted and care more about policing women than they do about actual children. Murder is a COLLECTIVE failure on behalf of the community. That's why the Torah has rituals in place such as eglah arufah, which reminds the community that the murder is actually their fault.

The point of this isn't that there weren't enough laws prohibiting murder, but that there wasn't enough CHESED being performed to prevent the murder. (Had the city in question taken care of the victim, perhaps he could have fought harder/stayed longer in the city/not been preyed upon/etc)

So you saying that welfare has nothing to do with preventing the abortion you're so concerned about means that ultimately, you don't want to actually put your money where your mouth is. Especially when statistics show that a good 30% to 40% of women who get an abortion cite lack of funds as a reason.


Where have I said that welfare has nothing to do with preventing abortion?

You can have your ideas of what would prevent abortion. I can have my ideas. I certainly agree that aiding the impoverished would help, but I'm sure we strongly disagree as to what would be an effective way of doing so.
I'd be happy to discuss our differences of opinion about welfare in a different thread.

We should certainly work toward eradicating poverty throughout the world.

Until that happens, I can oppose the elective killing/poisoning/dismemberment of unborn children without being called uncaring.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:29 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
What if a woman murdered her newborn because of poverty - which happens FREQUENTLY. Would you still "not judge"?


Well, first provide me with some evidence that women in the US frequently kill newborns because of poverty.

Quite confusing, since you'e also claimed that "most women have the ability to support their babies," and also that a large number of women have babies just to get government support (which keeps them under the poverty line).

And by the way, if a woman felt compelled to kill her newborn because of poverty, I would feel that society had utterly failed her.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:32 pm
shyshira wrote:
I don't know - but I don't think politicians should be tasked with figuring that out.

I do know that I disagree with the statement that life begins at conception - because of what I've been taught is the halachic status of an embryo.

I think

"Unborn child" means an individual organism of the
species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.
(from the proposed Iowa statute)

makes little sense - because not all individual organism of the
species homo sapiens will go from fertilization until live birth.


I don't want to sound rude, but that's the definition of a non-answer.

How is a developing fetus not human? What is it then? Subhuman?
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:33 pm
imorethanamother wrote:
Because it means that pro-lifers are short sighted and care more about policing women than they do about actual children. ....Especially when statistics show that a good 30% to 40% of women who get an abortion cite lack of funds as a reason.


1. People like to talk about how abortion protects women's rights. Reality is many women are FORCED to have abortions by their boyfriends/husbands or parents!

2. Lack of funds is no excuse for abortion. You can give up the baby for adoption. You can even get funding during your pregnancy if you give your baby up for adoption.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:35 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Well, first provide me with some evidence that women in the US frequently kill newborns because of poverty.

And by the way, if a woman felt compelled to kill her newborn because of poverty, I would feel that society had utterly failed her.


If a large amount of parents did it, would that chamge your opinion about legalizing it?
If society failed them, does that mean it should be legal?
Back to top

imorethanamother




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:37 pm
sushilover wrote:
That would be pretty low. You know what would be lower? Dismembering the puppy and then claiming that anyone who opposed you is actually the one who with no heart.


No, you just tossed away a legitimate argument with name calling. Answer the question. If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then you would do everything in your power to prevent it. There are actual charities that give mothers considering abortion a couple of thousand dollars in a lump sum, to try to change their mind. And interestingly, it works!

Let me know how much you donate to one of those.
https://www.theguardian.com/mo.....pport

https://www.charitynavigator.o.....13035

These are women that feel so strongly about combating the reasons for abortion, that they actually go around giving women money and baby paraphernalia. If you think that we shouldn't give women money, and that poor women should be forced to have their babies regardless, then your pro-life stance is self-serving.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:44 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
I just wanted to swing back to this. About 2/3 of all abortions are performed prior to 8 weeks (the halachic 40 days). Are you OK with all of those?

(Another 25% are weeks 9-12.


Yes, I would be OK with restricting abortion to before 8 weeks - unless the mother's life or permanent injury.

Are you OK with that, SixOfWands?
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:45 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
Yes, I would be OK with restricting abortion to before 8 weeks - unless the mother's life or permanent injury.

Are you OK with that, SixOfWands?


No, I'm not.

But its nice to know that we have some area of agreement -- that 2/3 fo the abortions in the US are OK.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:50 pm
imorethanamother wrote:
No, you just tossed away a legitimate argument with name calling. Answer the question. If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then you would do everything in your power to prevent it. There are actual charities that give mothers considering abortion a couple of thousand dollars in a lump sum, to try to change their mind. And interestingly, it works!

Let me know how much you donate to one of those.
https://www.theguardian.com/mo.....pport

https://www.charitynavigator.o.....13035

These are women that feel so strongly about combating the reasons for abortion, that they actually go around giving women money and baby paraphernalia. If you think that we shouldn't give women money, and that poor women should be forced to have their babies regardless, then your pro-life stance is self-serving.


"Oh you people who oppose genocide in Rwanda are all self-serving. How much money have you donated to their charities?"

"If you truly believed in eradicating slavery, then tell me how much you donated anti slavery organizations. I guess you are just a hypocrite after all."

For what it's worth, I think these charities are incredible.
I never said I oppose all welfare, and and I am certainly not opposed to people giving money to people who need it. I don't know where you got the idea that I am.

I also think it's strange that you call not allowing women to electively abort healthy babies "forcing them to have babies. "
The redefinition of words going on here is incredible.
Back to top

singleagain




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:50 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
1. People like to talk about how abortion protects women's rights. Reality is many women are FORCED to have abortions by their boyfriends/husbands or parents!

2. Lack of funds is no excuse for abortion. You can give up the baby for adoption. You can even get funding during your pregnancy if you give your baby up for adoption.


If a woman is forced to have or not have an abortion, she is the victim of reproductive abuse .. Which is a whole different thread
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:52 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
No, I'm not.

But its nice to know that we have some area of agreement -- that 2/3 fo the abortions in the US are OK.


Would you support any restrictions at all?
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 5:52 pm
SixOfWands wrote:


And by the way, if a woman felt compelled to kill her newborn because of poverty, I would feel that society had utterly failed her.


I would first blame the woman because she is a Murderer.

But a society which denigrates the sanctity of life is also partly responsible.
Democrats that promotes abortion and assisted suicide, attacks religion and morality leads to more infanticide.

Democrat policies that kill jobs like over-taxation, over-regulation, bad trade deals and climate change treaties also increase poverty.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 6:01 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
I would first blame the woman because she is a Murderer.



I actually disagree. We have been so indoctrinated that a baby is nothing but a parasite/ just a glob of tissue/ a bundle of cell/ subhuman/ merely a potential life... that I don't think the woman can be called a killer.

She's certainly lacking the mens rea to called a murderer.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 6:06 pm
sushilover wrote:
Would you support any restrictions at all?


I'm not blowing you off. I'm giving this serious consideration.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 6:13 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Are you really pro puppy life if you save the puppy from being killed, then throw it into an alley with no food and no veterinary care, to fend for itself, where its chances of surviving more than 3 years are pretty darned low.


As another poster kindly pointed out, I didn't answer the question, so I'll answer it now.

The answer is yes. If I stop the guy from stabbing the puppy and then just walk away, I still stopped animal abuse.

Actually taking care of the puppies would ,of course, be the right thing to do. That's why conservative pro-lifers support economic policies and charities that would help alleviate poverty. But even if we didn't, we'd still have a moral obligation to stop the "elective puppy killing".
Back to top

shyshira




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 6:14 pm
sushilover wrote:
I don't want to sound rude, but that's the definition of a non-answer.

How is a developing fetus not human? What is it then? Subhuman?


I didn't claim to join this thread with answers. I noted that in this thread there wasn't an agreement to definition of terms used.

My issue is with "unborn child" (which is terminology that the Ohio abortion statute uses, as in not permitted to murder... ) - defined ""Unborn child" means an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.

I didn't say a developing fetus is not human.

the "unborn child" definition above defines something based on a future state, which may never occur.

I am currently thinking about a definition of 'human being' that references anatomy and not organisms.

A lot of where I came from on this come from learning the laws of availus around stillborns.


Last edited by shyshira on Mon, Dec 02 2019, 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 6:21 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
I would first blame the woman because she is a Murderer.

But a society which denigrates the sanctity of life is also partly responsible.
Democrats that promotes abortion and assisted suicide, attacks religion and morality leads to more infanticide.

Democrat policies that kill jobs like over-taxation, over-regulation, bad trade deals and climate change treaties also increase poverty.


Ah, yes. Blame it all on the Democrats.

Except that I can find no evidence that this problem of large-scale infanticide as a result of poverty exists. But since you claim it does, and keep going on about it, I'm sure that you can provide us with evidence.

What I found is that in the United States the infanticide rate during the first hour of life outside the womb dropped from 1.41 per 100,000 during 1963 to 1972 to 0.44 per 100,000 for 1974 to 1983; the rates during the first month after birth also declined. Nothing about it being linked to poverty, as opposed to, say, postpartum psychosis. In fact, the only thing I found said that 36% to 72% if maternal infanticides had psychiatric disorders.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 6:23 pm
sushilover wrote:
As another poster kindly pointed out, I didn't answer the question, so I'll answer it now.

The answer is yes. If I stop the guy from stabbing the puppy and then just walk away, I still stopped animal abuse.

Actually taking care of the puppies would ,of course, be the right thing to do. That's why conservative pro-lifers support economic policies and charities that would help alleviate poverty. But even if we didn't, we'd still have a moral obligation to stop the "elective puppy killing".


I'm not seeing that conservative pro-lifers in general support policies to alleviate poverty, but that's a discussion for another day.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 6:26 pm
shyshira wrote:
I didn't claim to join this thread with answers. I noted that in this thread there wasn't an agreement to definition of terms used.

My issue is with "unborn child" (which is terminology that the Ohio abortion statute uses, as in not permitted to murder... ) - defined ""Unborn child" means an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.

I didn't say a developing fetus is not human.

the "unborn child" definition above defines something based on a future state, which may never occur.

I am currently thinking about a definition of 'human being' that references anatomy and not organisms.


I don't know why saying "unborn child" is any different than saying "fetus". Fetus is just Latin (I think.. Maybe Greek?) for "unborn offspring". Does the word fetus make you feel uncomfortable too?
Back to top

shyshira




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 6:31 pm
sushilover wrote:
I don't know why saying "unborn child" is any different than saying "fetus". Fetus is just Latin (I think.. Maybe Greek?) for "unborn offspring". Does the word fetus make you feel uncomfortable too?


Defining, not saying, defining.

I don't love the term 'unborn child', its awkward, - but the definition provided by the Ohio bill doesn't work... and it encompasses way more than a fetus.
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 20 of 24 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Could Samoa happen in contiguous America? 66 Wed, Dec 11 2019, 3:26 pm View last post
by nchr
Poor and middle class attitudes in America
by amother
393 Sun, Dec 01 2019, 4:20 pm View last post
Thanksgiving 26 Fri, Nov 29 2019, 2:11 pm View last post
Who is making Thanksgiving dinner?
by amother
28 Fri, Nov 29 2019, 1:53 am View last post
by etky
Thanksgiving outing ideas with children near Monsey
by amother
2 Wed, Nov 27 2019, 10:44 am View last post

Jump to: