Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) I'm not talking about an individual's willingness to adopt. I'm talking about we as a collective people caring so little about giving the foster care system the serious overhaul that it desperately needs. I've heard all sorts of public outrage and demands for legislation about abortion, and comparatively so very little of the same for an issue that, frankly, needs the attention far more. If people want to argue that every zygote has a right to life, they should first demand to improve the life a lot of them would be born into. For so many people to prioritize the former over the latter is insane to me. Hell, many people still see "adoption" as a four letter word. And on the rape issue, I'm just speaking from my own personal belief here, but I find the notion of forcing a rape victim to have a rape child against her will utterly monstrous. I feel as strongly about that as pro-life people do about women having abortions at all. Why do we have to provide a certain quality of life before we can fight to preseve life? Not sure what sense that makes. You're still dancing around the issue of "quality of life" which is garbage to begin with. You want to go around terminating every pregnancy in uganda because their quality of life will be awful? Edited February 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 @Dukeofpwn, nothing is fair about being a rape victim. Are you saying that aborting the baby will make that person's life somehow better? It won't make their life worse like the baby will, that's for sure. It's comments like this which break my heart. I hate that people look at babies as if they were nothing but burdens. We put so much value on careers and money and free time and videogames and we place so little value on human life or the joy of parenthood. I said before that parenthood is about sacrifice, it really is, so is love and marriage and most of the very best things in life. It's placing value in a humans life that is precisely why we're saying it's monstrous to suggest that a rape victim must have the rapists child. I'm sorry but the rape victim is most absolutely alive beyond a doubt, and has feelings and a well being to keep up too. A cluster of cells does not over rule that at all. A rape victim is not choosing to have an abortion because of money, or a job, or video games as you suggest but because that pregnancy is a physical manifestation of a hugely traumatic event. I said earlier that no one would begrudge a rape victim having an abortion because I genuinely thought that was the case. I'm shocked to hear that it is not, and even more shocked to find it coming from you. Just so wrong this suggestion that all pregnancies should become a birth no matter any other external circumstances. p.s: As far as "leap of faith" goes. It's only a leap of faith if you're believing in something with which there is no evidence to back up. If there's no evidence of "the soul", it's just the default position to go: There is no soul. It's the leap of faith to believe in something that isn't provably there. p.p.s Ginger babies have no soul, so they're a-okay. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 That's a bullshit argument. And that's an argument I see from a lot of pro-lifers, that their opposition wants to go around on some kind of Jack the Ripper killing spree, twirling our moustaches while we rip fetuses out of wombs like it's Mortal Kombat or something. I'll tell you what I really think. I think what Ugandan women do with their pregnancies is none of my god damn business, especially because they're people who I don't know nor will I EVER know. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) @Dukeofpwn, nothing is fair about being a rape victim. Are you saying that aborting the baby will make that person's life somehow better? It won't make their life worse like the baby will, that's for sure. It's comments like this which break my heart. I hate that people look at babies as if they were nothing but burdens. We put so much value on careers and money and free time and videogames and we place so little value on human life or the joy of parenthood. I said before that parenthood is about sacrifice, it really is, so is love and marriage and most of the very best things in life. How about this; if you're so concerned with preserving these children born out of rape, then we should give the mother an option. If she does not want to keep the baby, the government will take it off her hands, free of charge. That's the only way it becomes even CLOSE to acceptable to force a raped woman to have a baby. If she doesn't want it and you won't let her abort it, then you will pay for it through taxes. I am fine with that sort of thing being added to the tax bill. Question is if the GOP members who fight tooth-and-nail against abortion will accept it, too. And if you're so concerned with children finding good homes, will you help me fight for my right to adopt a child should I ever want to do so with a same-sex partner? Edited February 2, 2012 by DukeOfPwn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) @MrJack: Well then just quit beating around the bush and answer my questions. What is the determining factor in the quality of life which decides who should live and who should die? Edited February 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 How about this; if you're so concerned with preserving these children born out of rape, then we should give the mother an option. If she does not want to keep the baby, the government will take it off her hands, free of charge. That's the only way it becomes even CLOSE to acceptable to force a raped woman to have a baby. If she doesn't want it and you won't let her abort it, then you will pay for it through taxes. I am fine with that sort of thing being added to the tax bill. Question is if the GOP members who fight tooth-and-nail against abortion will accept it, too. Again, we already have that here. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 How about this; if you're so concerned with preserving these children born out of rape, then we should give the mother an option. If she does not want to keep the baby, the government will take it off her hands, free of charge. That's the only way it becomes even CLOSE to acceptable to force a raped woman to have a baby. If she doesn't want it and you won't let her abort it, then you will pay for it through taxes. I am fine with that sort of thing being added to the tax bill. Question is if the GOP members who fight tooth-and-nail against abortion will accept it, too. Again, we already have that here. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/ All right, then. How about allowing same-sex partners to adopt, or more specifically, making it so that adoption clinics cannot discriminate based on orientation? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 @Yant: Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Mister Jack has been pretty clear in that he thinks he should not decide who lives or dies, and it's up to the mother what she does with her pregnancy. (Jack, if I got this wrong, I apologize.) You're asking questions that are irrelevant to such a position because the question assumes that the person you're asking is of the opinion that he should decide who can have a child and who can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 @MrJack: Well then just quit beating around the bush and answer my questions. What is the determining factor in the quality of life which decides who should live and who should die? We kinda covered this several pages back: If the parents/mother feels they are able to economically and emotionally support a child. Thing is the way you're angling the question I've a feeling the response will be "well does that mean if the mother is working part time at starbucks we should just go ahead and abort her pregnancy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 All right, then. How about allowing same-sex partners to adopt, or more specifically, making it so that adoption clinics cannot discriminate based on orientation? I tell you what, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. It's a two front thing for me personally. I mean ideally and religiously I believe that it's best for kids to be in a family with a mother and a father. Pragmatically it might be better for a kid to be in a gay household than in an orphanage. It's arguing ideals vs pragmatism. Ideally I wish every child could have a loving father and mother. @MrJack: Well then just quit beating around the bush and answer my questions. What is the determining factor in the quality of life which decides who should live and who should die? We kinda covered this several pages back: If the parents/mother feels they are able to economically and emotionally support a child. That's where my point about Uganda comes in. Millions of children starve to death every year. Should they have been aborted? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovach_ Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Wow. I knew this was kinda big in the US, but not this much i guess. Round here abortion is legal, but no one is really against it. I mean, religious institutions say it's wrong and we shouldn't do it, believers say that as well, but no one is protesting against the law that allows it. I personally find it mind-numbing to see people actually trying to change the law allowing it, instead of just choosing for themselves when in such a situation, or just voicing their own opionions and trying to sway people the other way. Then again i'm very much against any kind of religious institution meddling in goverment business so there's that. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) edit: my post popped onto the next page so had no context, it was a reply to yant: "That's where my point about Uganda comes in. Millions of children starve to death every year. Should they have been aborted? " They shouldn't have religious people there telling them not to use birth control and it wouldn't be a problem Edited February 2, 2012 by TheFlyingGerbil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I seem to have not edited in time but as I stated, I knew you were angling for the "if person isn't working then we should abort the pregnancies." Johnny has already covered that: that's not at all what we're saying. It's entirely the mothers choice. If the mother feels that they cannot support the child. Not if you random joe american feel that they can't support the child. Not if mister jack feels that's the case. If the mother and parent of the child feel that they cannot bring the child into a stable and caring family then it is their choice. And they would know best. Wow. I knew this was kinda big in the US, but not this much i guess. Round here abortion is legal, but no one is really against it. I mean, religious institutions say it's wrong and we shouldn't do it, believers say that as well, but no one is protesting against the law that allows it. I personally find it mind-numbing to see people actually trying to change the law allowing it, instead of just choosing for themselves when in such a situation, or just voicing their own opionions and trying to sway people the other way. Then again i'm very much against any kind of religious institution meddling in goverment business so there's that. Welcome to how it works in UK too. And we're the one with a state religion. At most there will be a quote in a paper of "Bishop Blahblah has said he opposes the new law" and that's where it starts n stops. In fact we're working on full same-sex marriage laws to be brought in by next election and the archdukes and such are being brought in. Not to argue against it but to help facilitate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 It's pretty much as Johnny just reiterated. It's none of my business. If a poor mother wants to have a baby in a poor environment, well, then that's her prerogative and I hope it works out for her, even if I have my doubts that it will. My point is that all the effort and energy and enthusiasm spent trying to illegalize abortions could be much better spent elsewhere, like reforming foster care. Those kids are inarguably alive and sentient, but they're getting overshadowed by clumps of cells. Almost half of the kids in the system age out of it and end up homeless, but you rarely hear about that, do you? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) edit: my post popped onto the next page so had no context, it was a reply to yant: "That's where my point about Uganda comes in. Millions of children starve to death every year. Should they have been aborted? " They shouldn't have religious people there telling them not to use birth control and it wouldn't be a problem @Dean, Jack, Johnny: What makes it the mother's choice? Clearly she has no choice to end her childs life after it is born so is this going to the "it's her body she can do what she wants with it" argument? If it is then we're just back to the whole argument of when life begins right? Oh yeah, and agian, the reason why Christians "meddle" in other peoples lives is we're trying to protect what we consider life. I think I stated that already. Still a "when life begins" argument. Edited February 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 ^ "You have reached your quota of negative votes for the day" aw, drat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 All right, then. How about allowing same-sex partners to adopt, or more specifically, making it so that adoption clinics cannot discriminate based on orientation? I tell you what, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. It's a two front thing for me personally. I mean ideally and religiously I believe that it's best for kids to be in a family with a mother and a father. Pragmatically it might be better for a kid to be in a gay household than in an orphanage. It's arguing ideals vs pragmatism. Ideally I wish every child could have a loving father and mother. I don't want to start a fight, so I'll just say that I know plenty of Christians and divinity scholars (yes, at some point I attended lectures at Duke Divinity School) that would vehemently disagree with you and leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I don't want to start a fight, so I'll just say that I know plenty of Christians and divinity scholars (yes, at some point I attended lectures at Duke Divinity School) that would vehemently disagree with you and leave it at that. Oh I believe you, I'm not Catholic though. I'm actually a bit surprised nobody has posted this yet: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 ^ "You have reached your quota of negative votes for the day" aw, drat. Don't worry, you'll get 5 more tomorrow and you can come back and neg me down again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 @Dean, Jack, Johnny: What makes it the mother's choice? Clearly she has no choice to end her childs life after it is born so is this going to the "it's her body she can do what she wants with it" argument? If it is then we're just back to the whole argument of when life begins right? Oh yeah, and agian, the reason why Christians "meddle" in other peoples lives is we're trying to protect what we consider life. I think I stated that already. Still a "when life begins" argument. 1. Extremely shitty response to Gerbil, especially when you've being calling responses from everyone else. (which we have given,. many times over btw) 2. Yes it's the mothers body. I don't give two shits what you think, what you believe, what you have faith in, what some book tells you to do. It tells you to kill Duke and Gerbil. Will you do that? If you believe that it is a child upon the moment the sperm enters the ovum then feel free to adopt it. Except biologically, scientifically, etc at this point it's nothing more than a random clump of cells. No more a child than a cancer or tumour growth. 3. You claim to protect life, but would inflict untold psychosocial harm upon a rape victim. You would have a child potentially spend their growing years tossed around the broken foster care system. If you valued life you would trump the livelihood of an existing life over one yet to happen. You don't oppose abortion because you value life. You oppose abortion because you are told to. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovach_ Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Oh yeah, and agian, the reason why Christians "meddle" in other peoples lives is we're trying to protect what we consider life. I think I stated that already. Still a "when life begins" argument. Of course, you have every right as a citizen to protest any laws you find wrong, it's just that i've met very little non-religious people being against the law itself so it seems to me to be pretty much driven by faith. I mean, i understand where you're coming from, but i just think that all that energy and time and money would be better spent improving some other stuff (not you, people in general, both sides as well), like that adoption problem you mentioned, so that less and less people would even think about aborting. Oh, and we're seriously downvoting? That's just silly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Oh, and we're seriously downvoting? That's just silly. Hear hear! I've been trying to restore the karmic balance, up and down-voting posts I otherwise would have left untouched just to try and cancel out what I believe to be unwarranted votes. *Edit* - Why can't everyone acknowledge that it boils down to what aspect of a person or life you value, which is an inherently philosophical question and therefore has neither a correct nor incorrect answer? Edited February 2, 2012 by TheMightyEthan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovach_ Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Change your name to TheKarmicEthan lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 @Dean: I didn't think Gerbil was being serious. You think that condoms would fix the starvation problems in africa? You're also making a claim to have some quantification for "psychological harm" as if the baby is going to be nothing but a source of pain for the victim. This is not always the case. No life is being lost by keeping a rape baby alive unless your arguing that it would completely psychologically destroy a person even if given up for adoption. Also, your final statment "You oppose abortion because you are told to." You're writing me off as a religious zealot. Just know that my beliefs are mine by choice though. My choice. @Kovach: I don't personally spend a lot of time or energy fighting abortion (outside of this thread I guess). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovach_ Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 *Edit* - Why can't everyone acknowledge that it boils down to what aspect of a person or life you value, which is an inherently philosophical question and therefore has neither a correct nor incorrect answer? I think we do, it's just the law part that everyone is arguing about. @Kovach: I don't personally spend a lot of time or energy fighting abortion (outside of this thread I guess). Yeah, i guessed as much, i was speaking in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.