each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Cacotopia]

Abortion prevents a measure of poverty. There is simply no need to have forced to term pregnancies. People aren't dying left and right from common illnesses. Death is not common place in modern society, and as such the population is booming.

I feel like the situation surrounding abortion is problem found in the middle of a book. The effort to prevent abortions from happening or clinics being shut down is misspent. Ehen perhaps education about avoiding getting preggers should be help at a higher place on the priority list. but it is not, A lot of religious schools and education programs talk about abstinence only and then leave it at that, only to have a higher rate of underage pregnancies or STD.

It's because you are leaving moron kids to figure all this **** out for themselves. and everyone knows teenagers are retarded.

 

[Cacotopia]

Deliberately ignoring the impact of not aborting the avg 250 children born every minute (these numbers are projected with abortion in place) as opposed to the avg 105 that die per minute. SInce the average health profile of humanity is around 70/75 years old. What kind of impact do you think it would have if no one aborted a pregnancy ever?

I don't wanna hear a PEEP out of you pro-lifers about the lack of opportunities out there because the competition is extremely high due to the drastic shift in population. In a time where more and more jobs are being shifted to automation. Technological advances are shifting more and more of our industry to a robotic and automated and far more efficient work force. AI labor works way better than humans, since it never needs a lunch break nor does it need sick days, or vacation time, or a paycheck. It's cheaper and exponentially more efficient.

And you need a higher efficient work force to generate supply for the increased demand for a larger population. But I am certainly positive that you never even considered these factors. Only if it was the "moral" thing to do.

Not having too much life I would deem as more moral. I don't think about the single life I am terminating, but the countless others that would have a better chance at enriching their lives were that one to not be present and take up space at an overcrowded table.

 

[Willamena]

I hate to answer your question with another question, but what if you needed a heart transplant and the doctors offered you two options,

1.) Get on the donor list and hope that you receive another heart one day, or,

2.) They kill you right now

Which option would you choose?

#3

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

She is not killing a baby. That is illegal.

In fact, the bible says that bratty kids can be murdered by their parents. I guess we should stop punishing parents who kill their kids, then. #JustleaveAndreaYatesalone!

You appear to have a difficult time understanding the difference between biologically "human" and legally "human".

CHEKOV: We do believe all planets have a sovereign claim to inalienable human rights.
AZETBUR: Inalien... If only you could hear yourselves? 'Human rights.' Why the very name is racist. The Federation is no more than a 'homo sapiens' only club.

I just accept that and move on; only changing the law will get rid of (most) abortions.

I agree. Making prevention of pregnancies easier is the only surefire way to reduce abortions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And we are back to your equivocation fallacy. If you want to claim that a fetus has the same rights as a living breathing human being then the burden of proof is upon you.

@Prestor John has an even higher bar: he has to justify why a fetus should have more rights than a human being.

The interests of a mere human being aren't enough to justify denying the bodily autonomy of another person. Case in point: we dont force people to donate blood against their will even if someone will die without it.

If all @Prestor John could manage to justify that fetuses are people - which hasn't done, but for argument's sake - his anti-abortion position would still fail.

 

[gnostic]

All of those concerns can be brushed aside by the option of adoption.

An unwanted (by you) child is no less valuable than any other child.

Even knowing that the child may not be adopted?

That’s the problem, isn’t it?

Given that there are many children are still in the systems, where no one to adopt them, they are totally neglected, not only socially, but also in education, and living in poverty.

More often than not, these un-adopted children very few of them, upon reaching adulthood, can rise above their neglect, to get good education and job, to get out of poverty.

The statistics already showed that there are already too many homeless adults, but adding these children in the homeless and poverty category, is just tragic.

The governments and communities are already overloaded, and they don’t have enough funds to help those children who never get adopted, but you, Prestor John, think that putting more of adoption organisation, just show how incredibly naïve you are, if you think putting more of these children in the adoption systems.

And even if some of them do get adopted, there are no guarantees that these children will have safe environment to grow up in, or won’t be abused by their new parents.

Your idea that putting children in the adoption agencies as answer, is naïve and ignorant.

 

[Prestor John]

You posted it. That made it your list. You should have at the very least checked it before you posted it. Is shifting the blame and the burden of proof all you can do?

You so easily confuse yourself.

The "list" we have been talking about was the list of questions offered up by Cacotopia that every pregnant woman should ask herself before deciding to keep their baby.

I claimed that all of the concerns mentionedin this list could be remedied by the woman deciding to place the unwanted child up for adoption.

The concerns you brought up (the damage, pain and risk of childbirth) were not included in Cacotopia's list, so obviously, my response to his list would not include any mention of the things you mentioned.

Do you understand or do you wish to revert to your innate clueless stupor?

 

[Prestor John]

Except that many couples would rather add another kid instead of removing the burden from the state.

What?

Are you talking about the pregnant mother or the potential adoptive parents?

It's not theirs why should they care mentality.

Are you asking why adoptive parents should care about their adopted child?

Are you unable to "care [mentally]" about anyone but those you are blood-related to?

Maybe they will be prayed for and move on with their lives thinking they did something positive.

Who are you talking about? The pregnant mother?

Adoption doesn't brush aside the concern, in case you are forgetting that you still have to take care of the person you just adopted.

Now you are shifting the goal post.

All the concerns that you included in your list were those had by the expectant birth mother, not any adoptive parents.

Obviously any couple that signs up with an adoptive agency and meets all the strenuous prerequisites and standards to become the legal guardian of an unwanted child have a desire to want and love an unwanted child.

 

[Prestor John]

@Prestor John has an even higher bar: he has to justify why a fetus should have more rights than a human being.

The interests of a mere human being aren't enough to justify denying the bodily autonomy of another person. Case in point: we dont force people to donate blood against their will even if someone will die without it.

If all @Prestor John could manage to justify that fetuses are people - which hasn't done, but for argument's sake - his anti-abortion position would still fail.

Why are you making the same mistake that you made in post #245?

I never once advocated that anyone should be forced to do anything.

You couldn't quote me then and you didn't quote me now.

You just erected a strawman and burned it down.

You are fake news.

 

[Prestor John]

Abortion prevents a measure of poverty. There is simply no need to have forced to term pregnancies. People aren't dying left and right from common illnesses. Death is not common place in modern society, and as such the population is booming.

I feel like the situation surrounding abortion is problem found in the middle of a book. The effort to prevent abortions from happening or clinics being shut down is misspent. Ehen perhaps education about avoiding getting preggers should be help at a higher place on the priority list. but it is not, A lot of religious schools and education programs talk about abstinence only and then leave it at that, only to have a higher rate of underage pregnancies or STD.

It's because you are leaving moron kids to figure all this **** out for themselves. and everyone knows teenagers are retarded.

Deliberately ignoring the impact of not aborting the avg 250 children born every minute (these numbers are projected with abortion in place) as opposed to the avg 105 that die per minute. SInce the average health profile of humanity is around 70/75 years old. What kind of impact do you think it would have if no one aborted a pregnancy ever?

I don't wanna hear a PEEP out of you pro-lifers about the lack of opportunities out there because the competition is extremely high due to the drastic shift in population. In a time where more and more jobs are being shifted to automation. Technological advances are shifting more and more of our industry to a robotic and automated and far more efficient work force. AI labor works way better than humans, since it never needs a lunch break nor does it need sick days, or vacation time, or a paycheck. It's cheaper and exponentially more efficient.

And you need a higher efficient work force to generate supply for the increased demand for a larger population. But I am certainly positive that you never even considered these factors. Only if it was the "moral" thing to do.

Not having too much life I would deem as more moral. I don't think about the single life I am terminating, but the countless others that would have a better chance at enriching their lives were that one to not be present and take up space at an overcrowded table.

That was a lot of useless and irrelevant information. As well as baseless assumptions about me and other "pro-lifers".

The bottom line is that I have never once advocated that anyone be forced to do anything and that includes bearing children.

I am, however, going to continue to debunk the lies spread about the not-yet-born and the motivations behind the vast majority of abortion cases.

The not-yet-born are living human persons. The entirety of human history, logic and science prove these things.

They are not tumors or parasites. They are not fish or footballs. They have unique human DNA and respond to outside stimuli.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed based on the inconvenience of the unwanted child.

No one is aborting their unwanted children to save the world, as you seem to be deluded into believing.

My proving that aborting the not-yet-born is immoral is not an argument that anyone should be forced to do anything.

I'm just holding up a mirror to all the hypocrisy, deceit and wickedness surrounding this issue so that pro-abortion fanatics are made aware of the truth.

They can do whatever they want with that truth, but I would remind them that we will all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ one day and be held accountable for what we do in this life.

 

[Prestor John]

#3

The third option would be that a father and mother would want to keep and love their children.

However, you are advocating to kill them rather than place them up for adoption.

Sure, they may never get adopted (who can tell the future?), but if you are being honest with me and yourself, you know for a fact that you would ask to be put on that donor list rather than be killed now because that much-needed heart might never come.

Be honest with yourself.

 

[Prestor John]

In fact, the bible says that bratty kids can be murdered by their parents. I guess we should stop punishing parents who kill their kids, then. #JustleaveAndreaYatesalone!

The Law of Moses stressed the importance of children honoring their parents.

Can you share an example of this practice ever being carried out in ancient Israel?

CHEKOV: We do believe all planets have a sovereign claim to inalienable human rights.
AZETBUR: Inalien... If only you could hear yourselves? 'Human rights.' Why the very name is racist. The Federation is no more than a 'homo sapiens' only club.

Law cannot determine the inerrant worth of any organism.

I agree. Making prevention of pregnancies easier is the only surefire way to reduce abortions.

Education and holding people accountable for their actions are key to avoiding unwanted pregnancy.

Spreading lies about the not-yet-born and the motivations behind the majority of abortions won't prevent any unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Prestor John]

That’s the problem, isn’t it?

Given that there are many children are still in the systems, where no one to adopt them, they are totally neglected, not only socially, but also in education, and living in poverty.

More often than not, these un-adopted children very few of them, upon reaching adulthood, can rise above their neglect, to get good education and job, to get out of poverty.

The statistics already showed that there are already too many homeless adults, but adding these children in the homeless and poverty category, is just tragic.

The governments and communities are already overloaded, and they don’t have enough funds to help those children who never get adopted, but you, Prestor John, think that putting more of adoption organisation, just show how incredibly naïve you are, if you think putting more of these children in the adoption systems.

And even if some of them do get adopted, there are no guarantees that these children will have safe environment to grow up in, or won’t be abused by their new parents.

Your idea that putting children in the adoption agencies as answer, is naïve and ignorant.

Are you claiming that children born to parents who wanted them will receive some sort of guarantees in life?

No one born into this world is guaranteed wealth, education, health, jobs and success, but we should all work with what we have to make the best for ourselves and others.

You believe that it is better to destroy a person before they even get a chance to make the best out of what they receive because it might not be perfect?

There are no guarantees in this life.

What I want is to have less and less children "in the systems" and that can only be achieved by teaching people to be responsible, to be honest with themselves and others and that they will be held accountable for their actions.

Spreading lies about the unborn and the motivations behind the overwhelming majority of abortions cases will only lead to more unwanted children being born and more children "in the systems".

I disagree with what you have said wholeheartedly and contend that you are the one who is both ignorant and naive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You so easily confuse yourself.

The "list" we have been talking about was the list of questions offered up by Cacotopia that every pregnant woman should ask herself before deciding to keep their baby.

I claimed that all of the concerns mentionedin this list could be remedied by the woman deciding to place the unwanted child up for adoption.

The concerns you brought up (the damage, pain and risk of childbirth) were not included in Cacotopia's list, so obviously, my response to his list would not include any mention of the things you mentioned.

Do you understand or do you wish to revert to your innate clueless stupor?

You keep ignoring the risk, pain and discomfort, and physical harm done to the woman. Keeping the baby does nothing for that. That they were not in his list make the list worthless in our debate.. Since you appear to be the clueless one why do you keep using this flawed argument of yours? Is it because even you realize that is your only hope?


Try again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why are you making the same mistake that you made in post #245?

I never once advocated that anyone should be forced to do anything.

You couldn't quote me then and you didn't quote me now.

You just erected a strawman and burned it down.

You are fake news.

Just one example of where you talked about forcing people to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term:

The idea that a human life being inconvenient to someone gives them the right to destroy it is evil. Plain and simple.

I will never support the idea that a person has the right to kill you or anyone else simply for being an inconvenience.

If you don't want a baby, don't get a pregnant. If you get pregnant and don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Do you need other examples to help you remember what you wrote?

 

[Willamena]

The third option would be that a father and mother would want to keep and love their children.

However, you are advocating to kill them rather than place them up for adoption.

Sure, they may never get adopted (who can tell the future?), but if you are being honest with me and yourself, you know for a fact that you would ask to be put on that donor list rather than be killed now because that much-needed heart might never come.

Be honest with yourself.

You can't prescribe love, though. I'm not advocating abortion, just discussing a critique of the adoption option. The heart analogy doesn't do it for me, mostly because I don't see the parallel. Hence, I choose the third option.

I am pro-choice, because a woman should always have the choice to keep her child--the alternative is that the State decides that she keep her child, and that's not acceptable. Autonomy of person, especially in security of person, is one of the modern human rights that I value in the highest regard.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@Prestor John has an even higher bar: he has to justify why a fetus should have more rights than a human being.

The interests of a mere human being aren't enough to justify denying the bodily autonomy of another person. Case in point: we dont force people to donate blood against their will even if someone will die without it.

If all @Prestor John could manage to justify that fetuses are people - which hasn't done, but for argument's sake - his anti-abortion position would still fail.

It is interesting that Evangelicals will often have more compassion for a blob of cells, an unborn life with no concept of self, but once that blob of cells is born it can't eat because the Evangelical politicians condemned the mom as a lazy slob who makes poor decisions and needs to work hard even though she's already working two or more jobs and cut off her support, when the blob becomes older if it's a male they expect it to sign up for involuntary servitude to serve "god and country," and if the blob turns out gay then they have no compassion for it.

 

[Prestor John]

You can't prescribe love, though. I'm not advocating abortion, just discussing a critique of the adoption option. The heart analogy doesn't do it for me, mostly because I don't see the parallel. Hence, I choose the third option.

I am pro-choice, because a woman should always have the choice to keep her child--the alternative is that the State decides that she keep her child, and that's not acceptable. Autonomy of person, especially in security of person, is one of the modern human rights that I value in the highest regard.

I understand why you do not understand the heart analogy because it it as analogy that places you in the position of the unborn child.

And you do not particularly care about the position of the unborn child.

There is no third option for the unborn child. Either they are allowed to live or not. That's it.

Why do you have no concern for the autonomy of the unborn child, who is just as much a person as the mother?

My wanting to inform others that the unborn are just as alive and human as anyone else is not a call to force anyone to to anything.

I would hope that learning the truth about the unborn would cause expecting mothers to allow their children to live.

You can be pro-life and still not want to force anyone to do anything.

What you presented is a strawman.

 

[Prestor John]

Just one example of where you talked about forcing people to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term:


Do you need other examples to help you remember what you wrote?

My sharing my opinion that the killing of the unborn is evil is not my advocating that anyone be forced to do anything.

Again, you are fake news.

 

[Prestor John]

You keep ignoring the risk, pain and discomfort, and physical harm done to the woman. Keeping the baby does nothing for that. That they were not in his list make the list worthless in our debate.. Since you appear to be the clueless one why do you keep using this flawed argument of yours? Is it because even you realize that is your only hope?


Try again.

My original response to Cacotopia was about his list. Nothing else.

How could you claim I was ignoring anything that was not included in that list?

You critiqued me for not including concerns that were not on his list. That makes no sense.

If you want to talk about the things you mentioned, I am all for that.

But, you would first have to admit that that would be a separate conversation, unrelated from Cacotopia's list and my comment about it.