Should people vote on the abortion issue foremost?

[dad]

OTOH, many of us think that when someone devalues women to the point where he denies them the rights we even grant to corpses, this reflects poorly in their character.

No one has the right to murder and especially not innocent children. To claim that not destroying a woman's children is somehow devaluing a person is insanity and evil.

 

[dad]

No that is the wrong inference to draw. However:-

1) abortion is not a simple black-and-white, for-or-against issue,

Yes it is.

So there.

2) Trump has no consistent position on this or anything else, save what he thinks he needs to fool enough right wing religious fundamentalists into voting for him,

Great, and who mentioned him? If we look at the US, who has sided more with the pro life folks? Which party?

3) there are many other issues of critical importance to the future wellbeing of the nation that need to be taken into account when you vote.

Issues that many people of sound mind would not want mass murderers to handle.

4) Trump is a thoroughly malign person, showing signs of being personally evil. Yes, I really mean that. That too should be taken into account, by any person with honest religious scruples.

You off topic hateful obsession with this guy is crazy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No one has the right to murder others. Manson's gang had no right to kill Tate and others. It is not an issue of rights.

Nobody has the right to force others to give birth or organs, even if it saves a life.

Next thing you know those nazis will be forcing robins to sit in their nests on the eggs?
Babies are being sacrificed, hacked to death, burned or otherwise destroyed and you think the oppression is against those doing it. OK.

Yes. Because the right to not be used as an incubator should be a woman's decision.

If you don't agree, then you must agree it is okay to be forced to donate organs or blood. But you don't. Personal freedoms and saving lives are only ever valued as long as they are benefits that you enjoy, and not others.

The right to own your own body supercedes the right of anybody else to use of your body. To argue anything else is morally insane.

 

[bobhikes]

Some might consider it child abuse to have a child bring a bible to school. Others might consider training a child in the way they should go as abuse. Basically, people abuse the word abuse and render it to mean almost anything they do not like.


If a mugger in a dark street decides not to mug an old lady, you think he is forcing her to walk to the end of the street!? Do you think NOT murdering a baby in a mother is forcing her to be a mother? The time to NOT get pregnant is before you get pregnant. Once people do the deed, the time is over for second guessing.


So if we want people to stop blowing up buildings we need to up their welfare? If we want bank robbers to stop shooting up and robbing banks we need to pay them? I think many people would love to adopt and help the situation, and I am all for merciful treatment of the poor and single moms etc etc. We also need to take responsibility for actions ourselves. Of people had always sat around worrying about if their kids would be quite well cared enough for we might not have nuch of a human race.

Are you saying the babies are the criminals? That's how I read your reply.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one has the right to murder and especially not innocent children. To claim that not destroying a woman's children is somehow devaluing a person is insanity and evil.

It makes sense that you can't see the evil of your position; nobody's the villain of their own story.

So you see abortion as murder. Are you doing anything about it besides voting for politicians who say they oppose it but don't have the ability to do anything about it?

For instance, universal healthcare would make it much easier for many women to freely choose not to get an abortion. You must support universal healthcare, right?

Or what about subsidized childcare? Do you support that?

How about a nice, long, job-protected paid parental leave? You're pushing for that, right?

 

[fantome profane]

a person of the character and moral fortitude that loves whacking babies

When you characterize the pro-choice position as “loves whacking babies” we all see that you are not ready to have an intelligent conversation about the issue.

 

[Kenny]

My observation has been that it is the other way round. It seems that those who are most virulently anti-abortion are also anti-healthcare, anti-education, pro-war ect. Even (and this goes back a few years) anti-abortion politicians why were pro-smoking and pro-death penalty. I can see no logical reason why it should be this way, but observation tells me that it is.

I am not saying that no one on the anti-abortion side is consistent, but the politicians and political parties seem backwards on this.

Hmmm... must be in your neck of the woods

 

[Kenny]

I see the link in a different way: those who would ignore the basic humanity of pregnant people by ignoring their rights tend to also discount human rights in other ways.

The evil nature of the anti-choice position rarely contains itself to just the issue of abortion.

Yes... that is the nature of mankind -- that of having two different viewpoints. I just don't see the logic of taking away something that is innocent for personal benefit. (Not speaking of all cases but rather most cases)

IMV, my position does seem to have a track record. After abortion was instituted and that culture grew up, euthanasia began an uptick and, IMV, it is because we have lessened the value of life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a mugger in a dark street decides not to mug an old lady, you think he is forcing her to walk to the end of the street!? Do you think NOT murdering a baby in a mother is forcing her to be a mother? The time to NOT get pregnant is before you get pregnant. Once people do the deed, the time is over for second guessing.

Not a big one for consent, are you?

 

[fantome profane]

Hmmm... must be in your neck of the woods

Just so you understand, I was talking about politicians and political parties. Party platforms and that kind of thing. Not so much individuals.

 

[dad]

QUOTE="ImmortalFlame, post: 6860901, member: 21676"]Nobody has the right to force others to give birth or organs, even if it saves a life.[/QUOTE] Soldiers and police give their lives is that bad? Refraining from murdering a child is not forcing anyone to donate organs (although baby parts I hear are in demand)

Yes. Because the right to not be used as an incubator should be a woman's decision.

God decided moms would be moms. Insult it all you like.

The right to own your own body supercedes the right of anybody else to use of your body. To argue anything else is morally insane.

It is a baby's own body which shares space with mom that needs rights protected. You have no right to whack a roommate you don't like.

 

[dad]

Are you saying the babies are the criminals? That's how I read your reply.

No, the criminal act would be murder, one would hope, in a civilized world.

 

[Kenny]

Just so you understand, I was talking about politicians and political parties. Party platforms and that kind of thing. Not so much individuals.

Even that, at times, seems to me as more of "political exaggerations" than that much of a reality. Yes, in some aspects but mostly just a different approach to reach the same goals.

For an example... "Republicans are anti-public education!!" Boy, is THAT a bunch of baloney. We are for equality of choice which INCLUDES public education. So it becomes a fake mantra.

(I'm not shouting... I just don't like hitting the bold button

 

[Kenny]

It is a baby's own body which shares space with mom that needs rights protected. You have no right to whack a roommate you don't like.

I like that!

 

[fantome profane]

Even that, at times, seems to me as more of "political exaggerations" than that much of a reality. Yes, in some aspects but mostly just a different approach to reach the same goals.

For an example... "Republicans are anti-public education!!" Boy, is THAT a bunch of baloney. We are for equality of choice which INCLUDES public education. So it becomes a fake mantra.

(I'm not shouting... I just don't like hitting the bold button

I would not say that Republicans are anti public education. But they are certainly not fighting to make it affordable. And just mention free education and they go into anaphylactic shock.

And Devos is an absolute disgrace.

 

[dad]

It makes sense that you can't see the evil of your position; nobody's the villain of their own story.

I do not find millions of babies villains, sorry.

So you see abortion as murder. Are you doing anything about it besides voting for politicians who say they oppose it but don't have the ability to do anything about it?

What people can do is have their house in order and know what right and wrong is. They are not supposed to run into Sodom and Gomorrah and yell at people there for having wicked laws. Their job is to try and get right with God and let God deal with them. There comes a time when it can't be fixed. Looking at the falling judgments today, I have to ask if that time has come or is at the door. It is not possible for decent people to stop murders in a society that is wrapped up in murder. That ship may have sailed already.

For instance, universal healthcare would make it much easier for many women to freely choose not to get an abortion. You must support universal healthcare, right?

If universal murder is called something else, why would I be silly enough to jump on the band wagon to hell?

Or what about subsidized childcare? Do you support that?

Of course, especially if the people watching the kids are godly and not a bunch of pedophiles.

How about a nice, long, job-protected paid parental leave? You're pushing for that, right?

I don't want to muddy the simple topic waters here, by making a long list of goody goody things we would like to see done or not.
My opinion generally is that once a couple or a parent has a child, that IS their job.

 

[dad]

I would not say that Republicans are anti public education. But they are certainly not fighting to make it affordable. And just mention free education and they go into anaphylactic shock.

And Devos is an absolute disgrace.

The education of today does not deserve support in many cases, it deserves a flush.

 

[dad]

Not a big one for consent, are you?

Babies cannot consent to being burned or hacked or otherwise killed. What I do want is the desire of murderers to be kept in check.

 

[exchemist]

Yes it is.

So there.

Great, and who mentioned him? If we look at the US, who has sided more with the pro life folks? Which party?

Issues that many people of sound mind would not want mass murderers to handle.

You off topic hateful obsession with this guy is crazy.

Well, you asked, in effect, whether people should vote chiefly according to where they stand on the issue of abortion and I am explaining why I think one should not.

Do you seriously imagine you can ask a question about voting intentions - three weeks before the US presidential election - and NOT consider Donald Trump as a factor?

 

[Kenny]

I would not say that Republicans are anti public education. But they are certainly not fighting to make it affordable. And just mention free education and they go into anaphylactic shock.

And Devos is an absolute disgrace.

At this point... you are offering opinions. High school is free and potentially the first two years can be free (early admission). I think we need to look at "WHY, is college so expensive".