Andre S. Veteran Posted August 4, 2015 Veteran Share Posted August 4, 2015 I have a compromise for you. You and your anti-abortion friends will put all your names on a list. The list shall then be used to randomly assigned unwanted babies whom you shall care as your own. In return, we shall accept that human life begins at contraception. Deal? Or maybe you and your pro-abortion friends can put all your names on a list, so we can randomly dump aborted fetuses on your doorsteps and you take care of their disposal. "human life begins at contraception" is a pretty funny typo though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Or maybe you and your pro-abortion friends can put all your names on a list, so we can randomly dump aborted fetuses on your doorsteps and you take care of their disposal. "human life begins at contraception" is a pretty funny typo though. Please excuse my typo: I was babysitting for a couple of hours. (BTW, this is NOT my job. I was just doing a favor.) How about taking some personal responsibility and adopt these unwanted babies as your own? Edited August 4, 2015 by illegaloperation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Just to clarifying the post above: I was babysitting my little cousin. I am pretty sure it will make a good story for me to tell her one day. Edited August 4, 2015 by illegaloperation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted August 4, 2015 Veteran Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) How about taking some personal responsibility and adopt these unwanted babies as your own? Not sure what your point is. One doesn't need to be personally engaged in a moral cause to distinguish moral right and wrong. I recognize dumping plastic in the ocean is wrong but I'm not going out there trying to clean it up; that hardly makes it illegitimate for me to hold this opinion, and it does nothing to legitimize dumping plastic in the ocean. Besides, you don't actually know anything about me, perhaps I do adopt unwanted children. Probably not a good idea to make uninformed guesses about what some random guy on a forum does in his personal life to attack his moral integrity; not that your attack is valid but on top of being invalid it's uninformed. Edited August 4, 2015 by Andre S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Not sure what your point is. One doesn't need to be personally engaged in a moral cause to distinguish moral right and wrong. I recognize dumping plastic in the ocean is wrong but I'm not going out there trying to clean it up; that hardly makes it illegitimate for me to hold this opinion, and it does nothing to legitimize dumping plastic in the ocean. Besides, you don't actually know anything about me, perhaps I do adopt unwanted children. Probably not a good idea to make uninformed guesses about what some random guy on a forum does in his personal life to attack his moral integrity; not that your attack is valid but on top of being invalid it's uninformed. Because plastic bags are clogging the city's ponds, the city decides to vote on banning plastic bags. You show up at the city's meeting and speak against banning the plastic bags. When someone ask that you help cleanup the ponds, you refused since "[you] didn't dump all those plastic bags into the ponds". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted August 4, 2015 Veteran Share Posted August 4, 2015 I literally just answered this so I don't know what else to add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 I literally just answered this so I don't know what else to add. My mistake: I didn't know social conservatives were for personal irresponsibility. Please carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted August 4, 2015 Veteran Share Posted August 4, 2015 My mistake: I didn't know social conservatives were for personal irresponsibility. Please carry on. Please direct your rants against social conservatives at social conservatives. TPreston 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Please direct your rants against social conservatives at social conservatives. I apologize for my mistake. What I intended to say is: "I didn't know you are for personal irresponsibility. Please carry on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 The plastic bag comparison isn't valid. The only negative ocnsequence created by banning bags is inconvenience. We know of several psychological, economical, & social issues that would result from banning abortions. People have to offer some way to mitigate those problems if you want to seriously ban abortions. I don't see pro-life advocating offering anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 The plastic bag comparison isn't valid. The only negative ocnsequence created by banning bags is inconvenience. We know of several psychological, economical, & social issues that would result from banning abortions. People have to offer some way to mitigate those problems if you want to seriously ban abortions. I don't see pro-life advocating offering anything like that. Agreed, and to be honest I think we just need to compromise and limit when and for what reason you can get abortions until we have a better idea and/or definition that caters to the ethical/moral objections of everyone involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted August 5, 2015 Veteran Share Posted August 5, 2015 People have to offer some way to mitigate those problems if you want to seriously ban abortions. I don't see pro-life advocating offering anything like that. Like pregnancy care centers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Like pregnancy care centers? Don't they also offer advice & options concerning abortion? You're back to square one. Still, there are other lifelong issues to consider that those centres don't deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) The point is that banning abortion would result in even more unwanted children. The solution is to have a lottery randomly assign unwanted children to anti-abortionists, yet people like +Andre S. flat out refuse to accept this solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted August 5, 2015 Veteran Share Posted August 5, 2015 It's certainly not a simple issue, but neither is, for example, the care of elders. Yet no one suggests killing them would be a good solution. No one would suggest randomly assigning their care to those defending their right to live either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) The point is that banning abortion would result in even more unwanted children. The solution is to have a lottery randomly assign unwanted children to those who are anti-abortion, yet people like +Andre S. flat out refuse to accept the idea. Probably cause it makes no sense at all. You're acting like you need to blame someone other than the people who got pregnant in the first place (and don't pull the rape card, cause not everyone who's getting pregnant is getting raped). Why is it unreasonable for people to take responsibility for their own actions? If people are going to start rampantly tossing babies in dumpsters cause they can't abort the fetus (which I highly, highly doubt would be the case) then perhaps we should start having more active action taken by law enforcement for these kinds of people. So sick and tired of people wanting to make others pay for their own mistakes. If you disagree with anyone then you must be punished! You're the cause of the suffering of those you disagree with merely by disagreeing with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 Probably cause it makes no sense at all. You're acting like you need to blame someone other than the people who got pregnant in the first place (and don't pull the rape card, cause not everyone who's getting pregnant is getting raped). Why is it unreasonable for people to take responsibility for their own actions? If people are going to start rampantly tossing babies in dumpsters cause they can't abort the fetus (which I highly, highly doubt would be the case) then perhaps we should start having more active action taken by law enforcement for these kinds of people. So sick and tired of people wanting to make others pay for their own mistakes. They are taking responsibility for their own actions by getting abortions and hence not putting the burden of rising their unwanted children to someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 They are taking responsibility for their own actions by getting abortions and hence not putting the burden of rising their unwanted children to someone else. Well, considering your hypothetical scenario that wouldn't be the case. I assumed we were still discussing that scenario. The one where abortions are banned and all. Also, the random lottery couldn't target people based on their political opinion. It's funny that people feel the way to change someone's opinion is to make the result of that opinion so unsavory that they're just forced to conform. Great tactic, totally not underhanded at all. DConnell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 Well, considering your hypothetical scenario that wouldn't be the case. I assumed we were still discussing that scenario. The one where abortions are banned and all. Also, the random lottery couldn't target people based on their political opinion. It's funny that people feel the way to change someone's opinion is to make the result of that opinion so unsavory that they're just forced to conform. Great tactic, totally not underhanded at all. Oh, so what do you want to do with all the unwanted children? Ship them to Mexico? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Oh, so what do you want to do with all the unwanted children? Ship them to Mexico? I don't know, but trying to pressure people into changing their minds by using the kids as political pawns through placing them in households where they're unwanted seems just as idiotic. DConnell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 I don't know, but trying to pressure people into changing their minds by using the kids as political pawns through placing them in households where they're unwanted seems just as idiotic. Here's another idea. In each state, a referendum will be held every 10 years to see if abortion will be permitted or not. If 50% +1 vote no, abortion would be ban in that state. To pay for raising unwanted children, everyone that vote "no" will have to pay a special "anti-abortion tax". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Here's another idea. In each state, a referendum will be held every 10 years to see if abortion will be permitted or not. If 50% +1 vote no, abortion would be ban in that state. To pay for raising unwanted children, everyone that vote "no" will have to pay a special "anti-abortion tax". And should we have a "pro-abortion" tax to pay for all the subsidized abortions when it tilts the other way? We could just allow orphanages to exist again. Properly regulated, of course. DConnell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) And should we have a "pro-abortion" tax to pay for all the subsidized abortions when it tilts the other way? We could just allow orphanages to exist again. Properly regulated, of course. The cost of abortions is much cheaper than the cost of raising children. Also, running orphanages isn't free. I wouldn't mind that orphanages be funded with "anti-abortion tax". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 The cost of abortions is much cheaper than the cost of raising children. Also, running orphanages isn't free. I wouldn't mind that orphanages be funded with "anti-abortion tax". Why do all your solutions focus on punishing people you disagree with? DConnell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfish Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 There are some major concerns as to the truthfulness and accuracy of the videos. Check this out - http://m.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/ http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/14/attack-on-planned-parenthood-3-deceptive-edits/204419 Both of those avoid addressing the fact that its illegal to change abortion procedures for the sole purpose of obtaining intact organs -- something that's clearly described in the videos. 1993 NIH Revitalization Act : "(2) ADDITIONAL STATEMENT.-In research carried out under subsection (a), human fetal tissue may be used only if the attending physician with respect to obtaining the tissue from the woman involved makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the physician, declaring that ... "(ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue." http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL103-43.pdf or http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/publiclaw103-43.htm.html In fact all of the attempts to debunk the videos avoid addressing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.27e171f017b63bad53164e64f4f61b6f.gif)
Recommended Posts