The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Badger]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

uh, no?

At least, you support defunding them (and giving the richest of the rich tax breaks instead).
And on the off chance that you don't - interesting, you're actually not a conservative on this issue.

1. once again, no. wtf are you talking about?
2. cool story

Did you hear what Blake Masters recently said? It's just one of many examples...the GOP doesn't support helping the poor (or even the middle-class - they don't even pretend to care about the poor, but no matter what they might say, their concern for the middle-class is also negligible at best) - they care only for their top donors. You might as well clarify. Do you support programs to aid the poor, things like Medicaid and free school lunches? If you do, good, but know that most conservatives don't. If you don't, you're like most conservatives, but you're proving my earlier point.

idk if this is just some poorly executed attempt at a gotcha but

Ah. The inevitable Point in any discussion with ftghn where she stops being able to put a single coherent sentence together to defend her argument and resorts to memes like a 12-year-old. Always a good sign to know that you've proven your point.

[fhtagn]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

uh, no?

At least, you support defunding them (and giving the richest of the rich tax breaks instead).
And on the off chance that you don't - interesting, you're actually not a conservative on this issue.

1. once again, no. wtf are you talking about?
2. cool story

Did you hear what Blake Masters recently said? It's just one of many examples...the GOP doesn't support helping the poor (or even the middle-class - they don't even pretend to care about the poor, but no matter what they might say, their concern for the middle-class is also negligible at best) - they care only for their top donors. You might as well clarify. Do you support programs to aid the poor, things like Medicaid and free school lunches? If you do, good, but know that most conservatives don't. If you don't, you're like most conservatives, but you're proving my earlier point.

idk if this is just some poorly executed attempt at a gotcha but

Ah. The inevitable Point in any discussion with ftghn where she stops being able to put a single coherent sentence together to defend her argument and resorts to memes like a 12-year-old. Always a good sign to know that you've proven your point.

You really need to get over this weird obsession you seem to have with stalking my posts. It's kind of creepy and can't be all that healthy for you.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own.  In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

[fhtagn]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

[fhtagn]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

If you're going to draw the line at a developmental stage, would you say that the life of a newborn baby has less value and it's more acceptable when they die vs say, a 5 year old child? After all, you are clearly only arguing here that they aren't the same because of their stage of development.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

This fresh new post also deserves an entry all it's own here.

This thread is about absurd/ignorant posts.  Much of this is in the eye of the beholder.  Look, however, at the highlighted sentence above.  The root word for "ignorant" is "ignore".  In making that statement, CentristRepublican is ignoring the entire issue; namely the issue of whether or not the "fetus" is indeed an unborn baby and a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  If you want to not be considered "ignorant", stop IGNORING the whole reason for this controversy and honestly address it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

This fresh new post also deserves an entry all it's own here.

This thread is about absurd/ignorant posts.  Much of this is in the eye of the beholder.  Look, however, at the highlighted sentence above.  The root word for "ignorant" is "ignore".  In making that statement, CentristRepublican is ignoring the entire issue; namely the issue of whether or not the "fetus" is indeed an unborn baby and a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  If you want to not be considered "ignorant", stop IGNORING the whole reason for this controversy and honestly address it.

He says while ignoring the entire substance of the quoted post and refusing to engage with any of the points that CentristRepublican made.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

This fresh new post also deserves an entry all it's own here.

This thread is about absurd/ignorant posts.  Much of this is in the eye of the beholder.  Look, however, at the highlighted sentence above.  The root word for "ignorant" is "ignore".  In making that statement, CentristRepublican is ignoring the entire issue; namely the issue of whether or not the "fetus" is indeed an unborn baby and a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  If you want to not be considered "ignorant", stop IGNORING the whole reason for this controversy and honestly address it.

He says while ignoring the entire substance of the quoted post and refusing to engage with any of the points that CentristRepublican made.

This issue all boils down to the highlighted part.

[Orwell]

An immigration system that makes people feel they need to smuggle themselves into America in horrifyingly dangerous conditions is an immigration system that is far too restrictive.

Open the borders and let people come here freely like we did when my ancestors came here.

Massive HP, this would be BASED

[fhtagn]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

[fhtagn]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

If you're going to draw the line at a developmental stage, would you say that the life of a newborn baby has less value and it's more acceptable when they die vs say, a 5 year old child? After all, you are clearly only arguing here that they aren't the same because of their stage of development.

No. This is hardly the gotcha you think it is - it’s only a very stupid and brainless comment. A fetus in its mother’s stomach and a fetus once it’s actually born are two fundamentally different things in the way that a newborn baby and even a 50 year old are not. Try to realize that and stop comparing apples and oranges.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

This fresh new post also deserves an entry all it's own here.

This thread is about absurd/ignorant posts.  Much of this is in the eye of the beholder.  Look, however, at the highlighted sentence above.  The root word for "ignorant" is "ignore".  In making that statement, CentristRepublican is ignoring the entire issue; namely the issue of whether or not the "fetus" is indeed an unborn baby and a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  If you want to not be considered "ignorant", stop IGNORING the whole reason for this controversy and honestly address it.

Fetuses are different from babies that have been born, and they have different needs and rights. Anybody who thinks they should be held to the exact same standard  (fhtagn) needs to realize basic facts about fetuses - for one thing, that they are very different when they are a part of their mother and once they are born, and therefore that abortion is not baby murder or infanticide.

[Schiff for Senate]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Yeah, and fhtagn should probably follow Fizzy’s sage words, too.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

If you're going to draw the line at a developmental stage, would you say that the life of a newborn baby has less value and it's more acceptable when they die vs say, a 5 year old child? After all, you are clearly only arguing here that they aren't the same because of their stage of development.

Besides, this post is genuinely so idiotic even by your standards that it really does belong in this thread.

[fhtagn]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

If you're going to draw the line at a developmental stage, would you say that the life of a newborn baby has less value and it's more acceptable when they die vs say, a 5 year old child? After all, you are clearly only arguing here that they aren't the same because of their stage of development.

No. This is hardly the gotcha you think it is - it’s only a very stupid and brainless comment. A fetus in its mother’s stomach and a fetus once it’s actually born are two fundamentally different things in the way that a newborn baby and even a 50 year old are not. Try to realize that and stop comparing apples and oranges.

1. Fetuses are never at any point in the mother's stomach during development. 
2. You still haven't provided anything that either proves your argument nor disproved mine. As mentioned previously, the only real difference between a fetus and a newborn child you're pointing out is stage of development. It's completely logical to question your feelings on already born people in different developmental stages, since that clearly matters enough to you to consider whether one is worthy of not being killed. It's not comparing apples & oranges when we are literally talking about the same thing, in this case: humans.

[fhtagn]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Unlike you, I'm not a science denier.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Unlike you, I'm not a science denier.

I'm not interested in doing to much arguing about why your idea that zygotes and early-in-development fetuses are morally equivalent to people despite not being sentient at all because of their DNA(seemingly based on mixing up "human" as in a living thing belonging to the homo genus and "human" as in a person with thoughts and feelings and deserving of rights) is stupid.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am still optimistic but the Survey monkey polls have Rs at 49(41 on GCB, I know the GCB has bounced around and I make wave insurance maps just in case D's win and it's a 303 map anyways but here's the problem, Abortion isn't that big of a deal because Pandemic made income inequality worse and most women take birth control pills if they don't want to get pregnant and many people are adopting or have steo children ready made adolescence that aren't newborn's but 4/10 yrs old less expensive to raise kids from that age than a newbor

Most of the people having newborns are people making over 100K a yr  and athletes poor people in the 90s that were having kids that needed abortions are nonexistent teenage pregnancy, there is birth control pills my sister and mom took to avoid pregnancy

Just, like Affirmative Action is gonna be overruled but we have online school, I got into Law School with average intelligence with online school, no one goes to Ivy League schools because it cost 50K and Private loans  in Grad School are non dischargeable, it's okay to take 5/20K but not 6o/K added onto 100K student loans Debt Federal

Also, the Committee has had the same info on Trump crimes since Jan 2021 we are spending money on insurrection and Ukraine and we couldn't pass BBB and Climate change and speed rails in a 3T dollar package and the sanctions aren't deterring Putin war in Ukraine, we get no response from Biden anymore on sanctions deterring Putin. Like we get no response from Garland

It's 150 days til the Election we don't know what result it can be but it can be a bad one too as I always said it depends on Turnout between 40% which benefits Rs to 60% that benefits D's, I am not registered to vote in ILLINOIS obviously, I am not voting, the downtrend isn't gonna be with regular voters it's gonna come with reregistering to vote people whom move

[Politician]

I'm among that small minority in this poll who thinks the Dems will retain the House, with probably a small net gain of about 2-3 seats. I think anger about the Dobbs decision is going to motivate the D base almost as strongly as it was motivated 4 years ago - like about 85%-90% as motivated as then. I think, perhaps, the NPV will be 51.5% for Dems and 47% for GOP, and the ratio of seats won will be 224 to 211.

[Schiff for Senate]

I'm among that small minority in this poll who thinks the Dems will retain the House, with probably a small net gain of about 2-3 seats. I think anger about the Dobbs decision is going to motivate the D base almost as strongly as it was motivated 4 years ago - like about 85%-90% as motivated as then. I think, perhaps, the NPV will be 51.5% for Dems and 47% for GOP, and the ratio of seats won will be 224 to 211.

MarkD is almost certainly overestimating the impact Dobbs will have on the midterms, but contrary to what a lot of right-wing hacks believe, it will in fact play some role in the midterms, to the benefit of the Democrats. A strong majority of Americans supported Roe and its overturn will, in fact, increase support for Democrats. I doubt that even with Dobbs Democrats are able to hold the House, let alone expand their majority, but the general idea of Dobbs helping Democrats and saving them a handful of seats is very reasonable.