The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[fhtagn]

This still doesn't explain why flyover country WWC people deserve a tax cut.

I mean of course, I would support my own interests. Quite frankly, I also never get this sympathy for these rural racists in Appalachia, I never understood why we must pander to them? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think I am.

[fhtagn]

This still doesn't explain why flyover country WWC people deserve a tax cut.

I mean of course, I would support my own interests. Quite frankly, I also never get this sympathy for these rural racists in Appalachia, I never understood why we must pander to them? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think I am.

So we should be subsidizing WV racists??

We get it, you hate white people and you hate poor people.

[fhtagn]

This...is just something else, and it belongs in these halls of disgrace (imagine thinking someone actually wants this, this sounds like literal Stalinism or fascism, and I have been loud and clear about being a capitalist and being someone who is a strong proponent of racial equality and a strong critic of bigotry), propose renaming the thread

Someone is awfully...SALTy....

[fhtagn]

Tell us you don't understand the First Amendment without telling us you don't understand the First Amendment

I'm not sure where people get this false idea that Biden is entitled to receiving Communion.

I'm not sure where people get this false idea that a global religion with its own sovereign state is entitled to dictate what American politicians should or should not do.

Read the first clause in the First Amendment of this country's Constitution.

[fhtagn]

Her skin color is her insurance coverage.

check thread for context

lmao

[fhtagn]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Or just say women.

That wouldn't be inclusive to trans men or AFAB non-binary people.

[fhtagn]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Or just say women.

Dude. My opinion on fgthn's views 99% of the time border on legendary. But there is nothing whatsoever wrong about this post. Quite the opposite

[fhtagn]

And you are probably not even female.

[fhtagn]

The problem with this question is that marijuana laws actually doing exactly what they're intended to do, which is fill up prisons.

If this is really the answer, then what's wrong with filling up prisons with gun nuts?

[fhtagn]

Went back to the original thread where the original child abuse policy was announced. Here's a list of posters who deflected this and turned the thread into a debate about puberty blockers, minimized the obvious cruelty and stupidity behind this policy, or outright showed support behind it and agreed with its sentiment.

John Dule
TheTarHeelGent
Mr. Reactionary
Conservatopia
Sprouts
ShadowOfTheWave
realisticidealist
Christian Man
DaleCooper
Xeuma
Okthisisnotepic.
heatcharger
Abdullah
Grassroots
PiT
Averroës Nix
BabyAlligator
DelTachi
Russian Bear
Farmlands
RFayette
Shua
TheReckoning
BG-NY
DeadPrez
Horus

 every single one of you.

To the likes of John Dule and DaleCooper, you aren't smarter or better than other people by trying to turn everything into a game to where if you show any kind of emotion you lose. There are real lives that are being impacted because politics is not a ing middle school debate team competition.

To the conservatives, the policies you support are evil. You are all aware of this deep down but refuse to admit it to yourselves. You will happily waive away the continued suffering of others caused by the politicians you support because you are so selfish and depraved that you can not possibly show any ounce of compassion or sympathy towards other human beings. You will cling onto your twisted and morally bankrupted understanding of Christianity that in your mind somehow justifies the continued abuse of anyone who isn't like you.

You should all use this as a serious wake up call to reevaluate the type of person you want to be in the world. I say that knowing that none of you will because you are all either spineless cowards at best or actively genocidal at worst.  all of you.

[fhtagn]

Especially the bolded bit.

I'm a trans woman. Most of my posts are about trans issues. My transness and positions on many trans issues are not obscure, but my positions have been mischaracterized and strawmanned many times, and there are quite a few trans issues on which I've never made my position clear on this forum.

First of all, before stating my position on how things should be, one must understand that the facts of how things currently are, are greatly misunderstood by the vast majority of cis debatebros and online talkshow hosts who have made Pwning the Troons their favorite past time. We spend a lot of time discussing youth transitioners, but ignore how hard it is for trans adults to obtain their healthcare. It often requires multiple doctors' notes, years of gender therapy, and years of living openly as their gender (without any transition care or legal name changes). Even once someone is on hormones, it requires years of waiting to even be considered for surgeries, and then more years of waiting to actually get those surgeries. A lot of stuff isn't covered by insurance because it's considered "experimental" and/or "cosmetic" — even hormones aren't covered a lot. It's ten times harder for minors.

Informed consent should be the standard model for all adults, and everything should be covered by insurance. Most posters know I would expand this informed consent model to those below the age of 18; I think 15 would be a good age for that right to apply to. Hormones should be available to those below that age with reasonable restrictions; parental consent can certainly play a role in the approval process, but there should be ways to be approved without parental consent due to the prevalence of parents who oppose their children's transition for transphobic reasons, often in an explicitly abusive way. I think puberty blockers should have few if any restrictions. We need to streamline the name change and gender marker changing process; people never talk about how hard that is. I do support protections of trans workers from tranpshobic harassment in the workplace, and accept that those protections could lead to the firing the transphobic co-workers. None of this is stuff I haven't said before on Atlas.

I never commented on my position of trans sports issues, though assumptions have been made about my position, assumptions that aren't accurate. I come at this issue from a unique position, not just as a trans woman, but as a former youth sports official, a fairly good former youth athlete, and a much bigger sports fan than the average trans girl (I know hundreds of trans women; I know two, besides myself, who enjoy watching sports, and I don't know any former athletes besides myself). I officated boys, girls, and co-ed varieties of basketball, soccer, baseball, and softball, ranging from kindergarten to 8th grade levels.

As an athlete, my best sport was baseball (I was the starting catcher for my high school boys' junior varsity team, more on that later), but I played soccer on a co-ed team until 5th grade. Starting in 5th grade, the boys and girls split off into their own soccer team. I wanted to play on the girls' team, the girls on the team wanted me to join them, and the coaches were open to looking into it. But I got beaten at home (a liberal, secular, and pro-gay household, mind you) and by the boys on the team, so that was the end of my soccer career.

As an official of all different combinations of genders and age levels in multiple sports, here is my view. First of all, I've never once had a trans kid, to my knowledge, play in a game I've officiated, so this issue is not as prominent as transphobes would like you to believe. Secondly, I have seen co-ed teams where cis girls, even at junior high ages, were far better players players their male counterparts; the idea that testosterone makes a male athlete automatically capable of destroying their female counterparts is false. As an official of these public rec leagues, my job was not only to call balls and strikes, but to ensure that the leagues were safe, educational, and fun for the kids. I had to protect kids from angry parents and coaches. I had to protect kids from bullying from other kids. Some of these kids, I'm sure, have gone on to fine high school and college athletic careers, but the point of my job and our leagues was not to facilitate a a minor league for the World Cup, March Madness, or the World Series. It was about recreation more than competition. It was about teaching kids about teamwork, physical fitness, creativity, practice, following rules, and fun. Youth sports are an extremely valuable tool for kids to learn, grow, and bond with peers. We should not take that away from kids, regardless of gender, even if gender entails being transgender.

When we start talking about NCAA, Olympics, and pro sports, yes, competition becomes a more valid concern. The NCAA and Olympics already have restrictions on trans athletes which I think are more or less fair. You have to be on HRT for X amount of time to compete, and while we can argue about what X should equal, I agree with that rule. Pro sports are private leagues; they can set their own rules, I don't really care. I'll say this about HRT — I used to pitch during blowouts in high school baseball to preserve the arms of the pitchers with talent, and I could max out my pitch velocity at 70mph (which is way less than what the best cis women can throw). After a year of estrogen, I was curious to see how hard I could throw; I could only throw mid 50s — if I felt like blowing my arm out, maybe I could have touched 60. I'm probably maxing out at low-mid 50s now, if I tried, so the myth that trans women are super athletes is simply false.

But youth sports should not have those restrictions. It should be about the kids and ensuring that they get out of sports the important lessons and values that sports have a unique ability to fulfill. And in general, when we talk about sports, I'm a big fan of co-ed sports and think there should be more of them. Not only do we see that girls can and do kick the boys' assess across sports and age levels (the advantage that testosterone gives over estrogen in sports and physical strength really only starts to show when we're comparing the best athletes of both genders against each other; most regular people are average, not superathletes), I think we have an epidemic in this country where men and women don't know how to interact and work with each other, they don't trust each other, they stereotype and hate each other. I think that has a lot to do with gender segregation that starts in school. Boys in co-ed sports are less likely to become misogynistic. I support co-ed sports. But, when sports are segregated by gender, I do want trans kids included on their preferred gender's team with no questions asked if it's a public or youth league.

I am confident that the policies against trans people right now constitute the makings of a genocide. The message to trans people is clear: stop existing as trans people, and if that means you stop existing as living people, then tough sh!t. It is so ridiculous that such a small minority has been targeted to this extent for little reason other than to throw red meat at a base of angry, bigoted people. I have never seen a minority, except maybe for Muslims, get this much hate from secular, social liberals, many of whom are pro-LGB where it counts. This is a horrifying time to be trans. This is a major civil rights issue. It's scary. And it's not going to end with trans people. We're an easy target, but so were the commies, queers, Gypsies, and Jews in the beginning days of the Holocaust.

[fhtagn]

Think of all the problems in this country ongoing, it becomes clear that the Christian Nationalists behind the Republican Party are doing it's job in leading the decay of our wonderful nation.

1. Abortion laws are being passed to restricted any woman from retaining an abortion. This is the issue Christian Nationalists are trying to impose willingly.
2. Transgender people are getting their rights gutted by the GOP leaders who are following the rules of their bigoted faith.
3. Gun control is being denied of any passage, with this group being one of the most gun-toting in the nation. Strong correlation between the NRA and the Christian Nationalists who are seeking to impose their rules on a secular nation.
4. Most importantly, the capital riots were led by this group of bumpkins who did everything to undermine the sovereignty of America. According to research, this is the group who plotted to overthrow the American government and instituting a theocracy in the name of Donald J. Trump. You don't think I'm serious, read the FFRF report that rep Jared Huffman read in congressional floor. The time is now to acknowledge the bastards behind the plot were reactionaries who are pushing for a Saudi Arabia government and overthrow our secular government.

[fhtagn]

You should be banned from posting in this thread.

[fhtagn]

Anyone here who is pro-choice but believes that it should be a legislative matter?

No. A woman's autonomy of her own body is a divine right, not one to be granted or restricted by any government.

[fhtagn]

Anyone here who is pro-choice but believes that it should be a legislative matter?

No. A woman's autonomy of her own body is a divine right, not one to be granted or restricted by any government.

This is the bad posts gallery, not the "posts I disagree with" gallery.

[fhtagn]

I mean, I oppose overturning Roe in full, and would've voted with Justice Roberts's concurrence. I believe we need strict limits on abortion but in complicated situations like Rape, Incest, and Life of the Mother, the government should stay out of the situation. I'd love for this country to get to a place where we could back a total ban outside of those circumstances, but I'd concede on abortions for severe fetal abnormalities and abortions during the first four months of pregnancy if we truly committed to cracking down on the latter five months.


Unfortunately, neither major party agrees with my views there, and I'll be voting (a varied ballot) based on other issues. But on this oversimplified poll, I'd be forced to cast a somewhat misleading "oppose" vote - even though I'm voting for the GOP candidate for MN Attorney General and am undecided for U.S. House and State Legislature.

I have changed my stance. Abortion should be legal at any stage of development of the fetus. None of this "strict limits" BS. If you are a guy, then what right do you have to interfere with a woman's right to treat her body as she sees fit?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.