- Joined
- Dec 27, 2017
We have one, they are allowed immunity if they abandon them at a police or fire station, so they have a clear incentive to do so, and the child is safe. They will face severe punishment for leaving them in a ditch. I think many forget the core concept of laws - de-incentivize behavior deemed destructive for a community/society/etc., and incentivize behavior deemed to strengthen and keep it cohesive. I shouldn't use forget, but rather, put it lower on the list of reasons on why a law exists.
For any who cares, I got ambitiously autistic before realizing this is stupid in a RBG dead thread, but I wrote it, so fuck it:
The idea is that stopping a life from existing, prevents that person from ever existing and is it right to take that away from the person who would have been born otherwise. Even the non-religious can follow the logic in how that can be argued as murder, so I find it a valid point to make, or atleast debate from that perspective. Personally don't think it should be either sides wants and wishes and the middle ground should be somewhere at: Abortion is legal, laws require education to be shown (Not Propaganda films, educational only) and legal documents signed that the person isn't under durress, the reason (for data only, any reason is valid), and that they fully understand the medical risk (psychiatric pamplet's for information after surgery as well), this can only be done before the heart beat or brain activity (meaning no reason is invalid, and abortion is given), provide income information for reduced cost or free, and after the heart beat or brain (which ever is decided on) abortion can only be given if there is medical proof that the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother (medical proof with signed affidavit from the doctor who performs the diagnosis). As for who makes the informational video? Go to the RNC and DNC, tell them to make the best case for their side of the issue: Why you should have the abortion & Why you should keep the child. Both must be shown before a decision is signed and made. A third option, which can be inside the RNC video, is that if the mother still thinks they don't want to have a child, but also don't want to prevent pregnancy, that they can approach any adoption agency and sign an agreement to have the child be born and taken to be put up for adoption. Even if they change their mind, have no medical reason, in the time period between the decided cut-off, they are still allowed the adoption route.
The idea here is to make the decision with all information available, so that it is well informed as well as difficult, as it should be, it is detrimental to a society to purposely incentivize a decrease to it's population, especially when it has countless miles of land it can expand to, has an ever increasing economy to the benefit of all of the people in it that requires more labor ( and inviting in foreign born to replace them is also increasingly destructive) and people seem to forget/ignore/lie about the overall psychological effects of making that abortion decision. It also tends to reduce the risk considered when deciding on pre-marital sex, and I'm no prude, but giving a consequence free and easy avenue for the negative outcome of getting pregnant close to zero in the minds of many young women making it incredibly easy (as stats have shown) to pull the trigger. Leaving it where it is currently or increasing the ease of it, only has negative outcomes that far out weigh any of your concerns about adoption agencies, an issue we wouldn't have, if it weren't for the left's destructive totalitarian behavior in attack every christian organization in the world, by attacking their big corporate donors to remove their funding and then destroying several christian adoption homes because they did not agree with letting a gay or lesbian couple adopt, who could have EASILY adopted from a state one.
The idea is that stopping a life from existing, prevents that person from ever existing and is it right to take that away from the person who would have been born otherwise. Even the non-religious can follow the logic in how that can be argued as murder, so I find it a valid point to make, or atleast debate from that perspective. Personally don't think it should be either sides wants and wishes and the middle ground should be somewhere at: Abortion is legal, laws require education to be shown (Not Propaganda films, educational only) and legal documents signed that the person isn't under durress, the reason (for data only, any reason is valid), and that they fully understand the medical risk (psychiatric pamplet's for information after surgery as well), this can only be done before the heart beat or brain activity (meaning no reason is invalid, and abortion is given), provide income information for reduced cost or free, and after the heart beat or brain (which ever is decided on) abortion can only be given if there is medical proof that the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother (medical proof with signed affidavit from the doctor who performs the diagnosis). As for who makes the informational video? Go to the RNC and DNC, tell them to make the best case for their side of the issue: Why you should have the abortion & Why you should keep the child. Both must be shown before a decision is signed and made. A third option, which can be inside the RNC video, is that if the mother still thinks they don't want to have a child, but also don't want to prevent pregnancy, that they can approach any adoption agency and sign an agreement to have the child be born and taken to be put up for adoption. Even if they change their mind, have no medical reason, in the time period between the decided cut-off, they are still allowed the adoption route.
The idea here is to make the decision with all information available, so that it is well informed as well as difficult, as it should be, it is detrimental to a society to purposely incentivize a decrease to it's population, especially when it has countless miles of land it can expand to, has an ever increasing economy to the benefit of all of the people in it that requires more labor ( and inviting in foreign born to replace them is also increasingly destructive) and people seem to forget/ignore/lie about the overall psychological effects of making that abortion decision. It also tends to reduce the risk considered when deciding on pre-marital sex, and I'm no prude, but giving a consequence free and easy avenue for the negative outcome of getting pregnant close to zero in the minds of many young women making it incredibly easy (as stats have shown) to pull the trigger. Leaving it where it is currently or increasing the ease of it, only has negative outcomes that far out weigh any of your concerns about adoption agencies, an issue we wouldn't have, if it weren't for the left's destructive totalitarian behavior in attack every christian organization in the world, by attacking their big corporate donors to remove their funding and then destroying several christian adoption homes because they did not agree with letting a gay or lesbian couple adopt, who could have EASILY adopted from a state one.
By your own admission, there is 2-7 year waiting period for an infant? How do you throw that stat out and still have the idea that there isn't enough people willing to adopt, at least in regards to the current issue of no one adopting those allowed to be birthed and not aborted?? The person you were replying to shouldn't have taken the "L", because you proved his previous statement true, there aren't enough infants available, for the demand on them, meaning as soon as one is available, it's already locked to the first person on the list. There maybe infants technically in the adoption process, but they don't stay long enough in that process to really count.
Anyhow, thank God that woman is dead. I am no fan of someone who lies to everyone and pretends to be virtuous, while performing the exact opposite in their actions by holding onto her position, siding only with her ideological side instead of the law like she is suppose to, and then using her position to express her political preference. Perhaps she did some good things, once or twice, and was a pioneer, that's great, still doesn't make up for her negative actions later. I don't celebrate that she died, I celebrate she left her position and hopefully someone better, more able to consider both sides in everything, and someone who doesn't use different, never before definitions of words, or ones re-interpreted and re-defined to make their decisions on cases justifiable. If your only way to frame or win the debate, is to use made up modern definitions, or "activist" interpretations then your judgement should be instantly called to question. Consider them of course, times change after all, but if a decision comes down to a single definition, then you should defer to traditional definition ALWAYS, until a better case can be presented, and not abuse your power and force definitions (which are needed for society to agree on, in order to function) that the vast majority of our country doesn't agree with.
