want babies to starve and be left homeless the second they are actually born
What gives you the impression that we want any such thing?
You people don't seem to understand the difference between actively wanting something to happen vs not actively wanting it not to happen.
I don't give a shit if you or anyone starves to death. I don't
want you to starve to death, I just don't give a shit if you do.
I do give a shit if someone murders you, though. One is wrong and should be prevented, the other is just a tragic personal failure to survive.
1. Yes. I am for the legalization of most drugs, not because I wanna shoot heroin all day but because prohibition doesn't work. Look at the destruction the drug war has caused for instance. Billions of dollars and millions of lives ruined to stop people from doing drugs and its not working. More people are dopeheads today than they ever were.
It's not about stopping them from doing drugs. It's about getting the junkies and degenerates out of society.
Leftists never seem to understand this. THE LAW IS NOT ABOUT CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR PROACTIVELY, IT IS ABOUT PUNISHING BEHAVIOR AFTER THE FACT. WE DO NOT SEEK TO CONTROL PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR.
Do you think that this country is a better place because we have a huge underclass of incarcerated people with permanent drug records who can't even get a job?
Yes, absolutely. They should never be released from prison to begin with. Junkies are trash people who should be excised from society.
Do you think someone selling weed at 18 should mean they can't work in a hair salon at 30?
I don't really think people should be working for random strangers they don't know in the first place.
Work at your dad's business and take over when he dies. I think anyone submitting themselves to a job market of strangers is consenting to the fuckery of rejection that follows. Junkies doubly so.
You can criticize hoodrats and trailer trash all you like but a lot of the trashiness is because of decades of drug laws that permanently fuck people over for their entire lives.
If they weren't junkies drug laws wouldn't fuck up their lives. Drug laws have never fucked up my life. Know why? I'm not a junkie.
They fuck their own lives up with conscious choices.
Do you think all those kids of these junkies are better off with their fathers in jail or paying fines to the court all the time instead of being around their kids?
I don't really care if it makes them better off. If a dad fucks his kids life up by going to jail, he's the one who fucked their life up, not the laws that put him in jail. Being a junkie has consequences. He chose to be a junkie, so he implicitly chose those consequences.
To enforce abortion as murder would require something akin to the drug war.
No, not at all. It is literally no different from other murder and require nothing different to enforce. They wouldn't even need new departments. Homicide detectives would just get more cases.
In that case I would wonder what the point is anyways?
The point is that we as a society cannot permit murderers to go unpunished for their morally abhorrent actions.
They can't just get away with it. They certainly can't be allowed to gain from it. They must be punished.
That's the whole point of laws.
I suppose I don't understand this ideology of "Babies must be born at ALL COSTS, no matter the circumstance, no matter the effects on society, no matter whether it's better off dead, no matter if no one can afford it, no matter if its rape, no matter the health of the mother, not matter what.
I don't care if babies are born. At all. If your baby miscarries I do not care. If you never get pregnant at all I do not care. Replace "Babies must be born at ALL COSTS," with "Murder must be punished at ALL COSTS, no matter the effects on society, no matter whether the victim was better off dead, no matter if the victim was poor, no matter if the victim's father was a bad person, no matter the health of the murderer, no matter what."
It's really not hard to understand once you actually internalize that we think it's
murder.
I cannot see how outcomes are supposed to be divorced from the decision to abort.
Because the outcome is irrelevant. When an immoral action has good outcomes you still don't get to do it. When a negative outcome would be prevented by immoral actions you still don't get to do it. Read the definition of the word impermissible. It means what it means. No amount of consequences or circumstances makes the impermissible permissible. Murder is something abhorrent, not merely something we don't want to happen personally, but something which
should never happen at a morally objective level.
My internal decisionmaking thought process regarding abortion is very simple
Step 1: I have accidentally created a baby
Step 2: Murdering the baby is immoral, so exclude that as a possible option.
Step 3: Abandoning the baby is immoral, so exclude that as a possible option.
Step 4: The only remaining option is to raise the baby, so I do that,
If you would like an analogy, my thought process with rape is very similar:
Step 1: I want to fuck that person
Step 2: Raping them is immoral, so exclude that as a possible option
Step 3: They still wont fuck me
Step 4: The only remaining option is to not fuck them, so I do that.
I cannot see how someone can claim to be pro-life but not care about what happens when the baby is born. If you don't care at all about the outcomes after birth, I would ask what makes a fetus is so much more special than any other stage of life?
A fetus is not special at all. Not in any way whatsoever. It is a human being the same as any other. I am against it being murdered in precisely the same way I am against you being murdered. I don't put food in your mouth, why do you expect me to put food in the baby's? Why does this confuse you so much despite it being explained over and over to you?
Stop calling it "Pro-life" and call it "Anti-murder" because it's more accurate.
I guess it is just a religious thing. If it is, then I would have a lot more respect for the pro-life side if they would just admit it.
Yes, any morality is rooted in spiritual belief. Which is why you don't have any morality and can't understand it.
We have never not admitted this.
And if that is the case then I don't know why I am supposed to care about their religion. Are you arguing for the state to enforce religious tenets?
The religious tenet of forbidding murder? Yes, unequivocally we should enforce that religious tenet.
Where the fuck else do you think laws come from? Where do you think the idea that murder is wrong comes from? Where do you think the idea that there is even such a thing as "wrong" comes from?
Do you just want complete anarchic freedom?
No one may impose a moral system at all?
That's absurd.
This seems like a specifically Catholic thing.
I'm not even any form of Abrahamist. Literally every religion on earth agrees that murdering infants is wrong except one: materialist nihilist atheists like you.
Your belief system is objectively bad, and should be rejected. You should be bullied for having it.
I would also have more respect for their position if they would lay out some logistics about how society is supposed to be run when they get their wish.. What would that look like?
Exactly identical to current society except we prosecute more murders.
ou would have to set up an infrastructure that would monitor the behavior of women of childbearing age in a way that would certainly be a human rights violation.
No you wouldn't.
How do you FORCE a woman to not have an abortion?
I wouldn't. I would punish her if she does.
Anyone who is for this cannot honestly say that they are for small government or freedom from government interference.
You people love to setup these absurd strawmans and then hold us to them and say we're inconsistent with them.
Yes, we know we're inconsistent with your strawman. We don't care.
I think there needs to be changes in the way we prosecute rape, of course. I believe there needs to be physical evidence before a conviction, otherwise you are able to sling accusations at people. If you criminalized abortion you would also have people throwing out accusations, btw.
Oh, so you're insane.
But I think that abortion is a different animal than rape altogether.
It's not. They are extremely comparable.
he main reason for that is the country is pretty evenly split bewteen people who think it is wrong and those who think it is fine.
I never understand this argument. It seems to be only cultural relativists and people like it who ever make it.
Do you think disagreement on an issue means there isn't a right answer?
Does disagreement on the earth being round mean we can't difinitively say that it is?
Does the existence of flat earthers make the shape of an earth an open question?
No, no it does not. It makes flat earthers incorrect.
The existence of disagreement is not itself an argument that rational disagreement is possible or that a question does not have an objectively correct answer.
The truth is that believing a fetus that is 7 weeks old and has very little, if any, brain development is a person is a tenet of faith.
No, it's a tenet of reasoning. No leap of faith is necessary to conclude that a human being is a human being. A massive leap of faith is necessary to conclude that it isn't a human being. If anyone is the faith-based irrational thinker here it's you.
So if you have half the country who believes that it isn't a person, that it cannot feel pain, and the other half who do believe that it is a person, then who gets to be right?
The ones who are correct get to be right.
I'll be honest, I do not see a fetus as a person before maybe the 5th month when it can survive on its own.
I genuinely don't think you're being honest. I genuinely don't believe you. I genuinely think you know it's a human being. I genuinely think everyone knows. I think the people who "disagree" are lying. I literally cannot fathom thinking it's not a person. That's not a real position someone can hold, it's logically absurd.
Its not because I want to be some edgelord atheist or whatever either, I just don't believe that something with zero higher order brain function that cannot survive outside the womb is really an actual person.
And this is why I think you're lying. You cite irrelevancies as reasoning. Nothing in the definition of a human being requires higher order brain function or surviving outside a womb. Why are you bringing them up like they somehow have an effect on whether or not something is human? They don't.
The only requirement to be human is to be human. The baby is human. It's not a goat. It's not a dog. It's a human. End of issue.
I'll give it to you that it is a potential person, but it isn't a person yet.
It's not a potential person. It already exists. Its future is a part of what it is.
We do not look at a snapshot of what it is now. We look at its existence from beginning to end. It is a human being for that entire existence.
From when it initiates existence to when it ceases, it is the same thing. What kind of thing is it? Human.
Also, none of the arguments that I have found have ever convinced me that a young fetus is really a person. At this point I don't think that you can MAKE me believe that it is one.
You already do. No one can make you stop lying but yourself. All I can do is reject your lies consistently enough to frustrate you in the hopes that frustration will get you to stop.
I would never argue that a baby is a baby in the same way that I would never argue that the earth is round. In order to argue I would have to believe you actually disagree.
I also don't believe that a person that is brain dead is really alive anymore.
You are still a human being even after you die. That's why we don't throw you in a dumpster and take all your shit, because you still have human rights that must be respected. You are never not a human being at any point in time. You didn't exist, then you, a human being, began to exist. You are a human being from then on, until your body totally decomposes and you do not exist anymore.
You will not find this with rape. You will be hard pressed to find someone who thinks it is ok to rape someone.
If I did it would still not be ok to rape someone. If every human being on earth thought rape was ok, it still wouldn't be.
You bring up total irrelevancies.
rape is something that is done to another person while drugs and abortion are personal choices.
Murder is something done to a person. There is a victim. The victim in this case is your own child, which is extra abhorrent.
but if you don't believe that it is a person then you will not feel this way. Again this is a matter of belief. Who gets to be right?
The people who are actually right get to be right.
And reducing the criminal justice system would be a good thing in America. Why should I want my tax dollars to be spent locking up people for weed and monitoring whether some woman has an abortion? I'm more small government than the Republicans are in this case. Can you see how Americans might view the Republicans as hypocritical on this?
As I've already explained, your accusation of hypocrisy comes from building a strawman and holding us to it for consistency.
We are in favor of small government because we don't like the government doing things governments aren't for.
Punishing murders is #1 on the list of things governments are actually for. I have absolutely no problem with the government punishing murder. It's their fucking job.
What are you going to do with all those babies?
Why would I do anything with a stranger's baby?
What do you think America, a country with no universal healthcare needs to do?
Nothing. Personal problems do not require systemic solutions. The list of people with a personal obligation to care about your wellbeing does not have my name on it. It has your family and close friends on it, and maybe your church congregation, and that's it. It does not include the name of every single person in society. It does not include me, a total stranger who doesn't give a shit. If you run down the list of names and don't get any help before you run out of names, tough shit, you're shit out of luck. Try again next life.
The amount of women that use abortion as birth control is insignificantly small or non-existent. I am not saying it's definitely 0, because there's a few crazies out there, but the amount that do would be so small as to be basically 0
Factually incorrect, almost a total inversion of the truth. The amount of women who use abortion as an emergency procedure is insignificantly small or non-existent. Over 99% of abortions are elective procedures. A very, very, very, VERY small proportion of abortions relate to medical complications that risk the mother's health, rape, or other such circumstances. The rest are all just whores who let someone nut in them and murdered the baby they made through shortsightedness.
You cannot discount the actual cost of things when it comes to this.
Yes you can.
You can say that people are irresponsible or evil or whatever, but the actual price of healthcare is a real issue that would cause someone to abort.
If you see financial hardship and decide to deal with it by murdering someone you're irresponsible and evil.
I literally do not care what real issues motivate your murder. I don't care how necessary you thought your murder was. You're a murderer. Full stop.
It can cost thousands of dollars just to have a baby in a hospital.
Imagine a scale. On one side of the scale is thousands of dollars. On the other side of the scale is
fucking murdering an innocent baby. Which side of the scale is heavier?
I'm not sure I really care about whether someone thinks I'm immoral or flawed somehow.
Of course you don't. You're a nihilist.
There is no magic that is going to make it alright. There is no God going to come down and cure a baby born with anencephaly. No pro-lifers are going to care that I can't find someone to watch my violent and severely retarded child while I go to work.
Correct.
Taking away the option of abortion when you want to conceive is tantamount to Russian roulette.
Life is tantamount to russian roulette. If you make the wrong choice you might have to suffer the consequences for the rest of your life.
Welcome to life. Make the right choices.
I don't know why you think I'm arguing for abortion wholesale.
Because it's logically necessary. If abortion is ever okay it's always okay. If you support abortion you have to support killing people at all stages of life.
We'll hold you to your own necessary conclusions and force you to look at them until you admit you don't like them and get off the road you're going down.
The Russian roulette comment means that I see trying to conceive a child as a dangerous terrifying thing. If my pregnancy could result in an ectopic implantation that could kill me, or a baby with severe birth defects that will only live for a few minutes, and abortion is off the table, then yeah, trying to have a baby is a horrifying ordeal. Even if I WANT to be a mother.
Yeah life is hard and involves risk, get over it.
"Murder is evil, if you do it, you should be strung up and murdered."
Imagine not knowing the definition of murder as distinct from killing.
ight: LET THE BABY LIVE, IT DESERVES THAT RIGHT. (Nowhere to be found paying the countless medical bills and headache of keeping such a child alive)
It's continually shocking to me that no matter how many times this dumb argument is rebutted you people never read the response and continue making this dumb argument.
