Abortion - My own thoughts - such as they are

[mrswdk]

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

No, not taking the bait.
but stop repeating the same idea that you have been repeatedly told is repugnant. That's not debate, its badgering.

You're right, it's not debate when I state my position and everyone shouts me down and tells me I'm disgusting, but consistently refuses to provide any real reason for refuting my ideas. That is, as you say, badgering.

I did... its called murder. Whether you like it or not, we draw the line at birth, sometimes just prior.

Once again, no reason given why the line should be drawn there.

Keep this up and I'm afraid I'm going to have to flunk you.

[MagnusGreeol]

Just for the record, I don't live in China and I do think that post-birth infanticide can be morally justified in at least some cases.

- Tell me though, I'd like a poll of yay or nay from the public, 2 questions a yay or nay-->

(1) Do you agree with mrswdk that a healthy or not baby should be killed anywhere after 4-9 months Or even after birth??

(1)- Do you agree with mrswdk that it should be OK with adults having sex with children as long as parrent and child consent??

- 2 questions people, can all mrswdk's friends answer truthfully, think of your children when you answer!

\MGM/♎

[mrswdk]

Literally no one has actually given any substantive reason why it would never be okay to terminate late or post-birth. Just ranted and raved. I don't think I'm the one avoiding a serious discussion here.

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

Random reason, not a great reason, but a random one it should always be illegal to kill a newborn; most countries have national citizen registries of some sort. Babies are tied to government identities such as names, social security numbers, subsidies, welfare, etc. Identity theft of the deceased is already a significant threat to the economy and national security. If we did not give the harshest punishments to any individual depraved enough to kill for any citizen for their place in society and their identity regardless of age, it could destabilize society at large.

If you think there is no one psychopathic enough to operate on such a level, look up Amelia Dyer.

Could this not be solved by just monitoring deaths more effectively? I mean, this sounds like something that could apply to killing an old person or a loner just as much as it could apply to killing an infant.

It could, but why should it? That's way more expense for way less benefit.
The current way is "Oh, you killed your baby? Death/life in prison!" The alternative is "We have reason to believe you killed some babies, which while not illegal seems to indicate you might be involved in some identity crimes that we need to investigate..."
One requires a low level, easy to monitor reason per household; if we know you have a baby, you had better have that baby.
The other requires that plus an in depth investigation of known contacts, financial dealing, and so on and so on.
You make it sound easy to effectively monitor deaths, but it is not.

Besides, loners don't congregate anywhere, and old people don't get any younger, so good luck hatching a terrorist plot when your ID says you're 94. On the other hand babies do get older, allowing for an accumulation of viable identities over the decades for any unsolved cases.

Anyways, I don't think this is on topic.

You're right, I don't think it is. So let's not 'do a jim', but instead just let this line of argument die

[jgordon1111]

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

No, not taking the bait.
but stop repeating the same idea that you have been repeatedly told is repugnant. That's not debate, its badgering.

You're right, it's not debate when I state my position and everyone shouts me down and tells me I'm disgusting, but consistently refuses to provide any real reason for refuting my ideas. That is, as you say, badgering.

I did... its called murder. Whether you like it or not, we draw the line at birth, sometimes just prior.

Once again, no reason given why the line should be drawn there.

Keep this up and I'm afraid I'm going to have to flunk you.

Again Mrs I ask the question you casually forgot to answer in other thread. YOUR PROFILE OF WHAT YOU HAVE STATED IN ALMOST EVERY TOPIC YOU SPEAK IN,

At what age were you traded and or sold ?

[notyou2]

This planet is waaaaayyyyy over populated. We need more lemmings to leap off the cliff before we utterly destroy it.

We ARE animals just like all the other flora and fauna on this planet. We act like them too, actually we act worse than all other animals. More death please, and more often.

[thegreekdog]

This planet is waaaaayyyyy over populated. We need more lemmings to leap off the cliff before we utterly destroy it.

We ARE animals just like all the other flora and fauna on this planet. We act like them too, actually we act worse than all other animals. More death please, and more often.

I read somewhere recently that the planet is getting overpopulated in the poor places and not so much in the rich places.

[Metsfanmax]

I find it interesting that PLAYER thinks mrswdk's stance on this is "repugnant," and yet doesn't seem to be able to empathize with the people who think that her position is repugnant.

[Phatscotty]

You may dislike the term "viability", but it is a medical term divorced from whether a person feels that they like it or not. A red herring it is not.

The red herring part is the assumption that "non viable" means it does not have a right to medical care.

And let's face it, Jefferson, a guy who raped an enslaved 14 year old and literally kept his own children as slaves, is never going to be the go- to guy on the rights children should have

Well if you want to state your own philosophical positions please feel free to do so. But if you want to raise the standard to that of perfection (which no man possesses) don't be surprised if I shred your own authorities.

And let's face it, you are not your own authority.

The term means that whatever stage of pregnancy a woman is in, life cannot be sustained externally. You're being silly now simply because you dislike the facts.

My philosophical position would more closely align with Orwell than Jefferson. A slave trader who claims to be a hero of freedom is a man whose rhetoric should be distrusted whether indoctrinated as a founding father or big brother.

Yet, it is exactly this man's exact ''rhetoric' that is dead center of the moral compass which the descendants of those slaves believe 100% that all men are created equal, and ground zero for any claim to equality. If you distrust Jefferson's rhetoric, then really you are standing against equality

Every single one of us is extremely likely to be descendant from slaves

[mrswdk]

This planet is waaaaayyyyy over populated. We need more lemmings to leap off the cliff before we utterly destroy it.

We ARE animals just like all the other flora and fauna on this planet. We act like them too, actually we act worse than all other animals. More death please, and more often.

Bear in mind that if not enough young Canadians are born then when you get old there won't be enough young 'uns paying tax and the government is going to slash all the welfare that a hippy like yourself is probably going to end up dependent on.

[Dukasaur]

This planet is waaaaayyyyy over populated. We need more lemmings to leap off the cliff before we utterly destroy it.

We ARE animals just like all the other flora and fauna on this planet. We act like them too, actually we act worse than all other animals. More death please, and more often.

Bear in mind that if not enough young Canadians are born then when you get old there won't be enough young 'uns paying tax and the government is going to slash all the welfare that a hippy like yourself is probably going to end up dependent on.

Nonsense. We are moving towards a robot economy, and human labour will soon be utterly irrelevant. In 20 years, 90% of the jobs that any of us are doing now will be done by machine. In 50 years there will be no job except for ceremonial flatterycakes that will be done by humans. We are moving towards Eloi status. The old correlation of population with production is all but dead already. Within our lifetime it will be buried.

[mrswdk]

This planet is waaaaayyyyy over populated. We need more lemmings to leap off the cliff before we utterly destroy it.

We ARE animals just like all the other flora and fauna on this planet. We act like them too, actually we act worse than all other animals. More death please, and more often.

Bear in mind that if not enough young Canadians are born then when you get old there won't be enough young 'uns paying tax and the government is going to slash all the welfare that a hippy like yourself is probably going to end up dependent on.

Nonsense. We are moving towards a robot economy, and human labour will soon be utterly irrelevant. In 20 years, 90% of the jobs that any of us are doing now will be done by machine. In 50 years there will be no job except for ceremonial flatterycakes that will be done by humans. We are moving towards Eloi status. The old correlation of population with production is all but dead already. Within our lifetime it will be buried.

lol. Wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[PLAYER57832]

I find it interesting that PLAYER thinks mrswdk's stance on this is "repugnant," and yet doesn't seem to be able to empathize with the people who think that her position is repugnant.

mrswdk's stance is to troll. My post to Tzor answered his position, and I actually have answered him more than once, but as usual, he ignores anything not agreeing with him or taking a stand against him.

and, if you think that disagreeing with someone means no empathy... it goes a long way to show why the debates in this forum have disintegrated into a series of name calling, badgering and ridiculing threads. I used to come here for some pretty good discussion. Now I find even one of the more reasonable posters--Tzor has descended into referring to convicted felons as "normal" for the abortion industry and citing as truth claims made in a video so highly edited its actually fraudulent.

As for the thread --- No one is forcing you or anyone in the US to have an abortion. In fact, I don't think the issue even applies to you. My point is then, what right do you have to tell other people what to do. There is a huge difference between saying "abortion is wrong, I won't have one, you should not" and saying "abortion is so terrible that it must be made illegal and all women who have one need to go in for counseling to avoid serious mental harm.

I

[mrswdk]

I find it interesting that PLAYER thinks mrswdk's stance on this is "repugnant," and yet doesn't seem to be able to empathize with the people who think that her position is repugnant.

mrswdk's stance is to troll.

I have put forward my genuine position and you have given me no reason to amend it. I don't see how sticking to my previous position makes me a troll.

In fact, I don't think the issue even applies to you. My point is then, what right do you have to tell other people what to do. There is a huge difference between saying "abortion is wrong, I won't have one, you should not" and saying "abortion is so terrible that it must be made illegal and all women who have one need to go in for counseling to avoid serious mental harm.

Given that Mets said he could support post-birth terminations in some circumstances, I don't see how you have managed to straw man his position as being that abortion must be made illegal. Time to engage brain, PLAYER.

[jgordon1111]

This planet is waaaaayyyyy over populated. We need more lemmings to leap off the cliff before we utterly destroy it.

We ARE animals just like all the other flora and fauna on this planet. We act like them too, actually we act worse than all other animals. More death please, and more often.

Bear in mind that if not enough young Canadians are born then when you get old there won't be enough young 'uns paying tax and the government is going to slash all the welfare that a hippy like yourself is probably going to end up dependent on.

Nonsense. We are moving towards a robot economy, and human labour will soon be utterly irrelevant. In 20 years, 90% of the jobs that any of us are doing now will be done by machine. In 50 years there will be no job except for ceremonial flatterycakes that will be done by humans. We are moving towards Eloi status. The old correlation of population with production is all but dead already. Within our lifetime it will be buried.

lol. Wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Duk you should hope not,unemployment is already horrible, 90% work done by machines, only the very wealthy will be able to eat,own anything or afford a Dr. Medicine. How many here are 1-% ers? Good news a few will be allowed jobs taking care of them .you want to be one of those slaves, get a cardboard sign and beat the rush . it should say something like,will be slave to 1% to survive.

[PLAYER57832]

I find it interesting that PLAYER thinks mrswdk's stance on this is "repugnant," and yet doesn't seem to be able to empathize with the people who think that her position is repugnant.

mrswdk's stance is to troll.

I have put forward my genuine position and you have given me no reason to amend it. I don't see how sticking to my previous position makes me a troll.

You never bothered to read my real responses.

Also, your comments are not about abortion, but you put them in a thread specifically about abortion. You could easily make your own thread if you wanted honest discussion.,

[mrswdk]

My first post in this thread, and the central theme of all my following posts:

I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.

It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.

PLAYER's analysis:

your comments are not about abortion

[PLAYER57832]

My first post in this thread, and the central theme of all my following posts:

I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.

It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.

PLAYER's analysis:

your comments are not about abortion

You forgot the part where mrs totally ignores any real responses. And yeah.. it is off topic for this thread. Also, if it was not convincing the first time, then repeating it won't make people like your post any more.

[jgordon1111]

Lol player it seems when anyone hits the Mark with MRSWDK he doesn't respond, truth hurts maybe

[mrswdk]

My first post in this thread, and the central theme of all my following posts:

I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.

It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.

PLAYER's analysis:

your comments are not about abortion

You forgot the part where mrs totally ignores any real responses. And yeah.. it is off topic for this thread. Also, if it was not convincing the first time, then repeating it won't make people like your post any more.

It is entirely on topic. It is about where to draw the line (or whether to draw one at all) with regards to abortion. Show me how that is not on topic in a thread about abortion.

Feel free to point out the real responses. All I have gotten so far is incoherent rambling.

[jimboston]

Dear mrswdk,

You again twist my words, and continue to modify yours on the fly.

I never suggested that Gov't would or should let people die as soon as they get sick.

You projected that position on to me. Or at least said that I would rather let people become sick and infirm and try to replace them with someone else than treat them.

I said that, based on the world view you are espousing, the Gov't would do a cost-benefit analysis of the Healthcare System and Healthcare costs... and that they would not spend the kind of money they are on advanced healthcare... elder care, search and rescue, expensive/risky surgeries, etc. They would quickly determine that these were not cost-effective investments on their "human assets". Just like they do when deciding to remodel or build a new school.

I don't see any reason why the ways human capital is dealt with should not be subject to a cost-benefit analysis.

That said, you are assuming all sorts of treatments would be found to be ineffective by said cost-benefit analysis. Who says they would be? I didn't.

I'm extrapolating your ideas to the next level.
You deny my extrapolation is valid... and then agree with it. LOL

I never said all treatments would not be cost effective. I said that advanced healthcare would not pass that test. Obviously basic treatment would make sense.

[jimboston]

You're right, it's not debate when I state my position and everyone shouts me down and tells me I'm disgusting, but consistently refuses to provide any real reason for refuting my ideas. That is, as you say, badgering.

... but not everyone shouts you down and tells you you're disgusting.

I mean, I certainly do tell you that your stated views are disgusting when I find them to be so.

I do however provide real reasonable arguments to refute you're position. You however refuse to ever acknowledge anyone else's valid points. Perhaps if you were more open minded to other people's points, they might be more receptive to your views. However, if you ignore other people's valid points... then you're not going to engender reciprocal consideration. Sorry.

[jimboston]

Just for the record, I don't live in China and I do think that post-birth infanticide can be morally justified in at least some cases.

Please provide examples where you feel this is so.

[PLAYER57832]

I never said all treatments would not be cost effective. I said that advanced healthcare would not pass that test. Obviously basic treatment would make sense.

This actually is a valid point, but one we dance around. Part of my premise, both in terms of cost and when abortions should be allowed (not even saying OK, just allowed), is that when so many folks either completely opt out, or just say "here is my position", particularly when they that without bothering to verify evidence or not, then we wind up with nothing but extremists on both sides to make our decisions.

This is happening right now in abortion. A lot of churches are just taking the "its no--period" stance, no matter how impractical or non-scientific. A lot of others just say "its done.. no more discussion needed)". In either case, we wind up with folks saying "hey abortion is great" versus those saying things like "abortion is mostly supported by a bunch of money-grabbers who could care less about women or children".

The truth? The truth is that we can no longer rest on the ideas of the past, when science has advanced to such an extent. It was OK to say "let God decide" when that is what we really and truly meant. is not OK to say that when what we really mean is "let God decide as long as its the outcome I like, but if not, then I have the right to say they are not following God, I am.".

It also does not matter if the people taking these positions refer to God or not, though a large number do. The point is that if science has not already reached the point, it will soon reach the point where its no longer OK to say that if we can manage to get a child to live, then that is what we are supposed to do.

[jimboston]

Literally no one has actually given any substantive reason why it would never be okay to terminate late or post-birth. Just ranted and raved. I don't think I'm the one avoiding a serious discussion here.

If it's OK for you to terminate at 4 months... then it would be OK at 8 months... and it would also be OK at 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, or 25 years. As a society and race we have the generally accepted view that killing is wrong. It's not incumbent on us to prove that killing a 4 months old is wrong, or different than killing a 25 year old. It's incumbent on YOU to make the argument that there IS a difference.

[MagnusGreeol]

- I am going to give my opinion on abortion. First of all it should totally be up to women, Men can't make a woman have a baby they don't want for whatever reason. If a baby is to be aborted, I believe it should preferably be done within 2-2/12 months of pregnancy. There are a bunch of reasons why a woman would want to do this, rape, incest, very young mistake and other reasons I'm sure others could come up with, But first and foremost it is for women to debate, not men I believe. Now as for mrswdk, the outlook about abortion from 2-9 months is crazy, then the idea of killing a baby even after its born is insane. If a woman goes 9 months, has the baby, then decided ”nahh, this ain't for me", You seem to think its OK to kill it??? I'm seriously done with this topic, mrswdk if you are a man, then according to what you believe in this topic and the Religion/Homosexuality topic, Is that you like to have sex with children, and you have it in you to kill babies, therefore, You are one sick bastard, I usually keep my cool, But your so out of focus, I'm losing my cool. One more absurd stupid post from you, and I'm going straight to administration, As a matter of fact, I might screen shot all your posts here and in other topic (Religion and Homosexuality) and contact other authorities to investigate you. Keep your sick thoughts to yourself. I have 2 daughters, and I'm sure whoever lives near you with children would like to know how you feel about sex with children. I'm off topic añd don't give a f*ck.

\MGM/♎