EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 597
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On November 03 2013 01:26 Nyxisto wrote: The difference between abortion and the "why don't you spend money to save some lifes" thing is: I'm not directly responsible for every suffering in the world ( at least not in any practical sense) but i am directly responsible for impregnating someone / getting pregnant. No one forces you to get a child, so in my eyes your responsibility should at least be to carry it out. Your argument sounds a little bit like. "Hey it's really hypocritical of you to put that guy into prison, just because he robbed a bank, we're all criminals, in our own way we all get money that we didn't earn in this or that way" Sure theoretically speaking that may be true, but practically speaking it doesn't make much sense to run a society that way. Sure you can argue that life is pretty cheap, and just because we don't donate our money to save the children we also can shit on every other form of morality. Although i personally think that that's a really shitty attitude there's not much to argue against it. Same thing as with KwarK's argument. Of course it doesn't make much sense to call someone a murderer because he uses a condom. The same way it doesn't make sense to accuse an actual murderer of murdering a bazillion people because of all the potential siblings he could have theoretically killed. But practically you have to draw a line somewhere. And a fetus is not just a theoretical possibility anymore. It already exists. And to assume that it will grow up is not some kind of logical implication, it is a very tangible. real thing. Carrying out an unwanted pregnancy seems like a potential penalty in itself. Adding a penalty for pacivity like a ban on abortion would be quite brutal towards the right of the pregnant. Where do you draw the line between neglect and provoced abortion and how do you assure the enforcement? Philosofically you can easily find some straws to hold onto when asking for the unborns right, but in practice it is more or less an unworkable religious idea based on ignoring any potential conflict between inalienable principles and the timing of realistic application. | ||
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On November 03 2013 01:26 Nyxisto wrote: The difference between abortion and the "why don't you spend money to save some lifes" thing is: I'm not directly responsible for every suffering in the world ( at least not in any practical sense) but i am directly responsible for impregnating someone / getting pregnant. No one forces you to get a child, so in my eyes your responsibility should at least be to carry it out. Your argument sounds a little bit like. "Hey it's really hypocritical of you to put that guy into prison, just because he robbed a bank, we're all criminals, in our own way we all get money that we didn't earn in this or that way" Sure theoretically speaking that may be true, but practically speaking it doesn't make much sense to run a society that way. Sure you can argue that life is pretty cheap, and just because we don't donate our money to save the children we also can shit on every other form of morality. Although i personally think that that's a really shitty attitude there's not much to argue against it. Sorry, at which point did having sex become comparable to robbing a bank? Why can't we just have sex and control our own bodies and do whatever the fuck we want with them and have the right to not have stuff growing inside us if we don't want it? As near as I can tell my argument is "pregnancy is an imposition upon the woman that she ought to have the right to opt out of" and yours is "yeah well we arrest bank robbers". I don't get the link. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 03 2013 02:18 KwarK wrote: Sorry, at which point did having sex become comparable to robbing a bank? Why can't we just have sex and control our own bodies and do whatever the fuck we want with them and have the right to not have stuff growing inside us if we don't want it? As near as I can tell my argument is "pregnancy is an imposition upon the woman that she ought to have the right to opt out of" and yours is "yeah well we arrest bank robbers". I don't get the link. Because the "stuff growing inside us" is an actual human being? You don't need to be religious a nut-bag to understand that. There are a thousand ways of having sex without getting pregnant and most of them are as cheap as a condom. You can't just seriously treat a fetus like it's some kind of garbage you can just throw in the trash can. You claim it's your body and you want to do with it whatever you want, but the unborn child also happens to have a body, it's a little unfortunate that it's placed inside the women's body, but does that mean it has no right to live or to be protected? All I'm saying is there is no fundamental difference between a 3 weeks old fetus,a 3 months old fetus, or a 3 year old kid. (at least in terms of what right to live it should have) | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
The best way to fix the whole issue is perfectly clear: invest in neonatal technology until we have artificial wombs, and safe embryological surgery. then a fetus or zygote can simply be transferred from the mother to an artificial womb, and the basis for having abortions (except in cases of major genetic disorders) goes away. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On November 03 2013 02:42 Nyxisto wrote: Because the "stuff growing inside us" is an actual human being? You don't need to be religious a nut-bag to understand that. There are a thousand ways of having sex without getting pregnant and most of them are as cheap as a condom. You can't just seriously treat a fetus like it's some kind of garbage you can just throw in the trash can. Uhm. No, it's not an actual human being. What? There aren't good anti-abortion laws. They do not exist. They put decisions that have to be in the hands of doctors and families and put them in the hands of bureaucrats. YOU don't get to decide what is and what is not a good reason to have an abortion. The woman does. Stop acting like women can't be trusted with their own life decisions. This is yet another example that threatens women's lives and autonomy. And don't act like pro-life isn't viciously and blatantly anti-contraception. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On November 03 2013 02:42 Nyxisto wrote: Because the "stuff growing inside us" is an actual human being? You don't need to be religious a nut-bag to understand that. There are a thousand ways of having sex without getting pregnant and most of them are as cheap as a condom. You can't just seriously treat a fetus like it's some kind of garbage you can just throw in the trash can. You claim it's your body and you want to do with it whatever you want, but the unborn child also happens to have a body, it's a little unfortunate that it's placed inside the women's body, but does that mean it has no right to live or to be protected? All I'm saying is there is no fundamental difference between a 3 weeks old fetus,a 3 months old fetus, or a 3 year old kid. (at least in terms of what right to live it should have) If you want to view your own fetus as sacred then you can worship at the altar of your own womb all day but what you're doing here is taking your own belief system and then telling another person what they can do with their body based upon beliefs they may not share. Furthermore you're using the law as a weapon to do this. I can view a fetus however I like, same as you, but neither of us ought to be able to legislate away someone else's body. If it's an actual human being it can take care of itself without you forcing a woman to do stuff she doesn't want to. It sucks that it's wholly dependent on another human being, I'll agree there, but that's too bad, it absolutely has no rights that supercede the wishes of the host. I don't especially believe in the sanctity of life and generally I find those that profess to to be hypocrites, especially when they only use it as a club to beat women with. A 3 month old fetus has no right to sustenance from its host. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
Presumably we all have an ethical problem with that. Can we explain why it's any different without resorting to "she deserved it for having sex"? Someone today needs your kidney. If you don't donate it they will die. Fact. That is the reality of life that has been around ever since we worked out how to do transplants, each and every one of us are living at the expense of other people, it is a zero sum game. Take whatever rationalisation you come up with for keeping your second kidney, even though it kills them, even though one kidney works just fine, that's why she's allowed to have an abortion. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 03 2013 03:02 KwarK wrote: If you want to view your own fetus as sacred then you can worship at the altar of your own womb all day but what you're doing here is taking your own belief system and then telling another person what they can do with their body based upon beliefs they may not share. Furthermore you're using the law as a weapon to do this. I can view a fetus however I like, same as you, but neither of us ought to be able to legislate away someone else's body. If it's an actual human being it can take care of itself without you forcing a woman to do stuff she doesn't want to. It sucks that it's wholly dependent on another human being, I'll agree there, but that's too bad, it absolutely has no rights that supercede the wishes of the host. I don't especially believe in the sanctity of life and generally I find those that profess to to be hypocrites, especially when they only use it as a club to beat women with. A 3 month old fetus has no right to sustenance from its host. You can try to drag this into the ridiculous as long as you want, but I'm not some 50 year old guy who beats his wife with a belt and visits the church 5 times a week. I just think that there is an inherent value to life, and that that includes unborn children. I don't need to be religious or in any way fanatic for that, and I also do not disrespect women's rights or want to ban abortion, but i think the interests of unborn children need to be considered. If it's an actual human being it can take care of itself without you forcing a woman to do stuff she doesn't want to. So everyone who can't take care of himself isn't an actual human being? Sorry but now you are sounding like the 16 year old guy in a metal shirt who has just read the Wikipedia-page about Darwinism. Presumably we all have an ethical problem with that. Can we explain why it's any different without resorting to "she deserved it for having sex"? Regarding the kidney analogy: If i stabbed him in his kidney that analogy would make a little more sense. This is not about "women deserving anything" or degrading women or some shit. It sucks that women have to give birth to a child and that it's not 50/50, but i did not invent the system. But saying "You created that child, so you have a certain degree of responsibility" isn't 'resorting' to anything it's just a legitimate point. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On November 03 2013 03:16 Nyxisto wrote: You can try to drag this into the ridiculous as long as you want, but I'm not some 50 year old guy who beats his wife with a belt and visits the church 5 times a week. I just think that there is an inherent value to life, and that that includes unborn children. I don't need to be religious or in any way fanatic for that, and I also do not disrespect women's rights or want to ban abortion, but i think the interests of unborn children need to be considered. So everyone who can't take care of himself isn't an actual human being? Sorry but now you are sounding like the 16 year old guy in a metal shirt who has just read the Wikipedia-page about Darwinism. You're arguing it is the same as an average man on the street, it clearly is not. It has no experiences, no knowledge, no interactions with the outside world, no freedom, no way of surviving without leeching nutrients and oxygen from another, it is not the same. People in comas certainly don't have the same value to me as someone out there living their life. I'm not about to start gassing them, in fact I'll happily pay my taxes into a system that keeps them alive, but if the coma guy and an actual person are stuck on a road and I can only pull one of them out of the way of a car I'm gonna pick the same one you and everyone else will pick. | ||
|
KaRnaGe[cF]
United States355 Posts
If you want to view your own fetus as sacred then you can worship at the altar of your own womb all day but what you're doing here is taking your own belief system and then telling another person what they can do with their body based upon beliefs they may not share. Furthermore you're using the law as a weapon to do this. I can view a fetus however I like, same as you, but neither of us ought to be able to legislate away someone else's body. If it's an actual human being it can take care of itself without you forcing a woman to do stuff she doesn't want to. It sucks that it's wholly dependent on another human being, I'll agree there, but that's too bad, it absolutely has no rights that supercede the wishes of the host. I don't especially believe in the sanctity of life and generally I find those that profess to to be hypocrites, especially when they only use it as a club to beat women with. A 3 month old fetus has no right to sustenance from its host. First off, what does religion have to do with abortion? Absolutely nothing. I am not religious and I am against abortion in most cases. Second of all you reason that anyone who is dependent upon another person should be terminated if nobody wants to take care of them. How would that work out for people with down syndrome or young children? By your standards when I'm tired of taking care of poor old Aunt Edna i could drag her ass out in the alley and put a bullet in her head. "Sorry Edna but your just a pain to care for anymore and i'm done!" If you don't think children of under the age of 10 aren't parasites then you have no true concept of parenthood, We can't just stop feeding them because you don't want to be a "host" anymore. I believe children should at least be given the right to life by adoption or foster parenting. You have the right not to get pregnant in the first place, not the right to kill life if you don't want to take responsibility to at least support it until the fetus is born and can be adopted. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On November 03 2013 03:16 Nyxisto wrote: Regarding the kidney analogy: If i stabbed him in his kidney that analogy would make a little more sense. This is not about "women deserving anything" or degrading women or some shit. It sucks that women have to give birth to a child and that it's not 50/50, but i did not invent the system. But saying "You created that child, so you have a certain degree of responsibility" isn't 'resorting' to anything it's just a legitimate point. You're attempting to wash your hands of responsibility for an imposition you are making on their body, legally forcing them into a role as an incubator for another, by saying you didn't invent the system. No, you didn't invent pregnancy, that happened on its own but that certainly doesn't absolve you of guilt every time you tell a woman her body is not her own. Your beliefs don't penetrate her womb. If you're going to insist that you have the right to legislate to force women to carry pregnancies to term then don't try to abdicate responsibility to nature, at least admit to believing you have that right. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On November 03 2013 03:23 KaRnaGe[cF] wrote: + Show Spoiler + If you want to view your own fetus as sacred then you can worship at the altar of your own womb all day but what you're doing here is taking your own belief system and then telling another person what they can do with their body based upon beliefs they may not share. Furthermore you're using the law as a weapon to do this. I can view a fetus however I like, same as you, but neither of us ought to be able to legislate away someone else's body. If it's an actual human being it can take care of itself without you forcing a woman to do stuff she doesn't want to. It sucks that it's wholly dependent on another human being, I'll agree there, but that's too bad, it absolutely has no rights that supercede the wishes of the host. I don't especially believe in the sanctity of life and generally I find those that profess to to be hypocrites, especially when they only use it as a club to beat women with. A 3 month old fetus has no right to sustenance from its host. First off, what does religion have to do with abortion? Absolutely nothing. I am not religious and I am against abortion in most cases. Second of all you reason that anyone who is dependent upon another person should be terminated if nobody wants to take care of them. How would that work out for people with down syndrome or young children? By your standards when I'm tired of taking care of poor old Aunt Edna i could drag her ass out in the alley and put a bullet in her head. "Sorry Edna but your just a pain to care for anymore and i'm done!" If you don't think children of under the age of 10 aren't parasites then you have no true concept of parenthood, We can't just stop feeding them because you don't want to be a "host" anymore. I believe children should at least be given the right to life by adoption or foster parenting. You have the right not to get pregnant in the first place, not the right to kill life if you don't want to take responsibility to at least support it until the fetus is born and can be adopted. Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of kids are already being shuffled from foster home to foster home or from group home to juvenile detention center? It isn't exactly difficult to figure out that the demographic most concerned with having access to clean, safe, and danger free abortions is also the poorest and most likely to include minorities. Where is your campaign for youth soup kitchens, before-school breakfast programs, and expanded/improved foster parent systems? Oh wait, this isn't actually about pragmatically bettering the lives of children, this is about imposing a rigid moral framework onto pregnancy that clearly cares less about reality than ideology. I won't even draw up the numbers, but if one compares the state of being poor and young in the US with the amount of money religious conservatives spend on billboards, protests, and ballot initiatives intended to dramatically restrict abortion, the truth of the matter is plain to see. This isn't actually about children at all. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On November 03 2013 03:23 KaRnaGe[cF] wrote: + Show Spoiler + If you want to view your own fetus as sacred then you can worship at the altar of your own womb all day but what you're doing here is taking your own belief system and then telling another person what they can do with their body based upon beliefs they may not share. Furthermore you're using the law as a weapon to do this. I can view a fetus however I like, same as you, but neither of us ought to be able to legislate away someone else's body. If it's an actual human being it can take care of itself without you forcing a woman to do stuff she doesn't want to. It sucks that it's wholly dependent on another human being, I'll agree there, but that's too bad, it absolutely has no rights that supercede the wishes of the host. I don't especially believe in the sanctity of life and generally I find those that profess to to be hypocrites, especially when they only use it as a club to beat women with. A 3 month old fetus has no right to sustenance from its host. First off, what does religion have to do with abortion? Absolutely nothing. I am not religious and I am against abortion in most cases. Second of all you reason that anyone who is dependent upon another person should be terminated if nobody wants to take care of them. How would that work out for people with down syndrome or young children? By your standards when I'm tired of taking care of poor old Aunt Edna i could drag her ass out in the alley and put a bullet in her head. "Sorry Edna but your just a pain to care for anymore and i'm done!" If you don't think children of under the age of 10 aren't parasites then you have no true concept of parenthood, We can't just stop feeding them because you don't want to be a "host" anymore. I believe children should at least be given the right to life by adoption or foster parenting. You have the right not to get pregnant in the first place, not the right to kill life if you don't want to take responsibility to at least support it until the fetus is born and can be adopted. Nowhere did I argue that we should gas everyone dependent. I argued that picking an individual and legally forcing them to put the life of another before themselves is a huge imposition upon personal freedom and a moral black hole. Also you've completely missed the point of a positive intervention versus a negative one, you've likened refusing to let Edna live in your room, eat your food, fuck up your organs and drug you to murdering her, that comparison doesn't work. Abortion isn't about a special permission to kill babies that only women get, abortion is about women having the right to choose not to have to endure pregnancy. I'm not saying you get to shoot Edna, I'm saying the government coming along and calling you a murderer for not wanting a life where Edna doesn't fuck with your body every day is reasonable and if Edna can't live without sprinkling a little poison on your cornflakes every morning then you should be able to let her die. Now as a society we do let people choose not to let care of other people and we pay taxes and collectivise that shit but that doesn't work with pregnancy which sucks but I can be for abortion and still be against Edna dying because your analogy was awful. If you wanna stop feeding your kids then put them up for adoption. I'll think you're a shitty parent but I won't think I have the right to enslave you over it. That's the issue here. | ||
|
KaRnaGe[cF]
United States355 Posts
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of kids are already being shuffled from foster home to foster home or from group home to juvenile detention center? It isn't exactly difficult to figure out that the demographic most concerned with having access to clean, safe, and danger free abortions is also the poorest and most likely to include minorities. Where is your campaign for youth soup kitchens, before-school breakfast programs, and expanded/improved foster parent systems? Oh wait, this isn't actually about pragmatically bettering the lives of children, this is about imposing a rigid moral framework onto pregnancy that clearly cares less about reality than ideology. I won't even draw up the numbers, but if one compares the state of being poor and young in the US with the amount of money religious conservatives spend on billboards, protests, and ballot initiatives intended to dramatically restrict abortion, the truth of the matter is plain to see. This isn't actually about children at all. I think we should put more money into the poor and homeless. Once again you are meshing abortion with religion. Not only am i not religious i'm also have liberal beliefs! That's right i believe in gay marriage and I'm against abortions! Maybe I'm just in the minority for thinking on my own. See you automatically throw me into some type of demographic because this is how you have been tooled to see things. It's frustrating. Life if life to me and this is the way i feel about it. A fetus is human life, in a non-religious, scientific sort of way and there is no denying that fact, Yes it is not as self aware as life that is outside of the womb, but it is human life none the less. Just as Kwark will pay taxes for people on life support and the mentally challenged, i will pay taxes to help children that otherwise would have been snuffed out because their parent did not want to take care of them. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On November 03 2013 01:26 Nyxisto wrote: The difference between abortion and the "why don't you spend money to save some lifes" thing is: I'm not directly responsible for every suffering in the world ( at least not in any practical sense) but i am directly responsible for impregnating someone / getting pregnant. No one forces you to get a child, so in my eyes your responsibility should at least be to carry it out. Your argument sounds a little bit like. "Hey it's really hypocritical of you to put that guy into prison, just because he robbed a bank, we're all criminals, in our own way we all get money that we didn't earn in this or that way" Sure theoretically speaking that may be true, but practically speaking it doesn't make much sense to run a society that way. Sure you can argue that life is pretty cheap, and just because we don't donate our money to save the children we also can shit on every other form of morality. Although i personally think that that's a really shitty attitude there's not much to argue against it. Same thing as with KwarK's argument. Of course it doesn't make much sense to call someone a murderer because he uses a condom. The same way it doesn't make sense to accuse an actual murderer of murdering a bazillion people because of all the potential siblings he could have theoretically killed. But practically you have to draw a line somewhere. And a fetus is not just a theoretical possibility anymore. It already exists. And to assume that it will grow up is not some kind of logical implication, it is a very tangible. real thing. It might, so might my skin cell if I clone it. The thing is that at that point it is not a person (due to lack of nervous system) and thus has much lower priority than the mother. People seem to love those absolutist arguments (on both sides), where we decry absolute statement as our assumption and follow from there, but all absolutist arguments are just running into one problem after another, theoretical, factual, moral, practical. Yours specifically runs into an issue of potentiality, where do you draw the line between system that will likely become a person and one that does not. System of sperm and egg 1 mikrometer from each other ready to merge have basically the same probability of becoming a person as the impregnated egg few seconds later. There is no practical difference between the two. Is me putting a barrier between them also murder ? Moral problem with your argument is that you put the same weight on value of a fetus and actual person. Doing so means that you will run into situations where following this logically into its final conclusion will lead you to things that I doubt you consider moral. Practical problem is of course that abortion is inevitable and you will have to devote significant resources into combating something that gives you no actual societal benefits. Practice shows us that the best way to lower number of abortions is to become modern liberal society with as low amount of poor people as possible. Bans and other similar approaches are counterproductive. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On November 03 2013 03:42 KaRnaGe[cF] wrote: I think we should put more money into the poor and homeless. Once again you are meshing abortion with religion. Not only am i not religious i'm also have liberal beliefs! That's right i believe in gay marriage and I'm against abortions! Maybe I'm just in the minority for thinking on my own. See you automatically throw me into some type of demographic because this is how you have been tooled to see things. It's frustrating. Life if life to me and this is the way i feel about it. A fetus is human life, in a non-religious, scientific sort of way and there is no denying that fact, Yes it is not as self aware as life that is outside of the womb, but it is human life none the less. Just as Kwark will pay taxes for people on life support and the mentally challenged, i will pay taxes to help children that otherwise would have been snuffed out because their parent did not want to take care of them. I don't need to throw you into some demographic; your appeal towards banning abortion revolves around a moral consideration for the plight of children, and what I am telling you is that if this were truly your motivation, you would be far more concerned with the children already outside of their mothers womb than with arguing the semantics of what constitutes a human life. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On November 03 2013 03:42 KaRnaGe[cF] wrote: i will pay taxes to help children that otherwise would have been snuffed out because their parent did not want to take care of them. What is at stake here is legally forcing women to give up their bodies as incubators, not you paying taxes. Your autonomy isn't threatened here, you are threatening that of others and saying "I'll happily pay my taxes to force other people to do shit" as if your consent to this arrangement is all that matters. It's not about your taxes, it's about their freedom. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On November 03 2013 03:42 KaRnaGe[cF] wrote: + Show Spoiler + Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of kids are already being shuffled from foster home to foster home or from group home to juvenile detention center? It isn't exactly difficult to figure out that the demographic most concerned with having access to clean, safe, and danger free abortions is also the poorest and most likely to include minorities. Where is your campaign for youth soup kitchens, before-school breakfast programs, and expanded/improved foster parent systems? Oh wait, this isn't actually about pragmatically bettering the lives of children, this is about imposing a rigid moral framework onto pregnancy that clearly cares less about reality than ideology. I won't even draw up the numbers, but if one compares the state of being poor and young in the US with the amount of money religious conservatives spend on billboards, protests, and ballot initiatives intended to dramatically restrict abortion, the truth of the matter is plain to see. This isn't actually about children at all. I think we should put more money into the poor and homeless. Once again you are meshing abortion with religion. Not only am i not religious i'm also have liberal beliefs! That's right i believe in gay marriage and I'm against abortions! Maybe I'm just in the minority for thinking on my own. See you automatically throw me into some type of demographic because this is how you have been tooled to see things. It's frustrating. Life if life to me and this is the way i feel about it. A fetus is human life, in a non-religious, scientific sort of way and there is no denying that fact, Yes it is not as self aware as life that is outside of the womb, but it is human life none the less. Just as Kwark will pay taxes for people on life support and the mentally challenged, i will pay taxes to help children that otherwise would have been snuffed out because their parent did not want to take care of them. Foetus is non-sentient human life, that is a big difference. There is absolutely no inherent value in human life itself. We pretend like there is so we do not have to complicate our ethical reasoning too much, since in most scenarios it is an ok assumption. But reality is complex and mental shortcuts like that human life in itself has value are not good approach in all scenarios. There is value in a person, not in a human life. | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On November 03 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: I don't need to throw you into some demographic; your appeal towards banning abortion revolves around a moral consideration for the plight of children, and what I am telling you is that if this were truly your motivation, you would be far more concerned with the children already outside of their mothers womb than with arguing the semantics of what constitutes a human life. It's a common attitude among pro-lifers, they are dead set upon protecting the child at all costs, until it's born, at which point it's pretty much good luck have fun. And then accuse the mother of being a murderer for not wanting to be saddled with a child as a single mother with almost no support for the next 20 years. Derp. | ||
| ||
