Good Fellas Hilarious

Right on!
1z0cil.gif (click to show)

[image deleted]

go drown in it, i dont care. he wont be getting out of that tub any time soon

Only if they can take it from me

Ah, you see my point.

The good people are. - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/20/us-gun-owners-destroy-rifles-oneless-response-florida-school/

And if you know anything about US firearm laws, you would realize many committed a felony by how they went about it. Which just goes to show their lack of understanding of firearms and the legislation surrounding those firearms.

So, no reasonable response? Or further factual discussion? Just eye rolling?

When anti-abortion activists think they can stop abortions from happening.

Actually, I many (though not all of course) anti-abortion activists know that some people will still be intent on killing their own children to avoid responsibility. Anti-abortion activists are not trying to ban any medical tools used for the act of abortion, but rather want the act itself to be punishable. That some people will disobey the law is obvious, which is why we want justice against criminals instead of the naive hope that crime will just stop.

I get the whole abortion is wrong if you are just a naive irrespobsible person and have consensual sex.. but what if the person wanting to abort their baby was trying to abort a Child conceived of a non consensual act such as rape? In your eyes, is it still wrong to abort the child in that case?

The rape situation, though tragic, is one of those cases where "two wrongs don't make a right".

"...just a naive irresponsible person and have consensual sex..."
98% of all abortions performed in the US.

"... trying to abort a child conceived of a non consensual act..."
Less than 2% of US abortions.

Criminalize the former and I'd gladly compromise on the latter, even though you cannot rationally justify the execution of one human being for the crime of another.

* Statistics courtesy of The Guttsmacher Institute, an "pro-choice" thinktank.

Fair enough. Still, why is someone's abortion an anti-abortionist's business?

Why is the murder of someone anyone else's business?

That question bears the basic assumption that abortion is a private and morally neutral choice that only effects the woman. It is arguing from a basis that is not applicable to pro-lifers, and would be unconvincing even if it was true.

There are several reasons why I would be concerned. The first and most obvious is the moral principle: I'm anti-murder, and consider abortion to be the killing of an innocent human being. In addition to that, abortion is cutting short our population growth, which many economic outlooks (including social security) have relied on. Because of abortion, there are fewer problem-solvers being born, fewer productive members being added to society (of course, that is a relatively minor reason compared to the moral principle, but it is still a reason none the less)

"That question bears the basic assumption that abortion is a private and morally neutral choice that only effects the woman."

That answer bears the basic assumption that my question isn't worth answering.

"The first and most obvious is the moral principle: I'm anti-murder, and consider abortion to be the killing of an innocent human being."

The difference being is that the someone who has been born with a parent who couldn't afford a child will lead a horrible life, while the person who has been aborted has just gained a peaceful death without having to worry a thing about poverty. From the basis of what is applicable in the pro-life view, a person who is aborted is murdered, while the people who live in poverty, or are born in such, are lazy.

"In addition to that, abortion is cutting short our population growth, which many economic outlooks (including social security) have relied on."

The economy will obviously be doomed if we don't have 7 billion humans on our planet. Meanwhile, resources are being sucked out of the planet at an exponential rate. A little known fact about abortion is that it curves the economy upward rather than downward. When millions of people have these horrible abortions, they also pay good money for it. If abortion clinics were banned and closed, imagine how well the economy will go when millions of home-done abortions are happening for free.

"Because of abortion, there are fewer problem-solvers being born, fewer productive members being added to society"

There are also millions of people being born. Secondly, the kids being born at this rate are usually the kids of millennials, so are you sure you want to continue the "geniuses are being murdered unborn" argument? Ok, on a serious note, that argument is a bit of a slippery slope, suggesting that if abortion is legal, fewer geniuses are born, because the people who have abortions aren't likely to pay for good education for their children anyway.

I did answer your question, by providing reasons why I would be concerned by abortion. What I meant by my remark was that you addressed me as if I had already bought into the root of your argument.

As for the "terrible life" argument, it means nothing if the unborn child is already alive (even the first cell has all the characteristics of biological life). Certainly, I think people who cannot afford to support a child should probably avoid having one, but my position asserts that they have already brought a child into poverty from the moment of conception. Unless you give some good reason to distinguish the unborn from the infant or the child, then the "terrible life" argument could be used to justify the something as heinous as burning down an orphanage. I know that poverty is terrible, and I know that it is not always the result of laziness (which is why I think charity is important), but I think poverty is better than death (not to mention that adoption is also an option).

As for the economic and societal reasons, I already stated they were minor. I don't really care if you prove me wrong about them (in-fact, I enjoy learning about economics and different views on society). Losing those reasons does nothing to my basic position, since morality is not a means to an end, but a worthy goal in and of itself.

So then, rather than trying to show how your conclusions flow logically from your premises (I admit that they do), let's get to the very root of the debate with two simple questions: "at what point does human life begin?" and "under what circumstances, if any, is it acceptable to end a human life?" Both our positions flow logically from how we answer those questions. This is not a matter of how we reason from our premises, but of which premise is right.

right!!! anti criminal. so are you for or against gun control?

do you see the flawed logic here?

afterwards I'll tell you my stance on gun control and abortion. it could be the same as yours. ;-)

i just trying to educate ppl. I'm anti politics, anti abortion, anti gun control. politics is just hollywood for ugly ppl. was nice talking with you. :-)

rlly? criminals break laws, right? therefore, stopping good people from owning guns wont stop them from getting them, in fact, it will make it worse as no one can protect themselves from a criminal who DID get a gun.

There are two kinds of gun control that I support: ones that specifically target people with violent records, and laws against the irresponsible or malicious use of guns. Both of these are already in law, and so creating more laws to stop the people already breaking those laws would be futile. I might support some refinement in the way these laws are enforced (although I would have to be better educated first, since I don't know the particulars), but I think it would be foolish to support any additional laws restricting the ownership of guns or the practice of self-defense.

Actually, we can and we are - one clinic closing at a time.

Is clinic closing really going to prevent secret home abortions?

No, but they'll be dangerous and illegal, so I imagine far fewer babies will be getting slaughtered.

Did you know planned parenthood does more than abortions? They do cancer screenings and other things, and they legally can’t use government funds for abortions.

And that excuses murder?

So they use government funds for other expenses, thus, freeing up more money to use for abortions. There are plenty of other clinics that do cancer screenings and other stuff. But abortions are the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood and they only reason it exists.

Bullshit comment is bullshit.

Planned Parenthood DOES NOT do cancer screenings. They refer you to other agencies and organizations that DO the screenings, and claim credit for it.

Good point, but it would be fewer. I'm totally against abortion, but my main thing is my tax money going toward (majority) woman who dont plan their parenthood.
Wait, planned parenthood, abortions, that's false advertising!

We should at least not have to pay for them.

I agree. Atheists shouldn't have to pay taxes for the government to give to churches either.

They don’t

Maybe not, but churches do get a tax dodge.

Yes, so do most non-profit organizations. The point is, they don’t receive money from the government, much less from atheists via taxes.

The difference being that churches get more money from their members than that of non-profit organizations.

Churches *are* non-profit organizations.