Why isn't abortion considered murder?
Comments
-
Isn't giving more money to the welfare recipient when they have another child defeat the purpose of welfare? Its supposed to be public aid/help not income to raise your future family. It should be used as a steping stone/building block to get your life back on track. I have no issue with a system like. Letting people continually have children while be supported by the gov. is only perpetuating the poverty problem.gimmesometruth27 wrote:
isn't deducting the money from the welfare recipient defeating the purpose of public aid and welfare? if you give them some money yet deduct from the menial sum that they receive, you are just perpetuating the poverty problem...HeidiJam wrote:I have said it in other thread before, you don't need to raise taxes, simply deduct money from the welfare recipiant check when they have a child that they can not take care of (cloth/feed/shelter) use that money and put it into a foster care/adoption program that way you are giving children a family that wants them and you are using already existing funded money.0 -
No, his would involve F-18As and "gnarlyisms".blackredyellow wrote:HeidiJam wrote:So then why do we have signs up around beaches that say "don't disturb the sea turle nest" same goes for animals going extinct?
This reminds me of an argument that Charlie Sheen would use for something.
That's all I'm going to add to this thread; you'll never convince anyone of anything on this topic.0 -
I really don’t understand why/how anyone can be so against welfare and be anti-abortion at the same time..
Its like some people just want to take away some conveniences to see some poor people suffer.
Heidi, I see where you’re going with the turtle egg thing, but it just has too many holes. We see your point, its just not a good analogy.
I believe that a woman should have the choice to abort a fetus up until the time it can live outside her womb on its own. Before that, I see it as an extension of her body. It cannot live without her = her choice.
The turtle eggs are “on their own”. They are not inside the mother still.. Some might hatch, some might not. We are attempting to prevent extinction and help the ecosystems thrive.
Personally, I don’t like abortion when used mainly as a contraception. But I feel it is necessary. We are coded to fuck. But if abortion were to become illegal, we’d see a shitload of back alley coat-hanger services and a rise in young/poor/single mothers. Bad outcome.Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)0 -
My question must have gotten lost in all of the focus on turtle eggs...
AGAIN...
Heidi... please, what is your stance on abortion in China, India and Africa?
Do you oppose abortion in China, india and Africa? (y/n/)
...
Thank you.Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
Heidi, you are clearly crazy and not here to share a discussion - seems to me you want everyone to follow your thought process or you will say they are wrong.
You are obviously anti abortion. Cant you just say that and be done?
Life is just not that simple.0 -
JonnyPistachio wrote:I really don’t understand why/how anyone can be so against welfare and be anti-abortion at the same time..
Its like some people just want to take away some conveniences to see some poor people suffer.
Heidi, I see where you’re going with the turtle egg thing, but it just has too many holes. We see your point, its just not a good analogy.
I believe that a woman should have the choice to abort a fetus up until the time it can live outside her womb on its own. Before that, I see it as an extension of her body. It cannot live without her = her choice.
The turtle eggs are “on their own”. They are not inside the mother still.. Some might hatch, some might not. We are attempting to prevent extinction and help the ecosystems thrive.
Personally, I don’t like abortion when used mainly as a contraception. But I feel it is necessary. We are coded to fuck. But if abortion were to become illegal, we’d see a shitload of back alley coat-hanger services and a rise in young/poor/single mothers. Bad outcome.
Ex: Look what happened to the actress Jane Russell 89 who just recently died. She had a botched back alley abortion way back when and was never able to have a child because of it. You are correct a bad outcome all around.
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
dude please, we all know that the sentence in large font is a load of crap and a lie. you are on here all of the time expressing your contempt for not only the welfare system, but a large number of the welfare recipients themselves. you are not fooling anyone with this post.HeidiJam wrote:
Isn't giving more money to the welfare recipient when they have another child defeat the purpose of welfare? Its supposed to be public aid/help not income to raise your future family. It should be used as a steping stone/building block to get your life back on track. I have no issue with a system like. Letting people continually have children while be supported by the gov. is only perpetuating the poverty problem.gimmesometruth27 wrote:
isn't deducting the money from the welfare recipient defeating the purpose of public aid and welfare? if you give them some money yet deduct from the menial sum that they receive, you are just perpetuating the poverty problem...HeidiJam wrote:I have said it in other thread before, you don't need to raise taxes, simply deduct money from the welfare recipiant check when they have a child that they can not take care of (cloth/feed/shelter) use that money and put it into a foster care/adoption program that way you are giving children a family that wants them and you are using already existing funded money.
how can you be anti abortion and anti welfare at the same time? it makes no sense."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
I do not support abortion. I feel that you are morally required not to kill it.Cosmo wrote:My question must have gotten lost in all of the focus on turtle eggs...
AGAIN...
Heidi... please, what is your stance on abortion in China, India and Africa?
Do you oppose abortion in China, india and Africa? (y/n/)
...
Thank you.0 -
Yeah, dude, like, you really know me...gimmesometruth27 wrote:dude please, we all know that the sentence in large font is a load of crap and a lie. you are on here all of the time expressing your contempt for not only the welfare system, but a large number of the welfare recipients themselves. you are not fooling anyone with this post.
how can you be anti abortion and anti welfare at the same time? it makes no sense.
How is being for restrictions/consequences make me anti-welfare???0 -
this whole language thing needs some improvement on this board. Listening (or reading comprehension) too.
Also, why are people still thinking in the whole Aristotlean sense of "either X, or not X"??? If you're over 25 years old and you still think the world is black and white then making sense of it all might be hopeless for you.Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.0 -
I don't understand how/why someone can be so against personal responsibility...JonnyPistachio wrote:I really don’t understand why/how anyone can be so against welfare and be anti-abortion at the same time..
Its like some people just want to take away some conveniences to see some poor people suffer.
Heidi, I see where you’re going with the turtle egg thing, but it just has too many holes. We see your point, its just not a good analogy.
I believe that a woman should have the choice to abort a fetus up until the time it can live outside her womb on its own. Before that, I see it as an extension of her body. It cannot live without her = her choice.
The turtle eggs are “on their own”. They are not inside the mother still.. Some might hatch, some might not. We are attempting to prevent extinction and help the ecosystems thrive.
Personally, I don’t like abortion when used mainly as a contraception. But I feel it is necessary. We are coded to fuck. But if abortion were to become illegal, we’d see a shitload of back alley coat-hanger services and a rise in young/poor/single mothers. Bad outcome.
The egg analogy was just to understand peoples logic on how people, that are pro-choice do not see the embryo/fetus as human, yet they see the need for a turtle egg to be protected. If your of the opinion that a embryo is not a human, same should go for an turtle embryo, so what is there to protect?
the human embryo is a human at the earliest stage of development, I am not sure what else there is to understand. People bring up that the turtle is endangered / value to the ecosystem. If you want to talk about future value, How many Einstein's, or Picasso, or Mozart do you think have been aborted so far?0 -
nobody is against personal responsibility. your opinion is that we live in a perfect world and everyone has personal responsibility unless they choose to not use it. the rest of us are being REALISTIC. there are a lot of fuck ups in this world, and a lot of the time it is not because of the choices that they make, which conservatives such as yourself seem to want to believe and force on to the rest of us. i don't know why the fuck republicans have to get involved in heath issues like abortion and keeping terri schiavo alive yet they are against helping out their fellow americans who need the help. i have stated, as well as others on here have stated that an embryo can not survive independent of the mother or significant medical technology to keep it alive, therefore it is not a living, viable human being. why don't you conservatives worry about your own life instead of trying to tell women how to run theirs? to those of you in favor of small government, getting involved with medical care and individuals health decisions is the greatest form of BIG GOVERNMENT and micromanaging.HeidiJam wrote:I don't understand how/why someone can be so against personal responsibility...
The egg analogy was just to understand peoples logic on how people, that are pro-choice do not see the embryo/fetus as human, yet they see the need for a turtle egg to be protected. If your of the opinion that a embryo is not a human, same should go for an turtle embryo, so what is there to protect?
the human embryo is a human at the earliest stage of development, I am not sure what else there is to understand. People bring up that the turtle is endangered / value to the ecosystem. If you want to talk about future value, How many Einstein's, or Picasso, or Mozart do you think have been aborted so far?
the difference, again a dead horse, between humans and turtles is the turtles are endangerd as a result of HUMAN activity. it is our duty to protect them because it could do further damage to our environment is we allow them to become extinct. human beings are not endangered. and as far as how many einsteins have been aborted, i can just as easily say how many hitlers or jeffrey dahmers have been aborted? it is pure speculation and in a scientific discussion has no merit. instead of looking at "what ifs" we should be looking at the situation as it is. i want to say to your churches and your politicians stay out of women's health issues."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
HeidiJam wrote:
Why??? I don't understand the hate around here for me, I may have harsh views on welfare people but that is because from my experience the system is abused beyone belief. Personal responsibility seems to be a foreign term around here. Its not the Gov. job to provide for you/your children. If you make it the gov. job then they should also be allow to put regulations and restrictions. I have a great love for humanity hence why I want people to be responsible especially then the gov. is providing your food/clothes/shelter, because the only people that suffer are children, and thats unacceptable to me.Byrnzie wrote:HeidiJam wrote:I have said it in other thread before, you don't need to raise taxes, simply deduct money from the welfare recipiant check when they have a child that they can not take care of (cloth/feed/shelter) use that money and put it into a foster care/adoption program that way you are giving children a family that wants them and you are using already existing funded money.
Do you consider yourself a philanthropist Heidijam?
Or does your love of humanity end at the point when a person is born?
I think it's the double-standards that are the problem. For instance, you go on and on about personal responsibility, yet at the same time want to limit people's options for taking responsibility.
Once a pregnancy has occurred, whether or not it is the result of a lack of personal responsibility to begin with, often times the most RESPONSIBLE thing to do at this point is to have an abortion - especially by your definition of responsibility being all about not bringing children into the world without a certain amount of money. And yet you want to FORCE pregnant women to have children.0 -
Heidi
Your opinion please on a lady impregnated as a result of rape?
Or pregnancy as a result of incest?
Still black and white?0 -
pdalowsky wrote:Heidi
Your opinion please on a lady impregnated as a result of rape?
Or pregnancy as a result of incest?
Still black and white?
oooh ooh can I answer?
it's okay to abort a baby if his/her daddy is an asshole (i.e. a rapist)
But if it is incest it should be saved because it'll have some weird mutation that people can laugh at... and that's what we need in this world; more humor.Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.0 -
HeidiJam wrote:
I don't understand how/why someone can be so against personal responsibility...JonnyPistachio wrote:I really don’t understand why/how anyone can be so against welfare and be anti-abortion at the same time..
Its like some people just want to take away some conveniences to see some poor people suffer.
Heidi, I see where you’re going with the turtle egg thing, but it just has too many holes. We see your point, its just not a good analogy.
I believe that a woman should have the choice to abort a fetus up until the time it can live outside her womb on its own. Before that, I see it as an extension of her body. It cannot live without her = her choice.
The turtle eggs are “on their own”. They are not inside the mother still.. Some might hatch, some might not. We are attempting to prevent extinction and help the ecosystems thrive.
Personally, I don’t like abortion when used mainly as a contraception. But I feel it is necessary. We are coded to fuck. But if abortion were to become illegal, we’d see a shitload of back alley coat-hanger services and a rise in young/poor/single mothers. Bad outcome.
The egg analogy was just to understand peoples logic on how people, that are pro-choice do not see the embryo/fetus as human, yet they see the need for a turtle egg to be protected. If your of the opinion that a embryo is not a human, same should go for an turtle embryo, so what is there to protect?
the human embryo is a human at the earliest stage of development, I am not sure what else there is to understand. People bring up that the turtle is endangered / value to the ecosystem. If you want to talk about future value, How many Einstein's, or Picasso, or Mozart do you think have been aborted so far?
I wonder how many Einsteins, Picassos, and Mozarts have not developed to their full potential because they had to go hungry when society turned their backs on them instead of providing their parents with sufficient assistance.
Regarding your turtle egg analogy:
1. I don't think you've addressed my point about the fact that we don't prohibit turtles from destroying their own eggs any more than we should prohibit women from ending their own pregnancies, and we don't allow people to end OTHER PEOPLE'S pregnancies any more than we allow people to destroy turtle eggs that aren't theirs. We also don't FORCE turtles to incubate their eggs, like you're suggesting we should force women to incubate their embyros.
2. I believe He Still Stands has answered your question repeatedly, by pointing out that life doesn't mean personhood.Post edited by _ on0 -
Either you think human embryo is human or not. Same with the turtle you either think the turtle embryo is a turtle or not, if you are of the opinion that the we need to save the turtle embryo then you are admitting that the embryo is alive and you are in support of ending a humans life. I am not religious nor conservative quit generalizing... and quit being a hypocrite...gimmesometruth27 wrote:nobody is against personal responsibility. your opinion is that we live in a perfect world and everyone has personal responsibility unless they choose to not use it. the rest of us are being REALISTIC. there are a lot of fuck ups in this world, and a lot of the time it is not because of the choices that they make, which conservatives such as yourself seem to want to believe and force on to the rest of us. i don't know why the fuck republicans have to get involved in heath issues like abortion and keeping terri schiavo alive yet they are against helping out their fellow americans who need the help. i have stated, as well as others on here have stated that an embryo can not survive independent of the mother or significant medical technology to keep it alive, therefore it is not a living, viable human being. why don't you conservatives worry about your own life instead of trying to tell women how to run theirs? to those of you in favor of small government, getting involved with medical care and individuals health decisions is the greatest form of BIG GOVERNMENT and micromanaging. Why do you keep refering me to a conservative??? So the environment defines what is human??? So you support abortion up till the due date, since there still inside the mother???
the difference, again a dead horse, between humans and turtles is the turtles are endangerd as a result of HUMAN activity. it is our duty to protect them because it could do further damage to our environment is we allow them to become extinct. human beings are not endangered. and as far as how many einsteins have been aborted, i can just as easily say how many hitlers or jeffrey dahmers have been aborted? it is pure speculation and in a scientific discussion has no merit. instead of looking at "what ifs" we should be looking at the situation as it is. i want to say to your churches and your politicians stay out of women's health issues.0 -
Defne personhood???_ wrote:I wonder how many Einsteins, Picassos, and Mozarts have not developed to their full potential because they had to go hungry when society turned their backs on them instead of providing their parents with sufficient assistance.
So its gov./society's job to raise someone else kids??? I though you were for small gov. Regarding your turtle egg analogy:
1. I don't think you've addressed my point about the fact that we don't prohibit turtles from destroying their own eggs any more than we should prohibit women from ending their own pregnancies, and we don't allow people to end OTHER PEOPLE'S pregnancies any more than we allow people to destroy turtle eggs that aren't theirs. My point with the egg analogy is: if you do not identify a human embryo as a human, then the turtle egg (embryo) is not a turtle, hence WHY ARE YOU PROTECTING THE EGG IF YOU DO NOT IDENTIFY IT AS A TURTLE.
2. I believe He Still Stands has answered your question repeatedly, by pointing out that life doesn't mean personhood.0 -
Heidi- Admitting that we need to protect turtle eggs is NOT admitting that they are turtles. It's admitting that there is a chance they may turn into turtles. Protecting them is giving them more of a chance to become turtles. That's it, that's all. Any simple minded fool can understand that. End of turtle discussion.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help