Did you read what we just said? It's obviously the child that suffers and not the parents if the child is allowed to be born.Here's how I feel. Abortion is wrong. It's acceptable in some cases, but for the most part only proven rape or when the mothers life is at risk. Besides that, there are not legit reasons. If an adult isn't ready for that responsibility, they can put the child up for adoption. They should take the consecuences that come from their actions, and the avoidance is what causes the problems. Looking at it another way, how long will it be before it get's to a completely unethical point? Now it's "Only during the first trimester" but eventually, it would work its way to "Only in the first 7 months." That's how morals and ethics erode, slowly over time so the people that are being affected don't realize it. Then, from a religious perspective, it's a life given by God, or whatever your religion chooses to call him. He dosn't put life on the Earth only to never even be born. From the constitutional point of view....I'm not even gonna go there, it's been said many many times. People just need to learn self control. In the immortal words of Horton the Elephant, "A person's a person, no matter how small."
Abortions
#401
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 841 posts
Asian fetishist and Android fanboy
Posted 13 September 2008 - 03:06 AM
Laziest mod - Shadow
Worst Signature - Milo, Finalage, Shadow
OH MY GOD, I'm becoming black.
#402
Guest_trumpetwiz
-
- Guest
Posted 13 September 2008 - 03:19 AM
That's terrible logic. That, or a very emo look at life. The third option being you don't comprehend the value of life. Just a thought, theres a saying that says "It's better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all." I believe the same applies for life. There is no reason a child should suffer from being born. Life is a blessing, no matter how unpleasent it is, and is always better to live through than to give up on it. No almost-parents try to give mercy to an unborn child by getting an abortion. That's a lame excuse for someone who dosn't feel like going through the pregnancy. There are a number of ways to deal with the childs birth if the parents think they are unfit or unprepared emotionaly of financialy. For instance, adoption. There are people who'd be willing to take in the child. With a little hard work, there can always be a way to make sure the child lives a life that isn't constant suffering.Did you read what we just said? It's obviously the child that suffers and not the parents if the child is allowed to be born.
#403
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 841 posts
Asian fetishist and Android fanboy
Posted 13 September 2008 - 05:02 PM
Of course I comprehend the value of life. The point is, though, that the fetus is not "alive" yet in terms of being anything more than an organism. There's no nervous system, no brain, no sentience, no realization of being alive.That's terrible logic. That, or a very emo look at life. The third option being you don't comprehend the value of life. Just a thought, theres a saying that says "It's better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all." I believe the same applies for life. There is no reason a child should suffer from being born. Life is a blessing, no matter how unpleasent it is, and is always better to live through than to give up on it. No almost-parents try to give mercy to an unborn child by getting an abortion. That's a lame excuse for someone who dosn't feel like going through the pregnancy. There are a number of ways to deal with the childs birth if the parents think they are unfit or unprepared emotionaly of financialy. For instance, adoption. There are people who'd be willing to take in the child. With a little hard work, there can always be a way to make sure the child lives a life that isn't constant suffering.
Laziest mod - Shadow
Worst Signature - Milo, Finalage, Shadow
OH MY GOD, I'm becoming black.
#404
Guest_lol987654
-
- Guest
Posted 14 September 2008 - 03:40 AM
#405
Guest_animaatje
-
- Guest
Posted 14 September 2008 - 07:33 PM
#406
Guest_popprs
-
- Guest
Posted 14 September 2008 - 08:36 PM
You're forgetting a key argument against your stance. Where do all the children go when put in foster homes?There were 523,000 children in foster homes and 278,000 children were adopted 2002, but 295,000 children were admitted that year as well. There were 854,122 legal abortions in 2002. If people were to cease getting abortions, I can only imagine how much more crowded, stressed, and exhausted our child services would become. I'm sure that the government would respond, but can we continue to respond when each year when about 850,000 children are added?I just did a quick search on google for the numbers. They seem to be on par, but if you're skeptical of my statistics, here are the sources.That's terrible logic. That, or a very emo look at life. The third option being you don't comprehend the value of life. Just a thought, theres a saying that says "It's better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all." I believe the same applies for life. There is no reason a child should suffer from being born. Life is a blessing, no matter how unpleasent it is, and is always better to live through than to give up on it. No almost-parents try to give mercy to an unborn child by getting an abortion. That's a lame excuse for someone who dosn't feel like going through the pregnancy. There are a number of ways to deal with the childs birth if the parents think they are unfit or unprepared emotionaly of financialy. For instance, adoption. There are people who'd be willing to take in the child. With a little hard work, there can always be a way to make sure the child lives a life that isn't constant suffering.
[ http://www.acf.hhs.g...cars/trends.htm ][ http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/ss5407a1.htm ]
#407
Guest_behindthenine
-
- Guest
Posted 14 September 2008 - 08:52 PM
wow, those are very interesting numbers. over 800,000 abortions? i wonder what the numbers are like in 2007? and thats a very good point. that is a lot of kids to be admitted into child services. its bad enough right now, much less with more than twice as many added. this only strengthens my belief that abortions shouldnt be agaisnt the law.You're forgetting a key argument against your stance. Where do all the children go when put in foster homes?There were 523,000 children in foster homes and 278,000 children were adopted 2002, but 295,000 children were admitted that year as well. There were 854,122 legal abortions in 2002. If people were to cease getting abortions, I can only imagine how much more crowded, stressed, and exhausted our child services would become. I'm sure that the government would respond, but can we continue to respond when each year when about 850,000 children are added?I just did a quick search on google for the numbers. They seem to be on par, but if you're skeptical of my statistics, here are the sources.
#408
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 841 posts
Asian fetishist and Android fanboy
Posted 14 September 2008 - 09:49 PM
Laziest mod - Shadow
Worst Signature - Milo, Finalage, Shadow
OH MY GOD, I'm becoming black.
#409
Guest_Christlicher Soldat
-
- Guest
Posted 17 September 2008 - 12:06 AM
#410
Guest_popprs
-
- Guest
Posted 17 September 2008 - 01:02 AM
Did you read any other comments? We're talking about our ability to maintain their lives. Please feel free to read any of the posts above you. We're not just talking about their quality of life. We're talking about where, or who will care for their lives. There are close to a million abortions a year and the foster care system is already underfunded and understaffed while maintaining a constant rate of about 500,000 kids a year. On top of all of that, we're in a recession. You propose how we deal with an influx of about a million kids per year on a system straining with half a million? I enjoy the irony that you think that the pro-choice are ignorant to the main ,possibly the only, argument of the pro-life.I enjoy the irony of watching "pro-choice" proponents make arguments from quality of life. As though they weren't depriving the unborn child the right to choose whether his life sucks or not.
#411
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 841 posts
Asian fetishist and Android fanboy
Posted 17 September 2008 - 01:36 AM
Do you read the thread or do you just read the thread title, click quick reply, and type in whatever you feel like without keeping up with what we said? People like you are the reason that so many people don't do good research like popprs does. The child's life INEVITABLY will suck because life in foster homes is already bad with 500,000 kids. Imagine adding 1,000,000 to that number!I enjoy the irony of watching "pro-choice" proponents make arguments from quality of life. As though they weren't depriving the unborn child the right to choose whether his life sucks or not.
Laziest mod - Shadow
Worst Signature - Milo, Finalage, Shadow
OH MY GOD, I'm becoming black.
#412
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 17 September 2008 - 03:36 AM
Perhaps our system needs some reforming then. I'm curious, if we made our adoption system much better, would you be against abortions?Do you read the thread or do you just read the thread title, click quick reply, and type in whatever you feel like without keeping up with what we said? People like you are the reason that so many people don't do good research like popprs does. The child's life INEVITABLY will suck because life in foster homes is already bad with 500,000 kids. Imagine adding 1,000,000 to that number!
#413
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 841 posts
Asian fetishist and Android fanboy
Posted 17 September 2008 - 03:44 AM
Could you guarantee that every child in the world would have a home to live in and that parents who were unfit mentally or financially to raise children would not be allowed to? Sure, if that ever happens I'd switch sides, but it won't so don't worry.Perhaps our system needs some reforming then. I'm curious, if we made our adoption system much better, would you be against abortions?
Laziest mod - Shadow
Worst Signature - Milo, Finalage, Shadow
OH MY GOD, I'm becoming black.
#414
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 17 September 2008 - 04:13 AM
Well, let's talk civilized countries, and from there lets talk the US. You ought to know that it's impossible to please everybody, but if we got it a lot better (like got the "bad experience ratio" down to maybe <20%) how about that? I for one would rather have the chance to pick my own destiny than have it picked by someone who's thoughts are probably clouded by fear (if you're talking the unprepared parents reason).Could you guarantee that every child in the world would have a home to live in and that parents who were unfit mentally or financially to raise children would not be allowed to? Sure, if that ever happens I'd switch sides, but it won't so don't worry.
#415
Guest_popprs
-
- Guest
Posted 17 September 2008 - 07:44 AM
Someone who didn't read the previous posts. We don't have the resources. I don't understand how hard that is to gulp down. When we take 1 million children in a year, we have to clothe them, feed them, care for them, and find homes for them. Foster care maintenance fees would hit the roof, break the roof and tear the airplane in the sky apart.Well, let's talk civilized countries, and from there lets talk the US. You ought to know that it's impossible to please everybody, but if we got it a lot better (like got the "bad experience ratio" down to maybe <20%) how about that? I for one would rather have the chance to pick my own destiny than have it picked by someone who's thoughts are probably clouded by fear (if you're talking the unprepared parents reason).
#416
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 17 September 2008 - 04:55 PM
You are a person. A foetus is not a person. A foetus is something that could potentially become a person, much like sperm or an egg. Without a whole lot of other components; they are virtually useless things that are not sentient. Just thought I'd add that to what popprs said already.Well, let's talk civilized countries, and from there lets talk the US. You ought to know that it's impossible to please everybody, but if we got it a lot better (like got the "bad experience ratio" down to maybe <20%) how about that? I for one would rather have the chance to pick my own destiny than have it picked by someone who's thoughts are probably clouded by fear (if you're talking the unprepared parents reason).
#417
Guest_behindthenine
-
- Guest
Posted 17 September 2008 - 05:27 PM
its nearly impossible to do that for america. were owe too much as it is, and were never gonna pay back our debt from whatever war we spent it on because what multi-billion dollar resource are we gonna give up to pay off that debt and in turn give enough money to help with foster care? social security? are we gonna ask professional ball players(any sport) to donate more money than they already are? people donate money all the time to foster homes, and they still have trouble because there are so many kids. so america would have to make overly drastic changes in the economy in order to get enough money to help a million kids in foster homes. not to mention that out economy is in a very precarios position right now as it is withought trying to change it. like popprs said, it would tear us apart.Well, let's talk civilized countries, and from there lets talk the US. You ought to know that it's impossible to please everybody, but if we got it a lot better (like got the "bad experience ratio" down to maybe <20%) how about that? I for one would rather have the chance to pick my own destiny than have it picked by someone who's thoughts are probably clouded by fear (if you're talking the unprepared parents reason).
#418
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 17 September 2008 - 11:39 PM
#419
Guest_Christlicher Soldat
-
- Guest
Posted 18 September 2008 - 12:58 AM
Yes, that's exactly what I did. I completely ignored all comments that came before mine and by blind chance managed stick a barb that was relevant to the post made just before mine and that neither you nor poppr actually addressed -- the issue of internal coherence within your position's rhetoric.Do you read the thread or do you just read the thread title, click quick reply, and type in whatever you feel like without keeping up with what we said? People like you are the reason that so many people don't do good research like popprs does. The child's life INEVITABLY will suck because life in foster homes is already bad with 500,000 kids. Imagine adding 1,000,000 to that number!
#420
Guest_popprs
-
- Guest
Posted 18 September 2008 - 01:22 AM
If you're going to make an argument with numbers, you find the numbers. What a waste of a post..These are numbers taken from an article on inadequate pay for foster parents."[A] MARC study drives home the point in dollars and cents. For a two-year-old foster child, the study reported, Colorado pays an average of $348 a month. According to the study, the actual costs for that child, exclusive of child care and transportation, are $659 per month. As the child ages, the disparity grows. At age nine, the report says Colorado pays just $392 of a monthly cost of $755. At age 16, the reimbursement is $423 for a child costing $828 a month."We will, for ease of numbers, only count 3 years without abortions.Year zero: with abortions, federal funding for foster homes is at about 4 billion dollars, 4,000,000,000.Year 1: no abortions, The first batch of unwanted babies, 854,122 of them, are delivered to foster homes around the country. All the children combined will cost approximately 562 hundred million dollars.Just in case you're a number-retarded, it's 520,000,000ish for the first year.Year 2:no abortions, The second batch will also cost the same amount, but the first batch are still there, theoretically(I will explain why none have been adopted so far down a little further). That means that the price for the children will double. That would be a billion dollars this year to take care of the abortion kids.Year 3: no abortions, The third batch will cost the same as before. (notice that I'm excluding any inflation rates or soaring food prices.) I'm going to assume that the price stays the same for the age groups 3 and 4.Net expenses for three years(in millions): (year 1)520 + (year 2) 520x2 + (year 3) 520x3 = around 3 billion As we go each year forward, the growing numbers of kids will begin to cost more money and we'll run out of foster homes. There's a countless number of things I haven't included on how stressful this would be. Also, as I said in the lengthy wall of text earlier, I'd explain why the children wouldn't be adopted. The number of adoptions in 2006 was 290,000ish and the number admitted into foster care was 300,000ish. Theoretically, the million children per year would just sit in foster care. I'm obviously not accounting the sympathetic folk who would help out, but that can't be accounted for. I'm also not accounting for the increased reproduction rate after about 21 years of this system.So, how much does foster care cost for the establishment as is? Let's see how much change would be necessary.
There was a book recently that tallied up the entire cost for the Iraq war; it put us three trillion dollars in debt. That's including the interest that we'll have to pay on all of our loans. Again, just stressing how unprepared we are for the task of raising close to million kids a year.were never gonna pay back our debt from whatever war
#421
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 18 September 2008 - 01:30 AM
Ok good, population control. Let's go ask our buddy Hitler how that worked out. You also didn't factor in if the population growth slackened off a bit. And I was doing hwk before and didn't have time to research the figures.If you're going to make an argument with numbers, you find the numbers. What a waste of a post..These are numbers taken from an article on inadequate pay for foster parents."[A] MARC study drives home the point in dollars and cents. For a two-year-old foster child, the study reported, Colorado pays an average of $348 a month. According to the study, the actual costs for that child, exclusive of child care and transportation, are $659 per month. As the child ages, the disparity grows. At age nine, the report says Colorado pays just $392 of a monthly cost of $755. At age 16, the reimbursement is $423 for a child costing $828 a month."We will, for ease of numbers, only count 3 years without abortions.Year zero: with abortions, federal funding for foster homes is at about 4 billion dollars, 4,000,000,000.Year 1: no abortions, The first batch of unwanted babies, 854,122 of them, are delivered to foster homes around the country. All the children combined will cost approximately 562 hundred million dollars.Just in case you're a number-retarded, it's 520,000,000ish for the first year.Year 2:no abortions, The second batch will also cost the same amount, but the first batch are still there, theoretically(I will explain why none have been adopted so far down a little further). That means that the price for the children will double. That would be a billion dollars this year to take care of the abortion kids.Year 3: no abortions, The third batch will cost the same as before. (notice that I'm excluding any inflation rates or soaring food prices.) I'm going to assume that the price stays the same for the age groups 3 and 4.Net expenses for three years(in millions): (year 1)520 + (year 2) 520x2 + (year 3) 520x3 = around 3 billion As we go each year forward, the growing numbers of kids will begin to cost more money and we'll run out of foster homes. There's a countless number of things I haven't included on how stressful this would be. Also, as I said in the lengthy wall of text earlier, I'd explain why the children wouldn't be adopted. The number of adoptions in 2006 was 290,000ish and the number admitted into foster care was 300,000ish. Theoretically, the million children per year would just sit in foster care. I'm obviously not accounting the sympathetic folk who would help out, but that can't be accounted for. I'm also not accounting for the increased reproduction rate after about 21 years of this system.There was a book recently that tallied up the entire cost for the Iraq war; it put us three trillion dollars in debt. That's including the interest that we'll have to pay on all of our loans. Again, just stressing how unprepared we are for the task of raising close to million kids a year.
#422
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 841 posts
Asian fetishist and Android fanboy
Posted 18 September 2008 - 01:39 AM
You introduced your argument as if it was a new one; namely, the issue of whether the child's life would suck or not. In previous posts, we already covered the fact that the child would most definitely lead a sucky life, what with the fact that homeless shelters are already overpopulated. If it grew to 3x its current size, what would happen to everyone? The reason we didn't address you was that there is no "choice" for the child to make as to whether or not his life sucks. His life sucks! Deal with it. There's no choice to be made! No amount of optimism would allow a child to survive in a homeless shelter with 1.5 million children in it run by the same government that can barely support 0.5 million children.Also, popprs' argument is correct. The curve would be somewhat parabolic because with more and more children come more and more offspring, who in turn produce more and more offspring. The numbers would soon escalate to insane amounts.Yes, that's exactly what I did. I completely ignored all comments that came before mine and by blind chance managed stick a barb that was relevant to the post made just before mine and that neither you nor poppr actually addressed -- the issue of internal coherence within your position's rhetoric.
Laziest mod - Shadow
Worst Signature - Milo, Finalage, Shadow
OH MY GOD, I'm becoming black.
#423
Guest_popprs
-
- Guest
Posted 18 September 2008 - 02:03 AM
Liken me to hitler, great argument. You can't propose how to deal with the children but you can slander me. Population growth slackened because people didn't want to take care of kids so they didn't have any. Where will we put the unwanted children? When we run out of room, do we dump them in wendys trashcans? I'm saying that we can't handle it even if we wanted. We don't have the capacity. So before you call me Stalin, tell me how you propose to deal with all the children?Ok good, population control. Let's go ask our buddy Hitler how that worked out. You also didn't factor in if the population growth slackened off a bit. And I was doing hwk before and didn't have time to research the figures.
That thesaurus makes you feel real smart, doesn't it?You basically said, I came, I didn't see my argument so I posted it and felt very proud that I defended the life of a fetus online after I posted my overdone argument, and yes, me, shadow, and nazer have all addressed your point and found it to be irrelevant. When we face the question of whether the child will even have a home to live in, his/her happiness is irrelevant.Yes, that's exactly what I did. I completely ignored all comments that came before mine and by blind chance managed stick a barb that was relevant to the post made just before mine and that neither you nor poppr actually addressed -- the issue of internal coherence within your position's rhetoric.
There's no context to go with that. A forum is about expressing ideas. Generally, we appreciate clear and coherent ideas. Ironic.I also love that word. Barb. I also have to ask you, as trance asked me, what era are you from?the issue of internal coherence within your position's rhetoric.
Edited by popprs, 18 September 2008 - 02:17 AM.
#424
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 18 September 2008 - 02:35 AM
I was likening your idea to Hitlers, not you personally (I can't really say whether you have the stubby mustache haha jk) I think with all the excess spending we have already, we could cut here and nip there to appropriate enough funds. If not, I personally WOULD support a slight tax increase if it meant saving (in my view, not yours) the lives of millions of kids. It depends on your priorities. So there's my proposal.Liken me to hitler, great argument. You can't propose how to deal with the children but you can slander me. Population growth slackened because people didn't want to take care of kids so they didn't have any. Where will we put the unwanted children? When we run out of room, do we dump them in wendys trashcans? I'm saying that we can't handle it even if we wanted. We don't have the capacity. So before you call me Stalin, tell me how you propose to deal with all the children?
#425
Guest_popprs
-
- Guest
Posted 18 September 2008 - 07:11 AM
Now where do you suppose we gain the manpower? Foster homes are generally voluntary families. Do we begin to force kids onto people when there aren't enough willing people? Do we pay for the care of the kids? The reason that the cost was so cheap in my earlier post was because that in the foster homes, the foster parents are volunteers. I didn't include parents who take on foster kids for a payday because those elevate the cost to thousands. The voluntary parents don't ask for pay or compensation but when they do, it can cost up to 100,000 for a mentally ill child. We're either short on kind hearts and hard cash for taking in a million kids.You talk of it as if we could just like cut a chunk of spending somewhere else and attach to foster care and quite frankly, it's not that simple at all. We're in three trillion dollar deposit. We're already cutting unnecessary funds and sizing up things. When the new president comes to power, either McCain or Obama, their health care bills alone are basically going to take billions to start. When you suggest a tax hike, how are you going to get the portion of america, which is 52% for pro-choice, to vote on tax hikes? We get the larger vote because we get more delegates because we're the majority. Think of a plausible plan. Don't just say snip and paste. Also, just for argumentative purposes, this tax is voted on before the ban on abortions was enforced. Theoretically, that is what would happen. We don't just ban all abortions and then wait for problems to flood in. So, propose something logical this time.When you liken my ideas to hitler, you liken me to hitler. I believe in my ideas because they're practical and logical. I'm not afraid of killing babies because I'm not. I'm killing fetuses. I didn't propose to control the population if the kids could care for themselves and I'm not even proposing population control. I'll say it once more. We don't have the resources to take care of the kids. What do we do with kids we don't have money for? You can't even answer that with a viable solution because it's extremely complicated. Federal funding is already limited to about 50% of the foster kids only. States would begin to take on that cost and living in Cali, we're already hard hit by this recession. Schwarzenegger reduced school funding by millions this year for each district, my kid's school district has increased class sizes to about 30 children per class. We can't even afford to have school buses in Cali. Do you see where the problem comes in? There's just so many problems with proposing that the government take in a million unwanted kids a year. It would take our congress years to figure out where to put them, how to feed them, who would care for them. You're really forgetting our system or something. I would personally go to god for help on this type of a dilemma, but he has a habit of never talking back whenever I propose something where he has to help us. The overgrown lazy-*ss p**sy. Enough ragging on god though. Imaginary friends are supposedly bad for my health. Bottom line is that you don't adopt a kid if you don't have the means for it. Similarly, a government doesn't take on a million kids a year if it doesn't have the means for it.Source of the three trillion dollar deficit: http://www.usatoday....icit-usat_x.htmI'd really like to cite this and use the data here though http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/http://www.msmagazin...r2005/polls.aspI was likening your idea to Hitlers, not you personally (I can't really say whether you have the stubby mustache haha jk) I think with all the excess spending we have already, we could cut here and nip there to appropriate enough funds. If not, I personally WOULD support a slight tax increase if it meant saving (in my view, not yours) the lives of millions of kids. It depends on your priorities. So there's my proposal.
