Segral wrote:If a woman kills her own child just because she doesn't feel like it, that's absolutely wrong, you can't just end life based on your cranky mood swings.
Wow. How condescending towards women.
Advertisement
by The New California Republic » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:56 pm
Segral wrote:If a woman kills her own child just because she doesn't feel like it, that's absolutely wrong, you can't just end life based on your cranky mood swings.
by VoVoDoCo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:03 pm
Kernen wrote:Sure state paid means they don't need abortions to operate, but they both incentivize abortions equally, thus pressuring the women equally. The only difference is one raises taxes unnecessarily. Why is it that when the clinic offers an incentive it's undue corporate influence on women's autonomy when the government does it it's a reasonable entitlement?
That isn't true at all, though. If you add in a profit margin by deriving funding from the sale of the fetus, then you're incentivizing advertisement and sale pressure, where funding from the state isn't dependent on a steady flow of patients to sustain funding. State funding means you're going to get the same funding whether you process 10 patients or 30. Funding by sale of the fetus means you're funding is directly tied to the number of individuals you process.
All of that creates pressures on the women, who are looking for medical treatment. Not a used car pitch. Basic market principals show us that where there is a profit interest to be had, competition will follow, and that is the last thing that an emotionally charged, medically necessary procedure needs.
by VoVoDoCo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:06 pm
Segral wrote:This shouldn't be debated this hotly.
If a woman kills her own child just because she doesn't feel like it, that's absolutely wrong, you can't just end life based on your cranky mood swings.
But if the woman can't support her baby, or it's causing health complications, or it's a rape case, well then it should be allowed, because in rape cases, the bearers can often times be young teenagers, and the victim never even had the choice if she wanted a baby.
If the woman can't support her baby because she's dirt poor and can't feed, clothe, or educate the child, it's going to die anyways. And in health complications, we could abort the fetus, which would cause little pain to the undeveloped form, or kill both, causing great pain and suffering to one.
Is this really a question? Option 4 is the way.
by Keshiland » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:08 pm
by Segral » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:12 pm
Vovodoco wrote:Segral wrote:This shouldn't be debated this hotly.
If a woman kills her own child just because she doesn't feel like it, that's absolutely wrong, you can't just end life based on your cranky mood swings.
But if the woman can't support her baby, or it's causing health complications, or it's a rape case, well then it should be allowed, because in rape cases, the bearers can often times be young teenagers, and the victim never even had the choice if she wanted a baby.
If the woman can't support her baby because she's dirt poor and can't feed, clothe, or educate the child, it's going to die anyways. And in health complications, we could abort the fetus, which would cause little pain to the undeveloped form, or kill both, causing great pain and suffering to one.
Is this really a question? Option 4 is the way.
The killing of children? Appeal to emotion.
Allow to abort if raped or in danger? We've been there. Done that.
Personal autonomy of the women overshadows the possibility of existence the fetus isn't even capable of knowing it has.
by New Portucalia » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:14 pm
by VoVoDoCo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:14 pm
Kernen wrote:Vovodoco wrote:If the state funds clinics, then the clinics can operate whether or not they are performing abortions, because their funding is an entitlement and not a transaction.
State paid:FREE
Fetus paid:FREE
Sure state paid means they don't need abortions to operate, but they both incentivize abortions equally, thus pressuring the women equally. The only difference is one raises taxes unnecessarily. Why is it that when the clinic offers an incentive it's undue corporate influence on women's autonomy when the government does it it's a reasonable entitlement?
by VoVoDoCo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:16 pm
Vovodoco wrote:Kernen wrote:State paid:FREE
Fetus paid:FREE
Sure state paid means they don't need abortions to operate, but they both incentivize abortions equally, thus pressuring the women equally. The only difference is one raises taxes unnecessarily. Why is it that when the clinic offers an incentive it's undue corporate influence on women's autonomy when the government does it it's a reasonable entitlement?
That isn't true at all, though. If you add in a profit margin by deriving funding from the sale of the fetus, then you're incentivizing advertisement and sale pressure, where funding from the state isn't dependent on a steady flow of patients to sustain funding. State funding means you're going to get the same funding whether you process 10 patients or 30. Funding by sale of the fetus means you're funding is directly tied to the number of individuals you process.
All of that creates pressures on the women, who are looking for medical treatment. Not a used car pitch. Basic market principals show us that where there is a profit interest to be had, competition will follow, and that is the last thing that an emotionally charged, medically necessary procedure needs.
by Segral » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:16 pm
New Portucalia wrote:Segral wrote:
Surely you don't believe that it's ok for a women to end her baby's life just because she feels like it? That's all I'm saying.
She'll be the one having to carry it for 9 months, if she doesn't want to do it then no one else has a say, it doesn't matter the reasoning behind it.
by The New California Republic » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:21 pm
Keshiland wrote:I knew you guys were pro abortion. Wanting to pay people to get abortions sick.
by Segral » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:22 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Keshiland wrote:I knew you guys were pro abortion. Wanting to pay people to get abortions sick.
Keshiland, you are a fine one to talk about things that are "sick". You are the one that repeatedly said that emotional abuse towards a woman that wants an abortion is OK. You are the one that repeatedly wanted to have baby crying noises in abortion clinics. You are the one that, at every turn, has shown utter disdain towards women having any say in the control of their own bodies. So before you start calling pro-choice people "sick", you should probably take a long look at your own opinions.
by Segral » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:25 pm
Keshiland wrote:I knew you guys were pro abortion. Wanting to pay people to get abortions sick.
That's all pro choice is pro abortion
by VoVoDoCo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:26 pm
Segral wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Keshiland, you are a fine one to talk about things that are "sick". You are the one that repeatedly said that emotional abuse towards a woman that wants an abortion is OK. You are the one that repeatedly wanted to have baby crying noises in abortion clinics. You are the one that, at every turn, has shown utter disdain towards women having any say in the control of their own bodies. So before you start calling pro-choice people "sick", you should probably take a long look at your own opinions.
And I'M condescending towards women?
by The New California Republic » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:27 pm
Segral wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Keshiland, you are a fine one to talk about things that are "sick". You are the one that repeatedly said that emotional abuse towards a woman that wants an abortion is OK. You are the one that repeatedly wanted to have baby crying noises in abortion clinics. You are the one that, at every turn, has shown utter disdain towards women having any say in the control of their own bodies. So before you start calling pro-choice people "sick", you should probably take a long look at your own opinions.
And I'M condescending towards women?
by Segral » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Vovodoco wrote:Segral wrote:
And I'M condescending towards women?
Quotes from your intro post:
This is really simple people...
This shouldn't be debated this hotly.
Is this really a question?
I would say you were more condescending to us general debaters than specifically women.
But you're still way better than Keshiland.
by VoVoDoCo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:33 pm
Segral wrote:Vovodoco wrote:Quotes from your intro post:
This is really simple people...
This shouldn't be debated this hotly.
Is this really a question?
I would say you were more condescending to us general debaters than specifically women.
But you're still way better than Keshiland.
I do apologize if I came off as condescending, I just wanted to try to stop any pointless bickering.
by Greater Redosia » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:37 pm
by VoVoDoCo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:38 pm
by Wallenburg » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:42 pm
Keshiland wrote:I knew you guys were pro abortion. Wanting to pay people to get abortions sick.
That's all pro choice is pro abortion
by Greater Redosia » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:45 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Keshiland wrote:I knew you guys were pro abortion. Wanting to pay people to get abortions sick.
I support paying women to abort their pregnancies? This is news to me.That's all pro choice is pro abortion
Pro-choice is what it says it is: pro-choice. I don't give two soft shits whether someone I don't know aborts or carries to term. I do care, however, whether someone forces them to make either decision. Forcing someone to abort their pregnancy is disgusting. Forcing someone to carry to term is equally disgusting.
by VoVoDoCo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:59 pm
Segral wrote:I edited my original post so I don't sound like such an egotistical prick.
by Keshiland » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:59 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Keshiland wrote:I knew you guys were pro abortion. Wanting to pay people to get abortions sick.
I support paying women to abort their pregnancies? This is news to me.That's all pro choice is pro abortion
Pro-choice is what it says it is: pro-choice. I don't give two soft shits whether someone I don't know aborts or carries to term. I do care, however, whether someone forces them to make either decision. Forcing someone to abort their pregnancy is disgusting. Forcing someone to carry to term is equally disgusting.
by VoVoDoCo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:02 pm
Keshiland wrote:Wallenburg wrote:I support paying women to abort their pregnancies? This is news to me.
Pro-choice is what it says it is: pro-choice. I don't give two soft shits whether someone I don't know aborts or carries to term. I do care, however, whether someone forces them to make either decision. Forcing someone to abort their pregnancy is disgusting. Forcing someone to carry to term is equally disgusting.
So you were not part of the people saying abortion be mandatory for low income people? And how the abortion is cheaper then paying for the child?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Australian rePublic, Dimetrodon Empire, Greedy of Greedland, Kenmoria, Kostane, Nu Elysium, Tarsonis, The Lone Alliance, The Union of Socialist-Soviet Republics, Valentine Z
Advertisement