LogFAQs > #895111936

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Senate to vote on 20-week abortion ban tonight
Vindris_SNH 01/30/18 1:27:39 PM #120:	EnragedSlith posted... Its always bothered me that the people who tend to be against abortion for some asinine reason are the same people who tend to be against the social safety nets that aid people who arent able to support their children. Life for the sake of life is a really inconvincing argument, particularly coming from the mouths of people who dont stop caring about it once the baby is born! Abortion is prominent throughout nature. Many animals will sacrifice a pregnancy for their own survival. Many will also eat or even abandon their own young, particularly when they arent a viable candidate for survival. But humans are better! So be better. Forcing a pregnancy and then abandoning the child is the embodiment of cruelty. Not to mention that this assumes that life begins at conception, which is an argument of semantics and not supported by science. I don't personally know anyone who is pro-life that also thinks there should not be a social safety net set up to aid people who aren't able to support their children, and I know a lot of pro-life people. My guess is that you've been inundated with a lot of extremely biased claims from pro-choicers. Something being prominent throughout nature does not automatically make it an ethical practice for humans. This is a ridiculous argument. Human life beginning at conception is not a semantic argument. It is scientific fact that human life begins at conception. I repeat this and remind you that the debate is now over personhood, not when human life begins. Pro-choicers like yourself already lost that argument. Time to move on. --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:895111936] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>EnragedSlith posted...</cite> <quote>Its always bothered me that the people who tend to be against abortion for some asinine reason are the same people who tend to be against the social safety nets that aid people who arent able to support their children. Life for the sake of life is a really inconvincing argument, particularly coming from the mouths of people who dont stop caring about it once the baby is born! Abortion is prominent throughout nature. Many animals will sacrifice a pregnancy for their own survival. Many will also eat or even abandon their own young, particularly when they arent a viable candidate for survival. But humans are better! So be better. Forcing a pregnancy and then abandoning the child is the embodiment of cruelty. Not to mention that this assumes that life begins at conception, which is an argument of semantics and not supported by science.</quote> I don't personally know anyone who is pro-life that also thinks there should not be a social safety net set up to aid people who aren't able to support their children, and I know a lot of pro-life people. My guess is that you've been inundated with a lot of extremely biased claims from pro-choicers. Something being prominent throughout nature does not automatically make it an ethical practice for humans. This is a ridiculous argument. Human life beginning at conception is not a semantic argument. It is scientific fact that human life begins at conception. I repeat this and remind you that the debate is now over personhood, not when human life begins. Pro-choicers like yourself already lost that argument. Time to move on. --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1