If a person's brain can be transplanted into a different body (or into a mechanical life-support system) that should matter to you (if you really care about the issue of personhood). The fact that you resist admitting that personhood would leave the body and follow the brain suggests that you recognize how the concept weakens the pro-life position. Since there are limits to how much we can prove (without additional scientific research) we are left with what is basically a religious divide. The government has no right to tell a woman whether she should be baptized by immersion, or sprinkled, or baptized at all to save her immortal soul. Since you acknowledge that either position (conception or birth) is just supposition, the government has no right to tell a woman whether she can get an abortion or not.
Why do you insist NOT having kids causes poverty and then in other posts state: ""Quote Originally Posted by bclark View Post First to shoot this theory out of the water, every major news outlet I've heard for the last year has said that the economy is in recovery. Why then is poverty still rising? I always believed that the poverty rate, and crime rate is more closely tied to out of wedlock births. I believe your odds of going into poverty go up about 80% as a single parents. I believe out of wedlock births occur more in teens that believe that they found the "right guy", and are told by their man to "just get an abortion". http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-child-poverty""" Did you know that a PARENT is someone who has kids??? They haven't aborted them, they had them...
Your first link actually supports my position and your second link is a non sequitur. By denying abortions you would exacerbate child poverty by massively increasing the number of unwanted children. Your chart did NOT prove that at all. Multiple posters have debunked your chart because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the poverty rate and there is no correlation with RvW either. The poverty rate went DOWN during the Clinton economic boom. Try looking at the facts for a change. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts And just to expose your bogus chart here is government spending as a % of GDP.
You suggest that legalized abortion has created a generation of men who can play around and then "bail out" in the event of a pregnancy (just telling their girlfriends to get an abortion). The logical result of that scenario is that the girl realizes the man is immature, and she does not have the resources to raise a child herself, so she would get an abortion. That would NOT affect the number of single-parent households, so we must ask ourselves why she did not get an abortion. Is it because pro-life advocates have brain-washed her with false concepts (like posters with an embryo saying "mommy don't kill me" as if an embryo could be capable of meaningful thought)? If that is the case, then pro-life advocates bear the responsibility for single-family households.
So, child homelessness is growing to alarming levels. http://www.newsweek.com/child-homelessness-us-reaches-historic-high-report-says-285052 And food stamps are at record highs. http://www.npr.org/2011/08/28/139968385/slow-growth-economy-spikes-food-stamp-reliance The average wage in the US is going down. http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/28/average-american-wages-are-on-the-decline/21241983/ But your charts show that poverty is going down? How does that work?
How does it work to say that abortion causes poverty and then post ""I believe your odds of going into poverty go up about 80% as a single parents. ""
My claim is that statistics seem to show single parents are much more likely when some deadbeat dude can just say to his pregnant girlfriend: "Just get an abortion". You seem to think that men would "never" do this sort of thing? http://fatherhoodfactor.com/us-fatherless-statistics/
Moving the goalposts because your fallacy that "abortion since RvW has caused poverty to rise" has been exposed as completely and utterly bogus? Yes, everyone knows that delusional Republican/Libertarian fiscal policies have seriously harmed hardworking Americans for the past couple of decades but that has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. You fallaciously alleged that abortion was the cause of poverty and now that the facts clearly demonstrate that you are wrong why are you changing the subject instead of admitting that you are wrong?
An abortion would prevent both a single parent and a deadbeat dad from occurring so that proves the exact OPPOSITE of your bogus allegation that abortion is responsible for poverty. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp and to change your position?
WHERE , SHOW THE POST where I indicated "men would never do this sort of thing"...There isn't one. WOW are you "confused". You: """My claim is that statistics seem to show single parents are much more likely when some deadbeat dude can just say to his pregnant girlfriend: "Just get an abortion". "" NO, you claimed abortion causes poverty . ...and then got caught with posting : """ ""I believe your odds of going into poverty go up about 80% as a single parents. "" KIDS cost money, not the LACK of kids. How could anyone say otherwise ??!!!!!!
How did your list above get worse because of abortion as you claim? Please feel free to explain how abortion causes MORE homeless children.........
All these statistics just tell us that there are a lot of cases of men "bailing out" while the woman decides to have the baby anyway. That is not the logical course of action when abortion is a legal option and she has learned that the man is a deadbeat. Why do you suppose these women would make such an illogical choice? Could it be due to coercion from pro-lifers?
The Hebrews believed that God wrote his law on the hearts of man. Meaning people would intuitively know the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps there's some truth women having guilt causing them to resist getting abortions. For those that do have abortions, that same guilt remains a concern. Suicide rates in Finland were shown to be significantly higher for those who had abortions. However, I also don't think that abortion is an illogical choice all the time. I believe most of our welfare laws financially encourage more kids. 1. http://www.bmj.com/content/313/7070/1431.full
You may have a valid point that some number of women might get pregnant and keep the baby in order to get more welfare, but perhaps that first unwanted pregnancy (and the pressure from pro-life groups saying she should keep that baby and God will provide) might have been the major factor that trapped her in the welfare system. I have absolutely no confidence in abortion studies that go to places like Finland and Denmark to get the numbers they want. You need to realize that those are countries where prostitution is legal. As yourself: (1) What group of people are most likely to need abortions? (2) Would you say prostitution is a safe life? or one filled with risks to your mental and physical health? (3) If you wanted to create a false impression about the dangers of abortion, what population would you study? Of course you would study a population with as many prostitutes as possible because there is a greater probability that you would find a lot of women with emotional and health problems (maybe even a lot more women who die younger) who ALSO had one or more abortions. That is intellectual dishonesty (not your fault, but as a Christian I am ashamed every time I see a Christian pro-life group referencing these studies). If you look for studies performed on population groups in the United States you will get a picture that is more representative of our population.
no that would be your comment above, because as usual you can't actually answer the assertion made, instead you attempt to evade by making playground statements.
There is nothing any pro-forced birther could say or argue that causes me any fear what so ever ... keeping the debates in the correct forums so not to violate the forum rules is all my comment means. No pro-forced birther has yet given a reasonable or valid moral reasons why abortion should be illegal . .you included.
What rubbish .. the last major change to the Constitution of the USA was 1992 when the 27th Amendment was ratified, and that amendment was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 .. it took 203 years for it to be ratified. Then take it to the appropriate area
So sad to see the infantile response, one wonders if you are past school age yet. I suppose civic duty means little to nothing to you.
Having your labor stolen so it can be given to someone else is not a civic duty. When government of the people starts doing things that are illegal for 'the people' to do individually or collectively it is no longer government of the people. Sorry you don't understand something this simple
So you want to live for free without paying for anything the country provides for you. Can you really afford to build your own private freeway and other infrastructure, you never need laws or police protection, sewers, water, etc.,you provide your own?
Another dumb comment not related to my post. You can legally band together to build something or defend your state or country but you cannot legally band together to steal from one to give to someone you feel is more deserving.
