AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → No. Just, No.

190 33801
valkery
offline
valkery
1,255 posts
Nomad

Well this is just ****ing stupid.

I pray to god that this does not go any farther. Please, I am begging the people of the US Senate, stop the madness before it goes any farther.

  • 190 Replies
qwerty1011
offline
qwerty1011
554 posts
Peasant

No, actually, that is not my logic at all, because I assert that human life begins from conception, when the sperm and the egg come together. thousands of eggs may have the same genetic coding, and the same goes for sperm, but when they combine, they have formed a perfectly unique entity.


A person is electrical impulses influenced by memories and experiences. Embryos have not started to gain memories so therefore are not people and killing one is not murder. The one or two people who would care if it died would be the ones who wanted the abortion.

Lets say you go into a store and buy a laptop computer that's modeled after one on the display shelves... its never been turned on and you're carrying it out of the store in the box and I come up and snatch it from you and start bashing it to pieces... as you come up wtf'ing me I hold out my hand palm out and say... stop... its ok.. Its not a computer... you never turned it on or put anything on there (inb4 having to pre program the thing = putting stuff on it.... pre programmed instincts... that is all) ... I didn't just destroy a computer

or if you won't let me have that... I go to the factory and destroy one prior to their putting information on it... and then start w/ my argument after they try and stick me w/ destroying a computer. (inb4 breaking a single starting piece of the equates to breaking a computer... a computer part is not self assimilating... stem cells... that is all)

Either going in there and smashing the never used computers is smashing computers or Mr. Hawking was wrong and basing comparing us to such and basing judgement on what ends up happening to us off of them is somewhat erroneous... which would mean the presence of something such as a God would be no more debunked by what happens to computers than it is debunked by what happens to a blade of grass.


No, people put money into making a computer and you don't have their permission to smash it. So performing an abortion on someone who doesn't want it is wrong. But if they give you permission smashing a computer is fine. I don't get what the last part means.

My position is that it's wrong to force people to pay for things they don't support. If you are pro-life, your taxes shouldn't be used for abortions. If you're pro-choice, your taxes shouldn't be used on pro-life campaigns. I believe the only people who should pay for teaching abortions are those who are in favor of them.


This is called taxation. People have to pay for things they don't support because holding a referendum over everything is stupid. The governemtn decides things and if people don't like it they egt kicked out next election.

its not iffy at all. if they truly support it and they want the gov't to help fund it then an account that does such should be opened...a and those who want to participate in it can think of it as a tithing they give to churches... or call it the atheist pro choice tithe... if they want it to be funded then they pay into it. I'm sure that with such a large number of people paying into it it would make the funding problem non-existant.


here is england there are thousands of faith schools and they are 90% funded by the government. I don't support this and I am happy to take all the money from my taxes that is spent on things related to a magic sky fairy and use it on abortions. I have a feeling that faith schools would run out o funding pretty fast if that happened. Or we could think logically about this and get a practical idea.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

This is called taxation. People have to pay for things they don't support because holding a referendum over everything is stupid. The governemtn decides things and if people don't like it they egt kicked out next election.


People have to pay for things they don't support? Well that doesn't sound very humane. I thought our focus was on giving people what they want, not going against their will to do what the elite few think is best.

here is england there are thousands of faith schools and they are 90% funded by the government. I don't support this and I am happy to take all the money from my taxes that is spent on things related to a magic sky fairy and use it on abortions. I have a feeling that faith schools would run out o funding pretty fast if that happened. Or we could think logically about this and get a practical idea.


I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say it's okay for the government to spend money on religious schools because if they didn't they wouldn't exist? I'm not following you.
Sonatavarius
offline
Sonatavarius
1,322 posts
Farmer

what may I ask is a faith school? ...like an institution that is affiliated with some religious establishment? ...are you talking religious field prep or just supported by a church?.... they're different.

The college/university (its different here than it is in Merry Ole England. (they're different words for the same thing) I go to is backed by the baptists... it teaches religion degrees.... and then it has one of the best pre-med biological science programs in the nation. I've known Californians, New Yorkers, Arizonans(?), Wisconson people, Floridians, Texans, and even Canadians that come here specifically to the program here because if you can make it through it it is almost a sure thing that you'll get into med/dental/pharm/pt school. the national average for med school applicants is ~50%. The "fairy" schools you so abhor would ,if they've got intelligent people in charge of the bank account, would simply open up new degrees and charge more... and b/c of the new degrees people would go there and the "fairy" schools would be more alive and prevalent than ever if and when you pulled funding... which might or might not be a good idea b/c it'd make sure more people got an education from a "fairy" school...and more people might end up learning about this almighty "fairy" you speak of...which might then influence them not to help out w/ abortions O__O

or are you talking seminary'esque schools? pulling funding would only kill off some of them... the ones that figure it out would then just monopolize and grow.

Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say it's okay for the government to spend money on religious schools because if they didn't they wouldn't exist? I'm not following you.


He's saying it's a waste of money and he'd rather have it spent on Abortion, seeing as he does not support schools that are theologically run.
Which, I think makes sense. Though I'm religious, I think that education should be solely secular, unless, of course, everyone around you just so happens to be of religion x and is willing to support its funding. Otherwise, it isn't fair to a diverse community.

People have to pay for things they don't support? Well that doesn't sound very humane. I thought our focus was on giving people what they want, not going against their will to do what the elite few think is best.


Yeah but the 'eliteness' of these people depends on how well they give people what they want. It's just, they're only focused on giving the stuff that the majority wants, and that's about as good as it gets.
Sonatavarius
offline
Sonatavarius
1,322 posts
Farmer

Otherwise, it isn't fair to a diverse community.


you choose where you go to school. including such schools only leads to diversify the populous more... since in all honesty, there are most likely other academic institutions within reasonable traveling distance from the religious ones. ...I admit I'm a smidge off topic... but since it was brought to here, I'll give my reply
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

there are most likely other academic institutions within reasonable traveling distance from the religious ones


I know that they could be close by and what not, but what is unfair about it is that someone has to pay taxes for such a school.

Religious schools shouldn't run on government money, or they should only be taxed by people that are willing to pay taxes for them. You can't have a public religious school that runs on taxes. It's lame and it defies separation of church and state.
Sonatavarius
offline
Sonatavarius
1,322 posts
Farmer

Religious schools shouldn't run on government money, or they should only be taxed by people that are willing to pay taxes for them. You can't have a public religious school that runs on taxes. It's lame and it defies separation of church and state.


if you pay for any school and the others aren't given the same treatment then I would think there'd be a lawsuit...especially if the religious schools also teach science related material. so either don't pay for any or pay for whichever ones show up. I see a lawsuit over pulling funding winning and a lawsuit over paying to abort a rap baby compared to not paying for a "I just don't wanna have it" baby not flying... If they're going to fund the institutions w/o your money then everyone's taxes are going to have to go up regardless. I don't see a parallel between the two. opting out of paying for people's abortions, since the gov't could actually back out of it w/o winnable lawsuits against it.

If most of the argument is "its my body... I'll do what I want with it..." then its akin to body modification... mole removal and botox injections and such. unless the its actually doing real significant harm to the woman then its similarity as stated to cancer isn't so similar... as cancer has specific tale-tell signals that are used to diagnose it as such.... the fetus doesn't fit into a lot of them.

how much do abortion clinics charge? ...I'm assuming a lot of you know since you know so much about them.
qwerty1011
offline
qwerty1011
554 posts
Peasant

Faith schools usd to be church funded but over time they have become 10% church and 90% gov money.

People have to pay for things they don't support? Well that doesn't sound very humane. I thought our focus was on giving people what they want, not going against their will to do what the elite few think is best.


No one supports every thing the government does but it is too impractical so use the taxes of people who support it only.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say it's okay for the government to spend money on religious schools because if they didn't they wouldn't exist? I'm not following you.


What I mean is that by your logic my taxes, along with everyone who doesn't support faith schools should no longer be spent on them and so they would no longer exist. This is extremely impractical. I don't support faith schools but just cutting off all funding is not a solution as so many kids would have no shcool to go to. And basically my money is spent on religious things so why shouldn't some of yours be spent on stuff your magic sky fairy is against.

what may I ask is a faith school? ...like an institution that is affiliated with some religious establishment? ...are you talking religious field prep or just supported by a church?.... they're different.


A faith school is a school un by a religious establishment where they can teach anything they want in Religious education and can talk about noahs ark and stuff in science and basically give a terrible education and brainwash kids into following their religion.

I don't get what you mean in the second part much but these are like prep and secondary schools and kids can be very impressionable in primary school.

you choose where you go to school. including such schools only leads to diversify the populous more... since in all honesty, there are most likely other academic institutions within reasonable traveling distance from the religious ones. ...I admit I'm a smidge off topic... but since it was brought to here, I'll give my reply


While that is sometimes the case quite a bit of the time the faith school is the only reasonable one in practical travelling distance and parents have to fake their religion or bribe to gt their kids in the school which I think is stupid and the school does not deserve funding from our taxes.

if you pay for any school and the others aren't given the same treatment then I would think there'd be a lawsuit...especially if the religious schools also teach science related material.


lots of science lessons contain the clearly unscientific parts of the bible.

If most of the argument is "its my body... I'll do what I want with it..." then its akin to body modification... mole removal and botox injections and such. unless the its actually doing real significant harm to the woman then its similarity as stated to cancer isn't so similar... as cancer has specific tale-tell signals that are used to diagnose it as such.... the fetus doesn't fit into a lot of them.


there is a big difference between a mole removal and an abortion. By denying a woman an abortion you are sentencing her to 9 months pregnancy for no reason. A mole removal is just vanity and there is a big difference between vanity and not wanting to go through pregnancy for an unwanted baby.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

What I mean is that by your logic my taxes, along with everyone who doesn't support faith schools should no longer be spent on them and so they would no longer exist.


Who says they would no longer exist? Just because the government stops paying doesn't mean they would cease to exist. In fact, I went to a private Catholic school. I'm sure it wasn't a dream.

Let's suppose though, that religious schools did stop existing if the government funded them, this would only happen if the majority of parents didn't want their children going to religious school.

And, it's not like kids who were going to a public religious school would no longer have a place to go, they would simply be moved to a regular public school. The funding that went into religious schools would now be going into public schools, so it's not like the funding will be removed from education in general.

While that is sometimes the case quite a bit of the time the faith school is the only reasonable one in practical travelling distance and parents have to fake their religion or bribe to gt their kids in the school which I think is stupid and the school does not deserve funding from our taxes.


That's my point, you don't feel that these religious schools deserve funding. This is how pro-life people feel about funding abortions. Instead of saying, "I don't support this, therefore I support that," you should say "I don't support this, and instead of supporting that, I will fight to change this."

Personally, I believe all schools should be privatized. Rather than jumping straight into privatization though, I believe we should at least adopt a charter school system where government money wouldn't go to the schools, but rather fallow students around. Of course, this is a completely different topic.

And basically my money is spent on religious things so why shouldn't some of yours be spent on stuff your magic sky fairy is against.


You're saying,

A. Taxes go to religious schools.
B. I don't support religious schools (but I support abortion).
Therefore,
C. It's only fair to fund abortion.

I'm saying,

A. Taxes go to religious schools.
B. I don't support religious schools.
Therefore,
C. It's only fair to stop funding religious schools with my money.

Taxes shouldn't go to religious schools OR abortion.

Also, I would like to point out that not every pro-life advocate is a theist. There are many atheists who also feel abortion is murder. It sounds to me that they don't get the satisfaction of vengeance AND they still have to pay for religious schools.
ZipperedVenus42
offline
ZipperedVenus42
185 posts
Nomad

Honestly, I'm neutral on abortion. The ethical matter of abortion should be up to the woman carrying the baby.

The ethics of a concept such as abortion are just too subjective to even be argued about. What's the point?

Just let the people who are actually experiencing this decide, not the stubborn, hard-headed old conservative house members.

redbedhead
offline
redbedhead
341 posts
Nomad

Pretty much my stance on this is...it's a choice. You can consider it what you want, it doesn't change the fact that, yes, if you choose to get an abortion, it probably would have come to term and been born a healthy baby. But it's the mother's choice on whether she wants to be a mother or not, whether she's able to, or w/e the reason is. If you think it's wrong to do so, then don't, but forcing others to make such a life changing choice shouldn't concern you

It's not about the woman's choice it's about the life that she has the power over. The ONLY time if even that, for a woman to have a choice on aborting a baby is when it was forced upon her through ****. When it was just a woman not taking the precautionary measures, not using a contraceptive or even disregarding abstinence, and she gets pregnant, then it's her duty to follow through with what she started. Killing a fetus that has a brainwave and is breathing is just like killing a kitten. It was defenseless just like the fetus. It makes me cringe just thinking about how domineering this was.

Some people aren't capable of giving a child a good life

Then if they were not capable of that then they should have thought of the consequences prior to any sexual intercourse.
There are alternatives from getting an abortion and that just can't be argued. Putting up a baby for adoption is much more plausible then killing it before it has a chance to live life.

My mother had me at 15 years old so I am very adamant about situations involving abortion. I also feel that there is a moral obligation to being pro-life because when it comes down to the drawing board it's not a mother's choice to choose if she can kill a person unwarrantably.

http://prolifeaction.org/faq/abortion.php#total

As of the most recent update of this FAQ, the estimated total number of abortions is over 46 million.


There are currently 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States.
And only rising.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

I also feel that there is a moral obligation to being pro-life because when it comes down to the drawing board it's not a mother's choice to choose if she can kill a person unwarrantably.

Morals are subjective.. also, whose choice is it then? Shouldn't the mother have the choice?
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

Shouldn't the mother have the choice?


Why should she have the choice? I'm sure your mother doesn't have the choice to kill you, so why should she have had that choice back in the day?

Also, I think it's extremely wrong to pay for an abortion if the person wanted it is having a kid just because they forgot to use contraceptive measures. I mean, a Pill+Condom is close to 4 million percent effective, so it's not as if accidents just randomly happen.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Why should she have the choice? I'm sure your mother doesn't have the choice to kill you, so why should she have had that choice back in the day?

This comparison isn't making sense.

Also, I think it's extremely wrong to pay for an abortion if the person wanted it is having a kid just because they forgot to use contraceptive measures. I mean, a Pill+Condom is close to 4 million percent effective, so it's not as if accidents just randomly happen.

In case of carelessness in matter of contraception, I agree it is wrong that people should pay for it. I agree people should take responsability for their acts. But it would also be wrong to let the woman have that kid as a punishment; I mean that would also be morally wrong for the child.
Also you would be naive if you'd think those are the only situations. In situations where the woman has not done anything wrong, like in case of r*pe? Would you also force the woman to cary out the child?
Nurvana
offline
Nurvana
2,520 posts
Farmer

HaHiHa, it isn't a matter of choice. It is COMPLETELY a matter of whether the child is a human life or not. For if it was, could we give a mother the choice to murder her baby? And if it isn't, then why wouldn't the mother get to choose?

Showing 76-90 of 190