The Tragedy of the Unwanted Child: What Ancient Cultures Did Before Abortion

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
So essentially we have to let the irresponsible kill their babies because killing infants is better than making people face the consequences of irresponsibility?
The children face the consequences.

I assume you would support government funding of permanent birth control line tubal ligation and vasectomy?
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
The children face the consequences.

I assume you would support government funding of permanent birth control line tubal ligation and vasectomy?

Yes I believe that should be covered under universal health care for adults.

The children face the consequences of abortion. Most people even poor people would rather be alive and poor than dead.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
They couldn't if the preferred type was not available thru insurance, and they worked an hourly Hobby Lobby job that meant it was financially difficult for them.

REMEMBER - they are ALREADY paying insurance premiums. And having to search around to find it somewhere "free" costs money. Time = money.

Then pick a different form.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
Yes I believe that should be covered under universal health care for adults.

The children face the consequences of abortion. Most people even poor people would rather be alive and poor than dead.
A fetus doesn't have that type of consciousness, you have no idea what most would want. That's a really poor argument.

Will your pro-life brethren widely support free and wide access to birth control including those that are permanent? If you say yes, you're lying.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
A fetus doesn't have that type of consciousness, you have no idea what most would want. That's a really poor argument.

Will your pro-life brethren widely support free and wide access to birth control including those that are permanent? If you say yes, you're lying.
Some would some wouldn't I don't know what they would want. For the most part I don't get overly involved in any political group including the pro-life group. The main reason for that is 2 party politics have taken over this country and so these groups just become extensions of the political party that advocates for them rather then a group that advocates for something specific.

I don't know what they would support and quite frankly I don't care. They don't speak for me and I don't speak for them.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
That's not doable for many. Why not, instead, have the company choose a different stance?

So instead of 20 different forms they are now down 17 and they can't find one workable solution among 17 forms?

Seems unlikely.

Meanwhile men have zero forms of birth control available to them that are covered by the affordable care act.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
Some would some wouldn't I don't know what they would want. For the most part I don't get overly involved in any political group including the pro-life group. The main reason for that is 2 party politics have taken over this country and so these groups just become extensions of the political party that advocates for them rather then a group that advocates for something specific.

I don't know what they would support and quite frankly I don't care. They don't speak for me and I don't speak for them.
Yet you want to speak for an undeveloped collection of cells. SMH
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
Yet you want to speak for an undeveloped collection of cells. SMH

Hardly undeveloped there is begginings of brain function and a primative heartbeat at 6 weeks. And that's not to mention that the Democrats want to keep abortion legal right up until birth.

And that's a person that needs someone to speak for them because they can not speak for themselves.

Also all nearly all living things, especially humans wish to continue to live. This is assumed when someone arrives in the hospital, needs medical attention but can not speak for themselves. They receive medical attention on the assumption that they want to live. We only change that if there is a clear instruction which indicates that they do not wish to receive medical attention.

It is safe to assume the child or fetus or whatever you want to call it wants to live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
So instead of 20 different forms they are now down 17 and they can't find one workable solution among 17 forms?

Seems unlikely.

Meanwhile men have zero forms of birth control available to them that are covered by the affordable care act.
Why not have the choice of all of them to get the best choice for them? Why does an employer get to limit choice of this most personal decision?

I agree that men should have all their choices as well but face it, their risk of much less than a woman's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
Hardly undeveloped there is begginings of brain function and a primative heartbeat at 6 weeks. And that's not to mention that the Democrats want to keep abortion legal right up until birth.

And that's a person that needs someone to speak for them because they can not speak for themselves.
Wholly undeveloped. They can't function on their own. Why does that formation of cells have the right to force another person too risk their life?

You speak for these cells but have no idea what it wants because it has no capacity to want. You're merely using it as a proxy to promote your own ideals.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
Why not have the choice of all of them to get the best choice for them? Why does an employer get to limit choice of this most personal decision?

I agree that men should have all their choices as well but face it, their risk of much less than a woman's.

Mostly because they are the ones paying for it and generally speaking outside of the obvious money compensation employers get to pick the form of all other forms of compensation they wish to offer employees. Only in healthcare are they MADE to offer a very specific form of compensation which they have very little control over what they are offering.

I'm not quite frankly sure that it's completely right for them to do so in a sense as I can see both side of the issue. On the other hand I don't think picking an alternative form of temporary contraception is that much of a put on for people.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
Wholly undeveloped. They can't function on their own. Why does that formation of cells have the right to force another person too risk their life?

You speak for these cells but have no idea what it wants because it has no capacity to want. You're merely using it as a proxy to promote your own ideals.

Because they depend on that person for their life. Just like my children have the legal and moral right to depend on me for the necessities of life so too does a child in the womb.

The second part is easy, we always assume a living thing's desire to continue to live. It's basic medical ethics. If you are unconscious and arrive at the hospital . . . we do not wait for you to give permission for medical intervention to save your life. On the absence of other instructions we simply attempt to save your life.

It is ethically sound to assume the fetus's desire to live as we do with all human beings.

Futhermore a born infant has no capacity to communicate it's desire to live however that is assumed by all.

The UN declared that children have right to legal protection both before and after birth in 1959. That has not been overturned. It was right in 1959 and it's right now.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
Mostly because they are the ones paying for it and generally speaking outside of the obvious money compensation employers get to pick the form of all other forms of compensation they wish to offer employees. Only in healthcare are they MADE to offer a very specific form of compensation which they have very little control over what they are offering.

I'm not quite frankly sure that it's completely right for them to do so in a sense as I can see both side of the issue. On the other hand I don't think picking an alternative form of temporary contraception is that much of a put on for people.
Employers are not forced to offer benefits. Where did you get that? It's their choice what they offer.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
Because they depend on that person for their life. Just like my children have the legal right to depend on me for the necessities of life so too does a child in the womb.

The second part is easy, we always assume a living thing's desire to continue to live. It's basic medical ethics. If you are unconscious and arrive at the hospital . . . we do not wait for you to give permission for medical intervention to save your life. On the absence of other instructions we simply attempt to save your life.

It is ethically sound to assume the fetus's desire to live as we do with all human beings.

Futhermore a born infant has no capacity to communicate it's desire to live however that is assumed by all.
Wow. You are not forced to put your life at risk for your child. That's just incorrect.

And the projection - JFC.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
Wow. You are not forced to put your life at risk for your child. That's just incorrect.

And the projection - JFC.

At risk or serious risk? Of course I'm required to put my life at risk since leaving the house and going to work is a risk.

Because I don't believe that a woman should be required to put her life at SERIOUS risk to bear a child. However most child births do not put a person at serious risk. Even our maternal death rate which is far too high indicates that on average pregnancy is not a serious risk to one's life. 17.4 per 100,000. We should be doing better and would with universal healthcare.

Lets remember that something like 98% of all abortions are ultimately because someone didn't want a baby not for medical reasons or rape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
At risk or serious risk? Of course I'm required to put my life at risk since leaving the house and going to work is a risk.

Because I don't believe that a woman should be required to put her life at SERIOUS risk to bear a child. However most child births do not put a person at serious risk. Even our maternal death rate which is far too high indicates that on average pregnancy is not a serious risk to one's life. 17.4 per 100,000. We should be doing better and would with universal healthcare.

Lets remember that something like 98% of all abortions are ultimately because someone didn't want a baby not for medical reasons or rape.
Any risk. You aren't forced to take any risk you don't choose to take. You don't have to leave the house.

You're more trying to maneuver on technicalities. There are no laws that force a person to risk their life to support someone else.

17.4 out of 100000 is serious risk. 1 is a serous risk. I don't know what you're thinking.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
Any risk. You aren't forced to take any risk you don't choose to take. You don't have to leave the house.

You're more trying to maneuver on technicalities. There are no laws that force a person to risk their life to support someone else.

17.4 out of 100000 is serious risk. 1 is a serous risk. I don't know what you're thinking.

Yes you do if that's what you have to do to work.

Not like you can tell the judge that you don't want to feed your kids cause you can't afford it because you don't want to risk your life by getting in a car to go to work.

I would estimate that me going to work and coming home each and every day has a higher risk of death then giving birth once.

Traffic deaths per 100,000 people for one year is 12.4. . . multiply that by 18 years, that's 223.2 per 100,000 people. Verses 17.4 per 100,000 for each live birth . I'm at much higher risk at dying by going to work then a woman is by giving birth.

And again I have to do it because no judge would accept refusal to travel to work due to fears of risk of dying in automobile accident as an excuse to not work and provide child support.

Neither are serious risks so neither are acceptable reasons to kill or abandon your children.
 
Last edited:

claykenny

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
13,416
7,230
113
Colorado
People have always died off early.

That never gave us the reason to kill people.

I find it funny that you say "No one can prove where life begins" so in a sense your view is "kill them and ask questions later."

Pretty sick to be ok with killing something that might be a human being.

I don't find discarding an embryo "sick". Sorry. I don't find terminating a very early pregnancy "sick". Sorry.

If the Hindus are right regarding reincarnation, killing an animal might be killing a human being. Pretty sick.

This is the problem with basing laws off religion. What seems "sick" to you based simply on faith won't seem "sick" to someone with a different faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
I don't find discarding an embryo "sick". Sorry. I don't find terminating a very early pregnancy "sick". Sorry.

If the Hindus are right regarding reincarnation, killing an animal might be killing a human being. Pretty sick.

This is the problem with basing laws off religion. What seems "sick" to you based simply on faith won't seem "sick" to someone with a different faith.

It's not just faith. There is a heart beat there is the beginnings of brain function.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,625
118,331
113
It's not just faith. There is a heart beat there is the beginnings of brain function.
No, there is not a "heart beat", because there is no heart that early.

There are precursor cells that rhythmically beat. Which can also beat when someone is fully brain dead, because that's their mechanical/electrical function.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
No, there is not a "heart beat", because there is no heart that early.

There are precursor cells that rhythmically beat. Which can also beat when someone is fully brain dead, because that's their mechanical/electrical function.

So? It's the beginnings of the heart just like you have the beginnings of the brain around the same time.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
Yes you do if that's what you have to do to work.

Not like you can tell the judge that you don't want to feed your kids cause you can't afford it because you don't want to risk your life by getting in a car to go to work.

I would estimate that me going to work and coming home each and every day has a higher risk of death then giving birth once.

Traffic deaths per 100,000 people for one year is 12.4. . . multiply that by 18 years, that's 223.2 per 100,000 people. Verses 17.4 per 100,000 for each live birth . I'm at much higher risk at dying by going to work then a woman is by giving birth.

And again I have to do it because no judge would accept refusal to travel to work due to fears of risk of dying in automobile accident as an excuse to not work and provide child support.

Neither are serious risks so neither are acceptable reasons to kill or abandon your children.
This is some serious bullshit. Wow. The lengths you and others will go to spin and twist...

Answer this - would you be forced to give someone else, anyone else, a kidney because they need or would die? That's a comparison that might make some sense rather than the pablum you are spewing.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
So? It's the beginnings of the heart just like you have the beginnings of the brain around the same time.
We declare someone brain dead and pull life support because they are unable to function. The "brain" of an undeveloped human is not functional either.
 

HawkPT

HR MVP
Dec 13, 2002
1,432
959
113
Save your fingers @Hoosierhawkeye. They are not here to listen. They are not here to understand. They are godless and will therefore not accept any argument you make that stipulates that God exists. And they will not stop until everyone else bows down to their beliefs which demand that you too be godless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
Save your fingers @Hoosierhawkeye. They are not here to listen. They are not here to understand. They are godless and will therefore not accept any argument you make that stipulates that God exists. And they will not stop until everyone else bows down to their beliefs which demand that you too be godless.
Lol - what we won't do is let nonsense go without challenge.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
We declare someone brain dead and pull life support because they are unable to function. The "brain" of an undeveloped human is not functional either.

The reason we pull them off life support is because they are not going to get better. They are never going to live without life support again.

That isn't true with an unborn child who will likely live without life support in 9 months or less.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
The reason we pull them off life support is because they are not going to get better. They are never going to live without life support again.

That isn't true with an unborn child who will likely live without life support in 9 months or less.
Not without putting someone else at risk.

I notice you avoided my question.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
How do you know that?

Seriously you are going to contest me on that?

Because it's blatently obvious that the reason we pull someone off life support (without DNR) is because they won't get better. We don't pull people off life support when we know they will get better.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,189
20,693
113
Seriously you are going to contest me on that?

Because it's blatently obvious that the reason we pull someone off life support (without DNR) is because they won't get better. We don't pull people off life support when we know they will get better.
There are always miracles, right? Who knows if they will get better?

You don't know if the group of cells will get "better" either. JFC at your projection.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
There are always miracles, right? Who knows if they will get better?

You don't know if the group of cells will get "better" either. JFC at your projection.

It's untenable to keep every person on heavy life support for decades in the hopes of a one in a billion miracle.

And the group of cells are likely going to become viable. While a person who is brain dead is not.

Anyone who is as likely to recover on life support as a embryo is likely to eventually be born is kept on life support easily and it's not even a question.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,625
118,331
113
Seriously you are going to contest me on that?

Because it's blatently obvious that the reason we pull someone off life support (without DNR) is because they won't get better. We don't pull people off life support when we know they will get better.

People have been on life support for years w/o any indication they'll get better, then they get better.

So, it would seem your claim here is "if they get better within 9 months" that's the limit. If it requires >9 months, then we can unplug them, regardless of "brain activity".
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,625
118,331
113
It's untenable to keep every person on heavy life support for decades in the hopes of a one in a billion miracle.
It's untenable to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term, when there are SO many potential variables that come in to play.

Let people decide for themselves. If that pisses God off, then they can deal with that in the next life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,918
38,974
113
40
It's untenable to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term, when there are SO many potential variables that come in to play.

Let people decide for themselves. If that pisses God off, then they can deal with that in the next life.

No it's not, we did it for a very long time. Sure some women attempted to abort on their own. Most carried to term.

The law required women to carry to term for a very long time before 5 justices made up a right (and took away a right to life for the children) that otherwise only existed in 4 states at the time.