BF2S Forums The real death toll

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Yet that is what semantics are. You might not think it is. You may think the argument inappropriate, but it does not change the fact it is about semantics. Semantics are about meaning and interpretation of meaning, which exactly his point. It IS semantics, that is undeniable.

No in this case it is about what you SAY and DON'T SAY, not what you mean and don't mean..........You don't punctuate your argument that a fetus is not a child, by referring to it as a child.

That doesn't change the meaning of the word semantics. You are wrong about the usage of the word semantics. Not that that has any bearing on the argument, but saying it is not semantics when it clearly is is just foolish.

Stingray24 wrote:

Hey now, how do you know the average pro-lifer doesn't support free adoption?  Adoption is a large part of the pro-life position and I support it wholeheartedly.  I personally know 3 couples in my circle of friends alone, that can't have children and desperately want a child.  They are all looking at adoption as the next option.  Think how many couples that would be nationwide! 

Lowing is right, our society won't ask parents to take responsibility and that is the main problem here.  We allow them the easy out of abortion if the child is "inconvenient".  I'd rather have living kids than dead babies anyday.  Someone may have aborted the kid who was going to discover the cure for cancer or invent a lifechanging technology.  If we need the government to help take care of the children, so be it.  The better alternative, as lowing suggested, would be removing the bureaucracy and red tape and eliminating the money involved, thereby giving loving families easier access to a child to call their own.

Stingray24 wrote:

I think the process would have to happen in the reverse in order to greatly expand orphanages and adoption programs.  If abortion keeps killing the kids people would adopt, we have no living children to expand programs for, right?  Let's keep the children alive first, then reform the system and our laws to meet their needs.

Turquoise wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

I think the process would have to happen in the reverse in order to greatly expand orphanages and adoption programs.  If abortion keeps killing the kids people would adopt, we have no living children to expand programs for, right?  Let's keep the children alive first, then reform the system and our laws to meet their needs.

Well, here's the hard part.  As things currently stand, the majority of the federal budget is spent on the military.  This is true if you include all the supplemental spending that is often not listed in "official" federal budgets.  Until we're out of Iraq (or until we drastically lower spending in other areas), there's no way we have enough funds to shift to orphanages and adoption programs.

The last 6 years have proven that making tax cuts is easy, but cutting spending isn't.  Tax cuts gain votes, but spending cuts piss off special interest groups -- many of which practically run the Republican party.  Until Congress and the president can prove that they are willing to cut spending in the necessary ways and amounts to balance our budget, I can't rationally support a ban on abortion.  The financial repercussions would be too dire.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

I think the process would have to happen in the reverse in order to greatly expand orphanages and adoption programs.  If abortion keeps killing the kids people would adopt, we have no living children to expand programs for, right?  Let's keep the children alive first, then reform the system and our laws to meet their needs.

Well, here's the hard part.  As things currently stand, the majority of the federal budget is spent on the military.  This is true if you include all the supplemental spending that is often not listed in "official" federal budgets.  Until we're out of Iraq (or until we drastically lower spending in other areas), there's no way we have enough funds to shift to orphanages and adoption programs.

The last 6 years have proven that making tax cuts is easy, but cutting spending isn't.  Tax cuts gain votes, but spending cuts piss off special interest groups -- many of which practically run the Republican party.  Until Congress and the president can prove that they are willing to cut spending in the necessary ways and amounts to balance our budget, I can't rationally support a ban on abortion.  The financial repercussions would be too dire.

In terms of order of magnitude, the program would need to expand to 1000% of it's current size in the States (127k adoptions per year- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption#Adoption_numbers , 1.2m abortions according to OP).  There's a $10k tax break for people who adopt, which would cost $10 billion more per year alone.... still, that's only about 5 weeks military spending for Mr. Bush...  but then there might not be enough jobs without the inflated employment figures caused by the excessive military spending and the economy might recess too much to support the new program.... catch 22...

Turquoise wrote:

Whatever the case, here's a question: do you allow any exceptions in this proposed ban?

Recoil555 wrote:

. . . i think thats why doctors call it a fetus and not a child it isnt a child.

Stingray24 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Whatever the case, here's a question: do you allow any exceptions in this proposed ban?

Yes, only 2:
1 - When the life of the mother is truly in danger and no other medical procedure can save her life.  I would like to talk to some doctors in person to see if they have knowledge of situations like that.  In my wife's case, her life was in danger, but the solution was to welcome my son into the world early, not kill him. 
2 - In the case of rape or incest, very early in the pregnancy, to have as little psychological damage to the mother as possible.  I still wrestle with that one, though.  The child still doesn't deserve to die, but I wouldn't want the mother to give birth to a child from incest or rape, that's psychologically damaging, too.  Not a good situation either way.

Turquoise wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Recoil555 wrote:

. . . i think thats why doctors call it a fetus and not a child it isnt a child.

I think doctors call a baby a fetus so they can sleep at night after snuffing out an innocent human life.

Watch "Cider House Rules."  You might take a less flippant tone with doctors after viewing it.  Abortion is never an easy decision....

jonsimon wrote:

Sylvanis wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Pro-Life: No Abortion, ever.

Pro-Choice:No restrictions on abortion at all. Only exception: trimesters.

Pro-life can make exceptions for cases such as risk to mother, rape, incest.  To say pro-life is no abortions ever is to say Bush is pro-choice.

No, pro-life is strictly pro-life. Bush would be uncategorized. These categories represent the extremes.

SGT.Mays wrote:

Well all I have to say is it takes two baby. I mean someone had to consent there and women should know the guy aint the one with 9 months of pain ahead (well if he sticks aroud he does). And I personally think that before the heart starts to beat you should be allowed to "abort" the infant, but i'll be damned if I will sit here and let you say that it is better to kill a child than put it in the care of an unloving, poor, single mother. I was raised by my mother alone, she was 17 when she had me and I tell ya what it's been a hell of a ride ever since. Someone said there aren't enough caring familys for all the unwanted children. Well, i know plenty of people trying to adapt a kid, and some of them have been waiting for years just to have the paper work approved. There is no shortage of caring people in America, but then agian we sure as hell don't have a shortage of uncaring ignorant assholes. And in closing i say partial birth abortions are even more despicable then "normal" murder, you and that doctor just killed the most defensless being God took the time to make, you sick fuckers.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Sylvanis wrote:

Human are dangerous creatures.  They have done more damage to the world than any other species.  I would hazard a guess that we have done more damage than all other species combined.

Fascinating that humans would be a more destructive force than anything on the planet. News to me.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That doesn't change the meaning of the word semantics. You are wrong about the usage of the word semantics. Not that that has any bearing on the argument, but saying it is not semantics when it clearly is is just foolish.

Once again no.........It is incredibly stupid to argue a fetus is not a child, but then call it a child in your argument. THAT is not "semantics". He called it a child because that is what it is and deep down he obviously knows that.

It is not "semantics" to say something isn't "round" but then describe it as "round" in your argument. It is stupid. And the object in question obviously "round"

A fully grown adult is still someone's round, even though they aren't round...