I can rightfully call myself pro abortion. Anyone having a baby that lives below the poverty line should be forced to abort.

I can rightfully call myself pro abortion. Anyone having a baby that lives below the poverty line should be forced to abort.

It's certainly in their best interests, and those of the child, to not have a child, that's for sure.

Quote from: Mad Max on February 26, 2016, 12:14:39 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T 2016 on February 26, 2016, 12:07:47 PM

I can rightfully call myself pro abortion. Anyone having a baby that lives below the poverty line should be forced to abort.

It's certainly in their best interests, and those of the child, to not have a child, that's for sure.

"It is in the best interest of the child not to be born"

Yes.

If you can't even afford to care for yourself, you cannot afford to care for an extra dependent. You're going to severely complicate your own life and the life of the child by bringing them into that kind of living environment.

If they really want a child, they should wait until they can afford to care for a child.

Quote from: Mad Max on February 26, 2016, 12:20:31 PM

Yes.

If you can't even afford to care for yourself, you cannot afford to care for an extra dependent. You're going to severely complicate your own life and the life of the child by bringing them into that kind of living environment.

This reasoning makes sense in the context of family planning.

It is retarded reasoning for abortion.

So if someone living in poverty finds themselves to be pregnant, they should carry the pregnancy? That's a great plan...

Quote from: Mad Max on February 26, 2016, 12:23:00 PM

Quote from: Chief Among Sinners on February 26, 2016, 12:22:00 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 26, 2016, 12:20:31 PM

Yes.

If you can't even afford to care for yourself, you cannot afford to care for an extra dependent. You're going to severely complicate your own life and the life of the child by bringing them into that kind of living environment.

This reasoning makes sense in the context of family planning.

It is retarded reasoning for abortion.

So if someone living in poverty finds themselves to be pregnant, they should carry the pregnancy? That's a great plan...

If someone living in poverty finds themselves, as a consequence of their own actions, in a situation where they can save money and stress by killing someone, they should do it?

Spoiler

I use this reasoning because you have so far been using the word "child", which generally indicates that it is a person.

I use "child" because we're assuming they carry the pregnancy to term. Obviously a fetus is not a child, and abortion is not killing a person, nor is it murder.

Yes, a person who cannot support a child should terminate the pregnancy. Just like you wouldn't buy a car you can't afford, or move into a house that is well above your budget.

Quote from: Mad Max on February 26, 2016, 12:32:25 PM

Obviously a fetus is not a child,

This is not obvious at all. In fact, over all the abortion discussion I've seen here, I have not seen any clear reasoning behind this other than an appeal to biology based on the development of certain physical features.

A fetus becomes a child upon birth.

Quote from: Mad Max on February 26, 2016, 12:39:21 PM

Quote from: Chief Among Sinners on February 26, 2016, 12:36:39 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 26, 2016, 12:32:25 PM

Obviously a fetus is not a child,

This is not obvious at all. In fact, over all the abortion discussion I've seen here, I have not seen any clear reasoning behind this other than an appeal to biology based on the development of certain physical features.

A fetus becomes a child upon birth.

And you come to this conclusion based on what?

Based on the definition of a fetus and the definition of a child. The actual act of giving birth is the only objective method to determine the difference. None of those wishy-washy windows of weeks of development.

Quote from: Mad Max on February 26, 2016, 12:53:10 PM

Quote from: Chief Among Sinners on February 26, 2016, 12:51:49 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 26, 2016, 12:46:52 PM

Based on the definition of a fetus and the definition of a child. The actual act of giving birth is the only objective method to determine the difference. None of those wishy-washy windows of weeks of development.

So a fetus, hours before birth, fully functional and capable of surviving outside of the mother, is not a person. While one at the exact same developmental stage, having been "born", is a person, by virtue of having passed through the birth canal.

Correct.

We don't issue birth certificates before people are born. You become a legally-recognized person upon birth.

That's arbitrary as fuck.

Why on earth would you an issue a BIRTH certificate if someone hasn't been BORN yet? An appeal to previous legal practice for this shit is inane.

How is a distinct act in any way arbitrary? The process of birth is the only distinct event in the pregnancy process.

I hope that we can once and for all dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world. That's why he passed Obamacare, and the stimulus, and Dodd Frank, and the deal with Iran. It is a systematic effort to change America. When Marco Rubio is President of the United States, we are going to re-embrace all the things that made America that greatest nation in the world, and we are going to leave our children with what they deserve: the single greatest nation in the history of the world.