SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Please don't tell me you don't know what liberty means.Wat.
Please don't tell me you don't know what liberty means.Wat.
Liberty does not make you free from natural consequences.Please don't tell me you don't know what liberty means.
This, btw, is something that is absolutely enshrined in western nations.A man choosing to have sex is also responsible for the child, he simply won't be incubating it within his body, because that's how biology works.
I told you, the consequence is the monetary cost. Besides, I don't imagine that abortions are stress free operations.Liberty does not make you free from natural consequences.
Awesome, so then if its body is autonomous, then it can stop depending on its mother!/s
Look, one side has formed their conclusions from purely logical grounds. I don't want a generation of unwanted children that grow up to be criminals and low-lives, nor do I want women to be forced to bear unwanted children they will only grow to hate. That's not fair on anyone, including their children.
The other side just wants to form laws based on scripture, which no civilized nation will allow. And there the argument ends, so please stop losing the Conservatives elections by insisting on it.
I told you, the consequence is the monetary cost. Besides, I don't imagine that abortions are stress free operations.
I see no reason for why all of society should suffer for their mistake.
No, it is not. Monetary cost is literally a way to avoid true consequence.I told you, the consequence is the monetary cost. Besides, I don't imagine that abortions are stress free operations.
I see no reason for why all of society should suffer for their mistake.
The "child" is a nonsapient clump of cells. Besides, bodily autonomy. You cannot be forced to save or preserve someone with your own body. That's why it's illegal to force someone to donate blood even to save a dying man.Nothing about your stance is "logical", in fact it is highly irrational. The baby is dependent on the mother, because of her own damn choices.
It isn't the responsibility of the child to stop depending on the mother, it is the mothers legal responsibility to care for the child she created. It has absolutely nothing to do with "scripture".
That they should be punished for it. If the mother cannot abandon the child, neither can he.you still haven't said how you feel about father's abandoning their child.
It's not paying anything. It isn't even alive.he cost the child pays is obviously much higher, ya know, like it's life.
at what age does it become sapient?The "child" is a nonsapient clump of cells.
so which is it. nonsapient clump of cells, or "not even alive".It's not paying anything. It isn't even alive.
The "child" is a nonsapient clump of cells. Besides, bodily autonomy. You cannot be forced to save or preserve someone with your own body. That's why it's illegal to force someone to donate blood even to save a dying man.
That they should be punished for it. If the mother cannot abandon the child, neither can he.
It's not paying anything. It isn't even alive.
Reddit is over there.Fuck corporations
Motherhood is bad for big business.
It's more that while the child at that stage is just a clump of cells (IIRC, fertilized eggs are often randomly aborted by the mother's body without them ever knowing due to certain biological processes being triggered, without the traditional signs of a miscarriage, which occurs when development of the fetus hits a certain stage), the point is that, left unimpeded by biology or human intervention, they develop fully into a person.The "non sentient clump of cells" is a human being in the earliest stages of the human lifecycle.
It is a human life, that isn't debatable.
A child that you created isn't comparable to a stranger that you have no connection or responsibility towards. It was the personal choice of the mother and father to create the person, so they have a responsibility to care for the person.
Except you are advocating for the mothers right to abandon the child via death here, so I'm not certain your opinion is consistent, if a mother can kill a child she doesn't want, then certainly a father should be able to abandon a child he doesn't want? Or do you only think women should be allowed to do that?
The child is absolutely 100% alive from the second the egg is fertilized, thats basic biology.
Reddit is over there.
Because workers come from thin air, apparently.
They either support abortions or they discriminate and don't hire women who are capable of having kids (e.g. in their twenties and thirties and such) in the first place.That's fucking hilarious for the redditor tier 'conservative' to tell someone else to go to reddit.
Just gonna ignore all the fuckery that corporations get up to? It's like ignoring the fuckery the government gets up to.
Big Business are chock full of fuckery, like Big Tobacco legitimately engaged in a conspiracy to keep the link between smoking and cancer out of the public's eye.
Women on maternity leave need to have the gap they left in the staffing filled, there needs to be a position there when the woman comes back, and they might not come back. Yes, motherhood is bad from a staffing position in the short term. Which if you haven't noticed is something of another problem we've been having with corporations. Re: the shit quality of entertainment being pumped out by corporations for short term gains instead of actual quality productions for long term profits.
It's absolutely within their ability and they have the motivation to encourage abortions over maternity leave.
It's called 'importing a workers from foreign countries' and it's a big problem, right now. As far as the nation and corporations are concerned they basically do come from thin air.
Do you not see how these things are linked? Or can you simply not follow the trail from 'abortions' to 'birth rate' to 'immigration' with the context of corporations?
Abortions are encouraged because it means that corporations don't have to deal with a gap in their workforce for maternity leave, make sure a slot is open for when the new mother comes back, or deal with the new mother not coming back.
Abortions contribute to low birth rates, regardless of the reason they are performed. This means less workers and less consumers, which means less profits.
New workers and consumers are needed to compensate. Especially if they're from a culture of breeders.
So nations have been importing workers and consumers from high birth rate places. And for two or three generations, they'll breed big.
I'm calling bullshit on the 85% statistic: If it were that high, there wouldn't be such open and hostile debates about it.If I wanted conspiracy theories about how corporations are responsible for everything bad in the world from (apparently) abortion rights to healthcare, I'd go to reddit.
Failing that, I'll just remind you that your position is the fringe, and 85% of the population is all for giving women bodily autonomy. The only quibbling in the real world is over what the deadline for abortion would be, not whether it should be allowed or not.
Concentration of power is responsible for all the evils in the world. Doesn't matter whether it is big government or big corporations, both are equally evil.If I wanted conspiracy theories about how corporations are responsible for everything bad in the world from (apparently) abortion rights to healthcare, I'd go to reddit.
Failing that, I'll just remind you that your position is the fringe, and 85% of the population is all for giving women bodily autonomy. The only quibbling in the real world is over what the deadline for abortion would be, not whether it should be allowed or not.
Speaking of, apparently corporations also think so, considering their massive bloat with administrative/legal CYA workers whose actual output beyond checking the right boxes on statistical forms is negligible, if not negative when it comes to professional political troublemakers of "diversity manager" vein.Because workers come from thin air, apparently.
If you're going to continue to pull that specific percentage, then I want sources. I want links, and sources verified by multiple researchers and outlets. If you're going to quote something, it needs to be cited. We'll treat this like a proper debate if need be, but I've not seen a single cited source from you on this topic.If I wanted conspiracy theories about how corporations are responsible for everything bad in the world from (apparently) abortion rights to healthcare, I'd go to reddit.
Failing that, I'll just remind you that your position is the fringe, and 85% of the population is all for giving women bodily autonomy. The only quibbling in the real world is over what the deadline for abortion would be, not whether it should be allowed or not.