(09-21-2020, 10:57 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 05:53 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: If you're imposing your will to force something into existence, then you are responsible for that thing. If you take away abortion, there will literally be hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people born into miserable circumstances and someone has to take care of them until their 18. I'm pro choice and I have never wanted kids, so why should my tax dollars pay for them when I was fine with abortion and these people not existing in the first place? If you want to force them to exist, then you take care of them.
That's a stupid argument that makes no sense at all. You are just throwing absurd things out there. One is an extreme method of birth control to prevent and unwanted child that doesn't exist yet and the other is murder of a living, breathing human that already exist. If you can't see the difference, you need help. 
I said that people eliminating abortions would be directly responsible for bringing these kids into miserable conditions. It's not life if you never existed at all. You keep talking in circles, but you have never directly addressed my question. What do YOU and other people like you, plan to do about all these new people you will force into existence? I presented all the problems that would arise if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, yet you have offered no solutions what so ever. How would you address the rise in crime, poverty, suicide, cost and many other ramifications created by undoing abortion laws? It's a simple question with no good or realistic answers. I have yet to find a pro-life person that will even attempt to answer those questions, because they know they can't.

---

You impose your will every time you enforce a law upon anyone. Is the person or advocate for that law responsible for anything that results from the enforcement of that law? We made domestic violence illegal, but we don’t push for advocates for those laws to be responsible for the families that are destroyed from it, so we?

Why then is it different here? We’re not forcing something into existence. It already exist. You’ve even called them people. The mother / father put them into existence. Abortions takes them out of existence. Humans are growing, maturing, evolving, etc. their entire lives. Why do you make an exception for babies in the womb? 

Again, you don’t know if hundreds of thousands (or millions) would suffer from being born. I could simply say that one of those babies could’ve solved all of those problems you suspect would happen because they’re born. 

I’m a tax payer to a bunch of services I don’t want, won’t use, and disagree with. But the same argument that you use to say that you will undoubtedly pay for these un aborted babies is all a guess. Surely, some of those babies may suffer, and we may be financially responsible for some of the others, but if being a financial burden is all it takes to destroy a human then we need to eliminate human life then we have many other situations that would justify eliminating life even after birth. My examples may be stupid but I’m using your argument here. My sole argument is that they’re human and shouldn’t be murdered unjustifiably. 

At what point do these nonexistent “people” exist to you? I agree that the crux of the argument is if they’re alive or not. But I contend that the human body is almost always changing being inside of another person doesn’t somehow negate their chance at life. But to address your question, I’m not responsible for the choices someone else made. We already have programs in place for the things you theorize would happen after being born. You keep saying that I must have an answer to something that hasn’t happen and something we don’t know would happen. Besides, the things you say would happen have other solutions that we should address anyway. Are you responsible for the complications that result from abortions? The disfigured survivors? The dead mothers? If I’m responsible for one side then you’re responsible for the other.

No, it doesn't and until we agree on this, there is no point to even further this conversation. 

People start to exist, when they take a breathe outside of the womb. 

We do know it would happen, because we already have huge problems with overcrowded foster care systems, poor who can't get or can't afford quality health care for their children, mental health issues that go unaddressed and a myriad of other issues. It isn't just one thing. What makes you rationally think that adding a huge amount of new people into the system won't just compound the issues we already have? Two and two will always equal four. If you have a problem and keep piling onto that problem, it's just gonna get bigger and bigger. 

Right now, abortions are relatively well regulated. Risks are fairly low, but as in any surgery unexpected complications can always arise. I'm willing to accept responsibility as a taxpayer for those complications, if your side is solely willing to accept the complications that would arise from the complications in illegal abortions that are not regulated and the responsibility of all the new kids put into the system, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned. I think we just compromised on something! Maybe we should be elected into congress. Things might actually get accomplished.

---

(09-21-2020, 11:21 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 10:32 AM)jj82284 Wrote: Speak more about that.

Science can't conclusively answer when life begins.  That's a metaphysical question.  Science can only tell us physical facts.  
Science tells us that each embryo has a unique combination of human (not chimp, not lizard, only human) DNA that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Science tells us that most human embryos that are detectable on ultrasound will develop into a healthy baby ready to be born if they are simply left alone inside the mother.
These scientific facts should guide and confine our ethics and metaphysics, but, ethics and metaphysics are matters of opinion, not physical fact.

That was beautifully explained.

---