I would gladly trade gay marriage and capital punishment to end abortion

I would gladly trade gay marriage and capital punishment to end abortion.

Would any of you liberals care to take me up on this offer?

 

So women would give up their reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. What would you give up?

 

Yes, you won't take me up on this offer. That figures. Killing babies is too important to you to give up, even if it means your gay friends can get married and your murderer friends don't get executed.

 

You haven't really offered anything. I asked what YOU would give up in exchange for women giving up their reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. Well?

 

Abortion is a Liberal sacred cow. They would give up gay marriage and ending the death penalty long before they would ever give up abortion. That being said, Liberals are not very good at compromising.

It would be too much inconvenience for a modern-minded woman if she were forced to keep her pregnancies.

 

I don't get what you're trying to say. Please elaborate.

What do you mean by, "I would gladly trade gay marriage and capital punishment to end abortion"?

 

Why should pro-choicers compromise on abortion when our proposed policies result in fewer abortion and maternal deaths?

 

The United States has over 3,000 abortions per day, so obviously your proposed policies aren't working.
http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/MzQ/id/NjA3OQ/

 

That's because pro-lifers have refused to even consider policies proven to reduce rates. And as we speak, Repubicans are trying to defund Obamacare which would dramatically reduce abortions:

http://community.babycenter.com/post/a41939479/obamacare_reduces_abortions_dramatically

 

What policies have Democrats proposed to reduce abortion rates? I haven't seen anything come down the pike. In California, they're actually making it legal for non-physicians to perform abortions, so as far as I can tell Democrats want MORE abortions, not fewer.

 

Anyway, I think the trends are going this way.

More and more people are pro-life every year. And the number of abortion clinics keep going down.

 

Yet most people do not wish to criminalize abortion. Go figure...

 

But yet it will happen. Abortion is like the slavery issue. It's not going to ever go away.

 

Interesting that you think you can trade in peoples rights, and not just abortion either, what makes you think you have the authority to even propose a trade like this?

Here is my counter proposal;

Pro-lifers leave 1st & 2nd trimester abortions alone, stop trying to force pathetic sex education mandates, stop the war on contraception and we will agree to a ban on all abortion after 21 weeks (except in cases where the woman would die if the pregnancy continued)

Would any of you religious conservatives or even just conservatives take me up on this offer?

If that one doesn't seem to appeal . .how about you give up your gun rights instead?

 

Only in your dreams

Heard it all before and it's still a pile of steaming BS

Nope, not as long as the pro-lifers of the USA has this love affair with religion and controlling others it won't, and even if abortion were to be made illegal.. pro-lifers would just move on to something else, abortion is just one branch of the tree.

 

I think the "pro-choice" crowd is kind of conceited when it says the notion of abortion itself "results in fewer abortions". There are many reasons women get abortions, and the fact that there's a clinic doesn't necessarily lower the abortion. It could be, that a significant portion of women wish to become mothers. It could be that the economy during those times was productive, or even more profound: Perhaps there isn't even a sexual relationship.

Because despite all of our advances, the vagina still needs the penis and without it, there's no baby. Sperm donors can only do so much .

 

That is what happens when you look at the world through blinkers and a myopic viewpoint.

 

Equality isn't for bargaining.

 

I have a problem with your "proposal", as it relates to your sig. You yourself state that Abortion Reduction can only be accomplished through Educational rather than Legislative means. And yet, here you say you want to eliminate the mandates for sex education. So, which is it?

Other than that, I would be more than happy to accept your proposal. I've always said that I find Abortion abhorrent, and I want to find the closest thing possible to a realistic solution. 21 weeks is a little over 5 months, by that time the woman should have a feasible understanding of whether or not she wants to carry the child to term.

If I could add to it, I'd say I'd like to add some kind of regulatory measures regarding teen pregnancy and even young adults engaging in affairs that frankly they themselves know full well they're ill-equipped for. As much as we decry the Nanny State, perhaps it's necessary for a "licence" to marry or even to have consensual sex, this might even be a very significant weapon against rapists, as males without "licence" to have consensual sex will be easy to target and it might be even easier to prove and get a conviction.

And I decry the President's recent effort to get kids 16 and under for the Morning-After pill. If we hook our young girls to sexual drugs, what next? Not even a Liberal could think of this as tolerable not even for contraceptive purposes.

I think everything I've outlined here is fair and reasonable, and it would heavily curtail Abortion to my satisfaction. We need babies, not dead fetuses. Every economy thrives off of actions. And nothing forces more action than the building of a new life of a family.

 

Crossed purposes here .. I don't want to eliminate the mandates for sex education, I want the pro-lifers to leave it alone and allow a full comprehensive sex education for all children instead of trying to force through their ill conceived and failure ridden abstinence only programs.
I firmly believe, and all the evidence supports, that comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception, at least, reduces unintended pregnancies and therefore abortion.

and to a point I agree .. however, this to me is purely a compromise, it isn't something I really believe in .. I would have a better acknowledgement if it became part of standard practice for the medical profession without the requirement of law, the reason I say this is that there is little, to no, evidence that a woman would electively abort after 21 weeks.

Would be fraught with problems I would think.

If the attack on comprehensive sex education and contraception were to stop I could see this being a very minor problem . .though I do think that each case should be looked at via it's own merits instead of a blanket cover.

 

Don't hold your breath.

If that is your only argument then it will never be made illegal.

it does not have to "go away" but it will remain legal.

 

This is like the racist in 1965 saying "Okay, look ya'll....I'll give ya Medicare and equal pay for women....as long as you don't let the coloreds vote? How's that for a deal, huh?"

 

If that was what we said you would be right .. but it isn't and never has been.

Pro-choicers advocate that the unwanted or unintended pregnancy never happens in the first place, which is why we support the only known methods of reducing unwanted or unintended pregnancies, that of comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception. most pro-lifers on the other hand want to restrict the very things that, at least, reduce unwanted or unintended pregnancies and to top that stop women from having any other recourse as well .. The pro-life mandate is the only one that will increase the deaths not decrease them.

I have said it before and I will say it again, despite the denials of pro-lifers, pro-choice and pro-life pretty much want the same thing and that is, at least, a reduction in abortions, the biggest difference between the two camps is how to achieve it.

Pro-lifers think it can be done with legislation - proven not to work
Pro-choicers think it can be done through education & contraception - proven to work

If people really were pro-life would they not support the measures that have been proven to, at least, reduce abortions?

 

Agreed .. though it is fun to see just how far pro-lifers are willing to go in order to fulfil their obsession.

 

I think the issue then is symbolic and rather Spiritual in nature(as well as practical). I can only speak for myself, but I feel like my feelings are representative in part of the Pro-Life stance. Firstly, I'd have to say that again I feel as though Abortion is abhorrent, among many reasons for that, chiefly being that as a Human Being I recognize that I came from the womb. And to support Abortion, is the same as to denounce myself. Obviously, fundamental Christianity(which I'm not a part of), holds the same concepts regarding childhood.

The second issue of great importance, is the seemingly lax *regulations*(if any at all) on the Abortion practice. Which makes something which is already abhorrent, even more so. Had no one reported on Gosnell, he would've gone on uninterrupted and little doubt that the pro-abortion crowd would say "If women "choose" to go there". The seemingly lax or non-existent regulations make it even more apparent of a woman's demi-godhood and this in of itself is morally and fundamentally wrong for the third issue of great importance.

And that is, Abortion fundamentally alters the relationship process. Perhaps this is the greatest reason for pro-life movements, but it simply must be acknowledged: Abortion holds power over men in the relationship, at best he can plead for his child but he has no legal or legitimate say in the manner. Which makes the crying about 'birth control sabotage' all the more ironic, perhaps if there was an equity then there would be less sexual violations in consensual affairs?

To be sure, at this point you're going to cry "It's your body", and your right, it is your body. But a child is what brings a relationship truly together, and it's a female's promise to a man in that regard.(Just as the wedding ring is his promise to her). All consensual relationships which abide by the law, and where the couple is truly happy, without doubt share a 50/50 role between them.

"Moderate Feminists" clamored for this 50/50 split, but without this most crucial promise, it's more like 53/45. Divorces are expensive, Family Courts are worse.
The time where females were oppressed has long since come to an end, and now men are financially compromised as well as from a romantic and sexual perspective.

Symbolically, men probably don't wish for a guarantee. I've stated from the onset that unfortunately Abortion is here to stay. Moral pride and dignity flew out the window a long time ago, the very concept of "unwanted" or "unintended" pregnancies demonstrates that fact all too clearly. 30 or so years ago, would a woman have ever said "I don't want my child"?

You might claim the Patriarchy existed at that time, but I choose to believe differently. I choose to believe women took pride in their motherhood. And perhaps the greatest moral offense of abortion is that IMO and in the opinion of many men I believe, abortion strips women of their fundamental pride. We won't be able to return to 30 years ago, but perhaps the closest we can return to restoring a woman's faith in a relationship(and above all a man's), is to at least give him the same legal teeth with which to make the abortion decision.

Because it affects men just as much, although I admit, that obviously the scales are pushed towards the female regarding health(and economic), whereas the effect of an abortion or delivering birth has only an economic impact on men.