Questions For Pro-Lifers

Your "putting them into context" is nothing more than your interpretation, it can be nothing else .. unless you read the bible and take everything it says as it is, anything else is interpretation .. exactly the same as I have done and nowhere do I say that my interpretation is "gospel truth" .. but it is just a relevant and reliant as your interpretation.

 

As usual I see that Anti-Choicers still cannot answer how making abortion illegal will stop abortions.

As usual I see that Anti-Choicers still cannot answer why they want children to be born to those who do not want them and/or can't afford them. (What a terrible thing to wish for a child! Do they hate children so much???)

 

I'd like you to show me one post anywhere on this forum where a pro lifer said that making abortion illegal would stop abortions from ever happening. We've made murder illegal but yet murders still take place daily across this country so I guess, using your train of thought, we may as well make murder legal as well right? DUI is illegal but thousands of people get busted for that every day, so I guess under your banner of vast intelligence we might as well make DUI legal as well right? so what your saying is that a law can be broken then we should not even have that law right? so we might as well not have any laws according to your grand wisdom. LMAO
Then you go on to accuse pro lifers of hating children because...wait...wait for it....because we want them to LIVE!
and the pro aborts love children so much that they want to ...yep you guessed it...KILL THEM.
Dude, please stop it you killin' me, when I actually read the stupidity that you call a reply I literally laughed so hard that I shot coffee out a my nose and all over my keyboard. Thanks. now I gotta go clean up.

 

So Anti-Choicers don't want to make abortion illegal? Funny, they sure seem to....

I can see by all the anger, rudeness, and insults (your poor children!)contained in your post that you probably can't see that murder and drunk driving are wrong but abortion isn't. And yes, when you want to condemn a child to a life where it's parent didn't want it and it will be poor the rest of it's life that ain't exacly "love".

Now go blow out the usual coffee in your nose....might help.

 

I am guessing that you are not understanding the thrust of my reply. you are right, if we make abortion illegal (which us pro lifers hope will happen soon) abortions will still happen. "back alley, kitchen table" abortions are inevitable, but they will be difficult to obtain, very expensive, and potentially life threatening, so hopefully must people would avoid such a thing by being more responsible with their social "mingling", or put unwanted children up for adoption.
Now regarding my "poor children", which children are you referring to? my 2 biological sons that are all grown up or the 4 foster children we've taken into our home last June ranging from 3 months to 5 yrs old, all of which would have been aborted had it not been for my wife talking to the mother at planned parenthood as she was going in for an abortion. Yea I must be a pretty evil and nasty person to (literally on a moments notice) bring 4 very young children into my home. Hey I've got an idea, why don't you stop by my house tomorrow morning while my wife and I and all our children are sitting around the dining room table enjoying waffles with syrup, sliced apples, and a cold glass of milk and you can ask these "unwanted" children if they'd rather be where they are right now or if they'd rather be ripped into little pieces limb from limb and flushed down the toilet, because thats where they would have ended up if it had not been for my wifes intervention.
I bet when you where still in your mothers womb that you weren't so "pro choice" then.

 

Don’t kill your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kids. When the sperm hits the egg, it’s a person and has all the same rights as the rest of us. Plain, simple, and to the point.

It would be difficult at first. This is certainly a valid concern. It would probably be a process that would improve over time in effectiveness. I would think that to prevent innocent people from going to prison, there would probably be an initial period of quite a few miscarriages of justice (no pun intended) where no charges were filed until all the kinks got worked out of the system.

For the record, you claim not to be belittling the pro-life position, but you’re still putting “persons” in quotes. You might want to stop doing that. It shows that even when you’re trying to be objective, you’re still emotionally hostile toward your opposition.

How do you prove that people travel to other countries to have sex with underage children? It’s called tourism, and it’s still a pretty severe crime. Yet I imagine it’s probably pretty difficult to prove. You just do the best you can. How many people are actually going to do this, though? Compared to how many just stroll into Planned Parenthood today and say, “Stick a needle in me, doc. I don’t want this one.”

“Is the egg fertilized?” is the only thing that matters. If yes, then it would be banned. If no, then fair game. I don’t know that much about IUDs, so you might have to educate me on this one. Are they designed more for preventing conception or tampering with it after the fact?

I would think a situation like this would be one that ventures into mental health territory. A background check for eating disorders would probably be conducted, and a psychiatric evaluation would be done. If she’s deemed psychologically healthy, she’d be tried for murder. If not, she’d probably be hospitalized.

This is a tough one. And a lot of us have different answers on this. And I’m going to be perfectly honest with you. I don’t actually have a solid response for you here. I have always thought this one area is a place where there are no easy answers either way. Fortunately, it is a rarity that does not happen that often. This statistic is often inflated and waved around by pro-abortion activists as a scare tactic to keep people on the side of abortion. Which is both sick and dishonest.

Some adjustments would definitely have to be made. But on the upside, I would predict that many of the people who routinely fight for lower taxes would be willing to take a tax increase for something like this since most of us are pro-life. Most of us are okay with paying a little more when it goes to a legitimate cause. Provided that spending cuts are also utilized.

But I have always been more of a proponent of prevention than cure, so I would focus much more heavily on stopping this at the source rather than dealing with the aftermath. I would focus on decreasing that number considerably.

See above.

I’m all for legitimate sex education that does not cross over into promotion. Kids are horny enough. They don’t need to be taught that a blowjob is an appropriate substitute for sex like they teach in England. That’s stupid. Responsibility must be the core principle being pushed with the facts. Perhaps each program should require guest speakers with various STDs and unplanned/teenage pregnancies to further personalize the potential consequences and minimize the “it won’t happen to me” attitude. That is exactly the attitude that causes these types of things in the first place.

 

Abortion is merely a political agenda. It's used by the media to make conservative men look like they hate women and that focus is put on the young women voters and "feminists." Just forget about the fact that those same conservative men share all responsibilities with their wives these days. This isn't 1950. The simple answer to this question is that it won't become illegal, ever. And I don't think it should be. It would be like when prohibition was put in place, people still made beer. It just wasn't as sanitary or safe. Same thing, it would still happen. I have strong belief in personal responsibility and if a person decides to abort a baby, that's on them, not me. Do what you have to do as long as you can live with.

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion is merely a political agenda. It's used by the media to make conservative men look like they hate women and that focus is put on the young women voters and "feminists." Just forget about the fact that those same conservative men share all responsibilities with their wives these days. This isn't 1950. The simple answer to this question is that it won't become illegal, ever. And I don't think it should be. It would be like when prohibition was put in place, people still made beer. It just wasn't as sanitary or safe. Same thing, it would still happen. I have strong belief in personal responsibility and if a person decides to abort a baby, that's on them, not me. Do what you have to do as long as you can live with.

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion is merely a political agenda. It's used by the media to make conservative men look like they hate women and that focus is put on the young women voters and "feminists." Just forget about the fact that those same conservative men share all responsibilities with their wives these days. This isn't 1950. The simple answer to this question is that it won't become illegal, ever. And I don't think it should be. It would be like when prohibition was put in place, people still made beer. It just wasn't as sanitary or safe. Same thing, it would still happen. I have strong belief in personal responsibility and if a person decides to abort a baby, that's on them, not me. Do what you have to do as long as you can live with.

 

Bolding in blue above, mine.

Keep talking and I'm sure humans will just stop having sex 'cause you say so....

 

In your view yes, but how do you word the law to take into account how miscarriages would be investigated, would it be a criminal offence for a woman not to report a miscarriage and if so how are you going to enforce that law?

No matter what process is put in place it would still involve some sort of examination of the woman, what would happen if she refused such an examination, as is her right.

I put "persons" in quotes because in the past I have been told that I must think they are persons because I don't, no intent to offend.

The people who can afford to will, this will mean the law will only effect the poorest, those who can ill afford another child .. you may counter by saying they shouldn't have sex then, fair enough .. in the end though you will create a segregated society with those who can afford to will just keep on having sex and abortions in other countries, while the poorest will either refrain from sex or become a bigger drain on the state.

An IUD interferes with the womb lining making it more difficult for an egg to implant .. however it also thickens the mucus at the womb entrance which makes it more difficult for sperm to swim through it .. so it essence it is both.

If deemed not, would she be forced fed?

The figure is around 1% in the USA (13,000) for rape & incest .. and although a rarity it is still something that would have to be addressed in any law.

According to these figures (From 1995) the cost of care per child in the US was approx $312 per week .. you can calculate the extra cost if 114,000 extra children per year were added to the care system. - http://futureofchildren.org/publica...xml?journalid=51&articleid=269&sectionid=1772

I agree, making sex education better is what is required, as is the free access to contraception for all sexually active people.

I don't know where you got the idea that a blow job is a substitute for sex is taught in English schools .. it isn't.

 

Come on Unifier waiting for your responses

 

Still waiting

 

I'll bring this thread back to life as we seem to have a few new fanatics .. wonder if they will answer.

 

Regardless of how it is worded, the federal government shouldn't be involved. Ever. This is a state matter, the powers lie with the states. Let them decide. Me personally? I am of the opinion that a person should be able to receive an abortion only if sexual intercourse was unlawful, or the life of the mother is at risk, or deemed by competent medical authority that the child is a potato. Essentially my view is the LDS Church view on abortion. As for the cash? Regardless of what happens, they are paying for it, or the aggressor of the crime is paying for it. Should never be the tax payer.

I wouldn't, those who would try are simpletons chasing a rainbow. If someone comes forth with admission of guilt than they are subject to prosecution for the crime - like repentant bank robbers.

See answer #2. Our laws apply to this country, only while in this country. At least that should be how it works.

No. If people choose to not become pregnant that is entirely their choice. Government should back the hell off.

I would do the same thing I do for those who have already committed suicide, not a damn thing. But I would make her ineligible for any and all state related healthcare regarding her eating disorder's complications. Hurting yourself does not make one entitled to another's money.

Yes, but the bill should be paid by the aggressor of the crime, or the the victim, or victim's family. But I would require undeniable proof of rape, and if proven the rapist will never be eligible for parole, and subjects himself to organ harvesting.

Loosen adoption requirements and costs - not perfect but better than what we have now. Most people are not abusive to children, contrary to what the government might think. Although I would only adopt them out to parents that already have children and are married. Traditional nuclear family is the best option for a child. I would also encourage adoption to foreign nations that are seeking children provided they can be proofed for human trafficking.

If there is a case of human trafficking I would require a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to be issued towards the offender, recover the child if possible, and execute the offenders and all who enabled it to happen, or enslave them in our prison system as a labor force. I would make sure the Marines were in charge of this and inform them that they need not be kind in the execution of their duties towards the offenders or those who stand in their way. If this makes other countries uncomfortable, than they need to fix their human trafficking problem. Don't (*)(*)(*)(*) with children. End of story.

I would slave out existing prisoners and illegal immigrants as workers for basic manual labor at a rate of minimum wage where cost effective, the prisoners would be paid with 1/6 of the profit, food, water, shelter, and basic medical care if they worked. They would not be allowed to simply sit in a cell any longer - they would be charitably and gainfully employed. The profits of this would go towards the children.

Illegal immigrants captured in such a fashion would be detained in labor for 5 years, then branded and microchipped in several places and deported to country of origin. If they return again I would detain them again for 5 years, then execute them, or sell their organs/body parts/blood plasma to the highest bidder. Organs and body parts run for a pretty penny. Existing death row inmates would also have their organs/body parts sold to the highest bidder.

Additionally, I would decriminalize all illegal drugs and tax them modestly. This would provide ample amounts of cash for this program.

Federal government removal from it entirely. States may do so if they wish. Me personally? I would show them the biological aspects of it in a grade their parents felt appropriate, along with the financial responsibilities involved with children. I would make sex be seen as something not a taboo but a natural process, but one that must be used with care, caution, and timing. Abstinence would be recommended for health's sake, economics, and societal well being until adulthood. However, if a parent chooses to remove their child from this program it is up to them. Parents have sovereignty prior to state concerning their children, so long as it is lawful. Alternative sexual behaviors that fall under LGBTQ would not be taught by the state, such things lie in the hands of the parents if they choose to do so. Contraception methods both effective and non effective would be taught so students can get myths dispelled.

Contraception? This is the responsibility of the user, not the state. The state would not pay for it.

Hope the above satisfies your requirements.

 

A few things I would not agree with, but on the whole a pretty balanced response. I have to say GF that you are one of the very few people who debate this subject without a whole load of emotional content .. its refreshing.

 

Which parts would you disagree with? As I look over it there are parts I'd edit myself. This was fairly off the cuff so to speak.

 

My thought provoking answers

1.It is called MURDER
2.First we would have to know she is actually pregnant,and thats an over-reach by Govt in the first place.
3.We live in a free society to travel,if she went to another country,,,,
4.IUDs are contraception
5.Get her the now needed mental help
6.No,thats a cop-out argument(IMO),a child is a child no matter the consequences of the conception
7.Your numbers are flawed,just look how Russia now suspended americans from adopting children,
8.Simple,make the mother/father responsible,its not societies responsibility
9.Parents,its their responsibility,no one elses.

Okay those are my answers,now for my commentary

I see and believe that the abortion issue is where the USA lost its moral compass,and since then we as a nation have decided its ok to kill a fetus and yet for some reason a murderer cant be killed for crimes committed.In this day and age why are so many babies being still terminated? answer is pure laziness on the two that are having unprotected sex,pure lazy.And it doesnt matter ag group,race,wage,it happens to a full range of the spectrum.

Abortion is vile,I cant understand how a person can do this,or worse yet more than once

I wonder how a woman would react,if when she decided that a abortion was needed,that the other procedure would be a hysterectomy right afterwards,against her will,and without her consent

 

A fine point you make.

 

Why should your OPINION of abortion be forced on others?

Your last sentence is a mystery????

You don't like to force women to do things? You do like forcing women to do things?????

 

I still don't get the point of your last sentence but I would think some women would feel the same about being forced to give birth to a child they don't want....

 

would murder cover it and how would you fund the extra requirements for prison places.

Fair answer

Tie this to your question 1 response and most international border are not safeguards for non conviction, so would the woman be convicted on her return to the US, and what measures would be in place to investigate whether it was an abortion or a natural miscarriage.

IUD's stop the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus wall, most pro-lifers who say life starts at conception would also say that IUD's are a type of abortion and therefore should be banned.

This is assuming she has a mental problem, where as she could be doing it purely to rid herself of the pregnancy

I'd love to see you say that face to face to rape victims

They are calculated using the latest figures for the number of children in care & the percentage of born children entering care (10%) .. it is quite easy to calculate the number of extra children if abortion were made illegal.

You do know what going into care means I suppose .. and this is the typical pro-life stance, they don't give two cents for the post-born.

Fair enough, though I don't agree with that.

Morality is entirely perception, there are no universal morals that are inherited, they all come from the society we just happen to be born into and the peers we learn from.. your morals are no better than somebody elses, nor should a person try to force their morality onto others.

Some murderers are killed for their crimes, that is why the USA have death rows.
over 50% of abortions are performed on woman who did use contraception.

While we are at it why don't we just cut of the hands of thieves, castrate rapists, remove the tongues of people who spout hate speech (such as against homosexuals) .. oh hell why don't we just execute everyone who commits any crime .. just think of the money that would be saved (BTW that is sarcasm)
If you did wahat you say you would be guilty of committing a crime against the woman, who is afforded all the rights of a person, unlike a fetus that is not legally a person and as such has no rights.

 

Perfectly acceptable - harm has been done to another person.

No victim in this "crime" because harm has not been done. Making laws based off of feelings of another is a road to madness. "Hate speech" is simply free speech that somebody doesn't really like, this type of legislation is a direct violation of 1st amendment rights. Even if it is rude we can't just axe murder the bill of rights.

BTW, what did you disagree with on my hypothetical legislation? I'm curious.

 

Mostly this

most of this would go against human right legislation and I see no point in branding immigrants, they are only trying to do what most people advocate, improving their life .. better to improve border controls and immediate deportation for any found illegally with no legal challenges allowed.

to your actual response, hate speech does create victims, it also does nothing to help foster peace .. also as far as I am aware free speech does not allow for lies, saying things like AIDS was caused by gay people and that they have a mental illness, and that it is a life choice have been shown to be untrue.

 

Admittedly, it would require some courage to put through, and some big time prerequisite legislation. The branding, enslavement, and execution bit is to deter future entrances while profiting from their trespass. If we reduce incentive for them arrive, most will stop coming except the most determined ones.

This depends on what you call "harm" then, because harm is a tangible thing - meaning you can touch it. Never in my life have I seen a homosexual be bruised by calling him a "(*)(*)(*)". Just using this as an example is all as it represents the very demographic you postulated. His physiology is unchanged, his ego may certainly be bruised but at the end of the day we are all in charge of our own minds and our feelings.

Now if I take a crowbar and kneecap the guy, then harm has been done, and I get to spend some time in a dungeon. Making such a thing as "hate speech" is so utterly variable that it shouldn't be considered for legislation based off the fact that not everybody feels the same way. But everybody can agree that being kneecapped is wrong. I have been called racial epithets before by brown and black people, didn't bug me. Another guy called me a dumbass at work and I put a knife at his throat and educated him to never do it again(there were other reasons for this). Too many variables to realistically enforce. Same guy, called me a smart ass, I simply smiled and laughed at him because of the situation.

Free speech can certainly be irritating and obnoxious but that is the point of it. The whole point of free speech is to be able to "stick it to the man" and not be oppressed about it. And lying is entirely permissible, I could stand outside on a public walk and do my best to convince the world that the sky was butt brown, certainly they would know I was lying and am full of crap but they cannot arrest me for it. I could do that until I died and never get arrested for that - they would pull some obscure "disturbing the peace" or other jackassery law they could find. But couldn't put me away for lying.

Meh, I think there is both dissenting opinions and evidence on this topic, but this isn't the thread for it. I don't know if homosexuality is the cause of AIDS, but it certainly is not uncommon in those circles.

 

Lightning strike of the obvious, this will never happen. Businesses like repeat customers. No matter how much the eugenicists would love to do it, they love money more. Hypocrites.

 

No it is not

So how then are we to prevent this "murder"??

Not according to some - they consider them "murder" because they prevent implantation of a fertilised egg