Everyone Calls it a Baby When She's Not Having an Abortion

No, sec made the subject about himself when he suggested a woman should be accountable (punished) for her "night of pleasure."

 

Accountability and responsability are different than punishment. In other contexts I'm guessing you're aware of that, but you want to flip things around to be about something other than killing babies.

Now, I can't speak for sec. But I suspect their issue is with killing babies. If so, I was just pointing out that this straw man crap is going to happen every time they can't keep a lid on their rhetoric and provide such an opportunity, whatever they might think of people that they feel kill babies for convenience.

 

Yes, they are different, but when used with "night of pleasure," it implies sex is a bad thing. Accountable means answerable. To whom must women answer for having sex?

"Killing babies" is infanticide, not abortion. So this is NOT about killing babies.

 

umm

I never said punished. That is your deflection with a code word

I have no issues with anyone engaging in consentual sex but take precautions or accept the results. Killing a child is not an option

to you, it seems that killing of the child is the first option vs condoms or the pill...............pathetic

 

You implied it.

"Night of pleasure" has a contemptuous ring to it.

Absolutely not. I support easily accessible contraception; YOU do not. Pro-lifers, of all people, should be the first to promote policies that reduce the abortion rate. The fact that you vehemently refuse to support those policies shows without a doubt that it isn't about "babies;" it's about punishing women for their "night of pleasure."

 

Was this some kind of phantom night of pleasure she was having on her own? No, hang on, maybe a man was involved in there, somewhere, too.

How was his night of pleasure? Lucky thing, huh? Having his night of pleasure - and not having to answer / be accountable for ANYTHING.


Bless your little sexist heart.

 

Alright, if your purpose was to sharpen your rhetoric for a town hall debate, than congratulations, your ability to twist around his disdain for murderers into a straw man argument where he doesn't care about the dead babies/fetuses is well honed.

Bonus on being able to twist not wanting to pay for other people to have sex as sec not caring about killing babies despite their obvious pro life stance. That's some crafty intellectual dishonesty there.

Clearly, sec would be in trouble with a town hall debate with you, or Gwendoline here who seems to have ignored the whole rest of the thread to reply to secs opening for a subject change.

But this isn't a town hall debate where you're trying to conveince some audience. You aren't going to convince sec they don't mean what they mean, and the pro-choicers are in on the joke.


Though to discuss the issue I suppose I'd have to guage where your stance is on related issues. Obviously the discussion changes if you support parents who decide to strangle their kid and bury them out back if they won't stop crying at night, or if you support them killing the child after birth if it's a girl and they wanted a boy, if it has some physical defect or just isn't good looking enough, or because they've changed their mind and decide they don't want it after all.

So do you support those things? If not what are your reasons for not supporting them?

 

nah

clearly sec doesn't encourage game playing

sec has been quite clear; it's either life or death despite the cute words. The pro-death crowd can try to ignore it all they want but the truth is the truth

 

actually, I believe both the male and female babies should be allowed to live. I'm not following how that is sexist? Do you support killing one sex of the child over the other or do you equally support snuffing of lives of both sexes?

Inquiring minds want to know

 

Personal responsibility warrants the mother to keep her baby. That is what maturity is. That is what is required in a civilized society. The process of all this is to understand the consequences going into the act, beforehand. If people can't do that, then what are they doing going through with the act in the first place?

And I like the eugenics schtick. Didn't see that coming...lol.

The reason we have a shortage is because we have to many stupid people going to the doctor for the most trival things that doctors really can't treat. At least half the people who walk into a doctor office, don't need to be there and they are wastin their time and money, alon with the doctors.

 

She is saying its "sexist" of you because you didn't mention any responsibility of the guy.

She is playing semantic, emotional feminist games.

Aka...."your blaming the woman!!!!"

 

I don't believe in eugenics, but the point I made cannot be denied. I invoked it to point out the sheer absurdity in talking about abortion which works to limit the population AND prevent men and women who don't want the child from having the child they don't want. The most basic foundation of being a good parent is that you wanted to be a parent, and a good one at that, in the first place. WIthout that, the rest is moot, and you end up with children being raised in orphanages, or on the streets.

I agree completely with your last paragraph though. I believe you nailed it actually. Another consequence of unnecessary doctor's visits is the over-prescription of antibiotics which is contributing to the rise of anti-biotic resistant germs. From what I understand, that's even more of a problem in India where they use antibiotics a lot more than they do here so they are getting into the water and the ground, allowing these bacteria to become resistant to it. We're going to be seeing some epidemics that doctor's may end up being powerless to stop in the coming years because of this. It's kind of scary actually, and I'm definitely not one to fear monger.

 

I am sure his night was just as pleasurable.

It's nice attempt to find a coup out to kill the baby, but it doesn't get to the real underlying issue here with you.

And that is your mad as hell that nature has "forced" women to bare children and in your mind it's not fair that men get to just walk away right? (*)(*)(*)(*) that mother nature!....lol. That is what I hear from comments like this. The person makin this argument against men, is nothing short of a lunatic feminist mad at the world because of how nature set it all up. A man that walks away from his woman is not a man at all Gwendoline. Isn't that self understood? If the woman is comfortable enough to sleep with a sleezbag, why should she expect him to hang around? And vice versa, what man wants to be with a girl who is always looking to one up the man she has now? And the 2 morons can't figure out why they end up in the situation they find themselves?.....lol.

Boogles the mind.

 

But in your last comment you condoned eugenics. Now you say you don't believe in it? I am totally confused bro.

 

Providing contraception with tax dollars is not "paying other people to have sex." If you didn't know, people will have sex with or without contraception. Always have, always will. So for one who claims to "cherish life," the logical course would be to provide contraception because that has been proven to reduce abortions. Furthermore, it has been proven in studies that providing contraception to those who can't afford it saves $4 for every dollar spent in eventual social costs. When pro-lifers promote laws and policies that actually reduce abortion, then I will believe they care about the "babies." When anti-abortion laws do nothing to reduce abortion, I have to believe there are other motives for them.

Throwing around false and extreme rhetoric like "murderers," and "killing babies," foments anti-abortion violence. Is that what your purpose is?

 

I never said I condoned it. I said the reality of the situation was so absurd, that we're talking about taking measures to make sure MORE people have babies when we can't even care for the ones we had. The more sane conversation to have would be whether we should be having babies at all, but that does not equate to me supporting a one child policy, or forced abortions, or forced sterilization, or any of that. Just the fact that a conversation about eugenics is more relevant and less absurd than a conversation about stopping abortion illustrates just how backwards our society can be in some instances.

 

Hurm. I suppose "keep her baby" is actually a confusing term. Do you mean "not abort the baby" or "not give it up for adoption".

Given the massive demand for adoption in our country right now, I'd consider putting a baby up for adoption to be completely responsible.

Feel free to start some other threads on those topics you want to derail the thread onto.

However if you ever feel like discussing abortion in the abortion board in a thread about abortion please reply to the parts of my posts to you that you're trying to ignore.

 

You are the one derailing the thread by constantly complaining about my posts. You are free to disregard them.

I ignored nothing relevant to abortion.

 

A) the "massive demand" would turn into a glut in six months if abortion were somehow stopped
b) There is far far more impact on a woman to give up a child for adoption than to go through an early term abortion
c) America is one of the few countries where adoption is a business. America is also where the "pro-life" movement is most vehement and active - but there is no link whatsoever between those two facts

 

Even if that were true I don't think profitability should define all ethics. I'm pretty sure you support a lot of positions that aren't good for the bottom dollar. And if you're taking all ethics off the table there are a lot of people you could kill for fun and profit.

That said, you're obviously just making that number up, and the number of undesired pregnancies would go down by at least some amount if abortions weren't legal. If only because you can't get pregant with another kid while you're already pregnant with one, but likely plenty more beyond that.

I would hope that the impact of bringing some joy to the world in the form of a desperately wanted child would be positive as opposed to an abortion, which at best is some cash down the drain and maybe a blown weekend.

I suppose I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to claim. If you're saying that America is the most "pro-life" nation than that's just all sorts of wrong, we're actually much more lax on the whens and why's of killing a fetus than most nations. Lemmi see if I can find a link with a relevant table.

Here we are:
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.jsp

Now, if you're saying the pro-life movement here is more vehement because the pro-lifers are pretty chill and content in countries where you can execute a woman for a having an abortion after being raped, than maybe.

 

What the??????'

That would be one of the most inane statements I have ever heard in relation to abortion. What do you think there is only a couple of women out there and they are having abortions every month??

And legality will NOT affect your abortion rate, I know I live and work in Queensland Australia - abortion is illegal here but our rates are the same as yours.

If the child WERE desperately wanted there would not have been an abortion in the first place. Do you think mary jane working at the Diner trying to support a husband and three kids can afford ANY time off? Abortions happen because of UNWANTED pregnancies - think that is not so - look up the rates for abortion in women who are on some form of contraception


[/QUOTE]
I suppose I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to claim. If you're saying that America is the most "pro-life" nation than that's just all sorts of wrong, we're actually much more lax on the whens and why's of killing a fetus than most nations. Lemmi see if I can find a link with a relevant table. [/QUOTE]

Well at least you were honest about not understanding what I wrote

Not saying that at all. In fact I am unsure if the degree of activity in the American pro-life movement is driven by an innate predilection to political emotionalism or the fundamentalists or simply a profit motive in having more babies on hand to "sell" for adoption

Oh! And BTW - your link is wrong in Australia the laws are on a state by state basis

 

No, that would be silly. But what I mentioned is physically impossibe so the rate must drop by at least that (I imagine rather small) amount. I'd expect it to drop much more than that.

I'll take it that you agree with the dollars/ethics bit before that quote of mine.

Hold on. What exactly are you saying? That they chart the rate of unwanted pregnancies and that rate is the same, or that despite it being illegal the actual abortion rates are the same in Queensland?

The statement I was replying to was in regards to adoption, so I'm a bit surprised you came back with that.

Also, in case it comes up with someone you know who thinks they need an abortion because they can't take time off, do try looking around at various things like Lutheran social services. I'm given to understand that the hopeful adoptive parents generally provide financial support that could solve that problem. Though I suppose things might be different in Australia.

It really is exceedingly simple, they don't approve of killing babies, and that extends through the developmental cycle whatever you want to call any particular phase. That's it.

You might be able to get plenty of them to say something against promiscuity. But that's a seperate issue, and notice they aren't trying to pass laws against that.

That probably is often the case, but it's what I found fast and I think it gives the flavor. And in any case it sounds like we're much more lax here than where you are judging by your comment that it's illegal there.

 

Adoption isn't an alternative to abortion, sunnyside, because it isn't possible to give up an embryo for adoption.

No, adoption is an alternative to keeping and bringing up your own born child, which is an entirely different kettle of fish to abortion.

Only a fool would claim an embryo is of equal worth to a born child.

What really annoys me is the cool assumption that women should have to provide children for other people to bring up, whether they want to or not. It's a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed cheek and forced adoptions were the cause of a lot of grief and misery in the past.

We don't do that any more. We know better.

Which is absolutely fine, of course. People have a perfect right to disapprove of whatever they want, as long as their disapproval doesn't cause them to infringe the rights of other people.

 

Yes it is illegal here and actually the laws are quite comprehensive - but all but a few countries have a clause for the "life and health" of the woman and THAT clause virtually negates the entire law.

 

Yes it is illegal here and actually the laws are quite comprehensive - but all but a few countries have a clause for the "life and health" of the woman and THAT clause virtually negates the entire law.

Google it up for yourself if you do not believe me. It always amuses me that the pro-lifers but so much faith in legislation

Legislation does diddly squat