If you don't want a baby, get your tubes tied.

That's like saying: If traffic accident injuries are so damned bad, people should have the sense to take better precautions.

What liberals say is that pro-life goals for ending/reducing abortion are NOT achieved by legislation. The proven policies for reducing abortion rates are sex ed and freely available birth control, so we should adopt those policies, which actually work, to reduce abortions. Does that not make sense to you?

 

And we are dealing with someone who has had abstinence explained a few times and still can't get it.

And the use of the word "nitwits" once again proves the underlying misogyny of the Ant-AbortionChoicers....

 

People need to stop using the term pro-life. It's anti-choice, for crying out loud.

 

Well it is but we were warned that the term "Anti-Choice" confused the Anti-Choicers as to what choice was being discussed (they're easily confused).

So we were instructed to use "Anti-AbortionChoice".


And, of course they are NOT "pro-Life"....they care only for the life of the fetus and NO one else.

 

"Pro-choice" doesn't really describe the position of most abortion supporters either. The unborn child doesn't get any choice, and abortion takes away whatever choice the child will ever have. And choicers definitely aren't pro-choice when it comes to the rights of the father.

 

The unborn aren't people and thus cannot exercise freedom of will to have a choice. I'm pro-choice all around. Pro choice to have or not have a child, and pro choice for men to opt in or opt out of fatherhood. Anything less is barbaric slavery.

In essence, denying a woman the right to abort a pregnancy is condemning them to 18 years of indentured servitude.

In essence, denying a man the right to opt out of fatherhood (and it's obligations) is condemning them to 18 years of indentured servitude.

I rail against the term pro-life because it's a load of BS. Most pro-lifers I know are only "pro-life" when it comes to abortion. Most of them are pro-military, and cease caring about those fetuses the second they can point a gun and make sure the bullet hits a muslim.

It's ridiculous. It's pro choice, anti choice, plain and simple.

 

There are no unborn children.

Pro-Choice, as has been explained to you many times, is all, and only, about preserving the rights of women to their own bodies, being able to freely choose to have an abortion or continue their pregnancy.

It has nothing to do with what individual Pro-Choicers think on any other subject..

 

Please link to a quote where I said abstinence results in pregnancy. Hint: you can't because I haven't.

Why do you want people you consider to be 'nitwits' to be parents? (btw, when you point a finger at others, 3 other fingers are pointing back at you)

I have no idea what you are trying to say in your first two sentences.

 

It's more than that. Everybody is "pro life".

There are no Americans who don't want to see the abortion rate decline.

The issue IS choice vs. no choice.

If you wanted to work against abortion using means besides laws against women, you could find support from pro-choice people - maybe not for every idea, but that opening does exist. There are other nations which don't have harsh anti-abortion laws and still have abortion rates lower than ours. So, this isn't just some argumentative hypothetical.

Your concern about the choice of the male is interesting, but the catch with that is that it is the woman's body. Having the male make the choice about her body just doesn't work even when the problem isn't incest or rape.

 

/sigh

I said PEOPLE. I didn't say YOU.

 

I'm not a people?

You were responding to a post of mine.

 

No, only 9 months of indentured servitude; she can adopt.

Well she can combine that with another form of birth control.

For example, if two different contraceptive strategies are each only 70% effective, combined together they will be 91% effective.

 

Any woman who purposefully uses abortion as her primary means of birth control deserves to be beaten over with a rubber hose. That's not fair to the life she brings into existence.

 

Violence towards women noted (but not surprised).

If a woman has an abortion she doesn't bring a "life into existence""....

Oh and gee, you cherry picked again.... You "forgot " ...Only" 9 months of indentured servitude? When do you do your time? Do you think other groups of people should be indentured at YOUR whim?? How stupid!

 

Better than being aborted.

You want to talk about violence— abortion is the ULTIMATE form of violence

 

No, it isn't.....and ,no, never existing is better than being enslaved by lunatics.

 

BS. Have you raised kids? You people act like giving birth ends the mother's commitment to the child. This is the lunacy and sheer idiocy I was talking about earlier. It's like you people only give a damn as long as it's in the womb and about the come out, then once it does, you can't wait to arm it and send it off to a foreign country to die in a religious war.

It's preposterous. You're enslaved to that child for 18 years legally. A man is financially enslaved to that child for 18 years.

It meets the definition of indentured servitude. And adoption is risky business. You people need to stop acting like you just drop the kid off, stork like, and everything is hunky dory. Total BS.

 

And just what's so terrible about adoption?

 

It's probably VERY difficult thing to do. Once you've gone through the pregnancy and pain of labor and delivery, a lot of women would choose against adoption, even if it isn't in their best interest.

 

Women are left with life-long emotional trauma and grief from giving up a child for adoption. Studies show it to be much more traumatic than abortion. It's a valid CHOICE for those women who prefer it, but no woman should be forced to endure a pregnancy/childbirth just to hand the child over to another.

Pannor, R., Baran, A., & Sorosky, A. (197

Half of mothers surveyed said they have continued to feel loss, pain, and mourning over the child they lost to adoption (even many years later — this included mothers who had surrendered up to 33 years prior).
Only 30% expressed “comfort” about the adoption (thus 70% were not comfortable with the adoption and/or felt it was not the outcome they wanted)
Rynearson, E. K. (1982)

Eight of the 20 mothers were so traumatized by signing the papers that they were amnesiac of it.
All reported recurring dreams of the loss of the baby, with contrasting themes of traumatic separation and joyful reunion.
All had unresolved grief, continuing to experience symptoms of mourning at the anniversary of the relinquishment.
Winkler, Dr. R.; and Van Keppel, M. (1984)

45% of mothers surveyed stated that their sense of loss had intensified over the period since surrender and 6.4% stated it had remained the same. For the sample as a whole, this loss remains constant for up to 30 years.
Compared to a carefully-matched control group, mothers who had lost a child to adoption had significantly greater psychological impairment afterwards.
53% of the Western Australia respondents and 58.8% of the National Survey respondents stated the surrender of their babies was the most stressful thing they had ever experienced.


more:

http://www.originscanada.org/adopti...n-trauma-the-damage-to-relinquishing-mothers/

 

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again? The answer doesn't change....can't you comprehend written words?


Adoption isn't terrible...everybody who is against abortion should adopt a kid including YOU.

However, it is very terrible for the woman giving up her child for adoption.

She has to go through nine months of pregnancy, suffer pain, discomfort, and permanent physical damage, possible serious illness or death, monetary loss, possible job loss, time off work, interrupted education or career....all to go through giving the kid to someone else!?!?

That's just Stupid with a capital S.

 

You make it sound like having children is all about the woman. Children are not like pet animals, you know.

 

What does that have to do with anything? Nobody said they were like pets, just that's very difficult to give a baby up for adoption to strangers.

 

So we should let the woman abort her unborn child because that's emotionally easier on her than having to give up her child to strangers??

If I was a mother, I'd rather know that my child was still alive somewhere out there, even if I could never see them again.
Killing the baby so someone else couldn't have it is what the evil woman wanted to do in the Judgment of Solomon.