"Pro-lifers" want to ban abortion....fine...

Yep just dial 911 womb police

 

How do they do that? How do they "get themselves" knocked up?

 

And even more whose best intentions were to be abstinent.

Of course you would. And that would solve EVERYTHING.

Do you think all single mothers are sluts?.

So marriage will solve all women's problems...got it.

Right, just...turn back time, and get life insurance. Why do widows never think of that?

So far, your solutions are marriage, marriage with no divorce, and retroactive life insurance. I can't wait to hear more of your wisdom.

If by "we" you mean "you," then yes. Stage of development is important in the abortion debate. Especially when discussing whether an entity is born or not.

That isn't true. Many welfare recipients have full-time jobs. Stossel is a corporate shill.

Your "don't pay for either" is not going to happen, and you KNOW it. In that case you would be a hypocrite for letting babies die and claiming to be pro-life.

 

People do make decisions of their own accord. It is the world we live in. But shielding them from the results both benevolent and malign is not the answer.

Well we do stick warning labels on things, seems to help the stupid people out a lot.

No, but I do think their is a large percentage who have engaged in irresponsible sex, or have had a bad marriage, or withdrew from a marriage out of convenience. Some just have a hard knock life, and those I really feel sorry for and help when I can via charity.

Not what I said, you're trying to make it sound like it though. Marriage might alleviate some problems, but is by no means a "cure all" for everything, to suggest something like that is fallacious thinking of the finest sort.

Again, not what I said, I said plan ahead. Think of your risks and plan accordingly.

Do you have an aviary filled with these red herrings?

Then they need to re-prioritize their finances. Cable is not a prerequisite to life, this concept may confuse many. Certainly there will be those who will fall short, charity and good will can and often does take care of this, along with private interest groups. But inevitably there will be those who slip through the cracks due to either their own choices, or just rotten luck. But trying to ensure this "nobody gets left behind" nonsense seems to proliferate the problem.

Whether or not Stossel is a shill or not, his points are fairly bullet proof, despite the inconvenience they are to those suffering from Entitlement Disorder.

Actually I bet it has happened, in the past. I wonder if such madness occured in the 1800's. I highly doubt it.

Letting babies die? I already addressed this. I am no more letting children dying in africa than the ones dying here. Your attempt to link me to guilt has failed...twice now.

*yawn*

 

Can be and may be - will be?? That is a different proposition as we have seen here in Queensland and particularly now that abortifacients (pills that cause abortion) are easily obtainable through the internet

 

In the 1800's, we had legal slavery. Those who were unable to fend for themselves, orphans and mentally ill, were institutionalized. Working conditions were horrible, there were no child labor laws. Why do conservatives always want regression?

Some may use poor judgment in their life decisions because their own parents were poor role models, living in poverty, unable to buy life insurance or birth control, because that would mean going without food (not cable tv). And what's more, they are not likely to be persuaded by your abstinence lectures. Providing free or affordable birth control would help some young people break that cycle of unwanted pregnancies and poverty. It would be four times cheaper than paying for welfare babies and reduce abortion by 1/2. Families would have more stability which is a good thing for the entire country.

It's simple as this: anyone who really thinks abortion kills a life would support measures which reduce abortion. A pro-lifer who would oppose them has other motives.

 

And what do you do about the "cheap, non-taxed abortions" going on across the border in Canada?

 

So again....you think of pregnancy as a "punishment" for "playing"?

 

Granted we had some things like slavery which were quite wrong, I was referring to the explosion in welfare services in my previous post. And again...I'm not a conservative. Despite your attempt to paint me as one.

You're right, lecturing is often not enough, but parenting often is. When I wasn't home on time, my parents prowled my usual haunts and took me home. Consequences were tangible as were the rewards. But they never shielded me from the consequences. Strangely enough, I started learning to think before I acted.

So does not engaging in the behavior known to cause pregnancy - sex. And again, it is not the responsibility of the federal government to pay for another's welfare, abortions, or birth control.

Abstinence is free, so is parenting. Also, paying for welfare is something we should be doing in the first place, along with birth control. Birth control, welfare, and abortions are not the cause of family stability, to suggest so is delusional. Look at who is getting the bulk of abortions, birth control, and welfare. I suspect they are not the poster child for stability. Are you really okay for a voluntary class of inferior non-producing citizens? Because that is what we are getting under your marvelous plan.

Generally I agree. But state sponsoring the behavior known to cause pregnancy is costly, and self defeating. The answer lies in parenting, self control, and education. Something most lefties despise apparently as indicated by the policies they roll out.

It is not a binary choice, there are other options, superior options, and more cost effective options. Shifting responsibility back onto where it rightly belongs(the individual) is being fought tooth and nail by many opposed interest groups.

 

Ban pregnant women from traveling outside the US?

 

Fixed error....

 

If serious.....it means ultrasounds at roadblocks to Canada and ports of departure (airports, etc.)


If you're just cracking wise......you prove my point.


Pick one.


((BTW, I got a Bible verse challenge for you. See if you can post the verse Titus 3:2 and it not be thrown back in your face at a future time.)

 

yep I can just see you bible thumping people allowing your wives and daughters to be examined every time they want to travel to another country and the fact that this would infringe even more personal right . .but hey who cares if you strike down the rights of the woman it only means you put them back where they should be .. under your boot.

 

Pretty sure he's just wisecracking......which again, simply proves the point.

THEY know they've lost the war....but they still want to TALK a lot about it.

Want to be cruder....next time some "pro-lifer" starts talking about abortion just say-

"Okay, when? When are you guys finally going to get around to banning abortion? It's been 40 years.....you are some lazy mo-fos, as far as I can tell."

 

I just keep asking why after 40 years, and 107 investigations it has NEVER been shown that PP misappropriate federal funds .. its quite funny seeing them avoid the question.

I think I'll add your one as well if you don't mind.

 

Realistically it wouldn't matter because the average woman seeking an abortion isn't financially able to take a plane trip to Canada just to get one, so even if in theory it was available abroad most would not be able to get it.

 

Realistically at every airport, seaport and border crossing you would have to have checks on every female of child bearing age, and even if you are correct (which I doubt) you would then be starting to create a two tier system where the rich would carry on as normal, getting abortions and the poor, the least able to support extra children, being the onlt ones to suffer .. sounds like a slave system to me.

 

Would the average woman in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Washington State be "financially able" to...

DRIVE to Canada???

- - - Updated - - -

40 years of failure.....so when do they think they're going to "win"?!?!?

 

Check out this link posted by a fellow poster on another thread here on PF. Articles like this one, designed to deceive the reader, have an increasing influence on public opinion. People actually believe that abortions are funded by the federal government. If we aren't vigilant, abortion rights will continue to be eroded.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/09/...nment-funding/

 

Ha ha...show me in any state or federal constitution where abortion is enumerated as a right - in America. Don't confuse freedom to act a specific way with a right. In the same way that buy a car is not a right, neither is an abortion, both are purely elective(barring rape, life of mother bla bla bla...).

 

Yup, ever since the Supreme Court gave women the RIGHT to have an abortion we have had to be vigilant to protect women's rights from being eroded by insecure , frightened, control-freak misogynists masquerading as baby lovers...

 

Dishonesty is part and parcel of "pro-liferism". From the Republican politicians who talk about "protecting the unborn" to one crowd and then tell another crowd "Nobody is talking about banning abortion" to another....

to the "pro-lifers" themselves, most of whom also deny they want to ban abortion and say "I just don't want to have my tax dollars used to pay for it".....as if even if what they said about Planned Parenthood was true and all Federal funding to it was cut?....they'd suddenly "shut up and never mention abortion again". Yeah...right.

or to those who actually do want to ban abortion.....but then deny that they'd need a Gestapo police state to actually enforce it, otherwise it'd just be a ban on poor women getting abortions.

 

Rights don't have to be "enumerated" to be rights. Remember Amendment X which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

2nd Amendment says you have the right to "bear arms".....so it is perfectly Constitutional to ban others from selling or manufacturing arms, right?

 

Than why the hell was it so important to have a bill of rights? Riddle me that one.