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

I don't want to ban all abortion. I just want to ban assault abortions.

 

LOL! Oh, I've figured you out....

 

along with making euthanasia legal for "retarded" & Interracial children.

 

seems you have been quoted as saying exactly that on a number of occasions.

Problem is Anders you have lost any semblance of credibility through your euthanasia stance for "retarded" children, why would anyone with any brain cells what so ever want to engage with someone who wants that, add to that the number of times you have been caught out posting pictures that can easily be traced back to being false and in a nut shell your beyond contempt.

Edit - Deleting your own comment doesn't make it disappear from where I have quoted you .. we can all still see what you put.

 

First, there is rarely a need for an abortion, it is largely a lifestyle choice of convenience. Second, men hold all the cards in dictating whether pregnancy occurs or not - we do control the sperm supply. But yes, they are equally responsible for the creation of a child. But are not given a choice in the potential life, or death, of the child.

Agreed. And I do, although not generally on a forum. Such things I teach to the youth when the moment presents itself. Particularly the males.

 

seems to me it is the progressive left who has lost any semblance of credibility when it comes to the abortion issue. They want all sorts of "civil rights" protections for what seems like every other group, even though it actually just means taking away rights from someone else. They entertain the idea of hate speech protection laws, yet at the same time openly call the fetus a parasite, and assert that the fetus is inferior to the mother, just a "clump of biohazardous material". They say they want to save the lives of little children by banning guns. Which side is it exactly that has the hypocrisy?

 

I wouldn't say rarely, remember 50% of women having an abortion were using contraception.

what I'd like to propose is that all the resources currently being used to finance wars in foreign countries be re-directed to the development of an injection that can be given to both boys and girls at birth that renders them infertile until such time they feel they are ready and able to have children, then another injection can be given to restart the fertility process .. that way they can f**k like bunnies without any pregnancies, so no abortions necessary .. we all get what we want.

What do you think?

 

Difference is Anders my stance supports the known born person, your doesn't .. your stance however supports the killing of a known born person, my doesn't.

I think you will find that all most progressives want is for "every other group" to have the same rights as every other born person.
On a personal level I have called a fetus parasite-like, different from calling it a parasite, as I know the actually scientific difference between a true parasite and a fetus.
The fetus is inferior to the mother .. scientifically it is inferior to every other born person.
I have never referred to a fetus as "bio-hazardous" material .. not once.
sorry to disappoint you again but the figures show that countries with strict gun control laws have the lowest death rates from fire-arms .. but that is a different subject for a different forum.

Never said the pro-lifers are all hypocrites .. I have said you are a hypocrite, which by your own posts is shown to be true.

 

First, you don't get to decide if there is a need for abortion; it isn't your life to live.

Obviously, not effectively.

Men do have a voice in the vast majority of abortion decisions.

No, I meant helping women by providing easily available and affordable birth control. It's the only proven way to reduce abortion rates, and it is far cheaper than paying for welfare for unwanted babies.

"Although birth-control subsidies involve upfront costs, in the long run they offer savings—every 1 million unintended births cost taxpayers $11 billion each year, according to a 2011 study in Contraception."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...s-can-reduce-abortion-rate-by-more-than-half/

 

That is a misleading meaningless statistic. They might have been using some sort of contraception, but what type was it, and were they properly using it?
Many of these women just irresponsibly take low doses of progestin throughout the month, and do not follow through to take it as indicated, 12-24 hours before intercourse. Then they are surprised when they find themselves knocked up.

These women really should be combining at least two different contraceptive options. Sorry, you can't just haphazardly use a birth control measure and then complain that it does not work. Birth control methods are 99%+ effective when used properly. And that's the issue here. Should a woman who doesn't want to use a diaphragm, doesn't want to use a condom, and who didn't have the foresight to plan ahead to take a birth control pill in a timely manner, just be handed a "get out of jail free card" ?

 

As I have said before Anders, your opinion means nothing to me for the reasons I have stated before. I cannot nor will I take someone who advocates killing "retarded" children with any respect what-so-ever.

 

Lol. I don't think so. Not on my kids. Besides, the damage would be very great. Women would lose all value as men would simply see them as organs of pleasure, not as a human being with thoughts and feelings, and vice versa. I suspect rape/pedophilia would become trivialized since the risk of pregnancy is removed. Disease proliferation as well.

What I am saying is that one doesn't just learn respect for the sexes overnight, it takes years of cautioning and restraint, and sometimes stern correction. Simply restoring their plumbing will not undo years of reckless abandon in regards to sex.

 

Ok, so lets get right down to brass tacks here .. the above scenario I have laid out would reduce abortion to zero would it not, is this not the goal of the pro-life campaign, to render abortion obsolete?
Nothing I have put above would change the education surrounding sex, nor would it trivialize rape/pedophilia as both are conditions of a non consenting person (being that a child cannot give informed consent even if they say yes) the risk of pregnancy isn't really one of the main items when it comes to rape/pedo laws.
I see your point on the losing of the value of the opposite sex, but again this could be overcome by the right education in schools and by parents, the fact that pregnancy is no longer an issue shouldn't detract away from the need to install respect for each other into our children.

I do suspect there are other underlying reasons, and the pro-life stance is not just about ending abortion per se, I think this is just battle in the larger war.

 

If the life of the mother or the child is not at risk, than there is hardly a need for it. But this is salted to taste based off of morality of the individual in question.

Sad but true, men should not be humping whatever woman opens their legs. It is beneath them as it is for women.

A voice is not a legal right to refuse. It has zero weight in the decision process. Social pressure is not what I am addressing.

It is the individual's responsibility to pay for these things. Not the government's.

Or we could just not pay for it, and let people grow independent of government handouts. You know, like responsible adults... I can thnk of 11 billion reasons to do this.

 

Providing easily accessible and affordable birth control would cut the number of abortions in half and save the government 4 times the cost for welfare. And you say "no"?

 

So then you can't have a valid position on a topic until you run for congress, get elected, convince a majority of that congress, and the president, and only once you have a law you are entitled to that opinion?

So you're bored of all this talk? Is that why you made a thread on the topic in order to solicit for even more of it?

 

In all truth, I couldn't pretend to be a representative of the pro-life movement as I am such an aberration when compared to the rest. I'm the wrong person to ask.

Although I still think abortion would still be taking place, because people can change their minds. "umm...it turns out we don't actually want this baby afterall..." Are you going to tell me that the pro choice crowd is going to say "too bad you should have thought about that?" I doubt it, big time.

I concede, but disagree.

Me thinks that you can't simply install respect like a tarball in linux. You need constant reinforcement over the span of years. And sadly, with public school education quality these days, I am not very pleased with the scores in math, reading, and science. How on earth could I expect them to teach things like respect?

You've stumbled on to a larger truth today. It is a battle in a larger war. One side claims to fight for life, while the other claims to fight for freedom. Are they both fighting for what they claim though?

- - - Updated - - -

Why are we paying for welfare in the first place?

 

I know we have been debating this in another thread, but in order for this to be accomplished you would have to have 100% employment, something that is economically impossible and would not be wanted by any government no matter their political stance. In order to keep wages low there has to be competition for jobs, with 100% employment there is no competition, the only way businesses could get people to work for them would be to offer a higher remuneration, this cuts into profits or leads to "at the till" price increases .. with less profits there is less investment, business starts to stagnate and growth ceases. Increased prices leads to the workforce wanting pay increases, cutting into profits etc etc
The economic model employed by most countries cannot survive without the competition for jobs and a "healthy" unemployment level.

 

I think you underestimate the shrewd ingenuity of the human race, but that is my opinion. Did you know that you can eat dandelions? What do dandelions have to do with anything you might ask? Simple, they are food, food costs money. And dandelions grow like weeds - they are considered weeds after all.

When things get tight, people innovate. This situation is no different. It would have bumps along the way, but it can be done.

 

I don't know what the pro-choicers would do, I can only answer for myself and to be honest I couldn't call it for certain, I would have to see if my hypothetical solution ever came to fruition before deciding.

Fair enough

Oh I agree, though I don't see how my solution would change the need for parents & schools (especially parents) to reinforce the need for respect, surely that is something most (i won'y say all) parents do anyway.
I think that the problem with teaching today is that kids are not applauded for being smart, they are basically held back to the level of the slowest learner in the class (not very liberal of me), and a lot of the lessons are geared towards the "average", where as I believe "gifted" children should be able to progress at the speed best suited for them in special classes . .we all learn at different rates, so there should be no stigma attached to the slowest of fastest learners.

Its a difficult question to answer, I suspect both would say yes they are fighting for what they claim, though I also suspect that neither side has really looked very deep into what the consequences would be of a "win" in the war .. I think the best that can be hoped for is a cease-fire with both sides making compromises, but event then the radical element will still drop the occasional "bomb"

 

LOL, I'm a (UK) country boy born and bred, there are always things to eat if you know where to look and how to catch them .. problem is I feel it would take a country to collapse in order for it to come to that.

 

Because the alternative is letting babies and children starve and be homeless.

 

Well it is on the way whether people are ready for it or not. There are forces in motion that cannot be stopped at this point. Fractional reserve banking has seen to that.

 

God forbid we actually take care of those babies that the pro-lifers so desperately want to be born into this world!

 

"""Women would lose all value as men would simply see them as organs of pleasure, not as a human being with thoughts and feelings, and vice versa.""


But YOU view women as having no thoughts and feelings and not human at all(you wish to control them, change their HUMAN nature, make them nothing but broodstock by taking away their rights to their own bodies )



What's the matter , you can't type , "Men would lose all value as women would simply see them as organs of pleasure, not as a human being with thoughts and feelings."" "Vice versa" just doesn't cut it...


Really just so bizarre to think that if people have sex they lose respect for each other....is that why the divorce rate is so high?