A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[HotDogg]

It's one thing to be against abortion, that's fine. It's not ok to tell other people what to do with their own bodies.

 

[jillian]

No woman wants to have to go through an abortion.

If we want to decrease abortions, then we have to address the issue at the beginning...and that's preventing unwanted pregnancy.

The religious right fights against sex education, increased avbailability of contraceptives, and even Planned Parenthood... all designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

If you want to end the need for abortion then help prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Why is this so damned difficult for the religious right to comprehend?

Wrong.

The right combats the PROMOTION of sex to young children, the sexualization of children, and the insistence that teaching abstinence has no place in a health curriculum that teaches children that sex is okay, it's natural, and you don't need to tell your parents if you get knocked up cuz you can get it taken care of.

Why is this so damned difficult for the extremist baby killers to understand? Remove your baby killing from the education, and watch unplanned pregnancies and abortion numbers decrease as exponentially as they increased with the advent of legalized (and promoted) abortion.

no one is promoting sex to young children. teaching kids who are already having sex to follow safe sex practices and avoid unwanted pregnancies should be EXACTLY what someone wants who is anti-choice.

but that isn't what the religious right wants.

 

[InDoctriNation]

I think George sums it best with this clip:

George Carlin: Pro Life, Abortion, And The Sanctity Of Life - YouTube

 

[koshergrl]

No woman wants to have to go through an abortion.

If we want to decrease abortions, then we have to address the issue at the beginning...and that's preventing unwanted pregnancy.

The religious right fights against sex education, increased avbailability of contraceptives, and even Planned Parenthood... all designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

If you want to end the need for abortion then help prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Why is this so damned difficult for the religious right to comprehend?

Wrong.

The right combats the PROMOTION of sex to young children, the sexualization of children, and the insistence that teaching abstinence has no place in a health curriculum that teaches children that sex is okay, it's natural, and you don't need to tell your parents if you get knocked up cuz you can get it taken care of.

Why is this so damned difficult for the extremist baby killers to understand? Remove your baby killing from the education, and watch unplanned pregnancies and abortion numbers decrease as exponentially as they increased with the advent of legalized (and promoted) abortion.

no one is promoting sex to young children. teaching kids who are already having sex to follow safe sex practices and avoid unwanted pregnancies should be EXACTLY what someone wants who is anti-choice.

but that isn't what the religious right wants.

Actually, what pro-life people want is for you perverted morons to pursue charges against the perverts who have sex with children.

It's not other kids. The abortion stats bear that out. Almost all young girls who get abortions report the fathers as much, MUCH older.

You don't take a kid who is huffing or prostituting herself and pat her on the back and make it easier for her to accomplish this destructive behavior, while protecting the people who victimize her (which includes PP, incidentally). You investigate and stop the situation. You don't accomodate it.

Accomodating sex among children is sexualizing children.

You, like all pedophiles, justify it by saying you do it out of 'love" or "concern" for the kids, and further say they need it or appreciate it.

It's a sick dynamic. Give it some thought.

 

[HotDogg]

Wrong.

The right combats the PROMOTION of sex to young children, the sexualization of children, and the insistence that teaching abstinence has no place in a health curriculum that teaches children that sex is okay, it's natural, and you don't need to tell your parents if you get knocked up cuz you can get it taken care of.

Why is this so damned difficult for the extremist baby killers to understand? Remove your baby killing from the education, and watch unplanned pregnancies and abortion numbers decrease as exponentially as they increased with the advent of legalized (and promoted) abortion.

no one is promoting sex to young children. teaching kids who are already having sex to follow safe sex practices and avoid unwanted pregnancies should be EXACTLY what someone wants who is anti-choice.

but that isn't what the religious right wants.

Actually, what pro-life people want is for you perverted morons to pursue charges against the perverts who have sex with children.

It's not other kids. The abortion stats bear that out. Almost all young girls who get abortions report the fathers as much, MUCH older.

You don't take a kid who is huffing or prostituting herself and pat her on the back and make it easier for her to accomplish this destructive behavior, while protecting the people who victimize her (which includes PP, incidentally). You investigate and stop the situation. You don't accomodate it.

Accomodating sex among children is sexualizing children.

You, like all pedophiles, justify it by saying you do it out of 'love" or "concern" for the kids, and further say they need it or appreciate it.

It's a sick dynamic. Give it some thought.

So what's your real-life solution? You have none, you just like to complain.

 

[koshergrl]

My real life solution is to advocate absintinence, educate children about the permanency of bad decisions when they are young, reward them for self control and responsibility at a young age, and quit telling them that it's perfectly normal for them to have sex. It's NOT normal or healthy for children to have sex, and we need to quit pretending it is. It leads to all sorts of depravity, emotional and physical issues for the kids. They aren't old enough to vote or drink, they aren't old enough for sex.

Pretty simple. And stop marketing abortion as a cure-all for behavior that shouldn't be taking place in teh first place. The fact that they can get abortions without input from their parents or naming the fathers is criminal, and needs to be stopped. Not solely because of the babies that are slaughtered, but because of the harm that is done to the children upon whom the abortions are being performed, and the way the perpetrators who abuse them are protected and delivered from all accountability.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No idea. When it comes to defending those who are being killed, oppressed, persecuted, generally the laws support those things. That's why there are so many Christian martyrs in cess pools like India, Africa, and the Middle East.

So for you this is merely a rhetorical exercise.

Which is fine if this were high school debate class or if you were counseling some one contemplating abortion.

Otherwise you need to get an idea in order for your position to have any validity. As already noted, the religious dogma you bring to the issue is irrelevant – all that matters is the law.

Pretty simple.

Apparently not, if those opposed to privacy rights are incapable of articulating a legal justification and mechanism of enforcement with regard to criminalizing abortion.

 

[HotDogg]

My real life solution is to advocate absintinence, educate children about the permanency of bad decisions when they are young, reward them for self control and responsibility at a young age, and quit telling them that it's perfectly normal for them to have sex. It's NOT normal or healthy for children to have sex, and we need to quit pretending it is. It leads to all sorts of depravity, emotional and physical issues for the kids. They aren't old enough to vote or drink, they aren't old enough for sex.

Pretty simple. And stop marketing abortion as a cure-all for behavior that shouldn't be taking place in teh first place. The fact that they can get abortions without input from their parents or naming the fathers is criminal, and needs to be stopped. Not solely because of the babies that are slaughtered, but because of the harm that is done to the children upon whom the abortions are being performed, and the way the perpetrators who abuse them are protected and delivered from all accountability.

So you're not advocating to outlaw abortion, you just want to educate. That's good. So why you sound so upset all the time? You can't teach by yelling.

 

[koshergrl]

No woman wants to have to go through an abortion.

If we want to decrease abortions, then we have to address the issue at the beginning...and that's preventing unwanted pregnancy.

The religious right fights against sex education, increased avbailability of contraceptives, and even Planned Parenthood... all designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

If you want to end the need for abortion then help prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Why is this so damned difficult for the religious right to comprehend?

Wrong.

The right combats the PROMOTION of sex to young children, the sexualization of children, and the insistence that teaching abstinence has no place in a health curriculum that teaches children that sex is okay, it's natural, and you don't need to tell your parents if you get knocked up cuz you can get it taken care of.

Why is this so damned difficult for the extremist baby killers to understand? Remove your baby killing from the education, and watch unplanned pregnancies and abortion numbers decrease as exponentially as they increased with the advent of legalized (and promoted) abortion.

no one is promoting sex to young children. teaching kids who are already having sex to follow safe sex practices and avoid unwanted pregnancies should be EXACTLY what someone wants who is anti-choice.

but that isn't what the religious right wants.

I don't know why you insist that.

I absolutely have no problem with teaching safer sex practices, knowledge is always a good thing. I taught my kids and (knock on wood) none got pregnant before they were ready so far...

HOWEVER what I balk at is the idea that it's somehow wrong and archaic to teach them they shouldn't be having sex period. I REMEMBER the 70s and 80s, when everybody was teaching kids that sex was normal and expected....and I don't understand the mindset now that insists that in order to teach sex education, you have to also let the kids know we expect them to have sex, and when they do, they can always get an abortion.

It's not the education, Jillian. It's the desire of the left to withhold information about the negative impact of sex at a young age.

 

[catzmeow]

Accomodating sex among children is sexualizing children.

You, like all pedophiles, justify it by saying you do it out of 'love" or "concern" for the kids, and further say they need it or appreciate it.

It's a sick dynamic. Give it some thought.

Teaching children to avoid STDs and take care of their bodies isn't sexualizing them. My kids have both participated in sex ed classes. Neither were particularly interested in having sex afterwards. In fact, my daughter was so grossed out by the photos of STDs that she may never have sex.

 

[InDoctriNation]

Accomodating sex among children is sexualizing children.

You, like all pedophiles, justify it by saying you do it out of 'love" or "concern" for the kids, and further say they need it or appreciate it.

It's a sick dynamic. Give it some thought.

Teaching children to avoid STDs and take care of their bodies isn't sexualizing them. My kids have both participated in sex ed classes. Neither were particularly interested in having sex afterwards. In fact, my daughter was so grossed out by the photos of STDs that she may never have sex.

That's strange. Koshergrl would have us believe that the standard sex ed class curriculum includes forcing the children who attend to have sex, and then forcing the ones who become pregnant to procure an abortion, preferably late term of course. You must have enrolled your children in one of the few non baby killing sex ed classes.

 

[Wicked Jester]

17. Or none. I can't honestly remember.
Dumb fuck.

Now that I can believe.


Afterall to you idiot liberals an unborn child carries no value.

We do our part to make sure that no more RWNJ's come into the world, yes.

So, you admit that you could care less about an innocent life.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Wicked Jester]

Sad thing is, the father has no choice in the matter.

 

[Wicked Jester]

no your assumption is a featus is a human

no women cannot kill other *humans * .
where we disagree is what is and what is not a human life and it seems we will continue to disagree on that

Of course it's a human, and it's recognized as a human by pretty much all science academia, as far as I can tell. The only retarts who debate its human-ness are the extremist pro-abortionists, who proclaim, against all medical evidence to the contrary, that a fetus is not human and therefore not worthy of consideration.

When I debate with learned and worldly men and women who hold the belief that abortion should be legal, they do not debate the humaness of the unborn. They debate the ethics of destroying it. Not based upon whether or not it's human, but based upon whether or not it's justifiable to take life under certain circumstances. They recognize that an unborn baby is fully human, they understand to a workable degree the way genetics work and they don't dispute them. This is why many genetecists and biologists and even archaologists and geologists are Christian. They know the science, and it does nothing to their faith because their faith maintains that life is life, and is sacred.

Those who don't believe believe that the unborn are human, but don't believe human life is sacred, and therefore think there are reasonable, rational reasons for terminating it, at this point or at that point. They recognize the humaness of the unborn, they just discount it as nothing special in the big picture, just another life.

It's the lay people who don't believe in God who get lost here. They think that abortion is okay becase the unborn isn't human, and they THINK they are basing that on some sort of scientific evidence..that doesn't exist and isn't even promoted (there's that pesky word) by the scientific community. I have yet to see anyone quote a peer reviewed work from the scientific community that argues that the unborn aren't HUMAN. If they argue for abortion (and few do) they do it on the basis that life is expendable and suffering is great and if there is no God, then we must take the place of God and adjust the population as we see fit.

It's eugenics to its core, and it's evil, and wrong.

But ignorant lay people who claim that we must have abortion glom onto all these wrongheaded hick beliefs that have zero basis in fact....that abortion is going to save lifes, that abortion reduces crime, that abortion prevents child abuse and bad parenting....all complete pie in the sky nonsense, that has been PROVEN to be nonsense. And ultimately, to them it just comes down to protecting the right of women to conveniently discard what they don't want.

And THAT is a time-honored holding of communists, who since 1921 when abortion first became legal in Russia, the whole point has been to reduce the population, put poor women to work, and have their children raised away from parental influence, by the state. The stated purpose is to eliminate the family unit.

And they apply it particularly thick when they apply it to minority populations. Becuase poor, diseased, mentally challenged people do not a good workforce make. Take their children, shut down their breeding, and eventually eliminate them.

That's the way it works. It's probably a little too intense for the hysterics who have bought the whole "we need abortion to save women adn children and end crime" schtick. But that's the way it works, and nobody in the world (except ignorant hicks, propagandists and wannabe intellectuals) disputes it.

first of all you need to come down from your holier than thou state .
secondly if you insist academics scientists and such like agree a fetus is a human being please post some data to back this claim up .

I at least always do that if i use FACTS to back up my opinion
a list of others who differ from you on that question are to be found at the end of the articule
please read it and feel free to respond with your take

i write in plain english so you can understand and grasp the truth that has long been evading you

Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?

Typical cop out.

Minimize the human aspect (humanity if you will), chop it up, suck it from the womb, and go on your merry way until the next go 'round.

 

[ekrem]

If she isn't married she can do whatever she wants with her body.
After a woman has married her womb isn't solely hers anymore and she needs to talk about abortion with the husband.

 

[Wicked Jester]

If she isn't married she can do whatever she wants with her body.
After a woman has married her womb isn't solely hers anymore and she needs to talk about abortion with the husband.

So, why shouldn't the father have rights?.....It's just as much his child as hers.

 

[metavate]

Problem with abortion. It's too easily done. People are using it as a means of contraception. My opinion, it's murder. If you left the baby alone, it will grow into a person with thoughts, feelings. By executing that person before he/she has even had a breath of air. It's not right.

Now, however...I accept, that in some extreme circumstances, eg a rape victim (although I still feel the child is an innocent) or for example a sick fuck father that rapes his daughter of 13 and she falls pregnant. In those circumstances, abortion is more acceptable.

However, we should not base our laws around these extreme circumstances. Abortion should not be readily available.

 

[InDoctriNation]

Problem with abortion. It's too easily done. People are using it as a means of contraception. My opinion, it's murder. If you left the baby alone, it will grow into a person with thoughts, feelings. By executing that person before he/she has even had a breath of air. It's not right.

Now, however...I accept, that in some extreme circumstances, eg a rape victim (although I still feel the child is an innocent) or for example a sick fuck father that rapes his daughter of 13 and she falls pregnant. In those circumstances, abortion is more acceptable.

However, we should not base our laws around these extreme circumstances. Abortion should not be readily available.

But wouldn't abortion still be murder according to you in the cases of rape and incest? If you accept abortion in the cases of rape and incest, you are essentially condoning the murder of the child for the sins of the parents. Just playing some devil's advocate.

It is not necessarily the case that the fetus/embryo will grow into a person with thoughts and feelings if left alone. In fact, by best estimates about half of all fertilized eggs are miscarried naturally, most of the time before the woman even knows she's pregnant. In cases when the woman knows she's pregnant, the miscarriage rate is estimated to be between 15% and 25% (I googled these stats, multiple websites supported them). So there certainly is no guarantee that all aborted fetuses would have become fully functioning human beings, and it is likely that a decent percentage would have been miscarried naturally. In fact, if you truly believe that every fertilized egg is a human being, the destruction of which is murder, then you must think that the natural miscarriage rate of around 50% is the greatest tragedy in human history.

I'm not arguing that abortion is right, but I do believe that it must be legal in order to minimize human suffering overall. While making abortion illegal would probably lower the abortion rate somewhat, I think the cost of human life in the form of botched illegal abortions would heavily outweigh the "benefits" of making abortion illegal across the board. I think we have a pretty good, thoughtful middle ground established in most states when it comes to abortion laws.

 

[Gadawg73]

If she isn't married she can do whatever she wants with her body.
After a woman has married her womb isn't solely hers anymore and she needs to talk about abortion with the husband.

So, why shouldn't the father have rights?.....It's just as much his child as hers.

Under your logic a father would have rights to force an abortion.
I am sure you would favor that one Jester.
After all, you are making the claim that he is part owner of the womb.

 

[Wicked Jester]

If she isn't married she can do whatever she wants with her body.
After a woman has married her womb isn't solely hers anymore and she needs to talk about abortion with the husband.

So, why shouldn't the father have rights?.....It's just as much his child as hers.

Under your logic a father would have rights to force an abortion.
I am sure you would favor that one Jester.
After all, you are making the claim that he is part owner of the womb.

So under your logic, the father is just a tool used to create a life, correct

I think my kids would have something to say to you about that.