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

[Gadawg73]

Keflar chastity panties with Master locks on all belts on all teenage high school girls should be the only thing taught in sex education class in all schools in health education class on the subject of human sexuality.
Those belts are the only sure way to prevent pregnancy.
Anything else that is taught as any form of birth control, anatomy, bodily functions, precautions, consequences of bad choices, health care decisions and other forms of science is a left wing, liberal leaning, booger eating commie pinko fag conspiracy.
Anyone that wants to learn is anti God, anti Christian, anti religous, farts in church, hates apple pie and boos Santa Claus at all events.

 

[koshergrl]

Well that's certainly the stance of the left.Don't teach kids that abstinence is a viable and reasonable option, and forthe love of GOD don't tell them that it's a BAD idea to have sex before you're an adult.

After all, that would seriously curtail the fun of those lefties ot there who make their money off of and get their jollies from kids who are sexually active.

 

[HotDogg]

I seriously doubt that you could survive "on your own", does that make you, not human?

You want to force women to give birth, you should be a communist.

Wrong, remember, we had this convo already...forcing women to have abortions is a communist thing, not forcing them to have birth. So you're the commie.

Who's forcing women to have an abortion? Or maybe I should ask: what retard country do you live in?

 

[Gadawg73]

Well that's certainly the stance of the left.Don't teach kids that abstinence is a viable and reasonable option, and forthe love of GOD don't tell them that it's a BAD idea to have sex before you're an adult.

After all, that would seriously curtail the fun of those lefties ot there who make their money off of and get their jollies from kids who are sexually active.

Chastity belts would fall under abstinence.
uh.....................DUH.

 

[HotDogg]

Well that's certainly the stance of the left.Don't teach kids that abstinence is a viable and reasonable option, and forthe love of GOD don't tell them that it's a BAD idea to have sex before you're an adult.

After all, that would seriously curtail the fun of those lefties ot there who make their money off of and get their jollies from kids who are sexually active.

Chastity belts would fall under abstinence.
uh.....................DUH.

Are you really that repressed sexually that you have to worry about what everyone else is doing???

 

[domonkoz]

Lets see, because most people are pretty dumb until they get into their 30's (some people it takes way longer to achieve what one might call "sense." I'de say a great deal of abortions come from girls in their teen years and early 20's. If I had a 15 year old daughter that got pregnant because she got drunk with some lusting boy at a party, I wouldn't demand she become an adult right there and then because she made a stupid teenage decission. If your having Abortions in your 30's your kinda F**d in the head. Birth Control does work, and so does condoms. (Isn't the Right against those things too though? That seems highly retarded).

"I believe life begins at arousal" --Dan Halen

 

[domonkoz]

PS: The typical Man has aborted more babies into a sock then all women combined.
Sperm is alive, therfore its life. Life of human orgin, thefore, human. Therefore killing humans.

 

[Moonglow]

I kill my sperm daily

 

[koshergrl]

Lets see, because most people are pretty dumb until they get into their 30's (some people it takes way longer to achieve what one might call "sense." I'de say a great deal of abortions come from girls in their teen years and early 20's. If I had a 15 year old daughter that got pregnant because she got drunk with some lusting boy at a party, I wouldn't demand she become an adult right there and then because she made a stupid teenage decission. If your having Abortions in your 30's your kinda F**d in the head. Birth Control does work, and so does condoms. (Isn't the Right against those things too though? That seems highly retarded).

"I believe life begins at arousal" --Dan Halen

But you think it's enlightened to march her down to the abortion clinic and scrape her uterus, and tell her, "tough luck kid, now go forth and fuck like a bunny, if it happens again, we'll just do it again..."

Sorry. if they act like adults and experience the consequences it's time to grow up and experience the consequences.

It starts with telling them, "for God's sake, keep your legs closed, don't do drugs or drink, and chances are you will enjoy a happy, carefree and prolonged childhood. Ignore my warnings, get laid carelessly, and likely, you're going to get knocked up and your life will change forever". It changes whether you have the baby or not.

My daughter...if she gets pregnant, she will be having the baby and likely either I would raise it or we'd find a loving family to raise it. But pregnancy is the consequence of sex, and we don't murder our way out of momentary lapses in judgment. She'd get lots of love and support, but you bet she'd grow up....you want to play at being an adult, you run the risk of becoming an adult. And there's really nothing wrong with that. I've heard young mothers wistfully say they wished they'd had more sense as youngsters and waited, but I have never heard one say they wished they had gotten an abortion when the didn't. Everybody makes mistakes in life...it's what you do with those mistakes that determines the sort of person you are.

 

[Dragon]

"Look jackass"?......You just resorted to "calling names".........

Not as a substitute for argument, though. The thing is that you did NOTHING but call my idea a name. No reason, no evidence, no nothing. Empty rhetoric, no substance. My something hit your nothing, and your nothing lost.

Now, you even admit that conception IS human life

That's not an "admission." Of course an embryo is "human life." So is a human blood cell, a human skin cell, an unfertilized ovum, a sperm cell, or any living cell of a human body. But murder is not the destruction of "human life." Murder is the deliberate killing of a person.

Again, if I cut myself shaving, I have destroyed "human life," my own to be exact, but I have not committed suicide. If I punch someone in the nose and cause a bruise or a nosebleed, I have again destroyed "human life," but I have not committed murder.

So it's pointless to show or claim that an embryo is "human life." What you need to show is that it's a person. And that's a much tougher job.

 

[Dragon]

Regarding motivations, I observe two motivations in the anti-abortion movement, as I briefly touched on earlier. Some members of it are genuinely concerned with protecting unborn fetuses. Others use that as a smokescreen or a means to the end of returning women to sexual servitude as they were in the past, when marriage was a form of property ownership, rape of one's spouse was a non-crime, and women were expected to be the virginal property of their male relatives until marriage upon which they became the subordinate, submissive property of their husbands.

The reason why this motivates some people to the anti-abortion movement is because legal, safe, available abortion (like birth control) results in female sexual freedom. A woman is free these days to control her own sexual behavior and fertility. If her husband rapes her, that's now a crime. If she is unmarried and wants to have sex with someone, she can, without fear of pregnancy as a consequence (although she still has to watch out for STDs). To the anti-feminist wing of the anti-abortion movement, this seems like unjustifiable permissiveness and they want to restore the consequences of sinful sex to women so that fear of those consequences might keep their legs crossed more.

There's a simple test to determine whether a given member of the anti-abortion movement belongs to its truly pro-life wing or merely to its anti-feminist wing, and I invite all anti-abortion participants on this thread to take that test. It involves answering one simple question.

If you were writing a law to make abortion illegal once more, would you make an exception allowing termination of a pregnancy that resulted from rape?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Regarding motivations, I observe two motivations in the anti-abortion movement, as I briefly touched on earlier. Some members of it are genuinely concerned with protecting unborn fetuses. Others use that as a smokescreen or a means to the end of returning women to sexual servitude as they were in the past, when marriage was a form of property ownership, rape of one's spouse was a non-crime, and women were expected to be the virginal property of their male relatives until marriage upon which they became the subordinate, submissive property of their husbands.

The reason why this motivates some people to the anti-abortion movement is because legal, safe, available abortion (like birth control) results in female sexual freedom. A woman is free these days to control her own sexual behavior and fertility. If her husband rapes her, that's now a crime. If she is unmarried and wants to have sex with someone, she can, without fear of pregnancy as a consequence (although she still has to watch out for STDs). To the anti-feminist wing of the anti-abortion movement, this seems like unjustifiable permissiveness and they want to restore the consequences of sinful sex to women so that fear of those consequences might keep their legs crossed more.

There's a simple test to determine whether a given member of the anti-abortion movement belongs to its truly pro-life wing or merely to its anti-feminist wing, and I invite all anti-abortion participants on this thread to take that test. It involves answering one simple question.

If you were writing a law to make abortion illegal once more, would you make an exception allowing termination of a pregnancy that resulted from rape?

You parrot the usual pro-choice talking points quite well, I'll give ya' that!

There are only three reasons that would validate abortion:

1) Risk to a mothers life.

2) Incest related pregnancy.

3) Rape.

Other than those three, there is no valid reason to exterminate innocent human life.

Ya' see, what the pro-choicers are all about, like most left wingers are all about, is doing away with any personal responsibility.....Whatever they can do to make their lives easierl, without having to care about their decisions, take the personal responsibility angle out of the equation........Hence, "hey, if I get pregnant, no problem, i'll just abort the lil' bastard."

And i'll ask you a question that ALWAYS boggles the minds of the pro-choicers:

Why shouldn't the father have a choice in the abortion decision?

After all, the pro-choicers always seem to the think the father is just a tool in conception, and should only be pulled out of the box when it's time be the cash cow after birth......The woman knows the risks taken when deciding to spread her legs. She knows her womb may damn sure end up harboring an innocent human life, as does the male......It takes both to create life. Equal responsibility.....There is no life without sperm meeting egg. after all......So, tell us why the father should have no rights in the decision to kill that child.

 

[Dragon]

There are only three reasons that would validate abortion:

1) Risk to a mothers life.

2) Incest related pregnancy.

3) Rape.

Thank you for answering my question. Since you would make an exception for rape, you are clearly in the anti-woman wing of the anti-abortion movement, not among its sincerely pro-life advocates. Here's why.

The child of a rape is innocent of any crime. If that is a person, and has a right to life that should be protected, it is not a right forfeited because someone else committed a crime. True, requiring the mother to bear the child of the man who raped her would cause her suffering and hardship, but one must weigh this against murder, and it becomes the less serious consequence.

Anyone who sincerely wishes to protect the unborn, and regards an embryo at conception at a person, and would make abortion illegal again for that reason, would NOT make an exception for rape or incest. To protect the life of the mother, yes, but not for those other reasons.

On the other hand, if the real motivation is to make sure that "sluts" are faced with the full consequence of their actions, and prevent women from being able to engage in sex freely, or at least increase their incentive for keeping their legs crossed, then an exception for rape makes perfect sense. If the woman was raped and is pregnant for that reason, then the sin is not hers, it's her rapist's. Why punish her for a crime committed by someone else, of which she is already the victim?

The answer to that question is a sure-fire tell-tale.

 

[Wicked Jester]

There are only three reasons that would validate abortion:

1) Risk to a mothers life.

2) Incest related pregnancy.

3) Rape.

Thank you for answering my question. Since you would make an exception for rape, you are clearly in the anti-woman wing of the anti-abortion movement, not among its sincerely pro-life advocates. Here's why.

The child of a rape is innocent of any crime. If that is a person, and has a right to life that should be protected, it is not a right forfeited because someone else committed a crime. True, requiring the mother to bear the child of the man who raped her would cause her suffering and hardship, but one must weigh this against murder, and it becomes the less serious consequence.

Anyone who sincerely wishes to protect the unborn, and regards an embryo at conception at a person, and would make abortion illegal again for that reason, would NOT make an exception for rape or incest. To protect the life of the mother, yes, but not for those other reasons.

On the other hand, if the real motivation is to make sure that "sluts" are faced with the full consequence of their actions, and prevent women from being able to engage in sex freely, or at least increase their incentive for keeping their legs crossed, then an exception for rape makes perfect sense. If the woman was raped and is pregnant for that reason, then the sin is not hers, it's her rapist's. Why punish her for a crime committed by someone else, of which she is already the victim?

The answer to that question is a sure-fire tell-tale.

LMAO!......Pure fuckin' hogwash......Ya' see, you pro-lifers just want abortion dumps.....Regardless of reason.......I can reason clearly for the three extenuating circumstances......You people can't reason for anything.......The last paragraph of your drivel doesn't even make fucking sense

Now, why are you cherry picking, like all pro-choicers do, and refusing to address the fathers rights questions?........Yeah, we know why!

 

[logical4u]

That is a moronic argument, so half are going to die anyway so we may as well kill them to make sure?? What?? Surely your argument would be better suited in the pro life camp. If a doctor said to a mother, "look there is a 50% chance the baby will naturally abort". Then the mother might decide to take THAT chance.

The fact is we are living in a society where sex with a stranger doesn't bat most young peoples eye-lids.

They are using abortion as a contraceptive. Which is WRONG. Each abortion case should be looked at in full before someone takes the decision to terminate another human life.

Think about it, what if it was you in the womb? And men, what if it was your child who you are watching running around playing today, or watched grow up. What if your wife/partner had decided to deny that life.

If the mother doesn't want to have the child or can't support it, then 1. She shouldn't be having unprotected sex and 2. There are plenty of familys out there willing to adopt. 9 months pregnancy is not a lot to ask for, for your mistake and for another human to live their life.

I'm not arguing that you should just get an abortion anyways because of the high miscarriage rate, but I'm arguing that natural abortions are a very common thing. For whatever reason, the pro life crowd doesn't seem to give a lick about the natural abortion rate, which vastly dwarfs the unnatural abortion rate.

Consider this hypothetical situation: A woman has a natural condition which causes a thinning of the unterine wall, making it nearly impossible for implantation of a fertilized egg during ovulation. This woman is aware of her condition, and she has accepted the fact that she will almost certainly not be able to have children. She is married, and enjoys a healthy sex life with her spouse, which she wishes to continue.

If this woman, whose womb essentially acts as a natural abortifacient, continues to have sex with her husband, do you really believe that she is guilty of mass infanticide (keep in mind she is knowledgeable of her condition)? If the pro lifers truly believe that the life of every fertilized egg is just as valuable as my own life, then you must believe this to be consistent. If the pro lifers don't believe that she is guilty of mass infanticide, then you must believe that a fertilized egg isn't necessarily enough to constitute a human being. So which is it?

Any of you "pro lifers" wanna answer my hypothetical? Is it wrong for this woman to continue having sex with her husband?

Is this woman forcing her body to reject a child? If she is not, then she is not wrong. I have a friend that was going to have her tubes tied. Her doctor told her it was a "miracle" she ever got pregnant. She listened to her doctor, and was rewarded with a beautiful baby. She loves the child, and was grateful that she had the second one.

 

[logical4u]

Lets see, because most people are pretty dumb until they get into their 30's (some people it takes way longer to achieve what one might call "sense." I'de say a great deal of abortions come from girls in their teen years and early 20's. If I had a 15 year old daughter that got pregnant because she got drunk with some lusting boy at a party, I wouldn't demand she become an adult right there and then because she made a stupid teenage decission. If your having Abortions in your 30's your kinda F**d in the head. Birth Control does work, and so does condoms. (Isn't the Right against those things too though? That seems highly retarded).

"I believe life begins at arousal" --Dan Halen

Why would your 15 year old daughter be in a position to use alcohol and be used for sex? At what point do people take responsiblity for their actions? 2 year olds are taught not to touch hot things. 4 year olds are expected to use the potty. 6 year olds are expected to behave non-violently in a class room. 12 year olds are expected to do their own homework. Why is it, only when it comes to sex, does the left think that children have not control over their bodies and are not expected to use any restrain at all? It is like the left "wants" children to have sex before they are physically or emotionally mature. I thought there were laws against that?

 

[logical4u]

PS: The typical Man has aborted more babies into a sock then all women combined.
Sperm is alive, therfore its life. Life of human orgin, thefore, human. Therefore killing humans.

If you leave sperm in the producer's body, it will not develop into a child, in case you missed that in "sex ed".

 

[Wicked Jester]

PS: The typical Man has aborted more babies into a sock then all women combined.
Sperm is alive, therfore its life. Life of human orgin, thefore, human. Therefore killing humans.

If you leave sperm in the producer's body, it will not develop into a child, in case you missed that in "sex ed".

The post you addressed is typical pro-choice poropaganda, straight from the pro-choice handbook of talking points......It's an attempt to minimize actual human life. It's a way to justify their twisted view.....A way to feel good about their support of exterminating innocent human life. To do away with the guilt, if you will.

 

[logical4u]

Regarding motivations, I observe two motivations in the anti-abortion movement, as I briefly touched on earlier. Some members of it are genuinely concerned with protecting unborn fetuses. Others use that as a smokescreen or a means to the end of returning women to sexual servitude as they were in the past, when marriage was a form of property ownership, rape of one's spouse was a non-crime, and women were expected to be the virginal property of their male relatives until marriage upon which they became the subordinate, submissive property of their husbands.

The reason why this motivates some people to the anti-abortion movement is because legal, safe, available abortion (like birth control) results in female sexual freedom. A woman is free these days to control her own sexual behavior and fertility. If her husband rapes her, that's now a crime. If she is unmarried and wants to have sex with someone, she can, without fear of pregnancy as a consequence (although she still has to watch out for STDs). To the anti-feminist wing of the anti-abortion movement, this seems like unjustifiable permissiveness and they want to restore the consequences of sinful sex to women so that fear of those consequences might keep their legs crossed more.

There's a simple test to determine whether a given member of the anti-abortion movement belongs to its truly pro-life wing or merely to its anti-feminist wing, and I invite all anti-abortion participants on this thread to take that test. It involves answering one simple question.

If you were writing a law to make abortion illegal once more, would you make an exception allowing termination of a pregnancy that resulted from rape?

....."upon which they became the subordinate, submissive property", what are women that are "sexually free" other than the temporay property that is used as a penis receptacle and disgarded for the next temporary property owner? How does that "elevate" women? Do you want your daughter/sister/mother to be "sexually free"? It is a deceit, a lie, a con to make women less than they have been in hundreds of years. What does it do for men? It makes them users, no morals, no dignity, no integrity, no man, just another penis.

For your question: I would not pass a law against abortion. It would be wide open for abuse, and impossible to enforce effectively. I would educate people that if you have sex, there is a possibility you will make a child. If you terminate that life, it is murder. If you do not want to have a child with a particular person at a particular time, do not have sex with that person. If that person is the person you want to be in your life, for keeps, but do not want a child at that time, use protection. It is a gamble, but a fairly safe gamble. It seems pretty simple to me.

 

[logical4u]

PS: The typical Man has aborted more babies into a sock then all women combined.
Sperm is alive, therfore its life. Life of human orgin, thefore, human. Therefore killing humans.

If you leave sperm in the producer's body, it will not develop into a child, in case you missed that in "sex ed".

The post you addressed is typical pro-choice poropaganda, straight from the pro-choice handbook of talking points......It's an attempt to minimize actual human life. It's a way to justify their twisted view.....A way to feel good about their support of exterminating innocent human life. To do away with the guilt, if you will.

I thought they might have been giving a banana a condom, and missed that, alone, sperm does not develop into a child.