Hello "pro choice" people.

[1stNickD]

Wow... So much wrong here. So much.

The first one is that the reason why Planned Parenthoods exist in poorer neighborhoods is because more affluent neighborhoods have easy access to family planning. No need for a charity PP when there is a OB/GYN down the block who will happily take your insurance.

The one thing that separates wealthy countries like the US, Japan and Europe from poor countries like pretty much the rest of the planet, is access to family planning, including abortion. In fact, India and China have engaged in aggressive family planning programs to combat overpopulation, and as a result, are rising economic powers.

Should also point out that Margaret Sanger OPPOSED legal abortion, mostly because in the good old days before anti-biotics, aborting a pregnancy was still a pretty dangerous proposition. Then again, so was actually giving birth, or being a baby.

View attachment 630500View attachment 630502

Sanger's efforts to bring family planning to the black community (white people already had access to what limited Family Planning existed in the 1920's) was largely praised by black leaders at the time.

So please don't paint your anti-choice garbage as being compassionate towards black people. No one is buying it.

Yes and China is now trying to "encourage" women to have three children each because they have a shrinking population. pay attention to the news instead of using 20 year old foreign policy news.

 

[1stNickD]

Fetuses aren't people. Sorry.

Yeah, they are. Just because they don't throw a ball yet or piss in their diapers does not mean they are not human beings. Once that heart starts beating they are human beings. I'll support contraception and maybe the morning after pill before the egg attaches to the uterus. But killing a baby with a beating heart is murder, pure and simple. Its time to put a stop to it.

 

[JoeB131]

Uhm dude. That’s not proof. Logic ain’t your strong suit.

Um, dude, I gave you the proof by showing you the birth numbers in the 70's.

The birth numbers did not go down because women could get rid of their unwanted guests.

Which proves that they were getting rid of their unwanted guests before Roe.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, they are. Just because they don't throw a ball yet or piss in their diapers does not mean they are not human beings. Once that heart starts beating they are human beings. I'll support contraception and maybe the morning after pill before the egg attaches to the uterus. But killing a baby with a beating heart is murder, pure and simple. Its time to put a stop to it.

Nope. Fetuses aren't people. You aren't a person unless you are viable.

 

[alang1216]

So do you give the old sick people a choice, or do you just kill us.

If someone I loved was in a coma and doctors told they would never recover because they were brain dead, would you consider me a murderer if I opted to take them off life support and allowed them to die?

 

[Cecilie1200]

One third of all pregnancies end in a "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage". So no, a pregnancy will not necessarily end with a living baby. I had five pregnancies, three live births, and two miscarriages - no abortions.

Once again, YOUR assumptions are based on false information or outright lies.

And there you go, "refuting" a point that was not made but that you'd far prefer to discuss.

Please show us in his post where he said, "All pregnancies will result in a live birth", or what you think you've proven by triumphantly "discovering" that sometimes, people die without evil assholes like you killing them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What bullshit. You can't just throw up any old hate site which agrees with your position and claim you've proven anything. Especially sites like FOX News which is a Questionable Source.

You have to use sources which subscribed to journalistic ethics, not just because they're saying the things YOU want them to say.

You'd be less foolish if you admitted that what a woman chooses to do with her body is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

You'd be less foolish if you bothered to check out the sites before dismissing them as "any old hate site" because they contradict your talking points, or if you stopped mindlessly chanting talking points that have been out-of-date since back before you became a shriveled old hag.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am going to keep you on track.


You said a non viable fetus was a person.


I want you to show me that in the law


I never mentioned abortion



And almost every adult pays sales, gas, hotel, airline or some other tax every year


Words matter

So reality is defined by what's written in the laws? So . . . how do we know what laws to pass, if there's no reality until the laws exist?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, "one person celebrating abortion" does not undermine my contention at all. Abortion is NOT the killing of babies, so your entire premise is based on the lie that abortion kills a baby.

You don't want to discuss this as anything other than a culture wedge but the harsh reality is that middle class and wealthy women will get abortion, because they have the means to travel to anywhere in the world where abortion is FULLY legal, which includes all of the first world, except the USA.


Oh yes you did. You assumed that unless there was some outside intervention, the fetus would become a human being. That is your basic fallacy. Nothing is guaranteed in that regard.

When a woman miscarries, we're told that the process of going from a fertilized egg to a viable human being is incredibly complex and can go off track. Early miscarriages are "God's way" of dealing with the zygots that didn't develop properly - the "mistakes".

You make a huge issue of "murdering babies" but in the real world, when a woman miscarries, she's told it's "no big deal", "you can get pregnant again", and you're not even given time off work to deal with your grief. We don't hold funerals, or even get flowers. It just is. But somehow, if the woman decides that now is not the right time in increase her family, and decides to wait, she's a monster.

You are incorrect. The senility is really advanced if you can't remember your own words.

Here's your premise:

"Name one person who "celebrates" abortion. No one "cheers for abortion"."

If "no one cheers for abortion", then showing one person who DOES refutes your premise.

Thank you for playing and maintaining your unbroken streak of abject failure.

 

[Vegasgiants]

So reality is defined by what's written in the laws? So . . . how do we know what laws to pass, if there's no reality until the laws exist?

Yes. The law is the basis for justice. You may claim that the law is unjust and make that argument but law is how we define our reality

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did you read the articles. They were mocking your claims, you stupid bitch.

Well, YOU didn't even read the names of the sources, so you're still reigning champion of "being a stupid bitch."

And since you apparently need everything down to "water is wet" explained to you in excruciating detail in order for it to filter into your microscopic brain, let me point out that it doesn't matter what the left-wing sites you couldn't even recognize think about abortion. What matters is that they include people doing what YOU, in your infinite ignorance, said "no one" does.

By all means, cite me some more utterly irrelevant points to refute not a fucking thing. I can use the laugh as you struggle uselessly to make a point.

 

[BackAgain]

Um, dude, I gave you the proof by showing you the birth numbers in the 70's.

The birth numbers did not go down because women could get rid of their unwanted guests.

Which proves that they were getting rid of their unwanted guests before Roe.

Uhm dude. That’s not proof.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes. The law is the basis for justice. You may claim that the law is unjust and make that argument but law is how we define our reality

No, dear. The law is an expression of underlying morals, which are the basis for justice. THEY define our metaphysical reality as well. Without those morals, the law doesn't exist.

 

[Vegasgiants]

No, dear. The law is an expression of underlying morals, which are the basis for justice. THEY define our metaphysical reality as well. Without those morals, the law doesn't exist.

Same difference

 

[Cecilie1200]

Same difference

No, not even close. Words mean things, and my words meant nothing near what your words meant.

 

[JoeB131]

Uhm dude. That’s not proof.

Actually, it is... You can deduce cause and effect.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually, it is... You can deduce cause and effect.

No. Actually it’s not. You might be able to deduce a conclusion from sufficient facts. They weren’t presented though.

 

[JoeB131]

No. Actually it’s not. You might be able to deduce a conclusion from sufficient facts. They weren’t presented though.

Sure they were... you just want to pretend they aren't there.

 

[BackAgain]

Sure they were... you just want to pretend they aren't there.

Nope. I just want to get you to see the errors of your alleged “thinking.”

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. I just want to get you to see the errors of your alleged “thinking.”

Okay, guy, so why didn't the birth numbers plummet when abortion was legalized?

Go.

I gave a very plausible reason.. that anyone who has worked in that area of medicine will tell you. By 1972, no one was following those laws. Women were going to the OB/GYN's, getting an abortion, and something else got written on the charts.

So while the number of REPORTED abortions spiked after 1973, the number of babies born stayed the same.