Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[R.D.]

Has anyone actually defined what "pro abortion" is supposed to mean as far as this thread is concerned?

If you thought it was referring to you, it was.

I have never met anyone that was pro abortion and no one here has ever defined what that means.
Ever.

Meh, you always say that. Still not impressed. Pro abortion is exactly as it sounds. Many of us have provided you with proof, links and quotes from proud pro abortion folks and you just ignore us.

 

[AllieBaba]

Here you go, TL:

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf

Page 10 shows the primary reasons that mothers undergo abortions.

93% of those are for convenience sake. That does not mean those are easy decisions to make, but they were made for nothing more than birth control reasons. Mommy simply didn't want the baby.

According to Guttmacher, the average number of "reasons" a mother gives is I believe between 3 and 4. I did not go back and look. However, the primary reason is stated on page 10. I think it is pretty evident that secondary reasons are generally nothing more than "excuses".

Immie

I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
Facts are facts.
Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for.
Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.

Abortion is terrible but no law stops it.

I am not quite sure that you don't mean what I am about to write but I'm not sure if your wording is just different than what I think or you meant something else.

Overturning Roe won't end or even reduce the number of abortions. I know Allie disagrees with me on that and has numbers to back up her claim that there was a huge increase in the number of abortions (I contend the increase was in the number of reported abortions). However, things are different today than they were almost 40 years ago when Roe became the law of the land. Simply making abortion illegal (even in ever state) would not reduce the numbers. With the available drugs we have today, nothing would change.

Overturning Roe is not the answer to reducing the number of abortions. The answer is dependent upon education and changing the views of society both in regards to sex and abortion.

Immie

I don't understand why you're so committed to a theory that is patently unreasonable. Of COURSE abortions would decrease if abortion were illegal. The numbers do support that. Before Roe v. Wade, not only were people not obtaining abortions like hotcakes, they weren't getting pregnant at the rate they started getting pregnant at after it passed. Unplanned pregnancies went through the roof with the advent of legalized abortion and the promotion of sex among the young and unmarried.

And our young people are already educated to death about sex, and from a young age. I find it amazing that people still claim that increased information and encouragement to fuck will prevent pregnancy. We've been teaching them these things for decades, and STILL the abortion rate increased, pretty much in lock step with abortion accessibility and increased outreach.

Now I don't have any problem with kids learning the mechanics of sex in school, at an appropriate age. I do, however, draw the line at the promotion of sex in the schools via PP outreach, abortion advertisement, and the distribution of condoms by school employees. "Come to school and get laid! It's okay! We'll escort you to the abortion clinic, girls, and protect the men who take advantage of you! Woo hoo!"

You mix up this attitude that "sex is great and natural among the underaged" with the fact that more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION and I call foul. Stop pimping out our kids in the name of "education". It's disgusting.

 

[AllieBaba]

You are retarded, JB...because ther reports claims that the title social reasons include instances such as the mother deciding the child is unwanted or 'inconvenient'.

That DOES NOT mean that 93% of abortions are for those reasons alone, you willfully ignorant clod. "Instances" does not equate "totality". Go back and read what comes under Guttmacher's heading of "social reasons"...or get an adult you trust to explain it to you.

Here you go, TL:

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf

Page 10 shows the primary reasons that mothers undergo abortions.

93% of those are for convenience sake. That does not mean those are easy decisions to make, but they were made for nothing more than birth control reasons. Mommy simply didn't want the baby.

According to Guttmacher, the average number of "reasons" a mother gives is I believe between 3 and 4. I did not go back and look. However, the primary reason is stated on page 10. I think it is pretty evident that secondary reasons are generally nothing more than "excuses".

Immie

I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
Facts are facts.
Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for.
Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.

So you honestly think that all poor women who get knocked up are too stupid to round up $500 for an abortion and too stupid to care for a child?

That's ridiculous. There is absolutely NO correlation between abortion and child abuse or neglect. NONE. There is no evidence that abortion prevents any sort of child abuse or child neglect. The people who abuse and neglect their children are NOT women who wanted abortions but *couldn't* get them.

And what makes you think that a woman who wants to kill her kid but can't would balk at putting the child up for adoption? Women who get pregnant can get a free ride throughout their pregnancy and all sorts of perks if they give the baby up for adoption. Do you really think poor women are universally too stupid to know that?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.

Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.

"had it done"?

Way to trivialize.

 

[AllieBaba]

What a dumb question. Of course you think poor women are too stupid to breathe. And that is the crux of the abortion issue. The reason it's being pushed is because the left wing nutjobs want to eliminate the poor and minority classes. It's not about what's best for the mom or the kids, and the silliness about child abuse is just an out and out lie. All it's about is getting rid of those despised groups of people.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Here you go, TL:

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf

Page 10 shows the primary reasons that mothers undergo abortions.

93% of those are for convenience sake. That does not mean those are easy decisions to make, but they were made for nothing more than birth control reasons. Mommy simply didn't want the baby.

According to Guttmacher, the average number of "reasons" a mother gives is I believe between 3 and 4. I did not go back and look. However, the primary reason is stated on page 10. I think it is pretty evident that secondary reasons are generally nothing more than "excuses".

Immie

I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
Facts are facts.
Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for.
Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.

So you honestly think that all poor women who get knocked up are too stupid to round up $500 for an abortion and too stupid to care for a child?

That's ridiculous. There is absolutely NO correlation between abortion and child abuse or neglect. NONE. There is no evidence that abortion prevents any sort of child abuse or child neglect. The people who abuse and neglect their children are NOT women who wanted abortions but *couldn't* get them.

And what makes you think that a woman who wants to kill her kid but can't would balk at putting the child up for adoption? Women who get pregnant can get a free ride throughout their pregnancy and all sorts of perks if they give the baby up for adoption. Do you really think poor women are universally too stupid to know that?

Abortion is all about flushing bad decisions down the drain.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not about that. It's about convincing poor minorities that their children are worthless. It's also about dehumanizing and sexualizing children so they can better serve perverts.

 

[Immanuel]

I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
Facts are facts.
Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for.
Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.

Abortion is terrible but no law stops it.

I am not quite sure that you don't mean what I am about to write but I'm not sure if your wording is just different than what I think or you meant something else.

Overturning Roe won't end or even reduce the number of abortions. I know Allie disagrees with me on that and has numbers to back up her claim that there was a huge increase in the number of abortions (I contend the increase was in the number of reported abortions). However, things are different today than they were almost 40 years ago when Roe became the law of the land. Simply making abortion illegal (even in ever state) would not reduce the numbers. With the available drugs we have today, nothing would change.

Overturning Roe is not the answer to reducing the number of abortions. The answer is dependent upon education and changing the views of society both in regards to sex and abortion.

Immie

I don't understand why you're so committed to a theory that is patently unreasonable. Of COURSE abortions would decrease if abortion were illegal. The numbers do support that. Before Roe v. Wade, not only were people not obtaining abortions like hotcakes, they weren't getting pregnant at the rate they started getting pregnant at after it passed. Unplanned pregnancies went through the roof with the advent of legalized abortion and the promotion of sex among the young and unmarried.

And our young people are already educated to death about sex, and from a young age. I find it amazing that people still claim that increased information and encouragement to fuck will prevent pregnancy. We've been teaching them these things for decades, and STILL the abortion rate increased, pretty much in lock step with abortion accessibility and increased outreach.

Now I don't have any problem with kids learning the mechanics of sex in school, at an appropriate age. I do, however, draw the line at the promotion of sex in the schools via PP outreach, abortion advertisement, and the distribution of condoms by school employees. "Come to school and get laid! It's okay! We'll escort you to the abortion clinic, girls, and protect the men who take advantage of you! Woo hoo!"

You mix up this attitude that "sex is great and natural among the underaged" with the fact that more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION and I call foul. Stop pimping out our kids in the name of "education". It's disgusting.

I don't understand why you're so committed to a theory that is patently unreasonable. Of COURSE abortions would decrease if abortion were illegal. The numbers do support that. Before Roe v. Wade, not only were people not obtaining abortions like hotcakes, they weren't getting pregnant at the rate they started getting pregnant at after it passed. Unplanned pregnancies went through the roof with the advent of legalized abortion and the promotion of sex among the young and unmarried.

Committed? Hardly.

I disagree with you. The world has changed in the 38 years of Roe. The morals of this country have declined significantly and overturning Roe is not going to change that. People think nothing of breaking the law, just look at the number of dope-smokers today. Hell, I suspect those of us who have never smoked the shit are in the minority today. Making abortion illegal won't reduce it at all as a percentage of the population that will get it and quite frankly, I don't believe that it changed all that significantly when it became legal. What changed was the safety in admitting that one was preformed.

And our young people are already educated to death about sex, and from a young age. I find it amazing that people still claim that increased information and encouragement to fuck will prevent pregnancy. We've been teaching them these things for decades, and STILL the abortion rate increased, pretty much in lock step with abortion accessibility and increased outreach.

I said nothing about "increased information and encouragement" about sex. The additional education I believe is necessary is in regards to life and what an abortion does. That should be handled not only in the sex education classes but in science classes as well.

Now I don't have any problem with kids learning the mechanics of sex in school, at an appropriate age. I do, however, draw the line at the promotion of sex in the schools via PP outreach, abortion advertisement, and the distribution of condoms by school employees. "Come to school and get laid! It's okay! We'll escort you to the abortion clinic, girls, and protect the men who take advantage of you! Woo hoo!"

Nor do I regarding the mechanics. As do I in regards to the promotion.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

Well I can't do much if you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

 

[Immanuel]

Well I can't do much if you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

It seems to me that it is you that is unwilling to acknowledge facts. For one, the fact, that life is so much different today than it was nearly 40 years ago.

I wish I could agree with you, but I think you are wrong and worse than that, 100% dead wrong if Roe is overturned.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, life is much different. Child abuse and abortion rates exploded after Roe v. Wade. That's a documented fact.

 

[Vanquish]

What's amazing to me is that people apply selective logic when it comes to abortion. They rationalize baby killing.

Hypo #1:
You've got a revolver with 6 chambers. 3 chambers have bullets in them. 3 don't. Would you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger?

Hypo #2
You have a fetus that's 1 week old in your belly. You can't afford to be a parent. Would you have an abortion?

In both hypotheticals, you have no concrete way of knowing whether your actions will result in murder.
So what's the difference? In the first hypo, most people wouldn't take the chance with their own life. In the second, they rationalize that it "might not be murder because we don't really know."

The lengths some people will go for convenience is astonishingly extreme.

 

[AllieBaba]

Immie, you've drunk the abortion Kool Aid and liked it, I see. You're so convinced that women are too stupid to function without having their uteruses scraped regularly that you're willing to throw the babies out with the dishwater, literally.

The thing is, it's not just the unborn babies that are hurt. It's the living breathing babies that are being abused, and whose abusers are being protected by PP, who are also being hurt. They are hurt by the fact that when we allow the slaughter of innocents, we in turn devalue ALL innocents. If an unborn baby is worth nothing, a 12 year old isn't worth much more. If we protect the people who get these young people pregnant, we are promoting child abuse.

 

[JBeukema]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

Hi, you have received -89 reputation points from Grace.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Troll

Regards,
Grace

Note: This is an automated message.

Asking for honesty is trolling?

If what you advocate isn't wrong, Grace, why do you have to lie about what you advocate?

 

[JBeukema]

RETARD
​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487476

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487904

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-60.html#post3497540

You are retarded, JB...because ther reports claims that the title social reasons include instances such as the mother deciding the child is unwanted or 'inconvenient'.

That DOES NOT mean that 93% of abortions are for those reasons alone, you willfully ignorant clod. "Instances" does not equate "totality". Go back and read what comes under Guttmacher's heading of "social reasons"...or get an adult you trust to explain it to you.

Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life 16%
Think she'll be inconvenienced
Woman can't afford baby now 21%
inconvenient financial burden
Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood 12%
afraid baby will be inconvenient burden when she wants to pursue career/go out and party
Woman is unready for responsibility 21%
straight inconvenience; doesn't want to grow the fuck up
Woman doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant 1%
revealing that she is sexually active would be a social inconvenience
Woman is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child 11%
doesn't want to grow up and be responsible for her actions; inconvenience
Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children 8%
another baby would be an inconvenience
Husband or partner wants woman to have an abortion 1%
baby would be inconvenient as she got knocked up by the wrong dude
Fetus has possible health problem 3%
Woman has health problem 3%
Woman's parents want her to have abortion <1%
Woman was victim of rape or incest 1%
Just over 7%
Other 3%

 

[JBeukema]

Abortion should be allowed on cases of rape

Why? Please explain how your parents' relationships effects whether or not it's okay to kill you.

, or due to the poverty of the parents

Better for the kids to be dead than poor? Are you a eugenicist?

but I disagree over disability and minor defects. Myself having a disability (and recovered from it), I have to imagine what if my parents had aborted me, what if parents aborted children because they had a leg missing, or because they were autistic, dyslexic and so on. In my opinion that is murder.

So better to be dead than poor, but better to be autistic than dead?

 

[JBeukema]

Why do you run away from debating the people who have stipulated that the embryo/fetuse is in fact human?

Do cite.

Why do you have to lie?

It's true. I've stipulated to your assertion that the embryo/fetus is human

That's not an 'assertion'. That is a simple biological fact. Or did you get preggers from your dog like JD_2B?

to make any termination of any pregnancy, at any time, a crime.

Who advocated that? Why do you have to lie and fight straw armies?

You have offered nothing of substance to contradict that.

Only you have advocated any such thing, dumbass

Now is your chance. Here and now you can make the case that our society would be better served if your view was made law

You already agreed with me, genius

and your view was that abortion at any time ought to be at least the crime of manslaughter.

Right after you explain why we should all adopt your view that every child should, at the age of two, be sodomized by a man with aids as a right of passage from infanthood to personhood

 

[JBeukema]

Democrats always go on about how hard it is for their slutty daughters to get birth control.

Yet they have no problem finding an abortionist.

Why is that?

Maybe you should teach your kids where the condoms are at Walgreens instead of where all those beloved old hags with hangers are that you talk about so much.

Hi, you have received -21 reputation points from Vanquish.
Reputation was given for this post.

I guess the truth hurts.

So, Van... why can these girls find an abortionist but not a box of condoms?

Who can't find condoms? Who specifically has made that complaint?

So now you people no longer say that getting condoms/birth control is a problem?

So these girls choose to not use condoms in order to get pregnant because they want to have abortions so they can prove to you how liberal they are?

 

[JBeukema]

more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION .

Can you source that, please?

 

[JBeukema]

Someone please explain how these women can't find or can't afford a condom, the pill, the foam, and/or other means of avoiding pregnancy, but they can find and afford an abortionist.