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

[Gunny]

Because it isn't en vogue to admit one murders unborn human beings for the sake of selfish, personal convenience.

I haven't murdered anyone and oppose abortion.
So you know the personal experiences of 100% of all the women that get abortions?

If you scroll back up to my response ... you will note it is response to the OP, the thread title.

 

[Gadawg73]

I'm trying really hard to figure out how you hanging with little kids all day is relevant to this thread.

You have shit for brains.
Coaching and mentoring kids may be "hanging with little kids" to you but not to adults that know the problems this country faces. While you sit on your fat ass eating bon bons I am out trying to put you out of a job.
But you have a vested in keeping these kids down and out.
You are a government social worker. If things got better you lose your "job".
Wonder what your employer would think of you on the damn internet all day Allie.
You are supposed to be working and you are playing on the internet. Typical gummint worker.
Now I know why the system is so fucked up.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow you sound a little stressed there, chief.

Not entirely coherent, however.

 

[Gadawg73]

Allie is such a fool that she has no clue that you need to teach THE BOYS to be men and be disciplined and that is what men like me have been doing for years.
It takes a male to make the baby. Allie releases them of any and all responsibility.
You have to start while they are young and teach them to be responsible young men and respect their mothers and to obey their teachers.
If you start working with youth at a young age they respect their mothers, their teachers, authority and strive to better themselves.
Education and work ethic with positive role models is key. Many of these so called "right to lifers" are a fucking joke. Pompous lazy turds that do nothing to help anyone in their community and want to point fingers at everyone else when trouble comes into their lives.
Start with the kids and maybe this next generation will be better. We are trying and won't be detered.

 

[Gadawg73]

Wow you sound a little stressed there, chief.

Not entirely coherent, however.

Not stressed. I do not have to look over my back because I am taking taxpayer $$ and sitting on my ass on the internet not doing my job.
Who do you work for? Do they approve of you on the internet all day?

 

[AllieBaba]

Okie dokie then.

*Allie leaves the thread so gadawg can continue to fantasize about boys*

 

[Gadawg73]

Okie dokie then.

*Allie leaves the thread so gadawg can continue to fantasize about boys*

You are definitely stressed now Allie. Sort of got to you there that you are now exposed. Worried about that gummint tit job so much you are not working at?
All you have and all you have ever had are gutter remarks just like the one above.
Sticks and stones. I have been beat up, shot at, left for dead. Played 4 quarters between the lines against 6'4" 290 lb O lineman.
You have shown your true self once again. White trash.

 

[PixieStix]

Because it isn't en vogue to admit one murders unborn human beings for the sake of selfish, personal convenience.

Their argument for abortion *rights*, is not backed up by the science.

 

[AllieBaba]

Or the numbers.

 

[AllieBaba]

Okie dokie then.

*Allie leaves the thread so gadawg can continue to fantasize about boys*

You are definitely stressed now Allie. Sort of got to you there that you are now exposed. Worried about that gummint tit job so much you are not working at?
All you have and all you have ever had are gutter remarks just like the one above.
Sticks and stones. I have been beat up, shot at, left for dead. Played 4 quarters between the lines against 6'4" 290 lb O lineman.
You have shown your true self once again. White trash.

 

[snjmom]

I've got to disagree with you regarding PP. PP has been about free, unrestricted sex from the beginning. They are the instigators of the "Sexual Revolution", not a product of it. They have not gone out and advertised, "Just Do It", but they may as well have done so.

Bullshit.

From our local PP website.




Does that really sound like a message of "free love" and promiscuity to you?

Really?

Can you provide a link to your site please? There are simply too many PP sites for me to search for that one.

Here you go. plannedparenthood.org/stlouis That particular part is under Sexual Health Education/Parents.

Do you deny PP's association with Margaret Sanger? Do you deny that Margaret Sanger was a proponent of "free sex"? I mean come on, they made her out to be a goddess!

Do you understand that Ms. Sanger was a person of her times and as such was racist? That her concept of "free sex" meant that women should be able to actually enjoy sex rather than viewing it as a necessary evil that has to be suffered? Do you actually think that women should be made to bear as many children as they can until they die? Or that women should never have sex again once they have had all the children they want?

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Margaret Sanger

The Truth about Margaret Sanger | Planned Parenthood Affiliates New Jersey

Sanger and Eugenics

Eugenics is the science of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. Unable to foment popular opposition to Margaret Sanger's accomplishments and the organization she founded, Sanger's critics attempt to discredit them by intentionally confusing her views on "fitness" with eugenics, racism, and anti-Semitism. Margaret Sanger was not a racist, an anti-Semite, or a eugenicist. Eugenicists, like the Nazis, were opposed to the use of abortion and contraception by healthy and “fit” women (Grossmann, 1995). In fact, Sanger’s books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning (“Sanger on Exhibit,” 1999/2000). Sanger actually helped several Jewish women and men and others escape the Nazi regime in Germany (“Margaret Sanger and the ‘Refugee Department’,” 1993). Sanger's disagreement with the eugenicists of her day is clear from her remarks in The Birth Control Review of February 1919:

Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).

By the way, PP doesn't deny the link between themselves and Sanger.

Immie

I don't see why they should. Should we deny Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves?

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).

What part of that do you disagree with?

 

[AllieBaba]

So are you saying that all women of Sanger's era were racists, and she was just a product of her times?

You do know she believed in forced sterilization of undesirables, right...do you think everyone wanted that?

 

[traveler52]

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.

First off, no one "Pro Abortion", they are "Pro Choice".


Second. IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO BIG GOVERNMENT

IF YOU ARE


OPPOSED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT GETTING IN BETWEEN


THE DOCTOR ANDTHE PATIENT.


IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DECIDING MEDIAL TREATMENT....THEN


YOU ARE A LYING ABOUT BEING ANTI-BIG GOVERNMENT YOU DAMN BIMBO!!!

 

[PixieStix]

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.

First off, no one "Pro Abortion", they are "Pro Choice".


Second. IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO BIG GOVERNMENT

IF YOU ARE


OPPOSED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT GETTING IN BETWEEN


THE DOCTOR ANDTHE PATIENT.


IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DECIDING MEDIAL TREATMENT....THEN


YOU ARE A LYING ABOUT BEING ANTI-BIG GOVERNMENT YOU DAMN BIMBO!!!

JB a BIMBO? Margaret Sanger your hero? Talk about a bimbo

 

[taichiliberal]

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
That's what YOU think, you clod! It's more than just change of college or career plans. If the woman is a teenager and poor, she sure as hell can't take of that kid properly...especially if her parents disown her. If she's an adult and poor, she sure as hell can't feed another kid or properly do for current children in a manner that she expected. Yeah, it happens....."change of life" isn't just an "inconvenience" in a lot of cases....you are one pathetic propagandist, JB.

Woman can't afford baby now 21%
inconvenient financial burden

You ever been poor, JB. I'm not talking about "inconvenient" poor, I'm talking about missing meals, clothes down to rags, 1 day shy of eviction poor. There's a BIG difference between an "inconvenience" and a major problem, you JB idiot! And I'll wager dollars to donuts that YOU are one of those simpletons parroting the neocon mantras to get rid of "entitlements" in our society.

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

No, you stupid JB....afraid that she can't afford to raise the kid properly (or better than her), or have the available resources to make the latter happen.....or maybe she doesn't want to join the statistics of unwed welfare mothers. Sorry, but it's not about YOUR opinion, but her life...because YOU sure as hell are not going to take care of that kid.

Woman is unready for responsibility 21%
straight inconvenience; doesn't want to grow the fuck up

Are you fucking stupid, JB? Are you AWARE of the statistics of unwed mothers on welfare? Of unwed TEEN mothers on welfare? See stupid, the neocons in the last 30 years have waged a war on Day Care systems throughout the 50 states.....so how the hell can the forementioned moms take care of a kid if there are no avenues for her to work to provide for her kid...because not everyone has parents and relatives who are willing and/or able to provide a home and free daycare/babysitting. Yeah, POS like you JB whine like stuck pigs about entitlements and welfare state, but you sure as hell want that woman to have that kid and then that's her problem. Yeah, as hard as that decision is to have an abortion, the majority of those women are grown up and realistic...unlike your childish devotion to your myopic interpretations of definitions applying to the real world.

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

No jackass, revealing that a 15 year is pregnant to her parents can result in disowning or violence.

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

See above responses, you stupe.

Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children 8%
another baby would be an inconvenience

See above responses.

Husband or partner wants woman to have an abortion 1%
baby would be inconvenient as she got knocked up by the wrong dude

Whoa! the stat was for "husband or partner"....so since that doesn't fit into JB'S automatic sole condemnation of the woman in the abortion decision, he inserts that the woman must be a slut. Fucking sanctimonious JB, braying ass.

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%

Are you saying that you approve of abortion in these circumstances?Other 3%

What the hell is "other"?

So as you can see folks, JB's definition of "inconvenience" differs from the reality of reasons and situations that can and have resulted in abortions in this country due to dire situations. Again, "Instances" does not equate "totality" for 93% of abortions.

Like Sen. Kyl, JB likes to exaggerate and distort the facts to fit his personal beliefs....but as I demonstrate above, the truth with a little simple analysis will always undo 3rd rate propagandist like JB.

 

[Gunny]

If men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would never have been illegal.

Do you expect rape victims who get pregnant to keep the baby?

There are too many people on the planet using up resources that cannot be replaced. Try quality rather than quantity. Wear a condom.

If women are the ones who GET pregnant, maybe they should keep their legs closed and their panties on?

It's a two way street and you're a f-ing moron with a lame-ass argument.

 

[PixieStix]

If men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would never have been illegal.

Do you expect rape victims who get pregnant to keep the baby?

There are too many people on the planet using up resources that cannot be replaced. Try quality rather than quantity. Wear a condom.

Is that the best you can do? Same old tired sexist argument

 

[snjmom]

So are you saying that all women of Sanger's era were racists, and she was just a product of her times?

Pretty much. Wouldn't say it was absolute but a majority of the population? Yes.

You do know she believed in forced sterilization of undesirables, right...do you think everyone wanted that?

No, not everyone wanted it. Many were content to watch the slums fester, to see women die after producing 15 pregnancies with 6 or 10 surviving children.


And the pendulum is swinging that way again.

 

[Immanuel]

Bullshit.

From our local PP website.




Does that really sound like a message of "free love" and promiscuity to you?

Really?

Can you provide a link to your site please? There are simply too many PP sites for me to search for that one.

Here you go. plannedparenthood.org/stlouis That particular part is under Sexual Health Education/Parents.



Do you understand that Ms. Sanger was a person of her times and as such was racist? That her concept of "free sex" meant that women should be able to actually enjoy sex rather than viewing it as a necessary evil that has to be suffered? Do you actually think that women should be made to bear as many children as they can until they die? Or that women should never have sex again once they have had all the children they want?

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Margaret Sanger

The Truth about Margaret Sanger | Planned Parenthood Affiliates New Jersey

By the way, PP doesn't deny the link between themselves and Sanger.

Immie

I don't see why they should. Should we deny Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves?

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).

What part of that do you disagree with?

Mom,

You screwed those quotes up!

I'm not at all certain what part you wrote. Except for that very last part so that is all I am going to attempt to answer.

I don't believe that you or anyone from PP should be worshipping eugenics as you are right here and ascribing any value to their murderous ways.

I also believe that the woman had the right to choose when to produce offspring. She has that right, right up to the moment she conceives. Prior to that it is fully her choice. At the time of conception she has made her choice.

PP has made the decision to support the killing of that child for any reason whatsoever. That puts them on the level of eugenists and not worthy of support.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state

Bullshit. Eugenics implies a person's obligation is to their child or, depending on the ideological strain, their race or species. The State only enters the picture in those ideological strains wherein the State is closely tied to the idea of the Race.

Margaret Sanger, in making her statement, doesn't speak for Eugenics or its adherents as a whole any more than Tank speaks for all white folk if he were to say that 'White people imply or insist _________'

We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother

Actually, she didn't think that at all. In practice, she didn't believe the 'Lower tenth' of the population should have been allowed to reproduction.