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

[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.

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!!!

So being anti-big-government means I can't want the State to step in when Ricardo Ramirez murders old women and put his ass in jail?

Are you fucking retarded?

 

[JBeukema]

If the woman is a teenager and poor, she sure as hell can't take of that kid properly...

That's why we have WIC, Nutritional Assistance, and other assistance programs.

It's also why we have condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, the foam...

It's also why you don't go whoring around if you aren't prepared to take responsibility for your actions. Or do you support deadbeat fathers who don't take responsibility for their kids?

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.

I've been on the streets in three states. I didn't make children I couldn't take care of. It's called 'personal responsibility' and 'common-fucking-sense'

No, you stupid JB....afraid that she can't afford to raise the kid properly

adoption services - Google Search

Are you fucking stupid, JB? Are you AWARE of the statistics of unwed mothers on welfare?

Maybe we should stop encouraging sexual libertinism?

Yeah, POS like you JB whine like stuck pigs about entitlements and welfare state

Cite.

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

If the home environment is so unhealthy, then perhaps she shouldn't be there.

Hiding pregnancies of under-age girls, btw, helps protect those who abuse or take advantage of them

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.

Saying she has bad judgment is calling her a slut?

As shown by the info from the abortion industry itself, 93% of abortions are done out of convenience.

1% are rape

6% are due to health concerns

 

[snjmom]

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



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

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.

The problem with this line of thinking is that conception is such a crap shoot. Many women that choose to conceive don't and many that choose not to conceive, do.

PP has made the decision to support the killing of a child when the woman chooses not to bear it. Anytime you can come up with an extraction method that doesn't kill the child and a suitable container to continue it's development and the resources to raise that child if no one winds up wanting it, I'll be first in line to eliminate abortions. Until then, it's the last ditch effort in limiting family size, which should be a fundamental right.

Sorry about the quotes. I prefer to just cut and past with a tag but the whole post quote strategy seems to be the board standard.

 

[Immanuel]

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



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

I agree with this wholeheartedly.



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

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.

The problem with this line of thinking is that conception is such a crap shoot. Many women that choose to conceive don't and many that choose not to conceive, do.

PP has made the decision to support the killing of a child when the woman chooses not to bear it. Anytime you can come up with an extraction method that doesn't kill the child and a suitable container to continue it's development and the resources to raise that child if no one winds up wanting it, I'll be first in line to eliminate abortions. Until then, it's the last ditch effort in limiting family size, which should be a fundamental right.

Sorry about the quotes. I prefer to just cut and past with a tag but the whole post quote strategy seems to be the board standard.

No problem about the quotes. My eyes are tired and I was having trouble reading it. It is allergy season here and I am trying to read Atlas Shrugged before I have to return it to the library on Tuesday. Things get blurry after I finish a session of reading.

It is evident that you and I will not agree as to the issue of abortion and/or when life begins. I respect your point of view. I just don't agree with it. I believe a woman should have the right to limit her family size as well, but my belief is that she makes her choice at the point of time when she has sex.

One more thing, I hope you didn't think I was being too familiar or rude when I addressed that post to "Mom". Basically, you and my mom seem to agree on this issue. I tell her she's wrong too!

Immie

 

[taichiliberal]

If the woman is a teenager and poor, she sure as hell can't take of that kid properly...

That's why we have WIC, Nutritional Assistance, and other assistance programs.

And given that these and "other programs" are subject to funding reductions...and given the ratio of availability to the actual population, you're STILL going to have people coming up with unwanted pregnancies .... poor, wealthy, educated, uneducated, regardless of race creed or color.... A matter of history, a matter of fact.
It's also why we have condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, the foam...

Which are NOT available to those under the age of 18. And then you have the occasional asshole pharmacist who won't fulfill a contraceptive perscription or handle a purchase despite the age due to their personal moral/religious beliefs.

It's also why you don't go whoring around if you aren't prepared to take responsibility for your actions. Wow, talk about Freudian slip! Seems JB considers ALL pre-marital sex in general as "whoring around". How Church Lady...how Victorian! I guess JB doesn't know about the abortion rate for married women. Or do you support deadbeat fathers who don't take responsibility for their kids?

If there is no birth, then there is no deadbeat father, genius. And please JB, explain to us all how you dimly arrived at a conclusion that I possibly support deadbeat dads?
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.

I've been on the streets in three states. I didn't make children I couldn't take care of. It's called 'personal responsibility' and 'common-fucking-sense'

And I'm calling YOU a fucking LIAR, JB. Anyone who is "on the streets" is no better or worse than the rich guy/girl who finds themselves with an uwanted child. The difference is that the wealthy can either afford the kid or the privated doctor for the abortion. YOU made an assertion earlier that DID NOT take into consideration various reasons why abortion happens. But like all 3rd rate propagandist, YOU try to demonize the individual simply for having an abortion regardless of the circumstances.

adoption services - Google Search

A worthy cause, but NOT the be all, end all solution:

Aging Out of Foster Care | The Children's Aid Society
ADOPTION INSTITUTE: FOSTER CARE FACTS
Maybe we should stop encouraging sexual libertinism?

Newsflash for you, genius....abortions were happening in alleys, flop houses and secret rooms for the poor and wealthy during the Puritanical aspects of European and American social history. Bottom line: with an increase in population, media and some common sense changes, you just can't ignore it anymore.


Cite.

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

If the home environment is so unhealthy, then perhaps she shouldn't be there.

No shit sherlock! But the issue is what is, not "it might have been". I gave a valid reason that YOU did not consider in your dogmatic approach to the subject.
Hiding pregnancies of under-age girls, btw, helps protect those who abuse or take advantage of them

Again, NO SHIT SHERLOCK!. But assholes like you are against abortion....and your co-horts are against contraception for teens.....so YOU are exaccerbating the situation, aren't you now! 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.

Saying she has bad judgment is calling her a slut?

That's what YOU did, asshole. YOU were the POS who said "whoring around", did you not?

As shown by the info from the abortion industry itself, 93% of abortions are done out of convenience.

No stupid, they are not....YOU essentially take your personal OPINION, supposition and conjecture to substitute for what EXACTLY was stated by the stats you provided earlier....as I demonstrated.

1% are rape

6% are due to health concerns

Which doesn't change the chronology of the post that shows YOU substituting your personal bias and opinion for what was ACTUALLY stated. Get your shit together, JB.

 

[JBeukema]

Those under 18 can't get birth control/condoms?
Where do you live?

I'm calling YOU a fucking LIAR, JB

Then there's no point wasting any more time with you, since you're just going to lie and call names.

Killing a child is not taking responsibility for the child. No amount or Orwellian spin will ever make it so.

Why can't you people ever be honest?

Hiding pregnancies of under-age girls, btw, helps protect those who abuse or take advantage of them Quote:

Again, NO SHIT SHERLOCK!. But assholes like you are against abortion..

So you admit you advocate protecting those who sexually abuse underage girls?

 

[JBeukema]

Tai, why is it you Democrats' kids can't find a condom but can always find an abortionist?

 

[taichiliberal]

Those under 18 can't get birth control/condoms?
Where do you live?

For your education......I suggest you read it carefully and comprehensively:

Teen Birth Control Confidentiality Laws | eHow.com


Get Real! Is It Really Illegal to Sell Me Condoms? | RH Reality Check

I'm calling YOU a fucking LIAR, JB

Then there's no point wasting any more time with you, since you're just going to lie and call names.

The chronology of the post clearly shows YOU to initiate the nasty, condescending attitude and name calling JB....and I'm not even counting all those childish e-mails you sent. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Also, since YOU can't logically or factually prove me to be Lying about anything, your accusation is a joke. I just took your claim and measured it against all the dreck you've been posting...and YOU, JB, just don't bear up to examination.
Killing a child is not taking responsibility for the child. No amount or Orwellian spin will ever make it so.

And no amount of bluenosed, Church lady dogma is going to change the facts regarding the reasons for abortion....or erase the facts that jokers like YOU, JB, are quick to whine about a "welfare state" and "entitlements".....or erase the posts that shows how YOU, JB, distort, misrepresent and avoid facts that don't fully support your beliefs.
Why can't you people ever be honest?

As the chronology of the posts shows, it's YOU, JB, who has been intellectually dishonest. To date, you keep trying to replace the facts with your opinion, supposition and conjecture....and you fail, JB...everytime.

Hiding pregnancies of under-age girls, btw, helps protect those who abuse or take advantage of them Quote:

Again, NO SHIT SHERLOCK!. But assholes like you are against abortion..

So you admit you advocate protecting those who sexually abuse underage girls?

Ahhh, JB finally shows his hand.....when lying SOS like JB can't win an argument, they resort to either taking quotes out of context and slapping on their supposition and conjecture. But all you have to do is read the actual exchange http://www.usmessageboard.com/3587635-post1593.html to know what a third rate propagandist JB is. Hell, notice all that JB WON'T DARE respond to.

Well, you can't argue with intellectually dishonest and insipidly stubborn jokers like JB. I'm done humiliating him, and leave him to repeat his dreck ad nauseum.

 

[taichiliberal]

Tai, why is it you Democrats' kids can't find a condom but can always find an abortionist?

JB, just when I think you can't get any more ridiculous, you surprise me with dreck like this. Here stupid, Read the links provided in the post and learn something. I'm done wasting time on you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3587635-post1593.html

 

[JBeukema]

YOU, JB, are quick to whine about a "welfare state" and "entitlements".....

Cite


Why do you people always lie? Why can't you ever be honest?

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

The slums are much larger than they were now. So how did abortion help with reducing numbers in the slums?

It didn't.

Sanger was a fanatic, as are most proponents of baby killing and forced sterilization.

 

[Chris]

Unwanted children are much more likely to be abused.

Therefore abortion opponents are pro child abuse.

 

[AllieBaba]

So long as abortion is legal, children are more likely to be killed.

And the stats bear that out.

 

[AllieBaba]

"

STUDY DESIGN: Since 1997, representative samples of Spanish women of childbearing potential (15-49 years) have been surveyed by the Daphne Team every 2 years to gather data of contraceptive methods used.
RESULTS: During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.
CONCLUSIONS: The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.
​

As Suzanne at Big Blue Wave noted:

So in the ten year period that contraception use increased by about 60%, the abortion rate doubled. In other words, even with an increase in contraception use, there weren’t fewer unwanted pregnancies, there were more.
​

Any person with common sense could cue the researchers that the more casual sex one has, the greater likelihood there will be of pregnancy, contraception use notwithstanding."

Study: Contraception use up, abortions double; researchers can’t figure out why - Jill Stanek

 

[AllieBaba]

The results from the study:

"
Results

During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women."
Elsevier

 

[manifold]

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

Just yesterday this schizo claimed to be pro-choice.

I wonder what lies he uses to defend his indefensible position.

 

[AllieBaba]

JB has never been pro-choice, if by pro-choice you mean pro-abortion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Sanger has nothing to do with this argument.

 

[AllieBaba]

Really I agree, but I was just responding to the comment that racist nazism was universal in Sanger's time.

It's hogwash. And when someone in the pro-abortion crowd claims EVERYONE was racist and dabbled in nazism back then, it's dishonest, and that makes it relevant to this convo.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really I agree, but I was just responding to the comment that racist nazism was universal in Sanger's time.

It's hogwash. And when someone in the pro-abortion crowd claims EVERYONE was racist and dabbled in nazism back then, it's dishonest, and that makes it relevant to this convo.

Eugenics was a very popular object of interest in the 1st half of the 20th century.