Why is abortion the way of the world?

[Cecilie1200]

If abortion was the way of the world, then we’d have more unbirths than births.

And we don’t. Not even close.

Depends on the community, actually.

And that's leaving aside the fact that I utterly reject your attempt to assert false parameters. Which I do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

Lucifer is The Lord of this World until after The Battle of Armageddon, and a couple other end times battles at which some point The Second Coming Occurs, and Jesus dethrones Lucifer, and takes back The Throne and Crown of Adam which was lost during the whole Garden of Eden fiasco.

Until this occurs, people will be selfish and wicked, and resist all attempts at protecting, respecting, and revering life.

I think you now have your answer. The 'pro-life' crowd are conflated with religions in many minds, mine included. Once religion is taken out of the equation, science and reason are allowed to decide the issue and abortion is treated like any other human/social issue.

I remember you. Aren't you the conceited dimwit whose ass I shoved through a rhetorical woodchipper on the subject of abortion because your brain had actually started to mold from disuse? Yeah, that was you.

Aren't you just the cutest, funniest thing, still deluding yourself that you actually have some credibiity as though you were a real person. So adorable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In our society, not all killings are murder. Fact.

True, but killing innocent life is murder. That's abortion. Can't sanitize or gray it out to help you with your emotions.

My emotions are just fine thank you. We ALL kill 'innocent life' every day. What did that cow or carrot ever do you?

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is human life they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be human and that inevitably leads back to religion.

Psssst!! Thinking with your emotions instead of your brain is not "just fine".

Also, you got your ass removed and handed to you with a big bow on it on this topic without religion ever being mentioned by anyone but YOU. So you should probably not compound your abject dumber-than-a-brain-damaged-dog stupidity with being a bald-faced liar.

 

[FA_Q2]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

In the old, old days, some cultures believed that the gods would be more moved and willing to "help" if they were given the most precious gifts of the people. There is no more precious gift than a person's child, yannow---like Isaac?
Today people are terminating pregnancies when they cannot afford to feed, clothe, educate and house the child in a decent fashion. It is called being responsible to not bring an unwelcome child into the world.

Killing kids because of your poor decisions and lifestyle is not kosher. Lots of people have kids they cant "afford".....you make it work, you don't off your toddler, because you lost your job and can't "afford" him/her.

It is a wonder why abortion is the 'responsible' choice rather than the responsible choice of not getting pregnant.

Abortion is not being 'responsible.' It is avoiding responsibility after failing to do the responsible thing of not getting pregnant in the first place. A poor solution to irresponsible behavior.

Birth control does not ELIMINATE the possibility of pregnancy. It reduces it. 50% of the women seeking abortions used birth control in the month they became pregnant. I know women who had tubal ligations, who got pregnant.

I had two "unintended" pregnancies while being rigorous in my birth control. The first ended in a spontaneous miscarriage, the second is about to make me a grandmother - again.

It damn near eliminates it. The pill alone is 99.9% effective. That is preventing 999 pregnancies out of 1000. And that is used ALONE. Add a condom to that which is 98% effective when used properly and you have hit such a low failure rate that you have eliminated them entirely. Less than 1 in a billion.

Of course, proper use is actually rare - mostly because people cant be bothered - BUT even with normal use the pill is still 91% effective and condoms 85% (and this is according to PP). That means using these 2 methods, free for everyone and available everywhere, using them IMPROPERLY you still eliminate ALL BUT ONE PREGNANCY IN A MILLION. So yes, for any reasonable discussion BC does, indeed eliminate unwanted pregnancies. Getting pregnant without intending to with the resources available to you is irresponsible.

The one in a million case that BC fails does not change the fact abortion is avoiding responsibility after failing to do the responsible thing of not getting pregnant in the first place.

What Is the Effectiveness of Condoms?
What is the Effectiveness of Birth Control Pills?

 

[Crixus]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

Says it all.


The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

Does it?

Why does a singular entity - even the founder - pigeonhole an entity into morality or immorality? This is little different than the idiots declaring America as immoral because its founders were slave holders and womanizers. PP stands on its own accord and can, or rather must, be judged on its own merits.

PP cannonizes Sanger and any good libtard will sing her praise.


Planned Parenthood | 100 Years Strong



Yet they never mention Sangers motives. I’ll cut and post item (a) through (e) from the link I provided from New York university.


The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
(a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
(b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.
(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.


So take that from a woman who the DNC celebrates, the fact that abortion facilities are only built in low incom minority communities, the DNC’s insistants on having racist and rapists in positions of power is very telling. Y’all are heading back to eugenics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In our society, not all killings are murder. Fact.

True, but killing innocent life is murder. That's abortion. Can't sanitize or gray it out to help you with your emotions.

My emotions are just fine thank you. We ALL kill 'innocent life' every day. What did that cow or carrot ever do you?

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is human life they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be human and that inevitably leads back to religion.

No pro life advocates avoid that at all. Human is CLEARLY defined in modern science generally though genetics. There is absolutely zero question that a human life begins when it is conceived.

What you are digging for is personhood - not human.

OK. How's this?

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Actually, it's because most pro-lifers are interested in scientific fact, and personhood is the mystical, romantic realm of glandular-thinking barbarians like you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Disagree with your title and OP linking ancient human sacrifices to abortion. The human sacrifices were generally of adults to appease their gods. Abortion is the murder of babies for convenience.

Abortion isn't murder, and a fetus is not a "baby".

Abortion is the solution that poor American women chose because they cannot afford to carry, bear or raise a child.

"That's not fact, THIS is, because I say it is!"

Typical.

 

[alang1216]

First, we agreed on legal protections but my points are about what we are talking about and what abortion actually is. Amorphous definitions like viability fail miserably though. By extension, anyone on life support now fails your test. Clearly not a consistent position to take. Viability is a garbage metric to use for multiple reasons legally and utterly useless when trying to define what we are talking about. What do you think those cells are when they are not viable? They are not human? Viability changes as technology progresses as well and one day viability will be at the moment of conception.

I think our fundamental disconnect is that I won't accept a scientific answer to a societal issue, namely whose rights supersede whose? Do the rights of a single, human cell outweigh the rights of an adult human being? There is no scientific answer, only fuzzy, arbitrary lines drawn by society.

As for technology, it may make the whole issue moot but that is a different thread.

 

[BlindBoo]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

Lucifer is The Lord of this World until after The Battle of Armageddon, and a couple other end times battles at which some point The Second Coming Occurs, and Jesus dethrones Lucifer, and takes back The Throne and Crown of Adam which was lost during the whole Garden of Eden fiasco.

Until this occurs, people will be selfish and wicked, and resist all attempts at protecting, respecting, and revering life.

According to Christian Mythology, Lucifer was the Angel of Light. One of God's favorite creations.

According to Christianity, that changed pretty early on.

Which is why condescension about things you're ignorant of is a bad look, even though it's the look religiophobes most often cultivate.

It is a ludicrous mythology (the revolt in Heaven as well as the other creation myths) I agree, on par with the multi-theism of the Romans and Greeks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Eventually that will happen. If they can sign murder into law with open defiance, there is no limit to their thirst for blood.

Speaking of thirst for blood, just Google genocide and see the history of humanity regarding it, this apart from killing children.

Humanity truly has a thirst for kill'in.

Currently in the US, about 300 Americans die every day from drugs coming across the border. Think about it, about as many people die a year from it as those who fought in Vientnam.

This is genocide.

It is and just another example of the depravity that exists within humanity. It knows no depth.

Or the vast depravity that exists with ALL of nature.

It is the very essence of limited resources.

Yes, limited resources in an unlimited universe.

Thanks for that.

Technically speaking, the universe has (over time) an infinite volume BUT a finite amount of energy (resources) The inevitable heat death and all..

Not to mention the fact that we are currently confined to a rather small part of the universe, so the infinite nature of it really doesn't help us at all.

 

[alang1216]

Actually, it's because most pro-lifers are interested in scientific fact, and personhood is the mystical, romantic realm of glandular-thinking barbarians like you.

Most pro-lifers I've talked to have no interest in science beyond twisting it to support their position. What they avoid is admitting an that their religion is the source of their pro-life opinion.

• What does science say about when to turn off the life support of a coma patient?
• What does science say about when a person is too young or too old to drive?
• What does science say about when a person is too young to drink, sign a contract, vote, or enlist?

 

[Cecilie1200]

True, but killing innocent life is murder. That's abortion. Can't sanitize or gray it out to help you with your emotions.

My emotions are just fine thank you. We ALL kill 'innocent life' every day. What did that cow or carrot ever do you?

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is human life they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be human and that inevitably leads back to religion.

No pro life advocates avoid that at all. Human is CLEARLY defined in modern science generally though genetics. There is absolutely zero question that a human life begins when it is conceived.

What you are digging for is personhood - not human.

OK. How's this?

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

Indeed.

Being religious is not a prerequisite to question the humanity of killing your offspring in the womb. I know a few people like this.

But alas, the Left will continue to portray this as a state vs. religion issue.

Go check out the thread on Why is the left so happy about abortions? to see why Alang really, Really, REALLY needs to set up strawmen. She's completely lost and helpless the instant pro-lifers don't conform to what her talking points memo told her their positions would be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

Nope. It's the woman's choice and governments must not interfere. It's not murder until the child is actually born, despite what the so called religious crowd says.

"Nope, this is fact because I say so, and no I can't prove it, I just state that it's reality and that makes it so!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?

Why is the left so happy about abortions?

As I recall, I gave you four long posts with the answer to that question in it, and your response was to cut-and-paste one-half of one sentence to respond to, and pretend that you never saw the rest of it.

Avoiding the answer and asking the question over and over does not make the answer stop existing, and it doesn't make your half-assed, childish emotional "thoughts" reality.

So go back and read the answer from the first time I gave it to you. I can and will do it again if I have to, but I doubt you want to make me humiliate you again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup. In a perfect world, that would be 100% of the time. It is not a perfect world.

because it's only 99.997% of the time?

Only .003% of sex winds up in an unwanted pregnancy? Is that what you're saying?

No .Obviously not.

I used the number satirically, but it referred to the number where pregnancy could not have been prevented.


Have you ever heard of rape, dearry?

No method is 100%. So there's that. There is also human error, spontaneity, alcohol, etc. The Pill covers the bases the best but not everyone can take the Pill. I was one of them, so i know how much fun the alternatives are. I tried most of them.

I have heard that most rapes do not result in pregnancy due to the trauma involved. But you folks sure love bringing up rape in every scenario, don't you?

You mean as opposed to YOU "folks" (and I use that term loosely in reference to you), who greet even the slightest hint of a limitation on abortion-on-demand with, "What about rape?! What about incest?! My god, you heartless evil bastards want to force rape victims to bear the rapist's child! Oh, the humanity!!!!"?

 

[FA_Q2]

First, we agreed on legal protections but my points are about what we are talking about and what abortion actually is. Amorphous definitions like viability fail miserably though. By extension, anyone on life support now fails your test. Clearly not a consistent position to take. Viability is a garbage metric to use for multiple reasons legally and utterly useless when trying to define what we are talking about. What do you think those cells are when they are not viable? They are not human? Viability changes as technology progresses as well and one day viability will be at the moment of conception.

I think our fundamental disconnect is that I won't accept a scientific answer to a societal issue, namely whose rights supersede whose? Do the rights of a single, human cell outweigh the rights of an adult human being? There is no scientific answer, only fuzzy, arbitrary lines drawn by society.

We, however, generally agree on where the right lies though. I am not asking you to accept a scientific definition on a societal problem. I am simply asking that those proponents of abortion actually admit, mostly to themselves, what abortion really is.

Redefining developmental stages of human life into part of the mothers body, just a bunch of cells or whatever else is nothing more than dehumanizing the action and trying to ignore the implications both moral and not. Having an abortion should be an enormous decision because you are literally deciding to weather or not to kill a human. That is a big deal and should be thought of as such.

It is crystal clear to me that is not the case. Abortion is now just another form of BC. Things like: #ShoutYourAbortion 'shout your abortion' would not exist if people actually gave proper weight to abortions. I would not know someone that is comfortable stating they had an abortion because they did not want to get fat. Financial reasons would not be the number one reason to have an abortion - and it is a misnomer to say they 'cant afford' to have a child. The reality is that they cannot afford to have a child AND live the same lifestyle. Finally, abortions would not number 25% of actual births. That is staggering.

Abortion as a right is one thing, treating abortion as nothing more than a minor medical procedure like having a toenail removed is another thing entirely.

As for technology, it may make the whole issue moot but that is a different thread.

Not if viability plays a role. It is not 'may' - technology WILL at some point make any stage of development viable. If viable is to be a determinant then that is a very relevant issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?

Why should I give your collection of cells any legal rights at all then?

At some point we have to recognize and protect peoples rights. The left seems to want to place that marker on when your are born and the right when you are conceived. No matter when you think that those rights should be protected is irrelevant to what I stated - at zero time is the fetus part of the mothers body. At conception, that is a unique and wholly separate human.

I don't trust government with control over anyone's body so I do not support making abortion illegal. Abortion until birth is extremely abhorrent though and legal abortion should not, IMHO, extend past the first trimester.

My collection of cells is more than the sum of it's parts (or so I like to believe), in other words a human being or person. No single cell of mine is a person.

On this "I do not support making abortion illegal. Abortion until birth is extremely abhorrent though and legal abortion should not, IMHO, extend past the first trimester" we agree with the caveat "except in extraordinary circumstances".

You overestimate what your collection of cells actually sums up to by a wide margin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ask yourself WHO MAKES MONEY OFF ABORTION....Let me point out PP government revenue (such as Medicaid reimbursements) was $528 million in 2014!

Total Contributions from PP to federal candidates
(99% to Democrats, 0% to Republicans) total $533,205

Need we wonder WHY PP is the SACRED COW of DemonRATS?....OR ARE YOU ABNORMALS THAT STUPID!!!

PP must be pretty stupid because:

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.​

No, it is once again YOU who is stupid, because you think that actually stops them. THEY are far smarter than you - as are most people, it seems - in that they figured out how to cook the books before the Hyde Amendment was even signed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

It's not for material gain.

It's because they worry that they cannot afford to raise the child properly.

HUGE difference.

How Women Decide Abortion Is the Right Choice for Them

Ahhhh, just what my day needed: some male chauvinist penis-bearer mansplaining to me how women think.

 

[Mr Natural]

And that's leaving aside the fact that I utterly reject your attempt to assert false parameters. Which I do.

Too bad.