- Joined
- Sep 27, 2020
- Messages
- 21,414
- Reaction score
- 17,746
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The big disagreement is on the terminology used to describe a human in utero. I call it a baby, and those who align with abortion, call it a "fetus." Do you agree or disagree that a perpetrator who terminates a pregnant female should be charged with the death of the unborn child / human or not?
I've no idea what Republicans are up to--perhaps those who are and participate in this forum can fill me and others in--but I'm guessing from what you've said that you're referring to national programs?Of course there are individual anti-abortion people that are caring community people caring for new mothers with little or nothing. Of course the the Republican party is not monolithic. But the party officially and the anti-abortion movement specifically are focused on the fetus only. Republicans just voted down an extended child care bill that would bring America within shouting distance with the family and child support of other European countries.
If you think the party and the movement are cild and family centered post the legislation they have introduced and supported through out the law making process into an actual program for families and children. You will not be able to do it. There are no Republican or anti-abortion movement programs that support families and born children.
Yes, community efforts count for much of the charity work that gets done. Absolutely nobody, is saying that it isn't helpful, effective, lovingly given or worthwhile. I am thankful for and respectful of all community efforts and those that work hard to provide the services. They are dedicated people. But charity is not available to all. The diaper bank serves poor mothers in 200 communities in the US. It is a private charity. It is not a national national policy program serving all poor women in the US.I've no idea what Republicans are up to--perhaps those who are and participate in this forum can fill me and others in--but I'm guessing from what you've said that you're referring to national programs?
In my extensive observation and participation, help comes from one's own community, and yes, many if not most efforts are faith-based. As I've posted many times in this forum, in my community there are groups that help provide housing, GED completion, resume preparation, and skills-training to new parents. What about yours, Weaver? And what are you doing personally to meet the needs of children whose mothers chose life?
One national organization that helps born children is the National Diaper Bank Network: https://nationaldiaperbanknetwork.org/
The NDBN has various programs. Scroll down to see who supports them in your state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diaper_Bank_Network
The big disagreement is on the terminology used to describe a human in utero. I call it a baby, and those who align with abortion, call it a "fetus." Do you agree or disagree that a perpetrator who terminates a pregnant female should be charged with the death of the unborn child / human or not?
Conservatives don't just believe in being pro-life. They also believe in being pro-family values, pro-rule of law and order, and pro-grace before law.
They are only pro-fetus hypocrites.Conservatives don't just believe in being pro-life.
Right, that is why the bed over backwards to kiss the ass of a ***** grabber, one that ****s a porn star while his third wife is recovering from childbirth.They also believe in being pro-family values
Hence they oppose any investigation into their scumbag ways.pro-rule of law and order,
WTF does that mean? Some more bullshit hypocrisy?and pro-grace before law.
They don't. Pro-life conservatives get just as many abortions as do liberals.Conservatives don't just believe in being pro-life.
Voting down child care and early childhood education is not pro-family.They also believe in being pro-family values,
Conservatives are for armed citizens' militias taking control of protest marches, saving property, and stopping looting by shooting violent criminals. That's vigilantism not rule of law.pro-rule of law and order,
The entire abortion issue from 1973 onwards has been an attempt to circumvent the law by lying about the process, intimidating women and providers through violence killings and shaming. This is not grace before the law.and pro-grace before law.
The only prolife position is pro-abortion. Being opposed to abortion is being anti-life, but it is no news that the only lives Conservatives care about are those not yet born and those who are already dead.Conservatives don't just believe in being pro-life. They also believe in being pro-family values, pro-rule of law and order, and pro-grace before law.
IOW, hypotheticals like this only get addressed if it's first asked, "How did we get here?"
The big disagreement is on the terminology used to describe a human in utero. I call it a baby, and those who align with abortion, call it a "fetus." Do you agree or disagree that a perpetrator who terminates a pregnant female should be charged with the death of the unborn child / human or not?
Why does one think that conservatives will be against ALL scenarios where a baby is aborted? If child birth is at high risk of ending a mother's life, then that makes sense; however, where 95% (I'm guessing on this .. although it is a majority) are aborting children because they don't feel like having a child / supporting a child. I have problems with that. If you can't support a child, take advantage of birth control (which is highly effective), abstain from sexual activity or seek measures which extremely minimize pregnancy both naturally and through science.
What about when you dont know? Is it always predictable? Of course not...~1000 women die every year in the US and 86,000 more nearly do or end up with permanently severe health damage like strokes, aneurysms, kidney failure, etc. My friend's wife died in childbirth with her 2nd pregnancy...completely unpredicted. The baby died too, and it had been healthy too...it couldnt survive the horrific hours she suffered in labor.Why does one think that conservatives will be against ALL scenarios where a baby is aborted? If child birth is at high risk of ending a mother's life, then that makes sense;
Thank you for writing this. I'd like to add just one thing.What about when you dont know? Is it always predictable? Of course not...~1000 women die every year in the US and 86,000 more nearly do or end up with permanently severe health damage like strokes, aneurysms, kidney failure, etc. My friend's wife died in childbirth with her 2nd pregnancy...completely unpredicted. The baby died too, and it had been healthy too...it couldnt survive the horrific hours she suffered in labor.
Do you believe that the govt is entitled to demand that anyone take that risk against their will? Aside from the draft, with at least the goal of protecting the nation, and I'm against anyway...where else does the govt force citizens to risk their lives against their will?
And the question is even more relevant, when it's clear that there's a safer option available:
Abortion 14 times safer than pregnancy
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.link
How do you justify the govt demanding that women risk their lives when, if they choose, there is a safer option available to them?
*Lord please save me from the common moronic deflection, 'but it wasnt safer for the baby' drama.*
Still waiting for an answer here, while noting that no birth control works 100%...and people are always going to have sex...I think we need to stay in the realm of reality on the issue.Why does one think that conservatives will be against ALL scenarios where a baby is aborted? If child birth is at high risk of ending a mother's life, then that makes sense; however, where 95% (I'm guessing on this .. although it is a majority) are aborting children because they don't feel like having a child / supporting a child. I have problems with that. If you can't support a child, take advantage of birth control (which is highly effective), abstain from sexual activity or seek measures which extremely minimize pregnancy both naturally and through science.
Still waiting for an answer here, while noting that no birth control works 100%...and people are always going to have sex...I think we need to stay in the realm of reality on the issue.
What about when you dont know? Is it always predictable? Of course not...~1000 women die every year in the US and 86,000 more nearly do or end up with permanently severe health damage like strokes, aneurysms, kidney failure, etc. My friend's wife died in childbirth with her 2nd pregnancy...completely unpredicted. The baby died too, and it had been healthy too...it couldnt survive the horrific hours she suffered in labor.Do you believe that the govt is entitled to demand that anyone take that risk against their will? Aside from the draft, with at least the goal of protecting the nation, and I'm against anyway...where else does the govt force citizens to risk their lives against their will?And the question is even more relevant, when it's clear that there's a safer option available:Abortion 14 times safer than pregnancyNEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.linkHow do you justify the govt demanding that women risk their lives when, if they choose, there is a safer option available to them?*Lord please save me from the common moronic deflection, 'but it wasnt safer for the baby' drama.*
I just don't agree that the government is "forcing" citizens to risk their lives without legalized abortions -- especially when a majority of abortions aren't related to saving the mother.
There are, and even responsible couples' bc fails. So you are trying to base legislation on factors than cannot be implemented or controlled.As stated, a majority of abortions are to rid those pesky children from the womb, and there are other measures to be more proactive than reactive. As an example, a wide range of contraceptives have an efficacy rate of 98%+ if used correctly, and 91%+ with typical usage.
What else is it if they remove the option of a safer medical option? And we discussed the unpredictability of it. It can be any woman, any time...every pregnancy risks a woman's life.
As stated, please read, BC has a typical efficacy rate of over 90%+ ... If used properly, it has a 98%+ efficacy based on contraception type ... with over 610K abortions annually (2017/2018), that's number would be significantly reduced, even with a 90% efficacy. I never stated it would stop all pregnancies, although its being more proactive .. instead of reactive.There are, and even responsible couples' bc fails. So you are trying to base legislation on factors than cannot be implemented or controlled.
Some math:
--millions of Americans have millions and millions of sex interludes every single day.--66% of women/couples use BC or arent currently fertile (sterile, age, nursing, etc) Cite: Guttmacher.--98% efficacy is if bc is used perfectly every time. OK, let's use it anyway. 98% still means 10's of thousands of accidental pregnancies every single day.--10's of thousands of pregancies/365 days.--Still a huge number of accidental pregnancies.
So even in a best case scenario in a society where people will have sex at will...birth control cannot end the need for abortion. Your argument against elective abortion is not valid. It's not possible or reasonable. And people have every right to enjoy consensual sex and not be denied whatever medical or other options are available.
Do you still dispute this? Do you still want to stand by it as an argument against elective abortion? If so, I'm ready to hear your counter-argument.
So abortion is the only reactive option to terminate a child?
Is that what your implying? Again, most women get abortions because they don't want a child ... and I highly doubt its because they see it as a safer option than pregnancy.
Why are you repeating that? I addressed it. And asked you direct questions after I refuted that argument. Please address it, it's odd that you didnt:As stated, please read, BC has a typical efficacy rate of over 90%+ ... If used properly, it has a 98%+ efficacy based on contraception type ... with over 610K abortions annually (2017/2018), that's number would be significantly reduced, even with a 90% efficacy. I never stated it would stop all pregnancies, although its being more proactive .. instead of reactive.
Why does abortion need a reason?I'm pro-life, and banning ALL abortions makes no thinking sense. Sometimes, the mother's life actually IS in danger. sometimes...not all the time, but sometimes, a girl is raped, and she had no consent, or decision, in whether to make a baby, so why should she be forced to carry it?
sometimes, sadly, a product of rape is often also a product of incests, and the genetics will be heavily defective
but this is, by far and away, different from saying that all, or even most, abortions are done for these reasons.
I think it's implied every woman has a reason, a need. It's painful and often expensive. (even if the procedure is subsidized, it's not usually free and there may also be lost work time, $$ to travel in the larger states, and then motels, for ex.)Why does abortion need a reason?
what do you mean need a reason? we're humans, we do things for reasons. Not always for good reasons, but still a stupid question.Why does abortion need a reason?
You have been informed, at least twice of the actual reasons for abortions and yet you keep referring to most abortions as getting "rid those pesky children from the womb". I'll post, again, the situations and reasons for abortion. If, after that you persist in implying that women are immoral and irresponsibly using abortion I'll assume that you are spreading hateful information just for the fun of it.I just don't agree that the government is "forcing" citizens to risk their lives without legalized abortions -- especially when a majority of abortions aren't related to saving the mother. As stated, a majority of abortions are to rid those pesky children from the womb, and there are other measures to be more proactive than reactive. As an example, a wide range of contraceptives have an efficacy rate of 98%+ if used correctly, and 91%+ with typical usage.
Do I need to give a reason for getting a tattoo or a C-cup rack to anybody?what do you mean need a reason? we're humans, we do things for reasons. Not always for good reasons, but still a stupid question.
You don't NEED to give a reason for anything. To eat, get a tattoo, where a mask, rob a bank, anything at all. Really. If I murder someone, and they ask why i did it, i can just refuse to say anything. Won't stop them from putting me in a jail but, there you have it.Do I need to give a reason for getting a tattoo or a C-cup rack to anybody?
The state hasn't given me a valid reason reason for it's "vested interest" in my personal lifeYou don't NEED to give a reason for anything. To eat, get a tattoo, where a mask, rob a bank, anything at all. Really. If I murder someone, and they ask why i did it, i can just refuse to say anything. Won't stop them from putting me in a jail but, there you have it.
I disagree with that.The state hasn't given me a valid reason reason for it's "vested interest" in my personal life
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?