Setting the record straight on late term abortion

[forthecause]

Just one question, how many children have you adopted? Really there should be zero kids waiting for a family given the number of pro-life people, or do you only care about it until after the birth and then say it's not your problem.

The demand for newborn American babies is much greater than the supply. The kids who have a hard time getting adopted are older.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[forthecause]

No you did not. You came to your own conclusions which were not supported by your article. Let alone the sources of your article were oft times from 10 to 20 years ago.

The primary thing I asked you to do was to quote from your article the facts that back up your assertions.

Yeah I did that lol. You just won’t accept it and yet refuse to take a moment to show where the study contradicts me. And it’s a STUDY by the way. The older sources are reliable sources used to help in the arguments the author makes outside of the data thy were collected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

Yeah I did that lol. You just won’t accept it and yet refuse to take a moment to show where the study contradicts me. And it’s a STUDY by the way. The older sources are reliable sources used to help in the arguments the author makes outside of the data thy were collected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have to post the whole article to show your assertions are incorrect.

Start with this....show the proof that late term abortions are done for flippant reasons (your words) in your article. And preferable keep your sourced material in this decade.

 

[Indie guy]

The demand for newborn American babies is much greater than the supply. The kids who have a hard time getting adopted are older.

Fact remains that even with the high demand you have no desire to provide a loving home for a given-up child which might have been otherwise aborted.

You talk a big game and beat your chest about saving all the unborn babies but have no interest in children after they're born and legally declared a person.

That's one of the issues with the so-called pro-life side. If you somehow manage to overturn Roe vs. Wade you still have a major uphill legal battle because you'd have to change the law which declares when personhood is official.

Another huge issue that your side doesn't seem to understand is you're not going to stop abortions even if they're made illegal across America.

Abortion is a lot like the gun issue. Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns, or they'll get them through underground means or travel to places where they can get them without restrictions. Outlaw abortions and you'll turn women and their doctors into outlaws for making a private decision, or they'll get them through underground means or travel to Canada or Europe and have abortions safely and legally.

 

[forthecause]

I would have to post the whole article to show your assertions are incorrect.

Start with this....show the proof that late term abortions are done for flippant reasons (your words) in your article. And preferable keep your sourced material in this decade.

Firstly, it’s not MY article. It’s a study the LEFT uses all the time and cites as the best source on the topic of late term abortion.
I know. You’ve been very confused by the word flippant. To understand, you have to put it into context. We’re talking about killing a child. If the reason to kill a child is that you already have a child and don’t want the increased burden, you have a drug addiction, or you have a bad relationship with the child’s father (which are a few of the main reasons listed in the study), then you have FLIPPANT reasons. Examples of non-flippant reasons are that you’re going to die if you don’t abort it or the child will be stillborn or close to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vegas giants]

You don’t acknowledge any grey area. You think birth and, poof, it’s a person finally. I take the conservative position and say personhood starts at the END of the grey area. I could take the radical position and choose the beginning of it, but I think it’s best to concede as much ground to the other side as possible to develop a strong position. There are lots of differences between an embryo and a fetus, and those differences undoubtedly pertain to the status of personhood. By the beginning of the fetal stage just about every subjective metric of personhood has been met (heart beat, nervous system activity, physical features of a child, etc) so it’s a conservative place to set the cut off. All that kinda went over your head huh? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok read slowly. This is the law we are talking about. Now listen


One second you are single. The next married.


In law that goes for child to adult, defendant to convicted felon, even alive to dead.


This is the law. There is no grey area

 

[vegas giants]

Oh ok. So why did you mention the paperwork? And what’s different about the baby a moment before it’s born and a moment after?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Legally it all changes in one second

 

[forthecause]

Fact remains that even with the high demand you have no desire to provide a loving home for a given-up child which might have been otherwise aborted.

You talk a big game and beat your chest about saving all the unborn babies but have no interest in children after they're born and legally declared a person.

That's one of the issues with the so-called pro-life side. If you somehow manage to overturn Roe vs. Wade you still have a major uphill legal battle because you'd have to change the law which declares when personhood is official.

Another huge issue that your side doesn't seem to understand is you're not going to stop abortions even if they're made illegal across America.

Abortion is a lot like the gun issue. Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns, or they'll get them through underground means or travel to places where they can get them without restrictions. Outlaw abortions and you'll turn women and their doctors into outlaws for making a private decision, or they'll get them through underground means or travel to Canada or Europe and have abortions safely and legally.

Lol I can’t believe you’re still hung up on that completely illogical point. I DONT HAVE A LOVING HOME TO GIVE TO A CHILD. AND EVEN IF I DID, THERE ARE SO MANY LOVING HOMES FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL TO GET THESE CHILDREN THAT I’D BE AT THE END OF A VERY LONG LINE. The pro-abortion side is always going on about how if we restrict abortion there will be all these unwanted children without homes stuck in the foster care system. That’s just not true. Loving homes are dying for a chance to get one of them and they still can’t and end up with a baby from Africa or Asia. You don’t even understand your own point your trying to make lol

And, again, if women decide to kill their children in back-alley ways they should be thrown in prison. They’re killing a child. What don’t you get about that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The study linked below seems to be widely regarded as the best information on the topic of late term abortion. In it you’ll find some inconvenient truths for the pro-abortion camp. Among those are: 1) there are (at least) several thousand late term abortions every year in the US conducted for flippant reasons, i.e. not having to do with fetal anomalies or the life of the mother being at risk; 2) at least a few thousand late term abortions are performed each year in the US simply because the mother is already a single mother and doesn’t want to be raising another child on her own. (The reasons for the other half of the unnecessary late term abortions aren’t any better); and 3) there is no shortage of abortion clinics offering late term abortions. (Women seeking a late term abortion contacted 2.2 clinics on average before finding one that would perform their procedure as opposed to 1.7 clinics for women seeking first trimester abortions).

—-https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013—-


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh. The study you cite doesn't support your asinine assertion that they're conducted for 'flippant' reasons.

Odd that you have to lie right off the bat about something you cite.

Doesn't speak well for you having any honest/genuine interest in the subject.

 

[forthecause]

Ok read slowly. This is the law we are talking about. Now listen


One second you are single. The next married.


In law that goes for child to adult, defendant to convicted felon, even alive to dead.


This is the law. There is no grey area

Now YOU read slowly. The LAW is black and white. REALITY is grey. I suggested that the LAW should set the BLACK AND WHITE cutoff at the beginning of the fetal stage, which is a conservative suggestion, given that in REALITY the GREY area of when personhood begins is somewhere in the embryonic period. Starting to understand? Probably not lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[forthecause]

Legally it all changes in one second

No ****.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[forthecause]

Huh. The study you cite doesn't support your asinine assertion that they're conducted for 'flippant' reasons.

Odd that you have to lie right off the bat about something you cite.

Doesn't speak well for you having any honest/genuine interest in the subject.

Did you read the list of reasons in the study, e.g. not wanting the burden of raising another child, being addicted to drugs, having a bad relationship with the father, etc? Those are flippant when you consider they are meant to justify killing your child. Tell me again how I misrepresented the study.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Did you read the list of reasons in the study, e.g. not wanting the burden of raising another child, being addicted to drugs, having a bad relationship with the father, etc? Those are flippant when you consider they are meant to justify killing your child. Tell me again how I misrepresented the study.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they're not 'flippant' in the least. You need them to be to prop up your false narrative, but that won't change reality.

Why be so dishonest? What's the point?

 

[vegas giants]

Now YOU read slowly. The LAW is black and white. REALITY is grey. I suggested that the LAW should set the BLACK AND WHITE cutoff at the beginning of the fetal stage, which is a conservative suggestion, given that in REALITY the GREY area of when personhood begins is somewhere in the embryonic period. Starting to understand? Probably not lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your suggestion is noted.


And dismissed.


Personhood happen at birth

 

[weaver2]

Lol I can’t believe you’re still hung up on that completely illogical point. I DONT HAVE A LOVING HOME TO GIVE TO A CHILD. AND EVEN IF I DID, THERE ARE SO MANY LOVING HOMES FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL TO GET THESE CHILDREN THAT I’D BE AT THE END OF A VERY LONG LINE. The pro-abortion side is always going on about how if we restrict abortion there will be all these unwanted children without homes stuck in the foster care system. That’s just not true. Loving homes are dying for a chance to get one of them and they still can’t and end up with a baby from Africa or Asia. You don’t even understand your own point your trying to make lol

And, again, if women decide to kill their children in back-alley ways they should be thrown in prison. They’re killing a child. What don’t you get about that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adoption Statistics from the Childrens Bureau of the Dept. of HHS
Fiscal year 2016
Total number of children in foster care. ………… 437,465
Children waiting to be adopted ……………… 117,794
Children waiting adoption whose parental rights have been terminated …………………………………………………….…. 65,274
Children adopted with HHS support ……………..57,208

Put into % that means:
% of children in foster care elegible for adoption ……………..42%
% of children actually adopted ……. 13%

80% of adopted chidren actually make it to legalization.
About 10% of the 437,465 children in foster care (or 43,746 children) actually get successfully adopted/


Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, giving birth then sending the child out to foster care to be adopted is not a viable alternative to abortion. Not when there are already 437,465 children that haven't been adopted.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Now YOU read slowly. The LAW is black and white. REALITY is grey. I suggested that the LAW should set the BLACK AND WHITE cutoff at the beginning of the fetal stage, which is a conservative suggestion, given that in REALITY the GREY area of when personhood begins is somewhere in the embryonic period. Starting to understand? Probably not lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL! Yet MORE lies?

 

[vegas giants]

LOL! Yet MORE lies?

He has an opinion....nothing more.


Easily dismissed

 

[Indie guy]

Lol I can’t believe you’re still hung up on that completely illogical point. I DONT HAVE A LOVING HOME TO GIVE TO A CHILD. AND EVEN IF I DID, THERE ARE SO MANY LOVING HOMES FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL TO GET THESE CHILDREN THAT I’D BE AT THE END OF A VERY LONG LINE. The pro-abortion side is always going on about how if we restrict abortion there will be all these unwanted children without homes stuck in the foster care system. That’s just not true. Loving homes are dying for a chance to get one of them and they still can’t and end up with a baby from Africa or Asia. You don’t even understand your own point your trying to make lol

And, again, if women decide to kill their children in back-alley ways they should be thrown in prison. They’re killing a child. What don’t you get about that?

I understand the high demand for adoptions but the fact is you have no interest in being an adoptive parent even if you could - you made that point very clear.

This alone proves you're a pure hypocrite and an intrusive meddler because you're hung up on saving all the unborn lives and making felons out of women that make this choice, but couldn't care less about children after they're born and officially declared persons.

Pro-lifers often claim a fetus is a person but tell that to anyone certified in law as well as the Census Bureau which doesn't count unborn fetuses as persons. You have a long battle ahead even if your side somehow manages to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

 

[forthecause]

Your suggestion is noted.


And dismissed.


Personhood happen at birth

Well I’ve justified why personhood should begin at the fetal stage. What justification do you offer for why it should begin at birth? Because it’s outside instead of inside the woman? We’ve already been over that. That would mean I could kill somebody or own something just because I still it in my body or wrap it in my fat rolls. I don’t expect you to understand this next bit, but the uterus is not inside the body per se. it’s “inside” the body like your finger is “inside” a balloon when you push the side of it and create an inVAGINAtion. That’s the same way the inside of your mouth or your anus or your fat rolls are “inside” your body. So to be consistent with your standard you have to accept that I can put your car keys in my mouth and own your car, put your child in my fat rolls and be able to kill your child, etc. it’s a completely ridiculous standard and you don’t really believe in it. So come up with something better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vegas giants]

Well I’ve justified why personhood should begin at the fetal stage. What justification do you offer for why it should begin at birth? Because it’s outside instead of inside the woman? We’ve already been over that. That would mean I could kill somebody or own something just because I still it in my body or wrap it in my fat rolls. I don’t expect you to understand this next bit, but the uterus is not inside the body per se. it’s “inside” the body like your finger is “inside” a balloon when you push the side of it and create an inVAGINAtion. That’s the same way the inside of your mouth or your anus or your fat rolls are “inside” your body. So to be consistent with your standard you have to accept that I can put your car keys in my mouth and own your car, put your child in my fat rolls and be able to kill your child, etc. it’s a completely ridiculous standard and you don’t really believe in it. So come up with something better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was your justification? What magically happens that makes it a person?


At birth it is no longer threatening the life of another. It can then have rights. But prior to that the woman makes the call. It's her life on the line....not yours

 

[forthecause]

Adoption Statistics from the Childrens Bureau of the Dept. of HHS
Fiscal year 2016
Total number of children in foster care. ………… 437,465
Children waiting to be adopted ……………… 117,794
Children waiting adoption whose parental rights have been terminated …………………………………………………….…. 65,274
Children adopted with HHS support ……………..57,208

Put into % that means:
% of children in foster care elegible for adoption ……………..42%
% of children actually adopted ……. 13%

80% of adopted chidren actually make it to legalization.
About 10% of the 437,465 children in foster care (or 43,746 children) actually get successfully adopted/


Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, giving birth then sending the child out to foster care to be adopted is not a viable alternative to abortion. Not when there are already 437,465 children that haven't been adopted.

How many times have I repeated this? You’re not taking age into account. If you’re a pregnant woman looking for a family to adopt your child you will have ZERO issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[forthecause]

LOL! Yet MORE lies?

What lies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vegas giants]

How many times have I repeated this? You’re not taking age into account. If you’re a pregnant woman looking for a family to adopt your child you will have ZERO issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you survive the pregnancy

 

[Tanngrisnir]

What lies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bolded them for you so you couldn't miss them.

 

[Indie guy]

LOL! Yet MORE lies?

I'd like to suggest that forthecause and others that think like him pay the bulk of the taxes for all the children and their parents who are on welfare, as well as all the education taxes.

They're adamant about saving all the babies so let them be true to their word. We already know he won't adopt even if he was allowed to so make him and the rest of his ilk pay all the costs to raise and educate children via their taxes.

The pro-lifers should put their money where their mouths are.