Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[JoeB131]

Not my argument...it's your claim. Foolish and unreasoned.

But supported by the statistics.

10% illegitimacy rate in 1970. 40% today. And that's with legalized abortion and birth control.

Sure, let's have more names that kids can use to bully and make fun of others in school. Again, your cruel and unthinking posts just get more monstrous. Let's use MORE negative labels for kids. Holy shit what is wrong with you?

Um, I want an orderly society where people take responsibility for their actions? Don't want your kid to be called names? Don't have sex out of wedlock. Or if you do, use protection.

ANd they act irresponsibly when you do tell them and even train them. See: cops not securing their firearms and their kids getting them and killing themselves and others. Sadly common.

And how many times does that happen a year? That seems like an awfully specific scenario, I doubt it happens more than a few times a year.

Total accidental gunfire deaths in this country are only 463 a year. And that's ALL accidents, not just a cop left his gun out and the kid got into it.

Your "argument" is invalidated. You cannot legislate responsibility. People have had sex out of wedlock for all of history, even when it meant uncurable STDs, punishment by death, exile, disownment, etc. It's a baseless fantasy that you're trying to sell here.

But I'm betting it happened a lot less. So what do you think happened in those bad old days when the pill hadn't been invented yet and legal abortions were hard to come by? I'll tell you what happened. Shotgun wedding. Crude but effective. If you can't serve as an example, serve as a warning

Why dont you acknowledge that you're wrong here? It's been proven, century after century. It didnt stop in your fantasy nostalgia of the '50s...it was just hidden better.

Again, your posts just get more amoral and monstrous as time goes on. Your true feelings get revealed. It's a really ugly picture.

I just say the honest part out loud. 2 million families would be happy to adopt just one baby. They aren't keen to adopt a kid someone else has already screwed up. And it's a perfectly honest reaction. Who wants to put a bunch of effort into trying to straighten out a kid's life, only to hear them scream "You aren't my real dad!"

I doubt you or any other pro-abortion person here has adopted a troubled teen.

 

[JoeB131]

We throw people in jail for causing loss and destruction all the time. In the case of a fetus, it's a loss to the woman/her family. The criminal destroyed it and serves time. Certainly there's no rights or legal status recognized for the unborn...as you also know.

Except they aren't being charged with property damage they are being charged with murder.

 

[Lursa]

But supported by the statistics.

10% illegitimacy rate in 1970. 40% today. And that's with legalized abortion and birth control.

Nope...hidden by non-reporting and covering up.

And besides, it doesnt matter. That only matters to you. You and your hate and blame for single mothers. And need to label children as bastards.

So dont bother me with this crap about illegitimacy anymore, I'll ignore it like I ignore your intentional ignorance on Gosnell. If you want to cling to neanderthal-level morals, feel free. They dont have anything to do with women in America today.

Um, I want an orderly society where people take responsibility for their actions? Don't want your kid to be called names? Don't have sex out of wedlock. Or if you do, use protection.

See above. Will no longer address your 1950's fantasy that was never real. Only hidden and only benefitted middle and upper class white males. For everyone else...it was less of everything for women/gays/minorities. Including respect.

You cant even articulate why abortion is wrong...and yet you believe denying it will return us to some fantasy? Let's see you explain why abortion is wrong? You want to STOP illegitimate births but you want to DENY women abortions. Such a post is completely irrational.

And how many times does that happen a year? That seems like an awfully specific scenario, I doubt it happens more than a few times a year.

Total accidental gunfire deaths in this country are only 463 a year. And that's ALL accidents, not just a cop left his gun out and the kid got into it.

Many, it's in the media frequently. The point is..."forced" responsibility...even training...doesnt stop it.

I'll tell you what happened. Shotgun wedding. Crude but effective. If you can't serve as an example, serve as a warning

Nope, it sucked, it was dysfunctional, and it was hidden as much as possible.

I just say the honest part out loud. 2 million families would be happy to adopt just one baby.

But they dont.

They aren't keen to adopt a kid someone else has already screwed up. And it's a perfectly honest reaction. Who wants to put a bunch of effort into trying to straighten out a kid's life, only to hear them scream "You aren't my real dad!"

I doubt you or any other pro-abortion person here has adopted a troubled teen.

This proves that the solution to abortion being adoption completely fails ...look at the kids created. You are describing exactly the failure. How do you not see this? It's as stupid as believing denying women abortion and expecting fewer single mothers and "bastards." Your posts are not even rational.

This is hilarious...you complain and complain and refuse to accept that abortion is one solution to both. Wow. As my Aunt Etta used to say, you're "cutting your nose off to spite your face." You've made it perfectly clear you dont want a solution to social ills, you want to condemn women and kids with single mothers and continue to blame them. All the while denying the means to create fewer. You are only here to blame, not solve. Like I wrote...your posts only get more monstrous as you go.

 

[Lursa]

Except they aren't being charged with property damage they are being charged with murder.

Nobody said anything about property damage. Why are you making stuff up? Do you consider the unborn "property?" That figures, you've been dehumanizing children as "bastards," "damaged goods", "someone else's problem," so why not the unborn?

Again, your posts continue to get more and more amoral and monstrous as you go. It's as if in your frustration to make sensible arguments at all you've dug deep into your real character to respond.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope...hidden by non-reporting and covering up.

And besides, it doesnt matter. That only matters to you. You and your hate and blame for single mothers. And need to label children as bastards.

So dont bother me with this crap about illegitimacy anymore, I'll ignore it like I ignore your intentional ignorance on Gosnell. If you want to cling to neanderthal-level morals, feel free. They dont have anything to do with women in America today.

Uh, yeah, it was "covered up" in that people didn't engage in the bad behavior openly like it was something to be proud of. So, yes, the pregnant teen was often sent out of town to have her baby to either be put up for adoption or to be passed off as a married relative's child. (Jack Nicholson, for instance, found out that his "sister" was actually his mother and his "Mother" was actually his grandmother.)

See above. Will no longer address your 1950's fantasy that was never real. Only hidden and only benefitted middle and upper class white males. For everyone else...it was less of everything for women/gays/minorities. Including respect.

Actually, the working class had it pretty good in the 1950s. My dad, coming home from the war, had a good union job, owned vacation property, and was able to raise five kids to be solid citizens. He was horrified about how the country started going south after the 1970s.

Many, it's in the media frequently. The point is..."forced" responsibility...even training...doesnt stop it.

Give me a number... I actually tried to do a quick Google and most of the stories on point were usually an angry teen killing himself intentionally with their parents' service weapon. Given we have 900K Peace officers in this country, one or two every few years doesn't sound like it's a big number.

Of course, no system is foolproof, but you should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This proves that the solution to abortion being adoption completely fails ...look at the kids created. You are describing exactly the failure. How do you not see this? It's as stupid as believing denying women abortion and expecting fewer single mothers and "bastards." Your posts are not even rational.

sure they are. When you have strong social strictures against undesirable behavior, you get less of it. When you accept it or even SUBSIDIZE it, you get more of it. This isn't complicated at all. Except to Goo-goos who wonder why we've spent Five trillion on the "War on Poverty" and we have more poverty than ever.

Nobody said anything about property damage. Why are you making stuff up? Do you consider the unborn "property?" That figures, you've been dehumanizing children as "bastards," "damaged goods", "someone else's problem," so why not the unborn?

You seem to gloss over people have been convicted of MURDER for killing fetuses other than their own. Gosnell, Scott Peterson, etc. They weren't convicted of "property damage".

As for dehumanizing people, you have to realize that some people are just lost causes. We had a kid I grew up with, and despite his parents getting him into a Catholic School, we knew he was going to be a screw up after about third grade.
Got a bad discharge conduct from the Army at age 18
By age 25, he was in prison.

Again, your posts continue to get more and more amoral and monstrous as you go. It's as if in your frustration to make sensible arguments at all you've dug deep into your real character to respond.

Naw, the person of low character is the one who tries to rationalize abortion as being good by denying the humanity of a baby.

There's a reason why those 100K kids haven't been adopted by the 2 million families that want to adopt a baby.

You just can't admit to yourself why that is.

 

[Lursa]

Uh, yeah, it was "covered up" in that people didn't engage in the bad behavior openly like it was something to be proud of. So, yes, the pregnant teen was often sent out of town to have her baby to either be put up for adoption or to be passed off as a married relative's child. (Jack Nicholson, for instance, found out that his "sister" was actually his mother and his "Mother" was actually his grandmother.)

Thanks for admitting it was no different.

Actually, the working class had it pretty good in the 1950s. My dad, coming home from the war, had a good union job, owned vacation property, and was able to raise five kids to be solid citizens. He was horrified about how the country started going south after the 1970s.

Here's the truth, again: Yeah, for a white middle or upper class male. For everyone else...it was less of everything for women/gays/minorities. Including respect.

You want to STOP illegitimate births but you want to DENY women abortions. Such a post is completely irrational.

Give me a number... I actually tried to do a quick Google and most of the stories on point were usually an angry teen killing himself intentionally with their parents' service weapon. Given we have 900K Peace officers in this country, one or two every few years doesn't sound like it's a big number.

Yup, see, you found examples with no trouble.

sure they are. When you have strong social strictures against undesirable behavior, you get less of it. When you accept it or even SUBSIDIZE it, you get more of it. This isn't complicated at all. Except to Goo-goos who wonder why we've spent Five trillion on the "War on Poverty" and we have more poverty than ever.

Nobody is subsidizing abortions. And since "social structures were stronger against undesirable behavior" in the past and there was plenty of it...you're still wrong.

But thanks for expanding your amoral posts into denigrating the poor now. The list just keeps on getting longer the more you desperately try to gain some traction here...with your lack of a cogent argument

You seem to gloss over people have been convicted of MURDER for killing fetuses other than their own. Gosnell, Scott Peterson, etc. They weren't convicted of "property damage".

Didnt make the unborn persons or recognize any legal status for them, so enjoy your empty conclusion. Dobbs should have made that pretty clear for ya...women and their doctors can kill the unborn with no due process...yes or no? You refused to answer that again...tsk tsk, the truth hurts, eh? Here it is again:

...if it was "legally vague" Dobbs could not enable states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn with no due process. Right? Yes or no and please explain your answer.

As for dehumanizing people, you have to realize that some people are just lost causes. We had a kid I grew up with, and despite his parents getting him into a Catholic School, we knew he was going to be a screw up after about third grade.
Got a bad discharge conduct from the Army at age 18
By age 25, he was in prison.

Keep on digging! Go for it! Blame kids for being born after you deny women the chance to abort them! Yeah, that's the ticket! (A disgusting, dehumanizing "ticket.")

What you still dont realize is that you would deny women the opportunity to not create more of such 'lost causes." I mean if you did, what would you have to complain about?

Naw, the person of low character is the one who tries to rationalize abortion as being good by denying the humanity of a baby.

Except for your posts being even lower, and proudly so on your part:

You've been dehumanizing children as "bastards," "damaged goods", "someone else's problem."

There's a reason why those 100K kids haven't been adopted by the 2 million families that want to adopt a baby.

You just can't admit to yourself why that is.

Oh you've told us. You've been dehumanizing children as "bastards," "damaged goods", "someone else's problem."

Hold your head up! Keep blaming single women for many of society's ills and then wanting to deny them abortions so that they become single mothers! That ones a peach! Nothing rational about it.

As your posts get more amoral and monstrous, I wonder what's next?

 

[Lursa]

To sum things up @JoeB131:

--believes that single mothers are a leading cause of our social ills, yet you'd deny them abortions and...create more single mothers​

​

--Declares it's irresponsible to get pregnant if not married, but you'd deny "irresponsible" women/couples abortions so that we'd have more irresponsible parents ​

​

--Complains about how illegitimate children are so bad for society...yet you want to deny women abortions so that they create more of them​

​

--Is positive that fetal homicide laws mean the unborn have some kind of legal status...despite all evidence to the contrary (Like Dobbs)​

​

--Would deny women abortions just for them to dump them for adoption when there are ~100,000 kids already waiting to be adopted.​

​

--Blames the kids waiting to be adopted for being born.​

​

--Wants to bring back the use of "bastard" so that children are stigmatized and bullied in school​

​

--Has been dehumanizing children as "bastards," "damaged goods", "someone else's problem"​

​

--Wrote posts displaying depraved indifference to women/couples who are grieving, facing the loss of an anticipated new family member. It's disgusting that you minimize 8 months of hope and sickness and sacrifice to just make sure you can penalize some imaginary women doing something that you imagine they do.​

These are all based directly on Joeb131's deplorable, irrational posts. These are the opinions of a man that believes abortion is wrong but cannot even articulate a reason "why" (no matter how often he claims he has).Please let me know when you can do so? Also, please let me know why Congress would want to create fetal personhood?

 

[JoeB131]

Listening to a pro-abort squal is always fun. They know they've turned the county into a shithole, they just don't want to admit it.

Thanks for admitting it was no different.

Sure it was. Nobody wanted to be branded a slut. We still had sluts back in the day, but they were looked down upon.

Here's the truth, again: Yeah, for a white middle or upper class male. For everyone else...it was less of everything for women/gays/minorities. Including respect.

Again, my parents were hardly "Upper middle class", but they had a good life because they followed the rules.

Yup, see, you found examples with no trouble.

I found that it almost never happens.

Keep on digging! Go for it! Blame kids for being born after you deny women the chance to abort them! Yeah, that's the ticket! (A disgusting, dehumanizing "ticket.")

What you still dont realize is that you would deny women the opportunity to not create more of such 'lost causes."

Naw, the dehumanizing is killing a baby because it slightly inconveniences you. Using a word they don't like isn't really the problem here.

I wish. The people who would make good parents aren't doing it because we punish people for doing the right thing, while the lowlifes are subsidized by the government to make more lost causes, usually out of wedlock.

Except for your posts being even lower, and proudly so on your part:

You've been dehumanizing children as "bastards," "damaged goods", "someone else's problem."

Hey, we can't call them "bastards" anymore, that's the point. They don't even want us using the term "Illegitimate" anymore, since that might hurt their feelings. It's kind of like watching a YouTube video, and listening to someone say "unalive" instead of "Suicide" or "Murder". That's how silly we've become as a society. "Ohhh, don't use that word, it might hurt someone's feelings."

--Would deny women abortions just for them to dump them for adoption when there are ~100,000 kids already waiting to be adopted.

We have two million families waiting to adopt a baby. Lack of families isn't the problem. Lack of ADOPTABLE kids is.

Those 100K aren't adoptable because of various problems, usually caused by the fact the state didn't take them away from unfit parents soon enough.


Of course what you don't ask is WHY those 100K kids aren't getting adopted

 

[Lursa]

Sure it was. Nobody wanted to be branded a slut. We still had sluts back in the day, but they were looked down upon.

Again, my parents were hardly "Upper middle class", but they had a good life because they followed the rules.

I found that it almost never happens.

Naw, the dehumanizing is killing a baby because it slightly inconveniences you. Using a word they don't like isn't really the problem here.

I wish. The people who would make good parents aren't doing it because we punish people for doing the right thing, while the lowlifes are subsidized by the government to make more lost causes, usually out of wedlock.

Hey, we can't call them "bastards" anymore, that's the point. They don't even want us using the term "Illegitimate" anymore, since that might hurt their feelings. It's kind of like watching a YouTube video, and listening to someone say "unalive" instead of "Suicide" or "Murder". That's how silly we've become as a society. "Ohhh, don't use that word, it might hurt someone's feelings."

We have two million families waiting to adopt a baby. Lack of families isn't the problem. Lack of ADOPTABLE kids is.

Those 100K aren't adoptable because of various problems, usually caused by the fact the state didn't take them away from unfit parents soon enough.

Of course what you don't ask is WHY those 100K kids aren't getting adopted

To sum things up @JoeB131:

--believes that single mothers are a leading cause of our social ills, yet you'd deny them abortions and...create more single mothers​

​

--Declares it's irresponsible to get pregnant if not married, but you'd deny "irresponsible" women/couples abortions so that we'd have more irresponsible parents ​

​

--Complains about how illegitimate children are so bad for society...yet you want to deny women abortions so that they create more of them​

--Is positive that fetal homicide laws mean the unborn have some kind of legal status...despite all evidence to the contrary (Like Dobbs)​

​

--Would deny women abortions just for them to dump them for adoption when there are ~100,000 kids already waiting to be adopted.​

​

--Blames the kids waiting to be adopted for being born.​

​

--Wants to bring back the use of "bastard" so that children are stigmatized and bullied in school​

--Has been dehumanizing children as "bastards," "damaged goods", "someone else's problem"​

​

--Wrote posts displaying depraved indifference to women/couples who are grieving, facing the loss of an anticipated new family member. It's disgusting that you minimize 8 months of hope and sickness and sacrifice to just make sure you can penalize some imaginary women doing something that you imagine they do.​

These are all based directly on Joeb131's deplorable, irrational posts. These are the opinions of a man that believes abortion is wrong but cannot even articulate a reason "why" (no matter how often he claims he has).Please let me know when you can do so? Also, please let me know why Congress would want to create fetal personhood?

 

[JoeB131]

Wow you are back to making your responses unquotable, aren't you? The sure sign you know you lost the argument.

To sum up Drunk Klingon's Posts.


Babies should be murdered if they are a problem for their parents.

Because a few children are effectively unadoptable, we should keep sucking babies into sinks when there are 2 million families waiting to adopt a baby.

We should allow a woman to have an abortion of a health fetus in the 8th month of pregnancy because she's feeling hormonal that day, and don't you dare question it!!!

 

[Gordy327]

Wow you are back to making your responses unquotable, aren't you? The sure sign you know you lost the argument.

To sum up Drunk Klingon's Posts.


Babies should be murdered if they are a problem for their parents.

Because a few children are effectively unadoptable, we should keep sucking babies into sinks when there are 2 million families waiting to adopt a baby.

We should allow a woman to have an abortion of a health fetus in the 8th month of pregnancy because she's feeling hormonal that day, and don't you dare question it!!!

Once again you demonstrate disingenuousness, as there are no babies being murdered and neither is that the issue. It's also obvious you cannot refute the points made and just repeat the same lies you have been!

 

[JoeB131]

Once again you demonstrate disingenuousness, as there are no babies being murdered and neither is that the issue. It's also obvious you cannot refute the points made and just repeat the same lies you have been!

Again, this is what Hitler said about the Jews.

It's okay to kill them, just don't call them any mean names.

 

[Gordy327]

Again, this is what Hitler said about the Jews.

It's okay to kill them, just don't call them any mean names.

Again you can't articulate any valid argument or explain why abortion is wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

Again you can't articulate any valid argument or explain why abortion is wrong.

Sure I have.

If a fetus is a baby, killing it is wrong.

That's about as simple as it gets.

That you and Lursa (someone who watches too much Star Trek) have to go through mental gymnastics about viability to justify killing a baby is on you.

The only question is, now that we've established elective abortions are wrong, what do we do about it?

My view is changing the law isn't the best way, because such laws would be difficult to enforce without a change in culture, so we need to work on that.

 

[Gordy327]

Sure I have.

If a fetus is a baby, killing it is wrong.

You don't even know a fetus is not a baby. Lol

That's about as simple as it gets.

And you still fail to grasp it!

That you and Lursa (someone who watches too much Star Trek) have to go through mental gymnastics about viability to justify killing a baby is on you.

And yet you continuously fail to explain why abortion is wrong!

The only question is, now that we've established elective abortions are wrong, what do we do about it?

Who established that? Must be your imagination.

My view is changing the law isn't the best way, because such laws would be difficult to enforce without a change in culture, so we need to work on that.

Your view means nothing to me! Especially when you cannot even understand simple facts or articulate why abortion is wrong!

 

[JoeB131]

ou don't even know a fetus is not a baby. Lol

I know that's what you need to tell yourself.

Look, guy, I know that there is a conscience you failed to abort when you facilitated an abortion at some point, but this isn't really my problem.

 

[Gordy327]

I know that's what you need to tell yourself.

Look, guy, I know that there is a conscience you failed to abort when you facilitated an abortion at some point, but this isn't really my problem.

Your problem is you cannot face actual facts or provide any rational argument and instead go by mere feelings! You still cannot explain why abortion is wrong. Those are a you problem!

 

[JoeB131]

Your problem is you cannot face actual facts or provide any rational argument and instead go by mere feelings! You still cannot explain why abortion is wrong. Those are a you problem!

I don't know why you guys think repeating the same mantra is an argument.

Abortion involves killing a baby before it can grow. Deal with it.

 

[Gordy327]

I don't know why you guys think repeating the same mantra is an argument.

Pure projection!

Abortion involves killing a baby before it can grow. Deal with it.

Still wrong, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. And you still can't explain why abortion is wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

Pure projection!

Still wrong, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. And you still can't explain why abortion is wrong.

You got no game, do you. Just stick your fingers in your ears and say, "lalalalalala".

You need to take a time out.

 

[Gordy327]

You got no game, do you. Just stick your fingers in your ears and say, "lalalalalala".

You need to take a time out.

More projection.

 

[Lursa]

Wow you are back to making your responses unquotable, aren't you? The sure sign you know you lost the argument.

To sum up Drunk Klingon's Posts.


Babies should be murdered if they are a problem for their parents.

Because a few children are effectively unadoptable, we should keep sucking babies into sinks when there are 2 million families waiting to adopt a baby.

We should allow a woman to have an abortion of a health fetus in the 8th month of pregnancy because she's feeling hormonal that day, and don't you dare question it!!!

It's not meant to be replied to...you've made every one of those clear in your previous posts. The only things to discuss are the last 2 questions at the bottom...which you continually refuse to answer. Please do. There's nothing else to discuss until you do.

 

[Lursa]

Sure I have.

If a fetus is a baby, killing it is wrong.

See? That's a statement, your opinion. Not an argument, just your feelings. You cannot articulate one. On a debate forum

 

[Lursa]

That you and Lursa (someone who watches too much Star Trek) have to go through mental gymnastics about viability to justify killing a baby is on you.

No "gymnastics", women should (and do in some states) be able to have abortions whenever they need to. It's pretty simple. That you struggle with it is a limitation at your end.

 

[Lursa]

Abortion involves killing a baby before it can grow. Deal with it.

That's almost accurate...except is the unborn, not a baby. And it's certainly not an argument. Why is it wrong?

Maybe you should reconsider posting on a discussion forum until you can debate something...rather than make statements you cant back up with reasoned arguments. "Deal with it"