• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Abortion destroys the family unit

maquiscat said:
Understand that there are a lot of pro-choice people who feel that Sanger was wrong in her goals and misused abortion towards that. That does not automatically mean abortion itself is a problem. The Nazis did a lot of medical experiments on Jews, and horrible as they were, there is a lot that was learned that we use to this day. Additionally, abortion was legal and was not an uncommon procedure in the US from it's founding until around the 1860's when the first laws banning abortion started up. So it wasn't just a Sanger thing. Basically Sanger is a red herring in the overall issue.
Click to expand...
M. Sanger was always opposed to abortion as birth control. She might have approved its use in cases where the fetus was already dead & the woman's life was in danger otherwise. What became Planned Parenthood had to wait until Sanger was off the board in order to adopt abortion as a method of birth control.

"Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. However, Sanger drew a sharp distinction between birth control and abortion and was opposed to abortions throughout the bulk of her professional career, declining to participate in them as a nurse.[5]"

...

"While Margaret Sanger condemned abortion as a method of family limitation, she was not opposed to abortion intended to save a woman's life.[137] Furthermore, in 1932, Margaret Sanger directed the Clinical Research Bureau to start referring patients to hospitals for therapeutic abortions when indicated by an examining physician.[23]: 300–301  She also advocated for birth control so that the pregnancies that led to therapeutic abortions could be prevented in the first place.[138]"

(My emphasis - more @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger - or any neutral reference)
 
TurboSlayer said:
My point is Sanger was a very evil person with very evil intent.

Perhaps this will clear some things up for you.

View attachment 67368976

View attachment 67368979
Click to expand...
OK You made your point. You are anti Sanger, I'll accept that. It still has no relation, that I can discern, to my original post, which for some unfathomable reason, triggered you off into this anti Sanger segue tangent.
 
maquiscat said:
Still a choice available, within the bounds I noted. I did specify about illegal abortions being available. Note that I was not responding initially to a point about legal vs illegal abortions and how safe either were or were not. I was making a point on the idea of whether or not we had a right to be born. I'm willing to go over the exchange again when I get to my laptop, if you want. I might have missed some wording along the way that would alter my logic chain.
Click to expand...


You don't have the right to speak for my mom and the millions of women in the time before abortion was legal.

She told me many, many times that she tried everything she could to NOT get pregnant. The rhythm method didn't work.

So when she got pregnant she had no choice. She had a baby every time she got pregnant and so did most women in America before abortion was legal.

All four children my mother had, she didn't want and tried very hard to not have. The laws in this country at the time forced her to have children she didn't want.

Most women in those years were just like my mom.

Sure some who were wealthy could leave the nation for an abortion. My parents were not wealthy in the 50s and 60s.

Yes some went to back alley abortionists. Many died. My mom had other children at home. She couldn't risk dying and leaving them alone to grow up without a mom.

The reality is that before abortion became legal most women had children they didn't want. Most people born before abortion became legal were not a choice. Were not planned.

My mom told me herself that she didn't want 4 kids and tried like hell to not get pregnant. I talked to my friends moms. All of them were like my mom. They didn't want all the children they had but no choice but to give birth to. If it was up to them, they would have had one or two at the very most.

Oh and gee, what do you know? When the pill became widely available in our nation the normal size of a family quickly dropped to a maximum of 2 children.

You sound like you are young and have no experience with that time in our history. I do have the experience. I was the result of those laws and I was alive during that time.
 
southwest88 said:
Certainly there were birth control choices in the US before Roe. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_in_the_United_States

"Birth control before 20th century[edit]​

"See also: Womb veil
"The practice of birth control was common throughout the U.S. prior to 1914, when the movement to legalize contraception began. Longstanding techniques included the rhythm method, withdrawal, diaphragms, contraceptive sponges[citation needed], condoms, prolonged breastfeeding, and spermicides[citation needed].[2] Use of contraceptives increased throughout the nineteenth century, contributing to a 50 percent drop in the fertility rate in the United States between 1800 and 1900, particularly in urban regions.[3] The only known survey conducted during the nineteenth century of American women's contraceptive habits was performed by Clelia Mosher from 1892 to 1912.[4] The survey was based on a small sample of upper-class women, and shows that most of the women used contraception (primarily douching, but also withdrawal, rhythm, condoms and pessaries) and that they viewed sex as a pleasurable act that could be undertaken without the goal of procreation.[5]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

M. Sanger & Planned Parenthood moved contraception in general, in the US, into medical circles; & crowded out the herbalists & midwives who had traditionally provided family services.
Click to expand...
1642141876837.png​
 
Liberal7360 said:
You don't have the right to speak for my mom and the millions of women in the time before abortion was legal.

She told me many, many times that she tried everything she could to NOT get pregnant. The rhythm method didn't work.

So when she got pregnant she had no choice. She had a baby every time she got pregnant and so did most women in America before abortion was legal.

All four children my mother had, she didn't want and tried very hard to not have. The laws in this country at the time forced her to have children she didn't want.

Most women in those years were just like my mom.

Sure some who were wealthy could leave the nation for an abortion. My parents were not wealthy in the 50s and 60s.

Yes some went to back alley abortionists. Many died. My mom had other children at home. She couldn't risk dying and leaving them alone to grow up without a mom.

The reality is that before abortion became legal most women had children they didn't want. Most people born before abortion became legal were not a choice. Were not planned.

My mom told me herself that she didn't want 4 kids and tried like hell to not get pregnant. I talked to my friends moms. All of them were like my mom. They didn't want all the children they had but no choice but to give birth to. If it was up to them, they would have had one or two at the very most.

Oh and gee, what do you know? When the pill became widely available in our nation the normal size of a family quickly dropped to a maximum of 2 children.

You sound like you are young and have no experience with that time in our history. I do have the experience. I was the result of those laws and I was alive during that time.
Click to expand...
Whether a person feels they have a choice or not does not change the fact of whether they have a choice or not. Sure we can crouch it in terms of conditionals. We can say she has no choice if she doesn't want the risks of a back alley abortion. But she still has that actual choice of a back alley abortion. That is not speaking for your mom or any other woman. I even noted that if there was no way for her to get to someone who would do one, then the choice was moot.

Getting pregnant is not a choice. It is a result of a choice. The choice to have sex. Contraceptions are a tool to manipulate the odds of getting pregnant.

Choices are all around us. We makes thousands every day and rarely ever think about them. For you mom and other women of the era, their choice was probably very instant and without thought. That doesn't mean a choice wasn't made.

Keep in mind that your initial claim was that woman before RvW did not have a choice. You didn't claim that woman before the first state legalized abortion did not have a choice. But even so, choices were available. I do not claim them good choices, or safe choices. Simply choices. Choices that many other women did make, and choose those back alley abortions.

My initial claim and assertion was a response to TurboSlayer and his assertion "You think you are entitled to certain rights but yet another group of the human race does not deserve those same freedoms." From there I noted that there was no right to be born. Being born is a result of the choices that the woman makes. Even choosing to not get a back alley abortion is a choice that results in a birth, but that child did not have a right to be born.

And no I am not young, I too have over a half century of life and experience, I am only about a decade behind you, and my wife just a couple of years behind you. And what I speak of and to is the same no matter what era it is in. That doesn't mean that I don't want safe and legal abortions. Look at my other posts. But I stand by what I said, because, with the exception or what is or isn't a right, they are factually true. Your mother had choices. Maybe they were not the ones that she wanted or were willing to risk, but they were there, and she made them, no matter whether they required any thought about it or not.
 
maquiscat said:
Whether a person feels they have a choice or not does not change the fact of whether they have a choice or not. Sure we can crouch it in terms of conditionals. We can say she has no choice if she doesn't want the risks of a back alley abortion. But she still has that actual choice of a back alley abortion. That is not speaking for your mom or any other woman. I even noted that if there was no way for her to get to someone who would do one, then the choice was moot.

Getting pregnant is not a choice. It is a result of a choice. The choice to have sex. Contraceptions are a tool to manipulate the odds of getting pregnant.

Choices are all around us. We makes thousands every day and rarely ever think about them. For you mom and other women of the era, their choice was probably very instant and without thought. That doesn't mean a choice wasn't made.

Keep in mind that your initial claim was that woman before RvW did not have a choice. You didn't claim that woman before the first state legalized abortion did not have a choice. But even so, choices were available. I do not claim them good choices, or safe choices. Simply choices. Choices that many other women did make, and choose those back alley abortions.

My initial claim and assertion was a response to TurboSlayer and his assertion "You think you are entitled to certain rights but yet another group of the human race does not deserve those same freedoms." From there I noted that there was no right to be born. Being born is a result of the choices that the woman makes. Even choosing to not get a back alley abortion is a choice that results in a birth, but that child did not have a right to be born.

And no I am not young, I too have over a half century of life and experience, I am only about a decade behind you, and my wife just a couple of years behind you. And what I speak of and to is the same no matter what era it is in. That doesn't mean that I don't want safe and legal abortions. Look at my other posts. But I stand by what I said, because, with the exception or what is or isn't a right, they are factually true. Your mother had choices. Maybe they were not the ones that she wanted or were willing to risk, but they were there, and she made them, no matter whether they required any thought about it or not.
Click to expand...
1642225586791.png​
 
maquiscat said:
Basically Sanger is a red herring in the overall issue.
Click to expand...
Did you not realize that planned parenthood was Sangers "baby" (see what I did there?) from day one?

Also note, PP has issued multiple statements and fully back and support Sanger's life and contributions to the abortion (murder-a-thon).
 
I would have thought from the title the answer would be obvious. I mean...its kinda tough to have a 'family' when you butcher the babies because they are inconvenient.
 
TurboSlayer said:
Did you not realize that planned parenthood was Sangers "baby" (see what I did there?) from day one?

Also note, PP has issued multiple statements and fully back and support Sanger's life and contributions to the abortion (murder-a-thon).
Click to expand...
Which has what to do with the abortion issue overall? As I pointed out abortion was a not uncommon procedure from the founding of our country (and before) until about the mid 1860's, when the majority of the laws making abortion illegal went into effect. All of that long before Sanger, unless you want to now claim that Sanger is an immortal who has been fostering abortions across the world throughout history. Sanger is a red herring when it comes to the overall issue of abortion. She didn't start it, and she is not the end all be all of it.
 
VanceMack said:
I would have thought from the title the answer would be obvious. I mean...its kinda tough to have a 'family' when you butcher the babies because they are inconvenient.
Click to expand...
A family consist of two on up. A family can easily be just the two spouses.
 
TurboSlayer said:
Did you not realize that planned parenthood was Sangers "baby" (see what I did there?) from day one?

Also note, PP has issued multiple statements and fully back and support Sanger's life and contributions to the abortion (murder-a-thon).
Click to expand...
Abortion under Roe is not murder. That's the Supreme Court holding, so in the US, it's law.
 
VanceMack said:
I would have thought from the title the answer would be obvious. I mean...its kinda tough to have a 'family' when you butcher the babies because they are inconvenient.
Click to expand...
It's really inappropriate to use the word "butcher" unless what is butchered is actually cut up in pieces and intended to be eaten. Abortion disconnects an embryo/fetus from the endometrial wall of a uterus and removes it from the uterus. That does not require any killing, let alone cutting in pieces.

And I wouldn't claim that abortion is based on inconvenience, either, because pregnancy heightens a risk of death and/or serious injury. Men's putting most childcare on the women who give birth to their children is because babies are inconvenient.
 
maquiscat said:
A family consist of two on up. A family can easily be just the two spouses.
Click to expand...
Abortion as a topic sort of IMPLIES that children might be involved...unless of course your understanding of families is sluaghtering unborn babies to preserve the 2 person 'family unit'.
 
TurboSlayer said:
Ummm.... maybe... because... they kill the innocent baby due to the irresponsible actions of the mother, for one?
Click to expand...
So it's your absolutist belief that the mother is always to blame.

And the GOP wonders why all it can attract are old white men and conspiracy nutters.
 
choiceone said:
It's really inappropriate to use the word "butcher" unless what is butchered is actually cut up in pieces and intended to be eaten. Abortion disconnects an embryo/fetus from the endometrial wall of a uterus and removes it from the uterus. That does not require any killing, let alone cutting in pieces.

And I wouldn't claim that abortion is based on inconvenience, either, because pregnancy heightens a risk of death and/or serious injury. Men's putting most childcare on the women who give birth to their children is because babies are inconvenient.
Click to expand...
Im sorry the reality of what you advocate for babies causes you upset.
 
TurboSlayer said:
Ummm.... maybe... because... they kill the innocent baby due to the irresponsible actions of the mother, for one?
Click to expand...

The innocent baby? I understood Christianity in general to ascribe Adam's & Even's sin to all the following generations, including fetuses (I assume). Did I misunderstand that?
 
choiceone said:
It's really inappropriate to use the word "butcher" unless what is butchered is actually cut up in pieces and intended to be eaten. Abortion disconnects an embryo/fetus from the endometrial wall of a uterus and removes it from the uterus. That does not require any killing, let alone cutting in pieces.
Click to expand...
Just FYI the baby gets dismembered in many cases to sell internal organs and whatnot. It's a grusome task. Hence, the pro death people here dont want anyone else to know how grizzly of a task this is.... lets hear it loud and clear.



1642378647952.png
 
TurboSlayer said:
Just FYI the baby gets dismembered in many cases to sell internal organs and whatnot. It's a grusome task. Hence, the pro death people here dont want anyone else to know how grizzly of a task this is.... lets hear it loud and clear.

View attachment 67369572
Click to expand...
1. There is no baby involved.
2. The federal ban on the sale of fetal tissues is precisely that. No such sale is allowed in the US. If you're aware of any such sale, please report it to police, or the nearest federal prosecutor.
 
TurboSlayer said:
Did you not realize that planned parenthood was Sangers "baby" (see what I did there?) from day one?

Also note, PP has issued multiple statements and fully back and support Sanger's life and contributions to the abortion (murder-a-thon).
Click to expand...

Do all Turboslayers pick and choose which types of murders they prefer?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Do all Turboslayers pick and choose which types of murders they prefer?
Click to expand...
Personally? I really like the flack cannon. It only takes two direct hits to kill your enemy, and you can get the shots off very quickly. Unreal tournament is a very fun game.

1642420155566.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom