Abort or die?

[sigh]

Of course, at Planned Parenthood a woman can abort and die...



Now...

...tell us again why those who champion abortion providers to be fully certified medical facilities are apparently women haters, too.

Preventable errors and infections kill 200000 people in hospitals each year. And that number hasn't changed in a decade. We call you women haters because you choose to point fingers and wail about Planned Parenthood rather than take the leaders of our healthcare industry to task for their much more serious failure.

But then I think I do understand. There can be only one boogeyman in health care for conservatives these days, and that must be Obamacare.

 

[eyer]

We call you women haters because you choose to point fingers and wail about Planned Parenthood rather than take the leaders of our healthcare industry to task for their much more serious failure.

Yeah...

...that makes a lot of sense.

BTW: how many hundreds of thousands of human lives does Planned Parenthood abort every year?

 

[sigh]

Yeah...

...that makes a lot of sense.

BTW: how many hundreds of thousands of human lives does Planned Parenthood abort every year?

Yes it does make sense, thank you.

And your BTW has nothing to do with the clinical safety of Planned Parenthood clinics. I don't like mixing my debates. It gives me indigestion.

 

[eyer]

Yes it does make sense, thank you.

And your BTW has nothing to do with the clinical safety of Planned Parenthood clinics. I don't like mixing my debates. It gives me indigestion.

Try papaya...

...it might even help your constipated thinking.

 

[sigh]

Try papaya...

...it might even help your constipated thinking.

high fiber and chock full of anti-oxidants too...what a fruit!

 

[tactful]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion-teen/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


In the Dominican Republic "the right to life is inviolable from the moment of conception and until death."

Because life is defined as beginning at conception, they have a strict ban on all abortions. Apparently you cant even have a treatment that may save your life, if it would cause the body to miscarriage.

The Dominican Republic, is very close to being Haiti, revisited, and that's before the Quake.

 

[Ishmael]

And yet most of the right wingers on here seem to want this same thing for America.

Absurd.

Ishmael

 

[mustang200]

Here in America, where we speak English motherfucker , the generally accepted definition of fetus is "An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception".

...but that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?




I'm not "attacking the messenger", I'm refudiating your pathetic unfocused arguments one incoherent statement at a time. And I fail to see you presenting a quote moral unquote argument anywhere.



Apology accepted.



Who said the fetus has "no rights"? I certainly didn't, that's you putting words in my mouth. I said a fetus has rights that are subordinate to those of the mother, for reasons I explained above.



You reach a conclusion not supported by your argument. Your logic seems to be If fetus and babies are human, and all humans have rights, then both have rights. Does your dead great-great-grandfather have rights? I would argue that he does not, that his rights terminated upon his death. Likewise, a fetus has limted rights (which I explained above, which you ignored) until it has been born. To summarize: complete human rights begin at birth and terminate at death.



I recognize that you most likely sucked on your mother's breasts until you were well into your teens, but that's an exception rather than the rule.

Most people can comprehend the difference between physical independence and social independence as I explained above. Naturally, since it doesn't fit your narrative, you claim it is a "distinction without a difference".

I'm not sure if that statement is the result of willful ignorance or natural ignorance.


So if I understand you correctly, it's okay for you to make wildly implausible legal arguments ("mothers and criminals can both murder babbies") which the Supreme Court categorically said was not the case.

I never said that the Supreme Court was infallible. I simply pointed out that, as of today, your specious legal conjecture has been rejected by the highest legal authority in this country.

So far, my friend, you've given us a pastiche of far-right talking points, and very little cogent thought to back up your position. Let's see if your inevitable reply to this post has a bit more substance, m'kay?

Spin cycle. You are so easy.

All you have given me is lefty gibber-jabber. Please try making a cogent argument next time, ok?

BTW, fetus is not an English word, no matter how much you want to try to make it one. It is Latin. It has one meaning, only... little baby.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Spin cycle. You are so easy.

All you have given me is lefty gibber-jabber. Please try making a cogent argument next time, ok?

BTW, fetus is not an English word, no matter how much you want to try to make it one. It is Latin. It has one meaning, only... little baby.

Just as I thought. Strip away teh fundie talking points, and you have nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

I gave you my opinion, supported by facts. You've assigned positions to me, then criticized me for "my" positions, and now you're declarin' victory.

Once again, I've shown how fundies such as yourself "debate" abortion: lies, half-truths, and talking points.

 

[O-dad's Medium]

There is no pro-life stance without "religious thinking".

Let me be clear.

Religions dictate what is moral, what is acceptable and what is to be valued.

Religions do not do this on the basis of logic, reason, evidence or anything but Text references that are equally unsupported by any of the above, that have oft been recompiled, recombined, reinterpreted and rewritten.

If you think a fetus is the same as a baby you don't understand developmental biology.

If you think women are obligated to bring every pregnancy to term, ask yourself why. If the answer involves her sole responsibility - then this is the exact reason as to why she should be able to choose not to. If the answer involves her accepting the consequences of their actions as defacto punishment, then you clearly don't care about human life either, just punishing women for having sex. If the answer involves the word of god, prove to me this god exists and that its word can be trusted via evidence and verification.

Finally... If it is your belief that women exist to produce babies for men... Grow the fuck up.

 

[mustang200]

Abortion exists, in large part, because males like O-dad and Robbie think that males do not need to live up to their responsibility to raise their offspring, and would rather see their offspring aborted than than be required to grow up and become men.

O-dad, let me be clear. You and your ilk are dictating what is moral, what is acceptable and what is [not] to be valued.

I do understand biology, developmental and otherwise, far more than you possibly could.

It is not the woman's sole responsibility... it is yours, as well, if you are the one who impregnated her. It is your responsibility to provide for her and the child until that child is able to provide for itself. Anything less and you cannot call yourself a man. If you do not like those terms, keep it in your pants.

Perhaps, you are the one who needs to grow the fuck up.

 

[O-dad's Medium]

Abortion exists, in large part, because males like O-dad and Robbie think that males do not need to live up to their responsibility to raise their offspring, and would rather see their offspring aborted than than be required to grow up and become men.

O-dad, let me be clear. You and your ilk are dictating what is moral, what is acceptable and what is [not] to be valued.

I do understand biology, developmental and otherwise, far more than you possibly could.

It is not the woman's sole responsibility... it is yours, as well, if you are the one who impregnated her. It is your responsibility to provide for her and the child until that child is able to provide for itself. Anything less and you cannot call yourself a man. If you do not like those terms, keep it in your pants.

Perhaps, you are the one who needs to grow the fuck up.

Amusing.

I'm not deciding anything. It's not ultimately my decision. However, for the sake of clarity...

If I were to father a child, I would absolutely take responsibility. Yes that's as much down to me as the woman involved.

What you need to understand is, that even if I do that - I still don't get to tell her whether or not she carries to term or aborts it. I would be there to offer my views, my feelings, and my support - but that doesn't give me the right to tell her what to do. Ever.

That's not the same as advocating abortions for all. Which I never did.

Nor did I say that carrying to term was a bad thing. Anyone who knows me at all knows I don't feel that way.

What I said was... Pro-life is bullshit religion talking.

Though I may have been a bit verbose about it.



For further arguments... We could discuss where the pro-lifers evaporate to after the baby is born, and how much they care about life in general when it's not in a woman's womb.


Time to step back and reconsider.

You have attacked a fortress in the fog, and have no idea how high and beweaponed the didactic walls are.

 

[mustang200]

Amusing.

I'm not deciding anything. It's not ultimately my decision. However, for the sake of clarity...

If I were to father a child, I would absolutely take responsibility. Yes that's as much down to me as the woman involved.

What you need to understand is, that even if I do that - I still don't get to tell her whether or not she carries to term or aborts it. I would be there to offer my views, my feelings, and my support - but that doesn't give me the right to tell her what to do. Ever.

That's not the same as advocating abortions for all. Which I never did.

Nor did I say that carrying to term was a bad thing. Anyone who knows me at all knows I don't feel that way.

What I said was... Pro-life is bullshit religion talking.

Though I may have been a bit verbose about it.



For further arguments... We could discuss where the pro-lifers evaporate to after the baby is born, and how much they care about life in general when it's not in a woman's womb.


Time to step back and reconsider.

You have attacked a fortress in the fog, and have no idea how high and beweaponed the didactic walls are.

But, I have not attacked the fortress, the fortress attacked me. I was just walking by the moat, expressing my opinion, as is allowed by my First Amendment Right, when the fortress opened up with 32 pounders filled with grape shot. That said, the fortress will eventually fall, they all do.

As an aside, since you used the term fortress instead of fort, do you know the difference between the two?

Anyway, back on topic. We are much closer in opinion than you might think.

Yes, I am unashamedly Pro-Life. That stems from my personal experience with elective pregnancy termination, and the grief that I still have yet to resolve from that experience some 40 years ago. That will never change.

It pleases me that you will accept responsibility for any child that you father.

What I am not clear about is what you would do if she considered termination. Would you present alternatives? Would you try to talk her out of it? Would you do everything in your power, short of physical restraint, to talk her out of termination? Or, would you just cast her adrift and say, "It is her body, it is her decision?"

This is where the really hard part of being a man comes in. It is easy to say, "Its her body, her decision," and just walk away, with your conscience clean. Its a lot harder to face up to raising the child. That is why termination has become so attractive among so many males. Note that I do not say, "men."

One does not have to advocate for abortions to be complicit. "The greatest tyrannies are allowed by men who say nothing." I don't know who is the author of that, and I probably paraphrased it, but it gets the message across. Perhaps you don't have the right to tell her what to do... as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on that one. You do have the right to "loudly" influence her decision. And, by loudly, I am not talking about volume, I am speaking of content of argument. To do less, up to and including offering to raise the child by yourself, drops you out of "men," and into "males."

Like you, I am sadly, sadly disappointed in those who advocate the anti-abortion position, and stop there. Note that I did not say Pro-Life. I think that to be truly Pro-Life, you can't stop with just preventing termination of pregnancy. The idiot male, the sperm donor, is usually out of the picture, so who is going to provide for the mother and the child? The state? God Forbid. Who then? My co-religionists get uncomfortable when I ask that question. So, I ask it frequently. They are beginning to come around. It is a slow process.

Unfortunately, it is usually the welfare system that provides the majority of support for the mother and child. That is a whole 'nuther can of worms, and that is where my co-religionists can step in and make a difference.

So, you see, we are not that different. The biggest difference, I suspect, is that you have not yet had a personal experience with pregnancy termination. It does change your mindset.

 

[O-dad's Medium]

But, I have not attacked the fortress, the fortress attacked me. I was just walking by the moat, expressing my opinion, as is allowed by my First Amendment Right, when the fortress opened up with 32 pounders filled with grape shot. That said, the fortress will eventually fall, they all do.

As an aside, since you used the term fortress instead of fort, do you know the difference between the two?

Anyway, back on topic. We are much closer in opinion than you might think.

Yes, I am unashamedly Pro-Life. That stems from my personal experience with elective pregnancy termination, and the grief that I still have yet to resolve from that experience some 40 years ago. That will never change.

It pleases me that you will accept responsibility for any child that you father.

What I am not clear about is what you would do if she considered termination. Would you present alternatives? Would you try to talk her out of it? Would you do everything in your power, short of physical restraint, to talk her out of termination? Or, would you just cast her adrift and say, "It is her body, it is her decision?"

This is where the really hard part of being a man comes in. It is easy to say, "Its her body, her decision," and just walk away, with your conscience clean. Its a lot harder to face up to raising the child. That is why termination has become so attractive among so many males. Note that I do not say, "men."

One does not have to advocate for abortions to be complicit. "The greatest tyrannies are allowed by men who say nothing." I don't know who is the author of that, and I probably paraphrased it, but it gets the message across. Perhaps you don't have the right to tell her what to do... as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on that one. You do have the right to "loudly" influence her decision. And, by loudly, I am not talking about volume, I am speaking of content of argument. To do less, up to and including offering to raise the child by yourself, drops you out of "men," and into "males."

Like you, I am sadly, sadly disappointed in those who advocate the anti-abortion position, and stop there. Note that I did not say Pro-Life. I think that to be truly Pro-Life, you can't stop with just preventing termination of pregnancy. The idiot male, the sperm donor, is usually out of the picture, so who is going to provide for the mother and the child? The state? God Forbid. Who then? My co-religionists get uncomfortable when I ask that question. So, I ask it frequently. They are beginning to come around. It is a slow process.

Unfortunately, it is usually the welfare system that provides the majority of support for the mother and child. That is a whole 'nuther can of worms, and that is where my co-religionists can step in and make a difference.

So, you see, we are not that different. The biggest difference, I suspect, is that you have not yet had a personal experience with pregnancy termination. It does change your mindset.

Careful. Assumptions can be dangerous.

And yes I defend more than just soldiers and arms. People can live within the walls of my argument.

You asked a pertinent question. And my representations arguments and advice would have take into consideration the following: Her health, is there any reason this could be medically difficult or dangerous for her. Our economic stability, separately and as a couple (depending on what I'm suggesting and what she's preferring). Our ability regardless of economics to pay the required attention to a child, the support available to us both, and the environment we would intend to raise the child in.

With all of that in hand, I might have cause to argue very strongly for keeping the child, as a couple or on my own. Then again, I may not. It all comes down to where I see the child ending up and how tenable it is. And it's not a case of convenience, these matters are not light, but of practical realities.

And in the end... I have to be reconciled that even if I were to volunteer to raise the child on my own with reasonable success/stability - she can still say no. It's her body. it's her choice.

Don't presume I haven't been there... Or that you know what the outcome was. You have to do the right thing. By everyone. Not just the unborn.

That said... People as individuals will make hard and uncomfortable choices sometimes. And sometimes to not become a bad person ourselves, we have to let them.

 

[HAL_9000]

Because that's the only woman they can find?

Sorry, not seeing the logic.

Well, there are less women than men.

Plus women can pop out quite a few babies in a lifetime. Sterilizing men just isn't as effective for population control.

 

[coachdb18]

Abortion should not be used as birth control. As such, any woman who decides she does not want to have children and seeks an abortion should also be required to have a simultaneous tubal ligation. Then she can have all the upprotected sex she wants, has all the control of her body she wants, and no longer involves herself in killing another human being to do so.

 

[mustang200]

Abortion should not be used as birth control. As such, any woman who decides she does not want to have children and seeks an abortion should also be required to have a simultaneous tubal ligation. Then she can have all the upprotected sex she wants, has all the control of her body she wants, and no longer involves herself in killing another human being to do so.

Interesting.

Kind of draconian, but interesting.

I'm not really comfortable with that.

 

[coachdb18]

Abortion should not be used as birth control. As such, any woman who decides she does not want to have children and seeks an abortion should also be required to have a simultaneous tubal ligation. Then she can have all the upprotected sex she wants, has all the control of her body she wants, and no longer involves herself in killing another human being to do so.

Interesting.

Kind of draconian, but interesting.

I'm not really comfortable with that.

Why???

 

[badbabysitter]

coach thinks women who have abortions should be legally forced to get thier tubes tied


please note the men in this case who chose not to use condoms go unpunished





women are sluts and should be punished for getting pregant

 

[O-dad's Medium]

Possibly because that is taking a decision made in a specific set of circumstances and demanding that they be the only set of circumstances that is ever allowed to influence an individual woman's reproductive opportunities, even if they may yet be in a better place to produce and care for children later.

However, benefit of the doubt...

WHY should abortion not be used as birth control?

Please be specific.

 

[O-dad's Medium]

coach thinks women who have abortions should be legally forced to get thier tubes tied


please note the men in this case who chose not to use condoms go unpunished





women are sluts and should be punished for getting pregant

Drat, I was saving that for after his response...

Oh well.

 

[badbabysitter]

Drat, I was saving that for after his response...

Oh well.

he has me on iggy after calling me a slut, cunt, twat, claiming my tampon was on fire... because I called him a dumbass


he's the expert on civility after all

 

[O-dad's Medium]

he has me on iggy after calling me a slut, cunt, twat, claiming my tampon was on fire... because I called him a dumbass


he's the expert on civility after all

So you're saying he's one of the higher-class GB trolls?

 

[mustang200]

Why???

Are you willing to be castrated as a form of birth control?

Let's say that you got her pregnant, she chooses termination, the law that yo want says that she must have her tubes tied. The other side of that coin is that you must be castrated, or at least have a vasectomy.

Are you willing to go that far?

 

[ComeAlive]

Allow me to add my two cents?? As someone who is the result of an unwanted pregnancy I am truly greatful that my biological mother chose to carry me to term, despite the life changing consequences.

I am obviously against abortion, I could have ended up in some cosmetic companies test tube as a way to cure wrinkles. Instead I was given the chance to live with a family and now have been blessed with kids of my own.