Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time'

[KimGordon67]

Yeah, this is one topic which really brings out emotionally-charged crazy in those whom abortion is is the political grail of their new-age culture. Just keep showing young people those pictures of not babies in the womb and all but the most callous of the Social Justice Warriors will begin to have doubts of the gratuitous use of such barbarity in the name of personal convenience. Even worse, this is a practice that falls disproportionately upon the shoulders of minority communities where life has become super-cheap.

I love it how people can say abortions are used as 'personal convenience'. Clearly you're speaking as a woman whose actually had to make that decision.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I love it how people can say abortions are used as 'personal convenience'. Clearly you're speaking as a woman whose actually had to make that decision.

You don't have to be a woman who's had to make that choice to recognize it when you see it.

I've known more than a few women who've gotten abortions and all but one of them straight up told me it was for "oh fuck a kid right now would be a catastrophic burden on my life right now" reasons. Reasons of how totally inconvenient another kid would be....

Not that I think there is anything wrong with that reasoning.

But let's not pretend it doesn't happen or that you need to be a woman who's gone through it to know that it happens.

It does and EVERYONE knows it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

LMFAO

Babies don't grow in petri dishes. Deal with it.

Did you ever hear of in-vitro fertilization? Of course, those are embryos, not actual babies but they are intended to become babies in nine months.

But, to get back on subject: Pence is mistaken. Abortions will NEVER be eliminated. Even if they were to become illegal, there would still be abortions performed less safely and a growing market for wire coat hangers.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Interesting. Does that mean an "embryo" inside a woman is "not an actual baby," too?

Did you ever hear of in-vitro fertilization? Of course, those are embryos, not actual babies but they are intended to become babies in nine months.

But, to get back on subject: Pence is mistaken. Abortions will NEVER be eliminated. Even if they were to become illegal, there would still be abortions performed less safely and a growing market for wire coat hangers.

 

[KimGordon67]

You don't have to be a woman who's had to make that choice to recognize it when you see it.

I've known more than a few women who've gotten abortions and all but one of them straight up told me it was because "oh fuck a kid right now would be a catastrophic burden on my life right now" reasons.

Not that I think there is anything wrong with it......but let's not pretend it doesn't happen and you need to be a woman who's gone through it to know that it happens.

It does and EVERYONE knows it.

I think 'catastrophic burden' and 'inconvenience' aren't really the same thing, and that's using the words you've used to refute my point.

Raising a child is a huge undertaking. We're really lucky that in the 21st century we're able to exercise choice over when/if we do that. I don't think that recognising the enormity of that undertaking and saying now isn't the right time is treating it as an 'inconvenience'.

 

[HisArpy]

... except that the rights of women to reproductive health care don't pose a threat to the lives of other people in society. I'm not suggesting people go into schools forcing teenagers to have abortions.

My right to own a gun doesn't threaten the lives of anyone else either. Nor am I forcing anyone to buy a gun.

The difficulty here is that you don't see anything except the end result talking points. Why is your right to reproductive privacy and health any different than my right to have a gun in my house for self protection? Both things can be used to kill. Both things can be used for good.

The issue I'm trying to raise here is whose business is it if you want to get an abortion? Whose business is it if I want to own a gun? Both are personal decisions that lawmakers should have no business deciding for either of us as a blanket rule.

Worse, the arguments being made allow the camel's nose further under the tent flap.

Let's take the NYC ban on Big Gulps. It takes the personal decision out of the hands of the individual to consume what he wants. Once Government is allowed to do that with impunity, can they not also mandate physical fitness? Either you meet gov-set health and weight standards or go to jail?

Where does it stop? At what point is YOUR PRIVACY more important than government's ability to tell you what to do in every aspect of your life? If it stops at the point where it infringes upon your personal lifestyle decisions, then it also stops at the point where it infringes upon mine. The specific personal decisions we choose to make are irrelevant to that bright line.

Abortion rights and gun rights are the SAME issue. It's not about guns or abortions, it's about government's ability to FORCE you to comply. I object to being forced. Even by my government telling me it's for my own good.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Interesting. Does that mean an "embryo" inside a woman is "not an actual baby," too?

Neither an embryo nor a fetus is an actual baby, although either has a possibility of becoming a baby.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Can I quote you on that to all the abortion freaks?

Neither an embryo nor a fetus is an actual baby, although either has a possibility of becoming a baby.

 

[KimGordon67]

My right to own a gun doesn't threaten the lives of anyone else either. Nor am I forcing anyone to buy a gun.

The difficulty here is that you don't see anything except the end result talking points. Why is your right to reproductive privacy and health any different than my right to have a gun in my house for self protection? Both things can be used to kill. Both things can be used for good.

The issue I'm trying to raise here is whose business is it if you want to get an abortion? Whose business is it if I want to own a gun? Both are personal decisions that lawmakers should have no business deciding for either of us as a blanket rule.

Worse, the arguments being made allow the camel's nose further under the tent flap.

Let's take the NYC ban on Big Gulps. It takes the personal decision out of the hands of the individual to consume what he wants. Once Government is allowed to do that with impunity, can they not also mandate physical fitness? Either you meet gov-set health and weight standards or go to jail?

Where does it stop? At what point is YOUR PRIVACY more important than government's ability to tell you what to do in every aspect of your life? If it stops at the point where it infringes upon your personal lifestyle decisions, then it also stops at the point where it infringes upon mine. The specific personal decisions we choose to make are irrelevant to that bright line.

Abortion rights and gun rights are the SAME issue. It's not about guns or abortions, it's about government's ability to FORCE you to comply. I object to being forced. Even by my government telling me it's for my own good.

Because the 'right' of each individual person to own a gun is what makes guns so readily available, and that ready availability has a demonstrably harmful effect on the population.

Also, because abortions have a clear beneficial outcome. The only beneficial outcome I can see of owning a gun is the ability to protect yourself ... against other people with guns. That kind of suggests that it might be wise to take guns out of the equation.

Don't bother responding - I know all the answer already. Basically, it comes down to a difference in philosophical perspective regarding the rights of the individual vs the good of the society. It's pretty clear where I sit on that continuum and it's pretty clear where you (and others) sit. The debate isn't winnable by either party because the terms of engagement and the perception of a 'desirable outcome' are fundamentally different.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101

Neither an embryo nor a fetus is an actual baby, although either has a possibility of becoming a baby.

Can I quote you on that to all the abortion freaks?

Of course, but why would you? I am no expert on abortions.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Getting crazier. I give it another page before it becomes passionately personal after the general charge has been leveled, which is basically, a man who disagrees with abortion cannot possibly be a fair judge on the morality of the act. Any man who then does not step back and shut up is a control-freak misogynist. This thread aways plays out the same way.

 

[Que]

Can I quote you on that to all the abortion freaks?

Abortion freaks already talk like that.

I often wonder how they switch gears when it's time to talk to a friend or family member who is delighted about being pregnant.

"Oh! I see you have a delightful little collection of cells growing within you, congratulations!"

"I am so sorry that you miscarried that inconsequential collection of cells."

"Your collection of cells was stillborn? Did the cells collectively draw breath? Oh, good. For a minute there I thought you might have suffered a loss."

You abortion freaks do yourselves no favors using dehumanizing language in debate. It makes the contrast more stark and gains you no converts to your culture of convenience.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Because the 'right' of each individual person to own a gun is what makes guns so readily available, and that ready availability has a demonstrably harmful effect on the population.

Also, because abortions have a clear beneficial outcome. The only beneficial outcome I can see of owning a gun is the ability to protect yourself ... against other people with guns. That kind of suggests that it might be wise to take guns out of the equation.

Don't bother responding - I know all the answer already. Basically, it comes down to a difference in philosophical perspective regarding the rights of the individual vs the good of the society. It's pretty clear where I sit on that continuum and it's pretty clear where you (and others) sit. The debate isn't winnable by either party because the terms of engagement and the perception of a 'desirable outcome' are fundamentally different.

Guns also give people the ability to protect themselves against other people who are armed with knives and lead pipes and baseball bats and rocks, all of which are even more readily available than guns.

 

[HisArpy]

Because the 'right' of each individual person to own a gun is what makes guns so readily available, and that ready availability has a demonstrably harmful effect on the population.

Also, because abortions have a clear beneficial outcome. The only beneficial outcome I can see of owning a gun is the ability to protect yourself ... against other people with guns. That kind of suggests that it might be wise to take guns out of the equation.

Don't bother responding - I know all the answer already. Basically, it comes down to a difference in philosophical perspective regarding the rights of the individual vs the good of the society. It's pretty clear where I sit on that continuum and it's pretty clear where you (and others) sit. The debate isn't winnable by either party because the terms of engagement and the perception of a 'desirable outcome' are fundamentally different.

Actually I think you're wrong. I think we both want the same outcome but you can't get beyond your own personal ideology to talk about an actual solution.

Readily available guns are a product of society wanting them readily available. So too would be abortion on demand.

The difference is that, again, you can't see beyond your own prejudices. You think that my owning a gun only has 1 purpose - to protect against another guy with a gun. But what if the other guy has a knife? Or a baseball bat? Or steel pipe? What if there are several of them who want to drag me with a chain down a dirt road behind their pickup truck because my skin color is different?

You talk about means ends when it comes to guns as if it is something different that the means ends of abortion. It's not.

Neither you, nor government, should have the right to tell me what decisions I can make in regards to my personal health, welfare, or defense. Nor should I, or the government, have the right to do so in regards to your personal decisions of health, welfare, or defense.

It doesn't matter that you feel horrible when you see all the blood and body parts after a mass shooting. Those opposed to abortion also see nothing but blood and body parts after an abortion is performed. The END RESULTS should have no place in the debate because both sides can point to the blood and body parts as support for their ideology to prevent you and I from making those choices.

I am trying to approach the issue from the perspective of whether Gov should have the power to interfere that deeply into our lives. In that discussion, imagery of blood and body parts has no meaning or power to sway the debate. Which is why neither side wants to actually discuss it.

 

[Que]

Because the 'right' of each individual person to own a gun is what makes guns so readily available, and that ready availability has a demonstrably harmful effect on the population.

Also, because abortions have a clear beneficial outcome. The only beneficial outcome I can see of owning a gun is the ability to protect yourself ... against other people with guns. That kind of suggests that it might be wise to take guns out of the equation.

Don't bother responding - I know all the answer already. Basically, it comes down to a difference in philosophical perspective regarding the rights of the individual vs the good of the society. It's pretty clear where I sit on that continuum and it's pretty clear where you (and others) sit. The debate isn't winnable by either party because the terms of engagement and the perception of a 'desirable outcome' are fundamentally different.

Well that and your willful disregard for any actual facts about who uses guns illegally, how they get them, and the many societal benefits to having an armed populace to not just repel murderers with guns which is relatively rare, but all manner of criminal activity that involves criminals preying on the vulnerable. No one needs to be vulnerable. Strong arm robbery is virtually unheard of in parts of America. Nobody's attempted to rob a gun show yet. Not even using a gun.

 

[BotanyBoy]

saying now isn't the right time is treating it as an 'inconvenience'.

But a lot of other people do.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

"Neither an embryo nor a fetus is an actual baby, although either has a possibility of becoming a baby."

I didn't say it: boxlicker did, quoted with permission

Abortion freaks already talk like that.

I often wonder how they switch gears when it's time to talk to a friend or family member who is delighted about being pregnant.

"Oh! I see you have a delightful little collection of cells growing within you, congratulations!"

"I am so sorry that you miscarried that inconsequential collection of cells."

"Your collection of cells was stillborn? Did the cells collectively draw breath? Oh, good. For a minute there I thought you might have suffered a loss."

You abortion freaks do yourselves no favors using dehumanizing language in debate. It makes the contrast more stark and gains you no converts to your culture of convenience.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Says someone who treats the Sandy Hook first graders as "collateral damage" of 2nd Amendment "Freedom."

Abortion freaks already talk like that.

I often wonder how they switch gears when it's time to talk to a friend or family member who is delighted about being pregnant.

"Oh! I see you have a delightful little collection of cells growing within you, congratulations!"

"I am so sorry that you miscarried that inconsequential collection of cells."

"Your collection of cells was stillborn? Did the cells collectively draw breath? Oh, good. For a minute there I thought you might have suffered a loss."

You abortion freaks do yourselves no favors using dehumanizing language in debate. It makes the contrast more stark and gains you no converts to your culture of convenience.

 

[Chancellor_Palpatine]

"Neither an embryo nor a fetus is an actual baby, although either has a possibility of becoming a baby."

I didn't say it: boxlicker did, quoted with permission

Queef apparently can't make the distinction between intrinsic moral considerability, and the fact that people can have emotional investments in even nonliving targets. Queef is an idiot.

 

[WoundedKnee]

"Neither an embryo nor a fetus is an actual baby, although either has a possibility of becoming a baby."

I didn't say it: boxlicker did, quoted with permission

Is it a human embryo?

 

[BobBalouski]

You know a poster is nothing but a total bullsh!t artist when she maintains that only a woman is qualified to pontificate about intentionally & tortuously killing the innocent little human life naturally maturing inside her...

...but that she, a foreigner, is fully qualified to pontificate upon Americans her socialist, anti-Constitution ideals.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

 

[contrifan32]

The only beneficial outcome I can see of owning a gun is the ability to protect yourself ... against other people with guns. That kind of suggests that it might be wise to take guns out of the equation.

If you truly believe this you are ignorant ... or batshit crazy.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Aw, the innocent little human life!

But but the baaaaabies

You're going to make me cry, stop it

Never fear, pro-choicers: Tim Murphy believes in exceptions to abortion restrictions. For rape, incest, the life of the mother and … Tim Murphy.

The avowedly antiabortion Pennsylvania congressman, who co-sponsored the 20-week ban bill that just passed the House and who has held forth on “honoring life from the moment of conception,” reportedly asked his mistress to get an abortion during a pregnancy false alarm last year.

Murphy is far from the first person caught practicing what he preaches against. He’s not even the first Republican congressman. In 2012, it surfaced that Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) supported his ex-wife when she ended two pregnancies and pressured a a patient — 24 years his junior — with whom he was having an affair to do the same. (He won reelection anyway.)

Face it: you're a tool of Republicans who are cynically manipulating you to get your vote.

It's never, ever been about the babiiees

You know a poster is nothing but a total bullsh!t artist when she maintains that only a woman is qualified to pontificate about intentionally & tortuously killing the innocent little human life naturally maturing inside her...

...but that she, a foreigner, is fully qualified to pontificate upon Americans her socialist, anti-Constitution ideals.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

 

[jaF0]

If only Mikey's Momma had partaken.

 

[cowslinger64]

Abortion freaks already talk like that.

I often wonder how they switch gears when it's time to talk to a friend or family member who is delighted about being pregnant.

"Oh! I see you have a delightful little collection of cells growing within you, congratulations!"

"I am so sorry that you miscarried that inconsequential collection of cells."

"Your collection of cells was stillborn? Did the cells collectively draw breath? Oh, good. For a minute there I thought you might have suffered a loss."

You abortion freaks do yourselves no favors using dehumanizing language in debate. It makes the contrast more stark and gains you no converts to your culture of convenience.

Abortion freaks? Really? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

You're reaching new lows lately there cueball.. Disappointingly so.


I believe in it being the decision of the person it involves... And certainly not a bunch of idiots like you, vette, AJ or eeyore.

It's legal too,BTW... And unless any of you dickheads have adopted a crack addicted baby or two, your useless horror for the "babies" fails miserably.