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

[WoundedKnee]

Always happy to hear about my country from our overseas friends.

 

[cowslinger64]

No you didn't. Hell, read any lefty think piece about how that trope had racist undertones and had lots to do why crack offenses versus cocaine were over-crimilized and led to the escalation of the drug war in black communities leading to hire incarceration rates. The left isn't wrong about that.

crack babies is the 1980's version of Reefer Madness. It does not exist the way you are expressing it. There are concerns I will certainly wouldn't recommend ingesting any for pregnant women, but the documented instance of -suspected- effect are in fact relatively low and of mild to moderate impact. and just as I explained and you ignored there's no way to tell how much of that had to do with the biology of the mother and the environment that they were undoubtedly raised in if they were raised by an addicted mother.

They're excellent pieces in the New York Times and the Atlantic neither of which have bias that you would object to.

Yes, I did. I don't think enough of you to lie. And how nice of you to turn it into politics. You're wrong qbert. It's not the first time, won't be the last.

 

[about_average]

No he's saying people who believe in a right to privacy and a totally funded and unregulated medical procedures.....ONLY believe in those things if it's a pregnant woman wanting an abortion.

It's a tiny minority of people, so small a number it's not worth considering, who want unregulated abortions. Probably only a slightly larger number who want abortions totally funded who also don't want universal health care.

Except hard right conservatives like Pence, they want unregulated abortions, just not funded.

Otherwise you want your nanny state alllllllll up in everyones bidnizz micromanaging as much as possible.

Where did I say that?

Obamacare is the greatest ever remember???

No, I don't remember that. In fact the ACA pretty much sucks, but for millions it was a helluva lot better than what they had before, which was nothing, or only insurance for certain things.

What part of the 14th amendment guarantees a right to an abortion? Much less one funded by taxpayers??

Well, I never said it guarantees funding by the state. It's up to states to decide if they are funded my the state.
"The State" as in the feds are prohibited from funding abortions.

 

[about_average]

So the " right " of a woman to kill babies has no effect on the population?

No, it does, and that's why 99.9% of women who intentionally or neglectfully kill babies go to prison for murder.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Always happy to hear about my country from our overseas friends.

I suppose a search of your posts wouldn't produce a single critique of another country.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I do sentences just fine, lardass.

If you had a single ounce of brain in your empty head, you would have felt the same about qberts ridiculous post.

Ahhh gotta start in with the lies, typical Cowslinger.

Apparently not.....did you not read what I quoted or are you too stupid to recognize it??

Why? I didn't see him mauling the English language while trying to be a total cunt to everyone else.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's a tiny minority of people.

Bunch of them right here on lit.

Except hard right conservatives like Pence, they want unregulated abortions, just not funded.

I though they wanted prohibition.

Where did I say that?

You don't support "progressive" left wing/(D) ideas???

You don't want "sensible" regulation over everything???

No, I don't remember that. In fact the ACA pretty much sucks,

OMG....why do you hate black people???

Obamacare is the greatest, now say it or you're a Nazi.

Well, I never said it guarantees funding by the state.

Ok so then there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the states from managing their own abortion laws right?

 

[Que]

Yes, I did. I don't think enough of you to lie. And how nice of you to turn it into politics. You're wrong qbert. It's not the first time, won't be the last.

You are saying you actually -did- read anything about the racist crack baby myth, yet still believe it is not a myth?

Well, bless your heart.

When you speak of "reading," you do realize that reading involves more than moving your lips and silently "sounding out" the words in your head? It's important to assemble those words into a sense of meaning within your head in a process that we call comprehension.

 

[RocketLauncher]

*I* know if you want to argue for sterilizing addicts on general principles I'm with you right there because women who are making those kinds of bad choices tend to have children who make those kinds of bad choices and you can argue with that's nurture or nature but it can't be a good environment.

You support forced sterilization? That surprises and disappoints me a little.

 

[Que]

You support forced sterilization? That surprises and disappoints me a little.

He favors terminating the pregnancies of women who have made some unfortunate life choices and used crack while pregnant based on a myth that those (predominently black) children will have no value to society and will be a burden.

I'm saying the in utero exposure is a lower risk factor than the poverty that goes along with addiction. I am not calling for involuntary sterilization. Voluntary sterilization of the impoverish would make a lot more sense than simply scaring them into aborting their children in order to help enrich the industrial abortion complex.

Obviously, a better approach would be to simply help the pregnant addicts get appropriate medical treatment for their addiction to improve the odds of them giving birth to happy healthy productive citizens.

Healthy babies are born to heroin addicts these days with appropriate medical treatment. It is less than ideal and the babies do suffer withdrawal when born but a mother on methadone can deliver a healthy child.

I just watched such a brave mother of a happy, healthy 6 month old daughter and 5 year old son who had weaned down to 5 mg / day of methadone before I met her go cold turkey in order to not be as disruptive of her children with necessary daily visits to a methadone clinic.

For mothers and prospective mothers I have tge utmost respect. I heap no derision on those who have made the hard choice for abortion, and what little contact I have had with that has involved a lot of sober reflection and regret.

I have absolutely zero respect for people who talk about human life as if it is meaningless and who talk with glee about an abhorrent, painful practice that should be absolutely unnecessary in modern society. Tubal ligation is available; tubal ligation is reversible.

I chalk up the comments made by such people to a lack of empathy, a lack of scientific understanding and an absence of any sense of morality.

 

[about_average]

Bunch of them right here on lit.

A "bunch" on lit are still a tiny fraction of the US population

I though they wanted prohibition.

You think prohibiting will make them not happen? Abortions will continue, they just won't be regulated.

You don't support "progressive" left wing/(D) ideas???

You don't want "sensible" regulation over everything???

I support ideas that make sense and don't control consenting adults, regardless of who proposes them.

Ok so then there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the states from managing their own abortion laws right?

Not when it comes to funding, as I said.

 

[BotanyBoy]

A "bunch" on lit are still a tiny fraction of the US population

I don't think the part of the population that goes all Libertarian with a big capital L when it comes to Abortions, but is otherwise a bunch of statist control freaks when it comes to shit THEY want controlled.... is as small as you're trying to make it.

The state of California is fucking FILLED with them.

You think prohibiting will make them not happen? Abortions will continue, they just won't be regulated.

No, that's why I don't favor prohibition of any kind....liberal = pro liberty. If it's not presenting an eminent public threat or infringing upon others liberty it should be 100% LEGAL.

Is prohibition not a form or regulation?

I support ideas that make sense and don't control consenting adults, regardless of who proposes them.

You either support regulation or you don't.....regulation = controlling consenting adults.

Not when it comes to funding, as I said.

So then where is this part of the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion?

Can you even point out a court case where such a thing was affirmed?

 

[WoundedKnee]

I suppose a search of your posts wouldn't produce a single critique of another country.

GO for it big dog. COME AT ME BRO!!!

 

[RocketLauncher]

I'm saying the in utero exposure is a lower risk factor than the poverty that goes along with addiction. I am not calling for involuntary sterilization. Voluntary sterilization of the impoverish would make a lot more sense than simply scaring them into aborting their children in order to help enrich the industrial abortion complex.

Obviously, a better approach would be to simply help the pregnant addicts get appropriate medical treatment for their addiction to improve the odds of them giving birth to happy healthy productive citizens.

I have absolutely zero respect for people who talk about human life as if it is meaningless and who talk with glee about an abhorrent, painful practice that should be absolutely unnecessary in modern society. Tubal ligation is available; tubal ligation is reversible.

Some of the blame has to lie with the fathers if we're talking voluntary sterilization shouldn't we be looking at vasectomies which are less expensive, less invasive and much more easily reversible than tubal ligation?
All this is a moot point if the resources were available for addicts to treat the underlying cause of addiction which is generally self medication or poverty. Rat parks, right?
Shocked me for a moment thought you were advocating eugenics, you seem far too intelligent for that line of thinking.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Some of the blame has to lie with the fathers

Then you're going to have to grant them some legal authority over the uterus.

Otherwise you're holding them accountable for something they have no control over....which is bullshit.

 

[Que]

Some of the blame has to lie with the fathers if we're talking voluntary sterilization shouldn't we be looking at vasectomies which are less expensive, less invasive and much more easily reversible than tubal ligation?
All this is a moot point if the resources were available for addicts to treat the underlying cause of addiction which is generally self medication or poverty. Rat parks, right?
Shocked me for a moment thought you were advocating eugenics, you seem far too intelligent for that line of thinking.

Fathers cant get pregnant. All it takes is one unsterilized, irresponsible "man" running around the community to get all of the resident, sexually active women pregnant.

Actually I abhor eugenics as generally suggested on the idea that we have no idea where the great human being will be born.

I've worked with a lot of addicts the last couple of years and I can tend to agree with the theory that there's a lot of self-medication going on. Addicts seem to gravitate towards the drugs that are somewhat in the family that would make sense for them to have prescribed. For example I noticed ADHD people abusing stimulants.

It's a fallacy though that there isn't more than enough treatment money out there. I'm not a pile that where that money is going and how it's being allocated and we could certainly allocated better but for the most part if you're an addict and you're looking to not be an addict there are more than adequate fully funded government programs that will get you a counselor group meetings medication if needed housing Medical Care Transportation and social activities all on the government dime. You don't have to have a job all you have to do is from time to time go to their suggested job fairs put in an effort.

my view on this is probably somewhat skewed because by definition I'm not really bumping into semi functioning addicts who are able to hold down a job. The sort of addicts who really can't hold down a job offer and have comorbidity with other underlying conditions which are actually severe mental illnesses. some of that stuff though is chicken and egg it's hard to tell whether heavy drug use triggered the schizophrenia or whether the schizophrenia let them too risky life situations which led them into a life of drugs.

Poverty is not the cause of anything. It is a symptom. It's also a choice in that is tge result of an entire series of bad choices. choosing to muddle through what passes for public education is really not that difficult. Finding gainful employment that may not be all that interesting or fulfilling is not that difficult. getting up when you don't want to or don't feel like it and going to a not fulfilling job is obviously not fulfilling but not that difficult. The number one reason that people lose jobs is absenteeism. Some of that has to do with drug and alcohol use but most of it is just plain laziness.

 

[RocketLauncher]

Then you're going to have to grant them some legal authority over the uterus.

Otherwise you're holding them accountable for something they have no control over....which is bullshit.

I agree. It takes two to tango. What if the father decides he wants the child and his willing to raise it himself independent of the mother? He should have rights.

 

[cowslinger64]

You are saying you actually -did- read anything about the racist crack baby myth, yet still believe it is not a myth?

Well, bless your heart.

When you speak of "reading," you do realize that reading involves more than moving your lips and silently "sounding out" the words in your head? It's important to assemble those words into a sense of meaning within your head in a process that we call comprehension.

I'm smarter than you qbert. I work a highly skilled job and make 5 to 10 times what you make as a disabled message board troll.

If you're going to talk down to someone.. Find someone dumber, like vette or botanydummy.

For the record, I did read multiple articles regarding the subject, as I'd said. You're full of shit. Argument over.

 

[RocketLauncher]

Fathers cant get pregnant. All it takes is one unsterilized, irresponsible "man" running around the community to get all of the resident, sexually active women pregnant.

My point exactly about vasectomy. It only takes one bull to impregnate an entire herd.
It's not only impoverished drug addicts that seek out abortions. Many wealthy women use it as a form of birth control because they can afford it and don't want to have to deal with the weight increase associated with the pill or make their husbands wear rubbers. Wealthy men too have paid for abortions for their mistresses to avoid embarrassment. If the argument is about government sanctioned abortions then yes, the more impoverished will go that route. If it's a debate about abortion in general then one needs to avoid villifying the poor.
I guess I better get my lazy ass over to the how to board to figure out how to post multiple quotes in one message string.
Btw anyone know what those strange envelopes with the purple "stars" are beside certain threads?

 

[Que]

I'm smarter than you qbert. I work a highly skilled job and make 5 to 10 times what you make as a disabled message board troll.

If you're going to talk down to someone.. Find someone dumber, like vette or botanydummy.

For the record, I did read multiple articles regarding the subject, as I'd said. You're full of shit. Argument over.

"You're full of shit" is not even the opening for an argument much less the end of an argument.

If you would actually read and understood any of those articles, and I was actually wrong you wouldn't have no difficulty whatsoever pointing out how it is that I'm wrong.

"For the record" we aren't actually keeping formal records here.

 

[Que]

My point exactly about vasectomy. It only takes one bull to impregnate an entire herd.
It's not only impoverished drug addicts that seek out abortions. Many wealthy women use it as a form of birth control because they can afford it and don't want to have to deal with the weight increase associated with the pill or make their husbands wear rubbers. Wealthy men too have paid for abortions for their mistresses to avoid embarrassment. If the argument is about government sanctioned abortions then yes, the more impoverished will go that route. If it's a debate about abortion in general then one needs to avoid villifying the poor.
I guess I better get my lazy ass over to the how to board to figure out how to post multiple quotes in one message string.
Btw anyone know what those strange envelopes with the purple "stars" are beside certain threads?

Simply click the little, narrow button with (") to the right of the quote button on each of the posts that you want to multi quote before you hit the quote on the last of the post that you want to include

 

[RocketLauncher]

Simply click the little, narrow button with (") to the right of the quote button on each of the posts that you want to multi quote before you hit the quote on the last of the post that you want to include

Lol thanks for enabling my lazy ass

 

[BotanyBoy]

I agree. It takes two to tango. What if the father decides he wants the child and his willing to raise it himself independent of the mother? He should have rights.

Nope, mom is the gatekeeper of her own body as it should be.

After birth is totally different story.

 

[BobBalouski]

"the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them"

"all [human life] is created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain alienable rights, that among these are life"

"to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men"

"whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it"

This is the foundational essence of America's revolutionary political principles that place natural, God-given individual rights ABOVE the purview of government, and which constitutes government to first protect, defend and guarantee those natural, God-given individual rights...

...and if government fails in that, its foremost duty, then so much more nourishment for the tree of Liberty.

If one rejects the Creator outright, rejects His natural law, His equal entitlement/endowment to all, then there is no longer a higher power to credit individual rights as unalienable, outside the reach of government, and thus it is man himself who then becomes god, who decides what other men are entitled to and/or endowed with, who decide what "rights" other men may not or may have, all the way to literally and intentionally killing the inalienable right to life itself...

Just like Jews on Good Friday.

 

[Boxlicker101]

*I* should do some research on the subject? All you're doing is repeating discredited hysteria from decades ago. cocaine does pass cross the placenta but it is a reuptake inhibitor. Essentially, what it does is increase the levels of your natural brain chemistry because it's squelches the reuptake of those that's why you feel high.

First trimester is when obstetricians worried most about exposure to drugs. It's thought that it does impact brain development but no one can find a specific consistent tesult. Multiple studies though are unable to confirm the mechanism or if it even exists. studies that have followed children who have been exposed in utero have found that any possible effects were mild to moderate. Nothing like the hysteria behind the crack babies trope. know if you want to argue for sterilizing addicts on general principles I'm with you right there because women who are making those kinds of bad choices tend to have children who make those kinds of bad choices and you can argue with that's nurture or nature but it can't be a good environment.

Fetal alcohol syndrome is a far more prevalent and well-documented syndrome then your imaginary crack baby syndrome.

if you're actually interested in the subject you read about it. If you're not shut the fuk up because you don't know what you're talking about.

The problems of crack babies do exist, but they are not as bad as they were expected to be thirty or so years ago. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicati...cocaine/what-are-effects-maternal-cocaine-use

Babies born to mothers who use cocaine during pregnancy are often prematurely delivered, have low birth weights and smaller head circumferences, and are shorter in length than babies born to mothers who do not use cocaine.26,29,30 Dire predictions of reduced intelligence and social skills in babies born to mothers who used crack cocaine while pregnant during the 1980s—so-called "crack babies"—were grossly exaggerated. However, the fact that most of these children do not show serious overt deficits should not be overinterpreted to indicate that there is no cause for concern.

Using sophisticated technologies, scientists are now finding that exposure to cocaine during fetal development may lead to subtle, yet significant, later deficits in some children.31,32 These include behavior problems (e.g., difficulties with self-regulation) and deficits in some aspects of cognitive performance, information processing, and sustained attention to tasks—abilities that are important for the realization of a child’s full potential.32,33 Some deficits persist into the later years, with prenatally exposed adolescents showing increased risk for subtle problems with language and memory.34 Brain scans in teens suggests that at-rest functioning of some brain regions—including areas involved in attention, planning, and language—may differ from that of non-exposed peers.35 More research is needed on the long-term effects of prenatal cocaine exposure.