The Political Party

[mdwagner73]

---

John Ellis wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

John Ellis wrote:

---

yanktar wrote:

---

John Ellis wrote:

---

yanktar wrote:

---

John Ellis wrote:

---

yanktar wrote:

---

mauser wrote:
So we justify murdering unborn human beings because we're worried that they might be unwanted and unloved.

And by doing so, we demonstrate what, exactly?

That we love them?

---

Mauser:

Have you adopted an unwanted child?  Have you made a place in your heart and home and made such a child yours?

Or is it all just hot air?

---

 So......as these threads always go

It's back to who's gonna take care of it?

  How about the 2 shits that produced it?

---

"It"?  The child whose life is SO precious to you is an "it"?

So you're just another hypocrite who sits in judgement because it's no skin off your nose. 

Adoption has been an argument posed by "pro-lifers" for over 40 years, even before Roe v Wade  came down as THE alternative for pregnant women and girls who didn't or couldn't raise the child.  Now you show that was nothing but a straw man. 

Are you "pro-life" for born children, or just the unborn?

I notice my friend Mauser hasn't answered...

---

 Seems you pro death fucks will do anything to keep from explaining why it's the toughest decision a woman can make.

 But don't worry, I didn't expect you would or could. :wave

---

And I'm waiting to hear all you slavery fucks (because a woman's body belongs to someone but herself) tell us how many non-aborted unwanted pregnancies YOU have adopted!

Guessing Zero. 

---

  It's so easy to draw you away from abortion's supposed only reason.

 The woman's right to her own body.......

  We know what causes pregnancy and yet fail to hold the guilty accountable. 

 And as far as adoption, the fucking waiting list is extremely long and the process is bullshit.

 Many more would gladly adopt  'cept for that undeniable fact. 

---

LOL

The "guilty"?  Sex is not a crime.

Another pro-lifer who cares more about "punishing the guilty" than saving the life of an unborn fetus.

---

  You people are seriously demented.  But that's OK.  You have the law behind you.  lol

---

LOL

I'm sorry that life is so scary for you.

[nedezero1]

---

yanktar wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Belva wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Belva wrote:

---

Davo17 wrote:

---

---

---

A legal ruling does not change reality.

---

Almost every argument against it has it's base in religious beliefs. So those arguments are a direct slap in the face of the 1st Amendment. 

---

Then there's people like me that think putting one's own offspring to death in-utero is just a bad idea in general. 

Especially when it's done just as a form of convienient birth control. (which accounts for over 99% of abortions in the U.S.)

But hey....it's their choice right? (Just like using birth control, and not having sex is a choice, but we know they're completely helpless when it comes to those).

---

Big problem with that. This argument is that women should use some form of birth control to prevent pregnancy in the first place. Until I see proof that every woman, or even the majority of them, use abortion as birth control, the argument is fallacy. No form of birth control is 100% effective. 

---

The least frequent reasons women get abortions: Failed BC, rape, physical danger to the mother, immaculate conception.

The most comon reason: Too drunk and horny to worry about it.

---

Actually, failed birth control is a very common reason for abortion.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/11/report-shows-contraception-failure-54-used-before-abortion/

---

Yeah I've seen that before. Of course it doesn't take into account the number of women who claim they tried to use birth control and it failed, vs the ones who actually used it properly and it failed. Especially regarding condomns, since their failure rate is directly related to whether they're used or not.

Teenage girls especially are bad about forgetting to take their BC pill for days at a time. They would considered this failed BC in your link as well.

---

Well, I've presented an article that references a study supporting that "too drunk and horny to worry about it" is not the most common reason for abortion.  And you've countered that with your unsupported assumptions and opinions. 

I supposed people will just have to come their own conclusions about which is correct. 

---

Hearing it from Limbaugh and reactionary talk radio trumps verifiable facts anyday...if you're a RWNT.

---

Good god you're such a dumb menstrual cunt.

[yanktar]

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

yanktar wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Belva wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Belva wrote:

---

Davo17 wrote:

---

---

---

A legal ruling does not change reality.

---

Almost every argument against it has it's base in religious beliefs. So those arguments are a direct slap in the face of the 1st Amendment. 

---

Then there's people like me that think putting one's own offspring to death in-utero is just a bad idea in general. 

Especially when it's done just as a form of convienient birth control. (which accounts for over 99% of abortions in the U.S.)

But hey....it's their choice right? (Just like using birth control, and not having sex is a choice, but we know they're completely helpless when it comes to those).

---

Big problem with that. This argument is that women should use some form of birth control to prevent pregnancy in the first place. Until I see proof that every woman, or even the majority of them, use abortion as birth control, the argument is fallacy. No form of birth control is 100% effective. 

---

The least frequent reasons women get abortions: Failed BC, rape, physical danger to the mother, immaculate conception.

The most comon reason: Too drunk and horny to worry about it.

---

Actually, failed birth control is a very common reason for abortion.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/11/report-shows-contraception-failure-54-used-before-abortion/

---

Yeah I've seen that before. Of course it doesn't take into account the number of women who claim they tried to use birth control and it failed, vs the ones who actually used it properly and it failed. Especially regarding condomns, since their failure rate is directly related to whether they're used or not.

Teenage girls especially are bad about forgetting to take their BC pill for days at a time. They would considered this failed BC in your link as well.

---

Well, I've presented an article that references a study supporting that "too drunk and horny to worry about it" is not the most common reason for abortion.  And you've countered that with your unsupported assumptions and opinions. 

I supposed people will just have to come their own conclusions about which is correct. 

---

Hearing it from Limbaugh and reactionary talk radio trumps verifiable facts anyday...if you're a RWNT.

---

Good god you're such a dumb menstrual cunt.

---

Back to your calling people sexual names when your pwned again, NutZero?

You really, REALLY hate women you sick fucking pervert.

[mdwagner73]

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

John Ellis wrote:

---

Belva wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

---

---

---

---

---

The least frequent reasons women get abortions: Failed BC, rape, physical danger to the mother, immaculate conception.

The most comon reason: Too drunk and horny to worry about it.

---

Like I said, dipshit, prove it. Oh wait, you're too stoopid to understand what I said.

---

  Are you serious?  The stats don't lie. 

---

He's serious and stupid. Study after study proves the primary reason for abortion is personal convenience.

In other words....screw now...and worry about it later.

Why don't the ones so invested in killing the unborn just stand by their beliefs that abortion is just another form of birth control.

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=womensissues&cdn=newsissues&tm=10&f=00&tt=2...

---

However, study after study does NOT support your contention that the primary reason is too drunk and horny to worry about it.  In fact, over half of the women with unplanned pregnancies were using birth control.

I have no problem with calling abortion birth control.  I do, however, have a problem with your attempts to characterize the majority of the women who have had abortions as drunken, lazy sluts. 

[savoldi]

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

mauser wrote:
Savoldi: Holding an unpopular view doesn't make it wrong,

Murder is wrong, regardless of how many think it ok and regardless of how it's justified.

---

You say murder is wrong. At what point in a pregnancy would you consider it to be murder?

---

He has to say conception. That makes miscarriage involuntary homicide. Shouldn't have driven over that pothole, girls.

[Belva]

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

---

---

Actually, failed birth control is a very common reason for abortion.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/11/report-shows-contraception-failure-54-used-before-abortion/

---

Yeah I've seen that before. Of course it doesn't take into account the number of women who claim they tried to use birth control and it failed, vs the ones who actually used it properly and it failed. Especially regarding condomns, since their failure rate is directly related to whether they're used or not.

Teenage girls especially are bad about forgetting to take their BC pill for days at a time. They would considered this failed BC in your link as well.

---

Once again, dipshit, come up with some proof.

[Belva]

Oh and BTW you pro-lifers, prove that a fetus is a human being before it's born.

[John Ellis]

---

Belva wrote:
Oh and BTW you pro-lifers, prove that a fetus is a human being before it's born.

---

 What the fuck is it? Canine?

 The DNA shows up human.

[Mr.NiceGuy]

Who'da thunk it. Ugly business brings out the ugly in it's defenders.

Ghouls.

[John Ellis]

---

Belva wrote:
Oh and BTW you pro-lifers, prove that a fetus is a human being before it's born.

---

BTW I've never heard of anyone stupid enough to question that. The issue is that of a right to life.

[thankyou]

---

Belva wrote:

---

The Badger wrote:

---

Agreed, Belva, but that doesn't stop the anti-abortion folks from trying to overthrow that decision. Heck, it could have been written into the main body of the Constitution and some folks would still try to get rid of it.

---

Kinda like the 2nd amendment?

---

The 2nd Amendment is not in the main body of the Constitution, it's an amendment.

[John Ellis]

  So.....what makes this the hardest decision that a woman will ever make, or will the rest of you concur with badger? 

[The Badger]

---

John Ellis wrote:

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

mauser wrote:
Savoldi: Holding an unpopular view doesn't make it wrong,

Murder is wrong, regardless of how many think it ok and regardless of how it's justified.

And how, exactly, do you define "murder?"

---

You say murder is wrong. At what point in a pregnancy would you consider it to be murder?

One might define "foetal murder" as the point of foetal viability, where the unborn foetus could be expected to live and develop normally outside the womb. However, gaging foetal age and the point of foetal viability are both inexact sciences, so it is impossible to say when "removal of a genetically human parasite" becomes "murder."

---

  My opinion would be at any point that action is taken to terminate. Prevention is not that hard.

Okay, so we'll "terminate" your mother's pregnancy at the 2,350th week, or thereabouts.

Yes, "prevention is not that hard." However, "prevention" only works if you use it. And "prevention" has been known to fail -- nothing works 100% of the time and some of those little sperm critters are awfully determined.

Further, "prevention" does not prevent genetic defects, threats to the mother's health, natural pre-natal foetal death or a host of other reasons for having an abortion. There is far more to abortion than just some fashion model teen queen saying, "I like sex, but I don't want to ruin my figure, so I'll have it out."

If you deny medically necessary theraputic abortions solely on the basis of "murder-for-convenience," you may as well turn us all into radical charismatic Christian Scientists and deny all forms of medical care except prayer.

[John Ellis]

  I do not agree with denying termination if the life of the mother is threatened. Yes, sometimes birth control does fail  but very very rarely. 

 But since the unborn has been determined to not be human in this thread.

 What makes this the hardest decision a woman will ever make?

[The Badger]

---

stratosaurus wrote:

---

The Badger wrote:

... People are most interested in meddling in things by which they are least affected?

When it comes to abortion, Right To Life, "Christian" organizations and other largely male-run organizations should just shut up. Or better still, try to find workable solutions to the problem, rather than dictating what a woman can do with her own body.

---

Given that logic, why are you trying to meddle in & tell Christian what they should be meddling in & interfering with?

---

One may say what ever one wishes, but un-involved and unconcerned third parties should not dictate personal freedom or medical decisions on the basis of their personal religious opinions. Christians and Anti-Abortion "pro-lifers" may wave all the signs they wish and shout slogans until they're hoarse, but they are not allowed to block the doors to the womens' health clinic because they suspect abortions may occasionally be performed within.

---

John Ellis wrote:

  So.....what makes this the hardest decision that a woman will ever make, or will the rest of you concur with badger? 

---

 Since you insist on asking that question, the answer is given below.

---

John Ellis wrote:

---

yanktar wrote:

Yeah, the gun-totin' Obama-hatin' RWNTs assume every woman who wants an abortion is a lazy irresponsible slut who deserves a lifetime of raising a child she doesn't want as her punishment for being a slut.

Then, when the kid gets in trouble because there's no father around and the mother didn't want to be a mother, they will blame the kid, the mother, the missing father, and, of course, that oldie but goodie..."Those people!" (meaning people of another race, culture and/or religion).

Then they'll listen to their favorite fat termites like Rush Limbaugh and (now dead) Jerry Falwell with their smug smiles and knowledge THEY don't have to face what "those people" do!

---

 Once again, what does the impact on society have to do with the woman's choice? 

And why is it considered the hardest choice a woman will ever make? 

---

I'd have thought you would have sussed that part out already, John.

Abortion is "the hardest choice a woman will ever make" (short of having to "pull the plug" on an irrecoverably brain-dead child) because there is no clear "better" choice.

• If she choses to continue the pregnancy and give birth to the child, she will be responsible for his or her feeding, clothing, sheltering, education and general well being for the rest of her life. That's an awful lot of responsibility for a quick roll in the sheets, particularly when the guy who got her pregnant loved her and left her. Or raped her and left her, as the case may be.
• If the "woman" is a teenage girl, having a baby more or less eliminates every other choice she might have, from a good relationship and eventual marriage to further education to simply being able to go out for an evening without having to worry about the baby. How'd you feel if you were suddenly stuck with an unwanted child you can't afford and have no way of caring for, at an age when you are not yet fully an adult?
• If she choses to give up the child for adoption, she will forever wonder what happened to him or her. Is he/she being properly cared for? Getting all the love and attention he/she needs? Getting the advantages of a stable, financially secure parents? Will the child suddenly reappear, some day, wanting to "get to know" mother?
• If she choses to have an abortion, the woman will be haunted by the "What Ifs?" Should she have had the abortion? What if she denied someone who may potentially have been another Leonardo DaVinci. Or another Hitler. (According to Paul Harvey's "More Of The Rest Of The Story," both DaVin'ci's and Hitler's mothers got dispensations from the Catholic Church to have abortions and did not go through with it.) And will she miss the love and affection of the child she will not bear and never know?

That's what makes having an abortion a difficult choice, John. But it is her choice to make; no one -- not even you -- should be allowed to make the choice for her by religious or political fiat. Especially if you have no intention of any involvement in raising the child, or worse, you are going to make life miserable for "unwed welfare mothers and their bastard kids."

[The Badger]

---

John Ellis wrote:

---

Belva wrote:
Oh and BTW you pro-lifers, prove that a fetus is a human being before it's born.

---

 What the fuck is it? Canine?

 The DNA shows up human.

---

So's cancer. What's your point? That people should not be allowed to have something removed from their bodies because "the DNA shows human?"

[John Ellis]

  So....let me get this straight

 The child is better off dead than her having to wonder whether the adoptive parents are taking care of it?

  I'm dreaming right?

 You explained the classic example of abortion for convenience and to me it's reprehensible. 

[John Ellis]

---

The Badger wrote:

---

John Ellis wrote:

---

Belva wrote:
Oh and BTW you pro-lifers, prove that a fetus is a human being before it's born.

---

 What the fuck is it? Canine?

 The DNA shows up human.

---

So's cancer. What's your point? That people should not be allowed to have something removed from their bodies because "the DNA shows human?"

---

 That wasn't his question was it?

[Hoppy Shimko]

---

John Ellis wrote:

  So....let me get this straight

 The child is better off dead than her having to wonder whether the adoptive parents are taking care of it?

  I'm dreaming right?

 You explained the classic example of abortion for convenience and to me it's reprehensible. 

---

 Your opinion doesn't factor into the decision. As repulsed as you may be, it isn't your concern.

[The Badger]

---

John Ellis wrote:

---

Belva wrote:
Oh and BTW you pro-lifers, prove that a fetus is a human being before it's born.

---

BTW I've never heard of anyone stupid enough to question that. The issue is that of a right to life.

---

The problem, Mister Ellis, is that your main objection to abortion rests on the argument that the foetus is human, or at least that "its DNA tests human." But rather than that, you first attack Belva with a classic argumentum ad hominem circumstantial -- you can't argue the point, so  you attack the person in an attempt to defeat the point. Then you switch the course of the argument with a lovely red herring in the form of "the issue is that to a right to life." Your declaration avoids the question of "Prove that a fetus is a human being before it's born" by trying to change the subject to "right to life," which was not the original challenge.