Sex strike

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do not support abortion for any reason that pops into someone's head.

I do. I don't care what the circumstances leading to an unwanted pregnancy are. If the mother doesn't want a live birth, she should terminate the pregnancy.

Use multiple forms of BC or use a product that is not prone to breaking.

Abortion is the last defense against an unwanted pregnancy, and should be available if needed.

This does not seem realistic in a 1st world nation with public education. Beside this would be the parent's problem

It is realistic. It's exactly what happened in the Palin family.

I do not know much about her after McCain.

What you should know about her preceded McCain. She was governor of Alaska, and a prominent advocate of abstinence only teaching. Her daughter became a pregnant teenager anyway. That's the lesson. Abstinence-only advice routinely fails. Prepubescent children agree to it, and when the first rush of hormones consume them, they forget all of that and have unprotected sex. You can set your watch by it.

Do not want a child, avoid sex. Problem solved.

Do not want a child but do want sex, get pregnant, have an abortion. No problem. Sorry if that offends you, but not offending people who want to run the lives of others according to their own moral values is not a high priority.

I do not agree nor support religion centered arguments.

Then what is your basis for opposing abortion on demand? Anti-choice is a religious position for most people taking it. Your not going to find a lot of secular humanists protesting Planned Parenthood clinics or signing abortion-limiting legislation into law as has just occurred in Alabama and I believe Georgia. That's a Christian thing predominantly.

Who made the decision to have sex? Individual, church or state?

Irrelevant. The point is, who gets to decide if the pregnancy goes to term or is aborted.

Why are the later involved in abortion when not involved in the first choice?

Neither the church nor the state should be involved in the decision to continue or abort any unwanted pregnancy. The state can fund the procedure if financial support is necessary, just as it might with any other medical procedure.

Cost isn't an issue for me. It is who pays for the stupidity of other people.

We all do, all of the time. Who paid for George Bush's pointlessly invading Iraq? Who paid for all of those investigations of Hillary's emails? Who bailed out the banking industry? Who funds the Medicare costs of smokers with lung cancer? Who's underwriting the devastation in America caused by global warming?

Government's role isn't to protect stupid people from the repercussions of their actions.

The American government's role is to, "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Funding the abortion of an unwanted pregnancy when needed is consistent with that mission statement.

When will government provide me with free services if my loans are over my head?

"Free" (in the sense of no charge other than taxes) government services are available to you now. How much was tuition at your children's public school? What was the charge the last time you needed the police or fire department? How much do you pay in tolls driving to the market?

Do not want a kid? Do not have sex. Simple really.

Then that should be how you live your life. Others may have other values and priorities. Why is this an issue for you? Why is it your concern? As I indicated before, the entire issue for me is who decides. For me, that's the pregnant woman, and I have no opinion about the choice she makes.

 

[Koldo]

Jolly good.

No but it happens, .but keep your eyes shut and it will magically disappear.

Sure it happens, just like homicide and rape. So what ?

1 Who said if was commendable? Oh you put it in there for sake of argument... Ok, have fun with that.

Read your post again and let it sink in: "Throughout history extremely poor families have had children, think yourself lucky they have, the human race has survived."

2 who is saying its good? Oh you put it in there for sake of argument... Ok, again

You were replying a post that said poor people shouldn't have children they can't support and you have said that many poor people need to have children to survive. Did you say that for absolutely no good reason ?

If so, I apologize. I interpreted you meant it as supporting some sort of argument.

3 read some biology and psychology papers to see how important it is for diversity. And of course it was relevant to the question i answered. I dont suppose you bothered reading that

Oh my...
Are you going to play the biology card now just like him ? David Hume would be really interested in someone refuting his is-ought problem. I am afraid he is no longer alive but please go ahead.

 

[Shiranui117]

I do. I don't care what the circumstances leading to an unwanted pregnancy are. If the mother doesn't want a live birth, she should terminate the pregnancy.

Abortion is the last defense against an unwanted pregnancy, and should be available if needed.

Do not want a child but do want sex, get pregnant, have an abortion. No problem. Sorry if that offends you, but not offending people who want to run the lives of others according to their own moral values is not a high priority.

Then what is your basis for opposing abortion on demand? Anti-choice is a religious position for most people taking it. Your not going to find a lot of secular humanists protesting Planned Parenthood clinics or signing abortion-limiting legislation into law as has just occurred in Alabama and I believe Georgia. That's a Christian thing predominantly.

Abortion is not contraception. It is killing a living human being. If a living human being is not entitled to legal rights and protections under the law, then what does that say about civil rights for the rest of us? You already have people starting to say that live-born babies or babies that are ready to breach are also fair game for abortion (read: infanticide).

The main problem is there is no clear agreement in this country on when biological humans "cross the finish line" so to speak and receive legal rights and protections, the same as any toddler or adult. You have many states where if someone causes the death of the mother and the unborn child, it is considered double homicide, yet that same pregnant woman would be perfectly entitled to go abort that same unborn child. Here we see two conflicting standards about whether the unborn is deemed a legal person under American law or not--in one case it is, in the other case it isn't. And things only get murkier as you continue to cross state lines.

If you don't want a pregnancy, use contraception. I can sympathize with people who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest, and it's appalling to me that we apparently now have a case where an 11-year-old girl is pregnant, and I'm willing to keep having a conversation about those extreme outlier cases. But to treat abortion as regular old contraception like some people seem to be is quite simply monstrous. Taking a human being and ripping its limbs off before crushing the skull or killing it by bathing it in acid would be viewed as a most barbaric murder under any circumstances--unless that human hasn't been born yet, in which case we magically decide it's perfectly fine for reasons I cannot comprehend. Even leaving religion out of it altogether and just sticking to pure biology. Even if we do consider assisted suicide via humane means an equivalent to abortion at the other end of the human life cycle.

Then that should be how you live your life. Others may have other values and priorities. Why is this an issue for you? Why is it your concern? As I indicated before, the entire issue for me is who decides. For me, that's the pregnant woman, and I have no opinion about the choice she makes.

We as a society, men and women, tell women how to treat their children all the time and we constantly have opinions about their choices. It's the very reasons we have child abuse and neglect laws. I don't see why the same shouldn't be true for women who had sex irresponsibly and then decided they didn't like the consequences. "You don't want this baby? We either kill it now or kill it later in the electric chair." I'm not sure how we came to view the unborn with such misanthropy and anti-natalism.

Again, I'm willing to keep having the conversation about women and girls who were raped or are victims of incest, and I'm willing to discuss the most humane way to remove what would otherwise be a stillborn child (i.e. not the barbaric abortion procedures we use for such cases today). But abortion as plain old contraception? I can't imagine how one could hold living human beings in such contempt. We need to establish at the Constitutional level at what point human beings are entitled to all the legal rights and protections that we have enshrined in our Constitution and our body of law. Because right now the goalposts are constantly shifting, and you have many in the pro-abortion crowd who reject the biological science of when human life begins.

 

[Polymath257]

Abortion is not contraception. It is killing a living human being. If a living human being is not entitled to legal rights and protections under the law, then what does that say about civil rights for the rest of us? You already have people starting to say that live-born babies or babies that are ready to breach are also fair game for abortion (read: infanticide).

I don't have the right to take over another person's body and neither does a fetus. Even *if* you think the fetus deserves to be labeled a 'person', it is *still* the case that the fetus is taking over the body of another person. if that person wants the fetus removed, she has an absolute right to have that done. Period.

The main problem is there is no clear agreement in this country on when biological humans "cross the finish line" so to speak and receive legal rights and protections, the same as any toddler or adult. You have many states where if someone causes the death of the mother and the unborn child, it is considered double homicide, yet that same pregnant woman would be perfectly entitled to go abort that same unborn child. Here we see two conflicting standards about whether the unborn is deemed a legal person under American law or not--in one case it is, in the other case it isn't. And things only get murkier as you continue to cross state lines.

First, I disagree that it should be labeled a double homicide. But yes, that woman has complete rights to have an embryo or fetus removed from her body. Let's put it another way. The fetus or embryo does not have the right to enslave the woman.

If you don't want a pregnancy, use contraception. I can sympathize with people who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest, and it's appalling to me that we apparently now have a case where an 11-year-old girl is pregnant, and I'm willing to keep having a conversation about those extreme outlier cases. But to treat abortion as regular old contraception like some people seem to be is quite simply monstrous. Taking a human being and ripping its limbs off before crushing the skull or killing it by bathing it in acid would be viewed as a most barbaric murder under any circumstances--unless that human hasn't been born yet, in which case we magically decide it's perfectly fine for reasons I cannot comprehend. Even leaving religion out of it altogether and just sticking to pure biology. Even if we do consider assisted suicide via humane means an equivalent to abortion at the other end of the human life cycle.

Contraception fails. I agree that ordinary contraceptive measures should be the first line of prevention of unwanted pregnancies. In fact, it is a sad state of affairs that our children aren't better educated about the different methods. But, every method fails at some rate. Abortion should be an option for that reason alone.

We as a society, men and women, tell women how to treat their children all the time and we constantly have opinions about their choices. It's the very reasons we have child abuse and neglect laws. I don't see why the same shouldn't be true for women who had sex irresponsibly and then decided they didn't like the consequences. "You don't want this baby? We either kill it now or kill it later in the electric chair." I'm not sure how we came to view the unborn with such misanthropy and anti-natalism.

If we were able to keep an embryo alive outside of a womb, you might have a point. But we can't. And, again, the woman has an absolute right to have an intruder removed from her body.

Again, I'm willing to keep having the conversation about women and girls who were raped or are victims of incest, and I'm willing to discuss the most humane way to remove what would otherwise be a stillborn child (i.e. not the barbaric abortion procedures we use for such cases today). But abortion as plain old contraception? I can't imagine how one could hold living human beings in such contempt. We need to establish at the Constitutional level at what point human beings are entitled to all the legal rights and protections that we have enshrined in our Constitution and our body of law. Because right now the goalposts are constantly shifting, and you have many in the pro-abortion crowd who reject the biological science of when human life begins.

Well, an embryo is not a fully developed human. I see no problem at all it removing it, even from a moral perspective. Once it becomes a fetus and starts to develop some aspects of the higher brain functioning, I do think there is a moral aspect to this. But, again, even if you want to grant full rights to a fetus, it still does not have the right to take over another person's body. At the very least, the woman has the right to have the fetus removed. it you want to then place it in an incubator, there is a discussion to be had.

 

[Shiranui117]

I don't have the right to take over another person's body and neither does a fetus. Even *if* you think the fetus deserves to be labeled a 'person', it is *still* the case that the fetus is taking over the body of another person. if that person wants the fetus removed, she has an absolute right to have that done. Period.

Children take over the finances of their parents. Should parents be able to throw their kids onto the street because they don't want to have a parasite leeching all their finances?

First, I disagree that it should be labeled a double homicide. But yes, that woman has complete rights to have an embryo or fetus removed from her body. Let's put it another way. The fetus or embryo does not have the right to enslave the woman.

In what world does someone think to say that children enslave their parents, other than as a joke?

Contraception fails. I agree that ordinary contraceptive measures should be the first line of prevention of unwanted pregnancies. In fact, it is a sad state of affairs that our children aren't better educated about the different methods. But, every method fails at some rate. Abortion should be an option for that reason alone.

I agree. I was privileged to go to a school that taught us abstinence first, but if you're gonna do it, then put on a condom or get an insert.

If we were able to keep an embryo alive outside of a womb, you might have a point. But we can't.

Then perhaps we should be developing that technology to make abortion an obsolete procedure.

And, again, the woman has an absolute right to have an intruder removed from her body.

So babies are intruders now? What timeline are we living in where this is a socially acceptable thing to say about an innocent human child?

Well, an embryo is not a fully developed human.

Neither are kids and young adults before their mid-20's. This is why the "It's just a clump of cells" argument makes no sense from a biological perspective.

I see no problem at all it removing it, even from a moral perspective. Once it becomes a fetus and starts to develop some aspects of the higher brain functioning, I do think there is a moral aspect to this.

So let's say you have free reign to amend the Constitution by yourself in order to add an amendment about at what point in the human life cycle a human becomes a legal person with rights and protections. At what point in the pregnancy (or even after birth) would you place that line?

 

[Polymath257]

Children take over the finances of their parents. Should parents be able to throw their kids onto the street because they don't want to have a parasite leeching all their finances?

Finances are very different than taking over someone's body.

In what world does someone think to say that children enslave their parents, other than as a joke?

In this context, it is not a joke.

I agree. I was privileged to go to a school that taught us abstinence first, but if you're gonna do it, then put on a condom or get an insert.

Then perhaps we should be developing that technology to make abortion an obsolete procedure.

I would agree. An easy to use, 100% effective method of birth control which is also reversible would be a wonderful invention. None seems to be on the horizon.

So babies are intruders now? What timeline are we living in where this is a socially acceptable thing to say about an innocent human child?

First, it isn't a baby until it is born. That is and has traditionally been the standard for getting full rights.

Second, yes, it is literally inside of another person. If that person doesn't want it there, it is an intruder.

Neither are kids and young adults before their mid-20's. This is why the "It's just a clump of cells" argument makes no sense from a biological perspective.

Before about 24 weeks of pregnancy, there is no capacity to feel pain: the structures are simply ot there. That is quite different than what happens in the mid 20's.

So let's say you have free reign to amend the Constitution by yourself in order to add an amendment about at what point in the human life cycle a human becomes a legal person with rights and protections. At what point in the pregnancy (or even after birth) would you place that line?

Again, even with full rights, they wouldn't have the right to take over another person's body. I think *some* rights should accrue around the 6th month of pregnancy. More should at birth. And more (like voting rights) much later on.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure it happens, just like homicide and rape. So what ?



Read your post again and let it sink in: "Throughout history extremely poor families have had children, think yourself lucky they have, the human race has survived."



You were replying a post that said poor people shouldn't have children they can't support and you have said that many poor people need to have children to survive. Did you say that for absolutely no good reason ?

If so, I apologize. I interpreted you meant it as supporting some sort of argument.



Oh my...
Are you going to play the biology card now just like him ? David Hume would be really interested in someone refuting his is-ought problem. I am afraid he is no longer alive but please go ahead.

It happens, so you agree, then what is the point of griping?

So how is that commendable? It is simply a fact

I said that because its true. Sorry if the truth offends you

And sorry you dont like biology when it shows you are misinformed

 

[fantome profane]

Children take over the finances of their parents. Should parents be able to throw their kids onto the street because they don't want to have a parasite leeching all their finances?

They can put the child up for adoption, or leave it at a hospital. See safe haven laws regarding infants.

 

[Koldo]

It happens, so you agree, then what is the point of griping?

So how is that commendable? It is simply a fact

I said that because its true. Sorry if the truth offends you

And sorry you dont like biology when it shows you are misinformed

It happens, yes, but it has terrible consequences such as exploiting child labor.

My gripe is that you haven't provided an actual refutation to what you quoted in your post #160.

I do like biology. I just dislike when it is misused in an argument.

 

[Shiranui117]

Finances are very different than taking over someone's body.

In this context, it is not a joke.

Even if you're being dead serious, it still is an absolute clown world moment.

I would agree. An easy to use, 100% effective method of birth control which is also reversible would be a wonderful invention. None seems to be on the horizon.

In the meantime, we have multiple forms of contraception and having sex outside the woman's ovulation period. It's not hard to have responsible sex. Again, I understand the matter is different in cases of rape, but rapes do not constitute the reasons for most abortions.

First, it isn't a baby until it is born. That is and has traditionally been the standard for getting full rights.

The wide disparity in abortion laws would seem to cast doubt on that. If humans didn't become legal persons until birth, then it would be utterly impossible to restrict partial-birth abortion. Even if a baby's in the birth canal, we would be able to kill it if this were the case.

The fact is, this is a matter that has never been settled. We've been spending all our time focusing on a woman's right to choose and expanding rights in that direction, but as of yet there is no agreed-upon definition as to the legal personhood of the unborn. There is no national law surrounding this, and nobody can agree. We need to decide whether and when the unborn attain legal rights and protections concerning their right to life and medical treatment.

Before about 24 weeks of pregnancy, there is no capacity to feel pain: the structures are simply ot there. That is quite different than what happens in the mid 20's.

There are people born without any pain receptors at all; they quite simply can't feel any kind of pain due to their physiological condition, no matter how severe. Would it be wrong to do to these people the same things we do to abort children? After all, they can't feel pain. Does that mean we're not hurting them and therefore it's okay?

Again, even with full rights, they wouldn't have the right to take over another person's body.

I find it odd how for thousands of years of human history, nobody ever conceived of a baby in the womb as "taking over" the mother's body until abortion started becoming more socially acceptable. It's almost like people are looking for reasons to justify killing the unborn.

I think *some* rights should accrue around the 6th month of pregnancy.

Would you say, then, that abortion should be illegal after the sixth month of pregnancy?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The main problem is there is no clear agreement in this country on when biological humans "cross the finish line" so to speak and receive legal rights and protections

There is no clear agreement about whether abortion should be legal at all, much less at what stage of development it should be permitted. I'm pretty sure that just about everybody that is trying to make abortion more difficult to obtain want it recriminalized, like the Governor of Alabama. She is insincere when she implies that she thinks that when a heartbeat becomes audible, that that is when abortion becomes immoral and should be illegal.

The anti-choice position is basically a religious position. Almost everybody marching in protest outside a Planned Parenthood clinic is going to be a Christian, which is how we can tell that the outrage is manufactured from the pulpit. People not subjected to that generally have no problem with abortion being available, safe, and legal.

Authentic outrage is seen across multiple demographics, as that which appeared after the confiscation and incarceration of children at the American border. The outrage with abortion is confined essentially to people taught to be outraged.

we have child abuse and neglect laws. I don't see why the same shouldn't be true for women who had sex irresponsibly and then decided they didn't like the consequences.

Your argument is similar to the others I've seen made on this thread. It basically says that if a girl or woman has sex and winds up with an unwanted pregnancy, she should be forced against her will to bring it to term because it's her fault and she should have to pay for it.

I don't think like that.

the pro-abortion crowd

We're pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I'll bet that every pro-choicer wishes there would be no unwanted pregnancies and thus no need for abortions.

 

[ChristineM]

It happens, yes, but it has terrible consequences such as exploiting child labor.

My gripe is that you haven't provided an actual refutation to what you quoted in your post #160.

I do like biology. I just dislike when it is misused in an argument.

Yes ... and?

Why would i need to provide a refutation for my own post

I am not misusing biology, genetics is a biological subject,

 

[Shiranui117]

There is no clear agreement about whether abortion should be legal at all, much less at what stage of development it should be permitted. I'm pretty sure that just about everybody that is trying to make abortion more difficult to obtain want it recriminalized, like the Governor of Alabama. She is insincere when she implies that she thinks that when a heartbeat becomes audible, that that is when abortion becomes immoral and should be illegal.

The anti-choice position is basically a religious position. Almost everybody marching in protest outside a Planned Parenthood clinic is going to be a Christian, which is how we can tell that the outrage is manufactured from the pulpit. People not subjected to that generally have no problem with abortion being available, safe, and legal.

There are people of all religions and none who oppose access to abortion for just any old reason, and not just for religious reasons, but for ethical and biological reasons. Sure, we Christians oppose abortion because we generally oppose murder. But there are plenty of other people who oppose using abortion as contraception, including atheists.

And what you said just highlights the reason that we need to critically look at both sides of the argument and come up with an ethical response to the question of under what circumstances should be allowed and the unborn's right to life.

Authentic outrage is seen across multiple demographics, as that which appeared after the confiscation and incarceration of children at the American border. The outrage with abortion is confined essentially to people taught to be outraged.

Not at all.

Your argument is similar to the others I've seen made on this thread. It basically says that if a girl or woman has sex and winds up with an unwanted pregnancy, she should be forced against her will to bring it to term because it's her fault and she should have to pay for it.

I don't think like that.

I'm just a fan of personal responsibility in all matters of life--professional, personal, sexual, familial. I don't view pregnancy and having a child as a punishment. It's a great responsibility, and people need to be prepared to accept that responsibility if they have sex irresponsibly.

We're pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I'll bet that every pro-choicer wishes there would be no unwanted pregnancies and thus no need for abortions.

I understand that. However, there are some nutjobs out there who really are pro-abortion.

 

[Polymath257]

Even if you're being dead serious, it still is an absolute clown world moment.

Absolutely not. It is certainly not a joke for the woman involved.

In the meantime, we have multiple forms of contraception and having sex outside the woman's ovulation period. It's not hard to have responsible sex. Again, I understand the matter is different in cases of rape, but rapes do not constitute the reasons for most abortions.

None of these methods is 100% reliable (especially not just avoiding the 'fertile' time). This alone requires some form of abortion to be available.

The wide disparity in abortion laws would seem to cast doubt on that. If humans didn't become legal persons until birth, then it would be utterly impossible to restrict partial-birth abortion. Even if a baby's in the birth canal, we would be able to kill it if this were the case.

Not true. We can decide that certain crimes against pregnant women are more deserving of punishment than those against people who are not pregnant.

Furthermore, as I said previously, the woman has the right to require the fetus be removed. She may NOT have the right to require it to be killed. If, for example, it is possible to remove it without killing it, an argument could be made that this should be done (*assuming no harm comes to the woman). This is a position that allows a fetus to have *some* rights, but the woman to maintain bodily integrity also.

The fact is, this is a matter that has never been settled. We've been spending all our time focusing on a woman's right to choose and expanding rights in that direction, but as of yet there is no agreed-upon definition as to the legal personhood of the unborn. There is no national law surrounding this, and nobody can agree. We need to decide whether and when the unborn attain legal rights and protections concerning their right to life and medical treatment.

And, as I said, after about 6 months of pregnancy I do think some rights accrue. But the right of the woman to have someone who takes over her body removed is still more important.

There are people born without any pain receptors at all; they quite simply can't feel any kind of pain due to their physiological condition, no matter how severe. Would it be wrong to do to these people the same things we do to abort children? After all, they can't feel pain. Does that mean we're not hurting them and therefore it's okay?

I find it odd how for thousands of years of human history, nobody ever conceived of a baby in the womb as "taking over" the mother's body until abortion started becoming more socially acceptable. It's almost like people are looking for reasons to justify killing the unborn.

Well, women's voices were seldom heard prior to the 20th century. And their views of pregnancy were especially unheard.

Would you say, then, that abortion should be illegal after the sixth month of pregnancy?

Again, no I would not. As I have said several times, the woman has the absolute right to have the fetus removed. She may NOT have the right to have it killed if it can be removed without doing so and without harm to herself.

 

[Shad]

I do. I don't care what the circumstances leading to an unwanted pregnancy are. If the mother doesn't want a live birth, she should terminate the pregnancy.

This is just coddling people for the poor choices they make.

Abortion is the last defense against an unwanted pregnancy, and should be available if needed.

Let ignore the first defense which is fool-proof.

It is realistic. It's exactly what happened in the Palin family.

Doubt that. Seems more likely the adults and children ignored the education they were provided for the sake of their religious zeal.

What you should know about her preceded McCain. She was governor of Alaska, and a prominent advocate of abstinence only teaching. Her daughter became a pregnant teenager anyway. That's the lesson. Abstinence-only advice routinely fails.

Never advocated for it only. Her and her daughter both seem on the low side of intelligence anyways.

Prepubescent children agree to it, and when the first rush of hormones consume them, they forget all of that and have unprotected sex. You can set your watch by it.

I was a teenager once. I was fully capable of controlling myself. It is called parenting and self-control. Heard of either? If you can not trust your children unsupervised do not let them off the apron strings.

Do not want a child but do want sex, get pregnant, have an abortion. No problem. Sorry if that offends you, but not offending people who want to run the lives of others according to their own moral values is not a high priority.

It doesn't offend me. It is just more coddling.

Then what is your basis for opposing abortion on demand?

The criteria is arbitrary and subjective as are many reasons for.

Anti-choice is a religious position for most people taking it.

I do note your labeling which shows your obvious bias. Do note there are plenty of choices before abortion. My view isn't religious. It is based on the fact that abortion is arbitrary and subjective mostly to the whims of the stupid and irresponsible.

Your not going to find a lot of secular humanists protesting Planned Parenthood clinics or signing abortion-limiting legislation into law as has just occurred in Alabama and I believe Georgia. That's a Christian thing predominantly.

Of course. Most have no idea what they stand for nor why. It just a trendy label for some.

Irrelevant. The point is, who gets to decide if the pregnancy goes to term or is aborted.

Nope as the previous choice results in the choice we are discussing. You avoid it as it shatters your arguments down to coddling the stupid and irresponsible.

Neither the church nor the state should be involved in the decision to continue or abort any unwanted pregnancy.

Nonsense as abortion being legal is due to the state.

The state can fund the procedure if financial support is necessary, just as it might with any other medical procedure.

The procedure is elective is most cases and bailing out people for their poor choices. They can pay for it themselves.

We all do, all of the time. Who paid for George Bush's pointlessly invading Iraq? Who paid for all of those investigations of Hillary's emails? Who bailed out the banking industry? Who funds the Medicare costs of smokers with lung cancer? Who's underwriting the devastation in America caused by global warming?

So? This is not a rebuttal to anything I said. State does X and I can still complain about it as much as the state doing Y.

The American government's role is to, "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Funding the abortion of an unwanted pregnancy when needed is consistent with that mission statement.

Abortion is not part of the Constitution. You are just injecting it. Yawn.

"Free" (in the sense of no charge other than taxes) government services are available to you now. How much was tuition at your children's public school?

None as they are in a private school. My property taxes still pay for the system. I also support voucher policy which helps the poor get out of falling public schools.

What was the charge the last time you needed the police or fire department? How much do you pay in tolls driving to the market?

Irrelevant. Those systems are open to everyone and are beneficial to the nation. An uncontrolled fire could destroy a city. Pregnancy will never destroy a city nor your neighbors house.

Then that should be how you live your life. Others may have other values and priorities. Why is this an issue for you?

I have to pay for the poor choices of others. The criteria and reasons for are arbitrary.

Why is it your concern?

I pay taxes.

As I indicated before, the entire issue for me is who decides. For me, that's the pregnant woman, and I have no opinion about the choice she makes.

If you want to silence yourself that is fine by me.

 

[Shad]

There is no doubt abortion is generally used for BC. I dare say it is not even for financial reasons most of the time since you can give the baby for adoption after it is born with minimal financial hassle.

Also newborn adoptions have large waiting lists for those looking to adopt.

Nevertheless, my question is:
How come abortion is a form of BC only for the unaware and the irresponsible considering other forms of BC can fail even at perfect usage ?

Simple. They have abortions as they are not ready, responsibility factor, to have children but take part in the only act that produces children thus are irresponsible. They want to do X but not the results of X. BC has little to no warranty for use ergo BC is not as reliable as people think as the companies won't back their products. This makes them unaware.

 

[Shad]

That is all unrealistic
People do, and will continue to have sex.

Yes they do. So why do taxpayers have to deal with it?

Girls and women will have unwanted pregnancies. { for whatever reason)

They can deal with their own poor choices then.

Neither they, nor the state, nor anyone else needs the resultant population increase.

Except for the fact that the left has been using a declining population to advocate for increased immigration. I wonder how many people were aborted since Roe vs Wade Perhaps it was a number that would not result in a declining population we have now.

Terminations of those pregnancies are necessary.

Nope. A person not being able to pay for the results of their own actions is not necessary. It is merely convenient in most cases.

If the state forces the carrying of a pregnancy to full term, against a female's wishes,
The state should look after and pay for the upkeep of that child.

It already does and did for decades before abortion was legal. Next!

Moral codes and religion do not come into it.

Wrong. Rights and morals are linked in regards to abortion and in general.

 

[Polymath257]

I do note your labeling which shows your obvious bias. Do note there are plenty of choices before abortion. My view isn't religious. It is based on the fact that abortion is arbitrary and subjective mostly to the whims of the stupid and irresponsible.

No, it actually is not arbitrary. It is based on the right of the woman involved to control her own body. if there is someone else inside of it, she has the right to have them removed. Period.

But we can go further. We determine death by loss of brain functioning, specifically certain activities in the frontal cortex. Why don't we use those same activities to determine when the s starts to obtain rights? Guess what? That is about the 6th month of pregnancy.

You seem to dislike 'coddling' people who make mistakes that you see as irresponsible. But if someone is using BC and that BC fails, that is NOT being irresponsible. It is being unlucky. And one of the jobs of government is 'general welfare', which includes helping out those who have been unlucky.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes they do. So why do taxpayers have to deal with it?



They can deal with their own poor choices then.



Except for the fact that the left has been using a declining population to advocate for increased immigration. I wonder how many people were aborted since Roe vs Wade Perhaps it was a number that would not result in a declining population we have now.



Nope. A person not being able to pay for the results of their own actions is not necessary. It is merely convenient in most cases.



It already does and did for decades before abortion was legal. Next!



Wrong. Rights and morals are linked in regards to abortion and in general.

Why do you think I was just talking about America.
In the USA there are people perfectly able to pay for their own Terminations
And there are charities that have been perfectly willing to pay for the poor.
Proportion wise probably as many rich people have abortions as do the poor anyway... they just tend to keep quiet about it.
And why not?
It is their business not anyone else's.

 

[Shad]

No, it actually is not arbitrary.

Outside of medical reasons, rape and incest all other reasons are arbitary.

It is based on the right of the woman involved to control her own body. if there is someone else inside of it, she has the right to have them removed. Period.

She let the penis in her body, she knew what could happen. She consented to the result by having sex. Tough ****. Deal with the results of the act of sex.

But we can go further. We determine death by loss of brain functioning, specifically certain activities in the frontal cortex. Why don't we use those same activities to determine when the s starts to obtain rights? Guess what? That is about the 6th month of pregnancy.

So I can go and shoot an adult in such a state with no repressions? Adults do not lose their rights in such a state yet your deny it to the unborn by the same standard. Hilarious.

You seem to dislike 'coddling' people who make mistakes that you see as irresponsible.

Yup.

But if someone is using BC and that BC fails, that is NOT being irresponsible.

Wrong as they could of easily considered why they are not ready for a child and avoided having sex to begin with. Short term pleasure vs long term goals.

It is being unlucky.

No it isn't as BC is not guaranteed even by the manufactures ergo a false assumption on the part of the user about reliability of the product.

And one of the jobs of government is 'general welfare', which includes helping out those who have been unlucky.

Yup so unlucky they tripped and fell on a penis right?