Only an agenda would see those statements as punishing anyone. "Having Sex" Fox? Or Killing a Pregnancy? LOL...there you go again rewriting statements to taste, so you can rebuttal.
If you make it impossible to get a safe abortion, women are then forced to unsafe abortions, so you are responsible for deaths. Ah...I see your objection to abortion is based on the resentment that women have the power of decision. Women have always had that power and always will. So don't be claiming your immense concern for the "babies" when it's obvious that it's control of women that is your concern. Abortion rates are expressed as so many per thousand, it's a percentage. Their percentage is lower than ours.
LOL, "medical supervision". That's a good one. Your average pill has directions on the bottle of the pill, and whether you choose to read those directions or not is entirely up to you. There is no nurse or something that comes at your home to check up on you. At best, doctors may recommend a brand based on what they think is best for your body. Except when you get to the point where you realize they're all(or mostly) the same. The real difference is the pricing. But if you can get something effectively over-the-counter(or in this case, on the internet) you got savings anyway. This has been today's truism on how the medical industry works. Next time, you'll refrain from fearing "women will die" by choosing to purchase a pill over say Amazon or something. Listen to yourself. You think if we teach every young male how to wear a condom or young females how to use their various contraceptions, that is somehow a form of "sex education". The theory(and a stupid one) being that since we can't "teach abstinence" the next best thing we can teach is how to have consequence-free sex. Except, it doesn't really work(that's why we STILL have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world. In spite of our improvements). You can "teach" them all you want about a condom, but how about in the heat of the moment? You think some 16-18 or 21 yr old is going to remember "steps 1-5"? No, not at all. I mean, that's why you're teaching them this in the first place because they can't abstain. Sex needs to be treated like drinking and driving. You don't think they're responsible enough to get behind the wheel? Then they sure as hell aren't(and haven't proven themselves) to be responsible enough to have sex lol. All it takes is that ONE moment to forget. That one screw up. Unlike "contraceptives"(which you yourself point out have a rate of failure), abstinence actually IS the 100%, fool-proof way to ensure no teen pregnancy. It's so easy, a cave man could do it! We did do it, largely way back in the 50's. For as much as you may have hated that era, it worked. In fact, even today you girls are basically trying to recreate that era, with all of the conveniences of the 21st century. "Having it all" means in no short order, putting everything on the male and not taking any responsibility for yourselves. And people wonder why relationships are in disarray You really want to "have it all"? Then share responsibility with the man. Give him a REASON to remain committed. Right now, women are more of a threat to the home then anything. Not at all the case Roe V Wade was decided in 1973, the pickup didn't start until a year later in 1974(From 8% all the way to 18.5%) The rate would skyrocket to 30% and remain in the high 20's for quite some time. Up and until, at least in the year 2014 we got a decline I never expected given the headlines: We basically canceled out the abortion rate(2.5%). But the coorelation between falling abortions and the failing birth rate, fits naturally. Instead of abortions, as my earlier link pointed out: We're not even cohabiting. Not that I'm not surprised. Like I said: The risks are too great for us. They're far greater for us, then you. You have your medical concerns, we have our financial stability and a roof to sleep over at night. Priorities ladies, priorities. You've lost a great deal of us.
Safe, medically necessary abortions would still happen at legitimate Medical Facilities, under their doctors recommendation. In this, I would have 0 objection. What i am against, if it hasnt been made clear already, are these "convenience" abortions happening at your Planned Parenthoods and other businesss that try and make a living off of killing babies and/or selling their parts. A womans convenience is simply not important enough a reason to snuff a life IMO, and I'll stand by it. You are wrong here. Control is not my goal at all. The defense of Human Lives which deserve to have their chance is my concern. Perhaps they have better family values than us, which wouldnt surprise me seeing the state we are in today..but regardless, it doesnt change anything for me. We've got a problem here, and it needs to be addressed.
Gynos and Clinics exist.. Please stop acting like PP is the only thing that is keeping women alive.... Its a pathetic thought but it is pushed one has to wonder why.
For the answer, one must look at its Founder: Margret Sanger. Possibly the most depressed, anti-humanist scum bag ever born in the United States. A nazi-sympathizer as well as a eugenicist, she openly preached her racism as well as her hatred of all things that described womanhood: A happy marriage, sexual intercourse, etc. She hated it all. She was a hateful, scornful person and she shared that hate and scorn with the rest of the world. She wanted and she has largely succeded in accomplishing two goals: Destroying the marriage bed, as well as the plucking off of African-American children. If she could look at the U.S today, her only complaint would be we hadn't destroyed our foundations nearly enough! The reason her hatred metasized? She wasn't able to get enough in comparison to her relatives. Petty really, but so is her entire life. Planned Parenthood exists as the manifestation of her self-loathing, her hatred. And the fact that there are women like her everywhere. They just can't be "prominent" now since well, it's all "legal". The time for "standing in the spotlight" is over, especially since any decent man would just reject them instantly. I mean, how can anyone be any less wife material?
I didn't rewrite anything as can easily be seen from your post above It is exactly what I posted: """Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post """"""""""If a Woman is so determined ot kill that baby, let her take whatever risks she feels comfortable with. No need to make it easy and trouble free. Thats how we got to this place we are now in. Buy some cut rate pills from the net, and poison yourself...dont really care.""""""""" Thank you for once again admitting that you are not pro-LIFE but simply want to punish women for having sex... Can't wriggle out so why not just admit it???
Still trying to pretend we're talking about people "having sex"? LOL.....if only that was it Fox. You arent going to dig out of that hole by doubling down on dishonesty. Abortion Fox. Thats what we're talking about here. And thats exactly what you are quoting me talking about...not sure why you dont get it. People have lots of sex, they dont all kill babies. If you can't keep up and keep your thoughts on the actual discussion...why do you keep popping in with these pearls of foolishness? Desperation I guess. hoping that someday that sun might shine on the dogs hole eh? Here Fox, let me help. Note it doesnt say anything about "Anti-Sex" bill. You're welcome. Once again.
There is a challenge in the Debate and Contest Forum, ""Margaret Sanger a Racist or Not? "" Care to try? Hint: you'll actually need ammo, like truth and facts....
Most people need the doctor to decide which pill will work the best for them, sometimes they even need lab tests to determine which pill to take. I don't think you'd better hang up your MD shingle just yet. That's exactly why safe abortion is needed as a back-up measure. Abstinence, like other birth control, only works when it is applied, and many people find abstinence difficult to apply. People also had pre-marital sex in the 50s, in fact 95% of all people from the 40s onward did have pre-marital sex. Women had illegitimate babies, went to visit auntie for 7-8 months, had shotgun marriages, and suffered disgrace. Women have always had the major responsibility of rearing children, in addition to all the responsibility of bearing and birthing them. When men step up to share responsibility on their own initiatives, I'll consider what you said. The statistics for 1973 only represent part of a year since RvW was passed during that year. Estimates of illegal abortion show numbers similar to those of legal abortion after RvW.
You are defining economic hardship as an "inconvenience" along with other life changing circumstances. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit entity, and it has been shown that "their parts" were donated as per the law allows. We can see that "a woman's convenience" is simply not important to you, but only the woman involved can make the decision as to the importance. Sorry, but your word choice revealed your real motive, but don't feel bad, that happens to many around here. Perhaps they have a better health care system than we, perhaps a young pregnant woman doesn't have to worry about paying the medical bills for herself and a child, perhaps they have a better support system and a young pregnant woman doesn't have to worry about food, clothing, or shelter. Perhaps a young pregnant woman doesn't have to worry about reliable child care when she goes to work or school. A problem of unwanted pregnancies is not going to be addressed by passing a law.
Well there is one sure fire way to have all the sex you want and use no protection and never get pregnant
Do you have ANY evidence that Planned Parenthood provides unqualified personnel for their patients? If there was the slightest hint of any such thing, we would have videos coming out our ears.
Considering they threw a bloody fit when a State tried to get them to have the same standards as a Hospital.. Yes.
It doesn't have to be. But if you are going to illuminate reduced cost healthcare clinics...you need to replace them with other reduced cost healthcare clinics to fill the need.
Is that EVIDENCE? Now that you brought up the TRAP law travesty.....Abortion clinics don't need the same standards as hospitals in order to function safely. Those laws were passed for the sole reason of closing clinics. Really....if you want us to believe your primary concern is women's health, you need to show where abortion clinics are causing damage to women's health, but abortion remains vastly safer than childbirth with current requirements.
If you truly were concerned about "women's health" then you would want the highest standards possible and that is Hospital standards.. Simple logic. Instead people like you cry foul when those standards are wanted to be applied. Why can other clinics keep high standards but not PP? Makes you wonder....
We want high standards when it affects the safety of women, but we don't care about the size of the janitor's closet. Don't pretend those requirements are for the purpose of protecting women, they are solely for the purpose of shutting down clinics. Shutting down clinics endangers women. Shutting down clinics causes women to delay an abortion since they have to travel, the longer the delay the more dangerous for women.
Nice strawman.. Janitors closets indeed! Thank you for admitting in a way what these PP "clinics" is all about.. Abortion.. Period.
There is nothing magical about the number 60. And the number 60 is why legislation remains choked. There is a role for the filibuster, why not reset the number from 60 to 55?
The size of the janitor's closet is regulated in the newer requirements for PP clinics to match the standards for hospitals. The width of the hallways is regulated. Please tell us all how that makes the clinic safer for women. 3% of Planned Parenthood's services involve abortion, the rest is health care and birth control.
Lets pretend that those are the only standards that were discussed. I am asking you to at least attempt to be honest. Everything expect 3% of those services then can be done at any clinic or Gyno.. You keep making my points for me you just dont realize it.
Actually everything including those 3% of services can be done other places, and certainly there are some other places which do provide these services. But PP serves millions of women and men and there are not enough existing servers to replace PP should PP's doors be suddenly closed. Also, because PP serves so many, their prices are better than can be found elsewhere. We are not pretending that PP has some special services which cannot be duplicated elsewhere, but we do assert that closing PP would damage women because of the lack of service at affordable prices.
Many things have been shown with regards to Planned Parenthood of late, doent appear to constrain itself wiht what "the law" allows. Sorry, but you're wrong. Whatever you think you have inferred as to "real motive" is just that, something in your head. Perhaps the usual defense mechanism you use to square your support of this issue. Tell yourself it's all about "controlling women" so you have the courage to support this diusgusting practice. A "problem" of unwanted pregnancies is well within peoples control...long before it gets to an abortion mill.
