The End of Abortion in America is Coming Soon Part 2

They are bitter full stop, the bitterness comes from their inability to control what other people do.

 

Perhaps you should learn to read English.

Often.

I am a supporter of government only being involved where required .. medical decisions is not an area government is required.

Just goes to show when people bother to actual research the issues they tend to discover pro-choice is the logical view.

flamebaiting and reported as such.

 

Did you read the report? It is just a compilation of government audits and it has the proper footnotes and credits
showing where the information came from.

 

I'm really getting sick if this argument that a fetus is an assault on a woman. This is how nature works. This is how every person that has ever lived has been born. Childbirth is a product of nature and reproduction. Get over this ridiculous argument. I'm not going to engage in this nonsense.

I admitted it was a strawman. Just like I said, you are a contrarian, you have to disagree with everything I say, even when I agree with you. I was using that method to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the liberal ideology.

I'm not moving the goalposts, just stating a fact that it is better to avoid pregnancy and lessen the need for abortions.

Once again I was agreeing with your statement and yet you have to argue with me on the very point that you made. Perhaps you may want to rethink your opinion that "many [women] express no remorse for their abortions...".

Well I have given several examples albeit anecdotal from which I form my opinion, but I don't think that I am required to provide studies and scientific peer-reviewed articles on how I have arrived at all my conclusions or opinions. That puts the bar so much higher on me that you yourself do not require of your opinions or conclusions.

Why again, do you expect me to present evidence of something that is widely known and easily proven? I got an idea, if you want to find out about the many cases of young woman committing suicide as a result of shaming on social media, look it up for yourself. Use Google.

Because you said, "I don't spend my time trying to force what I want onto other adults." Now you don't have to use force, but a little quality time teaching children morality is a good thing is it not?

Promiscuity is not in the comprehensive sex education lesson plan is it? If I state that I am for sex education, surely you can take my word for it? Okay, perhaps I'm making an assumption. I'm sure there are many promiscuous girls that have never been put in a dangerous situation. Surely you can't argue that women are never placed in a dangerous situation by being promiscuous? Still, it is better for them not to be promiscuous for a score of other reasons.

Or perhaps you are not clarifying what it is you are talking about.

Now you are again being obtuse or confusing. Not sure what you are getting at or where you are going.

I said I agree. Once again you are playing the contrarian.

 

It is NOT a "compilation of government audits." There is no content from GAO or other government audits. It is only ADF allegations, and the footnotes often credit LifeNews, TownHall or other biased sources.

 

You not recognizing that you're being disingenuous makes perfect sense.

 

Okay, so it was [MENTION=68016]Daniel Light[/MENTION] who said it, and you came into the conversation changing the argument.

No, we are talking about married women.

"Morality is not subject to popular opinion" -- Rush Limbaugh

No, just "free IUD's" and "free condoms".

If you can't afford to have sex, don't have sex. If you can't afford a child, don't get pregnant. There are other birth control methods by the way which you should have learned about in your "comprehensive sex education class".

What? Childcare is not free? If you can't afford to care for your own child, give it up for adoption.

 

After having this claim shown to be demonstrably false you continue to repeat it. Whats up with that ?

 

I'll disagree.

Alliance Defending Freedom’s Annual Report on Publicly Available Audits of
Planned Parenthood Affiliates and State Family Planning Programs​

- - - Updated - - -

So, no, you didn't read the report.

- - - Updated - - -

I've already demonstrated that scientists agree life begins at conception.

 

Just am I am sick of your attempts to ignore reality and run away. Nature implies no influence from humankind, try using a dictionary once in a while. Whether every person that has ever lived has been born or not is irrelevant to the legal implications of giving personhood from conception, the moment that designation is granted the fetus is no longer a product of nature and it is subject to law, however if the fetus remains a product of nature without personhood then there is no legal restrictions on the female removing it .. just as there are no legal restrictions on your changing something within your own body. The law does not apply to nature, The law is only relevant only to people, the state, or juridical entities such as corporations. If a person becomes involved in these processes they are no longer legally considered natural but are caused, at least in part, by human agency.

no you said it was not a strawman, your comment It was not a strawman - post #56 shows this. I only disagree with you when you are wrong . .which is most of the time.

The subject is abortion not preventing pregnancy and your original assertion was incorrect.

Except you were not agreeing with me on the specific item I was responding to, that of We are becoming quite a heartless society . .which of course you very well knew I was referring to, and is not my opinion that many women express no remorse for their abortions it is a documented reality.

Wrong, everything I post can be and usually is backed up with research and studies, you on the other hand rarely offer anything more than you opinion.

It is your assertion the onus of proof is on you, not on me .. if you cannot provide proof to your comments then I suggest you refrain from posting them in places where you will be asked to provide proof for them, and again if it is "widely known and easily proven" then you should have no problem producing the links to show this .. please do.

All of my children were taught morality and also to question that morality .. that does not change the fact that what my children decide to do after they reach adulthood is not up to me to dictate. Unlike some I encouraged my children to question held beliefs and to form their own guidelines for their life ahead.

no it is not, neither is judgement if the choose that lifestyle. Ok let us assume you are for comprehensive sex education, please explain what you define as comprehensive sex education.

I make no assumption either way whether a promiscuous girl will or will not be place in such a situation.

It is very clear.

No you are being obtuse.

Do you are do you not say that when rape, incest etc is brought up in the abortion debate that it is only a very small percentage?

how can you agree when you don't even know my stance of sex education or I know yours?

 

Some scientists likely do. Saying "some scientists agree" and "The science is settled" are two completely different claims.

A whole bunch of scientists "do not agree". There is no scientific consensus that life begins at conception.

Quit making nonsense claims that have been proven false.

 

Ergo I did not mention what you accused me of .. fail on your part.

No you were talking about married women with another poster .. not with me.

Demonstratively false .. morality has changed numerous times over time eg. SSM

Again I said neither, I said free AT SOURCE, do you know the difference?

What has that got to do with the fact that you asked for information on how longer lasting contraceptives actually work out as less cost to the taxpayer than condoms?

None of the other low cost contraceptions are as safe IUD's etc . .all of which are priced out of the range of the people who could use them the most, and considering how crap US sex education is it is not surprise there as so many failures.

I didn't say childcare was free, and as there are more children in care awaiting adoption than there are people willing to adopt you still have the cost involved. BTW you do know that if elective abortion were banned there would be around 110,000 extra children each year going into care don't you (based on the 10% of children currently going into care each year)

 

The goal of Republicans is to force poor women to have babies, while their ability to have an abortion remains intact. Increasingly, Republicans are complaining that there aren't enough babies being born to poor people to cover old people's retires. So they want poor women to have lots and lots of babies - while calling those women immoral and ignorant, while they can keep having their 1.5 children and taking a short trip to Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean if they have an ill times pregnancy.

It's not so much a war on women, as a war on poor young women.

 

I've already said I would not engage in that utterly stupefying debate. You will not draw me into it. As a matter of fact, I am growing bored of this debate with you. You just are engaged in contradiction and nay-saying. For that reason, I will finish responding to your post using only emoticons.

 

If the global ice age/global warming/climate change/climate disruption/extreme weather goons can do it, so can I.

At least in my case, it is more true than not that embriologists agree that life begins at conception.

 

Great. We have resolved all the issues. That take care of that.

 

1) You have not given proof of this claim. 2) Embryology is not even the domain science so what is this agreement worth 3) agreement is a form of appeal to authority fallacy unless "the why" is given 4) Embryology does not represent "All Science" 5) I gave you "Proof" that 4 other perspectives exist that do not put the beginning of human life at conception .. and stating that scientists have been abandoning the one perspective (genetic) that does... and reasons (the why) for this were given.

Good grief... just recognize the silliness of your claim and get over it. We have been through this before.

 

Sure I have. You just don't like it.
Why isn't it?
Climatology doesn't represent all science either.
Other perspectives exist regarding global climate change as well.

I think the alternate perspectives you gave are silly.

 

Trying to divert the topic to the something irrelevant (climate change) in fallacious desperation is not helping your argument.

Ignoring of 4 of my points that refute your claim is not helping your argument.

You have not proven your claim ( all embryologists agree). You even stating this is an absurd generalization.

Biology is the domain science for the determination of what constitutes human life, the beginning of human life, and what constitutes Homo sapiens.

 

Ah yes the usual "stick the fingers in the ears and sing la la la" .. pathetic and childish

 

You have your opinion I have mine.

 

Really ... how has your assertion "If you can't afford to care for your own child, give it up for adoption. " been resolved when the cost of an estimated 110,000 extra children will be in the care system and there are not enough people wanting to adopt to cover the children in care now?

 

Anyone can have an opinion .... but is it informed ?

 

In the case of the person you are mentioning .. not in the slightest.

 

It is one thing to make a mistake (have a mistaken opinion). It is quite another to ignore information that refutes that opinion and keep on restating "my opinion is true"

It is human to make mistakes .. It is the fool refuses correction and thus continues to make the same mistake over and over again