Pro-LIFE Birth Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
NickViar - if a woman does not want to get pregnant, that is easy, do not partake in the activity know to create life. Where does this right to erase an earlier choice come from? Where else in life does this exist? Nothing in life allows me to erase an earlier choice and go forward with no regard for the past or anyone else.

The moment a woman makes the choice to partake in an activity known to create life and a new life results in those actions, her rights are to now sustain and help that LIFE she helped to create.

Morality cannot be legislated? Wrong, yes it can! Morality defines all laws. When laws define morality society has a short life. Look to history if you doubt me.

While talking to Sloth you claimed the fetus was a parasite. A parasite is [i]A DIFFERENT SPECIES[/i] than the host, therefore you are trying to redefine words to justify your support of abortion. When you claim to be opposed to abortion, you cannot support abortion while being opposed to the act.
[/quote]

What about the ten-year-old who is raped by her father/uncle/brother/bogeyman? Did she choose to become pregnant?

Even if the sex was consensual…even if the woman wanted the child at the time, she still has a right to get rid of the child she created, while it’s in her body, at any time she wants. Nobody can have a claim on the life of another. Not even for a minute.

I thought prohibition showed us that morality can’t be legislated.

I don’t believe I EVER claimed an unborn child is a parasite. I believe I said that it is closer to parasite than slave…but I went back and edited that long before this post.

I have never once supported abortion. Look back through my posts and tell me where I supported it. I don’t support the use of heroin, but I don’t want the government to tell anyone not to use it.

42

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The non-profit part was really more of a general statement that whoever runs the organization is not living life like a billion dollar private company owner.[/quote]

This is correct, and if they are, the money is more likely than not, from a different income source. And if it is from the 501, it is likely fraudulent, or at least close.

43

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nick…dude…your thoughts on this matter are seriously flawed.

Also, I think those (Sloth? and Kneedragger) who might be equating contraception with abortion have serious intellectually flawed thinking as well. This is coming from one who has as vigorously wrestled against abortion as anyone here over the past decade.[/quote]

Please explain how my thoughts are seriously flawed. I could very well be forgetting something in my argument, but I am not sure what it might be.

44

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Please explain how my thoughts are seriously flawed. [/quote]

You’re disagreeing with me.

Ok, ok, that was just to lighten the mood. Something I’m trying to remember to do.

45

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Please explain how my thoughts are seriously flawed. [/quote]

You’re disagreeing with me.

Ok, ok, that was just to lighten the mood. Something I’m trying to remember to do.
[/quote]

Touche.

46

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Do you read the whole thread before you post? You are in a thread where OP stated that right off the bat.[/quote]

So, where’s the part about banning it? I never actually saw him say that much.

Keeping this spot warm.

Where?

Where’s the banning part? He might, but I don’t see him outright saying it yet. Then the thread shifted to abortion quickly, so it’s a bit mashed together anyways, now.

But, how would that affect my response, anyways? I specifically brought up the Church and Santorum. I.e. there isn’t any real movement to legally ban contraception.
[/quote]

I can’t tell if you’re deliberately being obtuse or if you really are trying to argue what he supports.

If I go in a legalized marijuana thread and argue this: “I think marijuana is the worst thing in this country. Those who smoke marijuana are immoral, horrible people who are killing themselves and others every single day. Since marijuana has been around everything in this world has been awful and terrible and how can people support marijuana?”

You’d defend me from someone else by saying “well, technically he never said BANNED?” Kneedragger made his thoughts explicitly clear. I don’t know if it’s on purpose or not, but his thoughts on the matter are clear from his OP and other posts (which I’m assuming you read?).

As for scary people like Santorum they realize they believe such nutty things that they get in trouble when they say them. They don’t say them as much as they should. Santorum, Mike Huckabee, those type of politicans are the ones we should trust the absolute least. They are people so religious that they want everyone to think like them. Now they can’t come out and say that all the time, but if you read some of their quotes it’s not hard to come to that conclusion.

Politicians can only do what they can pull off. If Santorum was king for a while you better believe access to contraceptives would go down. He has fully stated many times how much he is against them.

47

Sloth: [quote]To say that people can be for LIFE and also support a synthetic hormone which functions as birth control, my response would be these people lack an understanding of the whole LIFE movement. Logic, science and reason all defend the position of LIFE. Birth control in any and every form goes against that position, defending LIFE. How can anyone support birth control and still claim to be on the side of LIFE?

These poor kids need someone to point out how LIFE can NOT be controlled through an external stimulus.[/quote]

If you want to pretend that kneedragger doesn’t actually want less contraceptives we can since he didn’t say anything about it, but the rest of us are going to look at his words and discuss the implications of how he actually feels. It’s not a stretch to read the above and think in a perfect kneedragger world my fiance and I couldn’t buy birth control.

Abortion rates are down, but unwanted children are still a massive problem we face. Not just unwanted children who are aborted, but unwanted children who cannot be raised by their birth parents. Supporting policies that lead to an increase in unwanted children is absolute lunacy.

In Kneedraggers world only people who could be good parents would have sex and we’d all be devout enough to never have a baby before we’re ready. Like I said we can play pretend utopian society (which we have never had) or adults can talk about how best to have solutions that may actually work. I’ll be busy working on problems and spending less time playing pretend world. When people step out of pretend world problems get solved. We all want cancer to be cured. Let’s not sit around and say “wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have cancer?” Let’s fucking beat that bitch. I’m not going to live in kneedragger pretend utopian world and talk about how much better it would be if only people who wanted babies had sex.

48

[quote]H factor wrote:

If you want to pretend that kneedragger doesn’t actually want less contraceptives… [/quote]

The dispute was if he’s actually said something about banning it.

49

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Making murder illegal doesn’t end the practice.

Abortion is never safe for the aborted.[/quote]

If A is true why is one arguing to make abortion illegal? It won’t end the practice and will make the woman who undergoes it do it in a safe manner. Is two dead lives better than one? Unwanted children will still happen and some women will still seek out abortion. History has shown us this over and over and over again. At what point do we actually learn from it?

Ignoring the above, being anti-contraceptive is flat illogical if one is trying to limit the amount of abortions. I won’t get in the inane arguments about if jacking off is murder or anything else childish and fantasy based. You want to raise the amount of abortions in the United States ban condoms and birth control. [/quote]

Neither the Catholic Church, nor Santorum (I’ve seen him correct people on this), are talking about banning your condoms. Contraceptive use is more like sex outside of marriage, in the sense that it is a moral wrong committed upon the self. Abortion, murder, the wrong/the crime is directly put upon another, hence the applicability of the law.
[/quote]

Do you read the whole thread before you post? You are in a thread where OP stated that right off the bat. That’s why I am talking about it and others are in this thread. You really shouldn’t start posting in a thread until you have read it. There is a reason we were talking about those things…It was the very thing OP put in the first post.[/quote]

50

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

If you want to pretend that kneedragger doesn’t actually want less contraceptives… [/quote]

The dispute was if he’s actually said something about banning it.
[/quote]

Read all the posts from him in this thread and then ask yourself if it is stupid to ask him questions about whether or not contraceptives should be allowed. I don’t have time for semantics games. His positions are obvious. He isn’t denying them either.

Then again, so are Santorum and you’d love to play the “you know he wouldn’t be bad because he never actually said game.” Like I said, I don’t really have time for it. It doesn’t get us anywhere.

It’s absolute lunacy to have kneedragger’s position and detrimental to the goals of the pro-life movement (assuming the goals of the pro-life movement are to decrease number of abortions). Like I said we can live in fantasy no one has sex before wanting a kid world and wish wish wish that into existence or we can actually work on solutions to decreasing the number of abortions.

Which do you think we (society) should do? Kneedragger (or yourself) and faith do not bother me. Trying to convince people to take up positions that I believe I can prove via reason are harmful for society is something I will attack. I can’t really help it. I believe it is highly dangerous and irrational thinking. I don’t pray, but I really hope we don’t ever put someone with those kind of views in power.

As much as they think it would make things better I think history and reason suggests otherwise.

51

Kneedragger, would you support a legal ban on contraception? My guess is that you would.

52

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Kneedragger, would you support a legal ban on contraception?[/quote]

Even if he dodges this to me his views clearly say things would be much better off without it and morally we should be without it.

Even if this is how he feels nothing could be more dangerous for the “pro-life” movement. I haven’t really seen anyone lay out a logical reason yet for why decreasing contraceptives will decrease the amount of abortions. Most sociologists and social researchers suggest birth control and condom use going up has helped lead to decreases in teen pregnancy and the abortion rate.

Then again, “liberal researchers who want you to think blah blah blah” is the usual counterpoint.

53

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

If you want to pretend that kneedragger doesn’t actually want less contraceptives… [/quote]

The dispute was if he’s actually said something about banning it.
[/quote]

Read all the posts from him in this thread and then ask yourself if it is stupid to ask him questions about whether or not contraceptives should be allowed. I don’t have time for semantics games. His positions are obvious. He isn’t denying them either.

Then again, so are Santorum and you’d love to play the “you know he wouldn’t be bad because he never actually said game.” Like I said, I don’t really have time for it. It doesn’t get us anywhere.

It’s absolute lunacy to have kneedragger’s position and detrimental to the goals of the pro-life movement (assuming the goals of the pro-life movement are to decrease number of abortions). Like I said we can live in fantasy no one has sex before wanting a kid world and wish wish wish that into existence or we can actually work on solutions to decreasing the number of abortions.

Which do you think we (society) should do? Kneedragger (or yourself) and faith do not bother me. Trying to convince people to take up positions that I believe I can prove via reason are harmful for society is something I will attack. I can’t really help it. I believe it is highly dangerous and irrational thinking. I don’t pray, but I really hope we don’t ever put someone with those kind of views in power.

As much as they think it would make things better I think history and reason suggests otherwise. [/quote]

H, he–May I call you “H?”–might or might not think it should be banned. However, my original post was simply an acknowledgement that there is virtually no movement that thinks this falls within the political realm (being legally banned). Like banning pre-marital sex. Or, banning not going to church on Sundays. You took it back to kneedragger, saying he wanted to see just that. But, that wasn’t really to refute my point. Mine was a broader point. However, I didn’t recall knee–if he’ll allow such familiarity–actually advocating the ban of contraceptives. Though, he outright said so for abortion, when the topic switched to it.

You then said he wants to lessen their use. Ok, but that is immensely different than the original charge. That’s like moving the goal post to an entirely different stadium.

Your friend,

S.

54

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

If you want to pretend that kneedragger doesn’t actually want less contraceptives… [/quote]

The dispute was if he’s actually said something about banning it.
[/quote]

Read all the posts from him in this thread and then ask yourself if it is stupid to ask him questions about whether or not contraceptives should be allowed. I don’t have time for semantics games. His positions are obvious. He isn’t denying them either.

Then again, so are Santorum and you’d love to play the “you know he wouldn’t be bad because he never actually said game.” Like I said, I don’t really have time for it. It doesn’t get us anywhere.

It’s absolute lunacy to have kneedragger’s position and detrimental to the goals of the pro-life movement (assuming the goals of the pro-life movement are to decrease number of abortions). Like I said we can live in fantasy no one has sex before wanting a kid world and wish wish wish that into existence or we can actually work on solutions to decreasing the number of abortions.

Which do you think we (society) should do? Kneedragger (or yourself) and faith do not bother me. Trying to convince people to take up positions that I believe I can prove via reason are harmful for society is something I will attack. I can’t really help it. I believe it is highly dangerous and irrational thinking. I don’t pray, but I really hope we don’t ever put someone with those kind of views in power.

As much as they think it would make things better I think history and reason suggests otherwise. [/quote]

H, he–May I call you “H?”–might or might not think it should be banned. However, my original post was simply an acknowledgement that there is virtually no movement that thinks this falls within the political realm (being legally banned). Like banning pre-marital sex. Or, banning not going to church on Sundays. You took it back to kneedragger, saying he wanted to see just that. But, that wasn’t really to refute my point. Mine was a broader point. However, I didn’t recall knee–if he’ll allow such familiarity–actually advocating the ban of contraceptives. Though, he outright said so for abortion, when the topic switched to it.

You then said he wants to lessen their use. Ok, but that is immensely different than the original charge. That’s like moving the goal post to an entirely different stadium.

Your friend,

S.
[/quote]

Right now in America if we drastically cut access to contraceptives what do you THINK would happen to unwanted pregnancies? Do you think automatically everyone would stop having sex if they didn’t want a baby? Do you think the number of abortions would drastically go down as some kind of moral eye opening thing hit people?

Or can you look to history and point at examples of places where access to contraceptives was cut and/or denied and what happened to the amount of abortions? It seems as if history has been pretty clear on this. If history isn’t that clear then logic and reason seem to be.

I have no problem saying I feel the things kneedragger has said are very dangerous for the pro-life movement and counterproductive at best. Pretty much everyone (even people who are more pro-life than me) has agreed. You seem to either not agree with us or at least be hesitant to agree.

You don’t have to put your friend. I don’t feel negative feelings towards you just because we may have a difference of opinion. I’m passionate in my opinions and beliefs and I may use strong language like absolute lunacy to kneedragger. I should try to be a bit more PC, but that’s actually how I feel Sloth. I feel his positions if attempted to be made mainstream are dangerous and grounded in nothing but hopeful thinking.

55

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

If you want to pretend that kneedragger doesn’t actually want less contraceptives… [/quote]

The dispute was if he’s actually said something about banning it.
[/quote]

Read all the posts from him in this thread and then ask yourself if it is stupid to ask him questions about whether or not contraceptives should be allowed. I don’t have time for semantics games. His positions are obvious. He isn’t denying them either.

Then again, so are Santorum and you’d love to play the “you know he wouldn’t be bad because he never actually said game.” Like I said, I don’t really have time for it. It doesn’t get us anywhere.

It’s absolute lunacy to have kneedragger’s position and detrimental to the goals of the pro-life movement (assuming the goals of the pro-life movement are to decrease number of abortions). Like I said we can live in fantasy no one has sex before wanting a kid world and wish wish wish that into existence or we can actually work on solutions to decreasing the number of abortions.

Which do you think we (society) should do? Kneedragger (or yourself) and faith do not bother me. Trying to convince people to take up positions that I believe I can prove via reason are harmful for society is something I will attack. I can’t really help it. I believe it is highly dangerous and irrational thinking. I don’t pray, but I really hope we don’t ever put someone with those kind of views in power.

As much as they think it would make things better I think history and reason suggests otherwise. [/quote]

H, he–May I call you “H?”–might or might not think it should be banned. However, my original post was simply an acknowledgement that there is virtually no movement that thinks this falls within the political realm (being legally banned). Like banning pre-marital sex. Or, banning not going to church on Sundays. You took it back to kneedragger, saying he wanted to see just that. But, that wasn’t really to refute my point. Mine was a broader point. However, I didn’t recall knee–if he’ll allow such familiarity–actually advocating the ban of contraceptives. Though, he outright said so for abortion, when the topic switched to it.

You then said he wants to lessen their use. Ok, but that is immensely different than the original charge. That’s like moving the goal post to an entirely different stadium.

Your friend,

S.
[/quote]

Right now in America if we drastically cut access to contraceptives what do you THINK would happen to unwanted pregnancies? Do you think automatically everyone would stop having sex if they didn’t want a baby? Do you think the number of abortions would drastically go down as some kind of moral eye opening thing hit people?

Or can you look to history and point at examples of places where access to contraceptives was cut and/or denied and what happened to the amount of abortions? It seems as if history has been pretty clear on this. If history isn’t that clear then logic and reason seem to be.

I have no problem saying I feel the things kneedragger has said are very dangerous for the pro-life movement and counterproductive at best. Pretty much everyone (even people who are more pro-life than me) has agreed. You seem to either not agree with us or at least be hesitant to agree. [/quote]

Who is denying you access to condoms?

56

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Who is denying you access to condoms?
[/quote]

Right now no one. And I’d love to see it stay that way. Let’s not let people who think like kneedragger or other nutty theocratic based politicans change that is all I’m saying.

Why can’t I be against someone’s point of view even if they don’t have the power yet to explicitly change something? It just seems like a weird stance to take. Kneedragger is advocating for people NOT to use birth control. Are you denying this is the case?

Honestly I’m not 100% sure what you’re doing man. Yes, right now kneedragger does not have the power to do that. I’m still going to passionately argue against the illogical position he has taken in this thread because I think it is important that those positions don’t become popular.

You may of course disagree :slight_smile:

57

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Who is denying you access to condoms?
[/quote]

Right now no one. And I’d love to see it stay that way. Let’s not let people who think like kneedragger or other nutty theocratic based politicans change that is all I’m saying.

Why can’t I be against someone’s point of view even if they don’t have the power yet to explicitly change something? It just seems like a weird stance to take. [/quote]

Because I think it’s important to get their point of view right. I have no idea if kneedragger wants them banned. But, I haven’t seen him actually go to that. I’ve personally said that while I am opposed to contraception, the nature of the act (using them) does not justify/require government intervention. So I’ve no investment in his position if it is indeed what you claim. I simply note that he was/is very quick to call for the illegality of abortion, yet didn’t actually do the same for sales of contraception.

I’ve got homework. Catch you later.

58

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Who is denying you access to condoms?
[/quote]

Right now no one. And I’d love to see it stay that way. Let’s not let people who think like kneedragger or other nutty theocratic based politicans change that is all I’m saying.

Why can’t I be against someone’s point of view even if they don’t have the power yet to explicitly change something? It just seems like a weird stance to take. [/quote]

Because I think it’s important to get their point of view right. I have no idea if kneedragger wants them banned. But, I haven’t seen him actually go to that. I’ve personally said that while I am opposed to contraception, the nature of the act (using them) does not justify/require government intervention. So I’ve no investment in his position if it is indeed what you claim. I simply note that he was/is very quick to call for the illegality of abortion, yet didn’t actually do the same for sales of contraception.

I’ve got homework. Catch you later.[/quote]

Your position doesn’t bother me in the least bit. I don’t mind if someone is opposed to me wearing a condom. I don’t mind if someone is opposed to a 17 year old being on birth control. What I mind is if people think government action should be taken to get rid of those. And the reason for that is quite simple to me from a logic standpoint:

If someone said “H my man, how can we get the abortion rate to spike over the next ten years?” I would say get rid of contraceptives. Make them all illegal. History has shown us this is the case. Logic tells us this would be the case.

In a perfect world without contraceptives the only people who would have sex are those who are ready to have babies. I don’t think we should make public policy based on how we WANT people to act, but on how they actually act. At no time in American history have people only had sex when they could support kids. Our teens, our special needs people, our adults who don’t want babies quite yet are going to have sex. We can wish they won’t all day long, or we can make policy based on reality.

59

[quote]H factor wrote:
H my man, how can we get the abortion rate to spike over the next ten years?" I would say get rid of contraceptives. [/quote]

Yep.

There would almost certainly be a large group of little SMH’s running around somewhere.

60

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
H my man, how can we get the abortion rate to spike over the next ten years?" I would say get rid of contraceptives. [/quote]

Yep.

There would almost certainly be a large group of little SMH’s running around somewhere.[/quote]

You mean everyone wouldn’t just turn off their libidos automatically until they were ready to be a great father/mother? And those libidos would stay off until they got married so they could raise the kids in an ideal setting with their soul mate?

Like I said, sounds fine to me. Not grounded in reality.