Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

Beans -

My respect goes to you about your views. Previously I never realized our views are so in parallel. No other way to say that I respect and honor your position, I hope you will not take offense to that ; )

Here is something I hope that will help you in your understanding of the rape exception. Abortions that result from rape account for a quarter of a quarter percent of the total number of abortions in America. Of that tiny number, the women who aborted the child, ninety-seven percent die within two to three years. Ninety-seven percent! The majority die from suicide, next would be drugs, etcetera, but lifestyle choice plays a predominant role. The women who are raped and either keep and raise the child themselves or give the child up for adoption; they have a death rate similar to a normal population. After the child is born, many women cite that holding the child helps them overcome the trauma of the rape. Food for thought Beans ; )

[quote]countingbeans wrote: You mean health of the mother exceptions? (For the record, I include rape and incest here.)

Look the best I can describe it is: if those were the only time people were getting abortions (something like 3% of abortions currently taking place,) I don’t think abortion would be, at all, on my radar of important issues.

I get it’s still abortion, and I get the whole “punishing the child for the sins of the father” in some cases, but I can’t imagine having to choose your wife or your child, or having to carry your rapists baby. In those rare, rare cases, I’m not going to have any issues.

As it is, I’m not going to judge anyone who gets an abortion anyway. If my daughter ever comes to me and says she wants one, I’ll give her my opinion, tell her I can’t drive her there or walk her in, but when she comes home I’ll be here to take care of her, and will never love her less, or different or anything. She’s my daughter that made a choice that is between her and god (if she believes) at this point.

Maybe that’s fucked up, but it is what it is. I can’t support it, but I can’t prevent it either, unless my love of parenthood, and opinion on the slaughter of innocent babies can change her mind. [/quote]

22

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Beans -

My respect goes to you about your views. Previously I never realized our views are so in parallel. No other way to say that I respect and honor your position, I hope you will not take offense to that ; )

Here is something I hope that will help you in your understanding of the rape exception. Abortions that result from rape account for a quarter of a quarter percent of the total number of abortions in America. Of that tiny number, the women who aborted the child, ninety-seven percent die within two to three years. Ninety-seven percent! The majority die from suicide, next would be drugs, etcetera, but lifestyle choice plays a predominant role. The women who are raped and either keep and raise the child themselves or give the child up for adoption; they have a death rate similar to a normal population. After the child is born, many women cite that holding the child helps them overcome the trauma of the rape. Food for thought Beans ; )

[quote]countingbeans wrote: You mean health of the mother exceptions? (For the record, I include rape and incest here.)

Look the best I can describe it is: if those were the only time people were getting abortions (something like 3% of abortions currently taking place,) I don’t think abortion would be, at all, on my radar of important issues.

I get it’s still abortion, and I get the whole “punishing the child for the sins of the father” in some cases, but I can’t imagine having to choose your wife or your child, or having to carry your rapists baby. In those rare, rare cases, I’m not going to have any issues.

As it is, I’m not going to judge anyone who gets an abortion anyway. If my daughter ever comes to me and says she wants one, I’ll give her my opinion, tell her I can’t drive her there or walk her in, but when she comes home I’ll be here to take care of her, and will never love her less, or different or anything. She’s my daughter that made a choice that is between her and god (if she believes) at this point.

Maybe that’s fucked up, but it is what it is. I can’t support it, but I can’t prevent it either, unless my love of parenthood, and opinion on the slaughter of innocent babies can change her mind. [/quote]
[/quote]

Links for these stats.

23

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Varqanir -

My appologies in not apologizing before. My position was never intended to be taken as personally attacking you.

After a aneroxic brain injury last year, my memory has gotten better, I hope I do not need to applogize again ; )

I have a question for you though. Where it is in America that the most kids do NOT get pregnant out of wedlock or even have sex?[/quote]

Apology accepted.

Hard to find stats for where teenagers have the LEAST sex. I’m pretty sure that wherever teenagers are, there will be sex going on. However, the places where there are the fewest teen pregnancies per 1000 people are Utah, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Conversely, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, New Mexico and the District of Columbia have the highest prevalence of teen pregnancy.

The CDC is not at all ambiguous about the reason for this. Teen pregnancy is highest where there are the most poor people, particularly Hispanics and blacks, and the lowest where there are the fewest.

It is not because poor blacks and Hispanics are less moral than white people; in fact they are more likely to be devoutly religious. No, it is because they are less likely to use contraception.

Something the Roman Catholic church still, for some bizarre reason, opposes.

24

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Huh? What are you talking about?
I never mentioned killing anybody. I asked how you think we should deal with overpopulation and if you acknowledge the problem.[/quote]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You mentioned abortion and abortion almost always results in the death of an innocent child.[/quote]

Actually, no, he didn’t. He mentioned overpopulation and condoms. You brought up abortion.

25

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Huh? What are you talking about?
I never mentioned killing anybody. I asked how you think we should deal with overpopulation and if you acknowledge the problem.[/quote]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You mentioned abortion and abortion almost always results in the death of an innocent child.[/quote]

Actually, no, he didn’t. He mentioned overpopulation and condoms. You brought up abortion.[/quote]

I wonder if he is like this in real life. Cashier can’t even tell him his total without being accused of killing innocent children via abortion.

26

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, and I’ll say it for the last time, SexMachine.

You really should read Fates of Nations.

Overpopulation is not a problem for the human species.

It is [b]THE[/b] problem, and always has been.

[/quote]

Maybe. But it’s a problem that’s very difficult to address.

27

[quote] kneedragger79 wrote:

To me, you are one hundered percent pro-LIFE or not. I see zero gray water issues in my life.

[/quote]

It’s certainly not cut and dry when the mother’s life is at risk from bringing a baby to term or when the baby is so physically and intellectually handicapped and so on. If you regard human life as sacred then you need to be able to acknowledge these sorts of difficulties that people face when trying to make the best decision for the child and the mother.

28

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, and I’ll say it for the last time, SexMachine.

You really should read Fates of Nations.

Overpopulation is not a problem for the human species.

It is [b]THE[/b] problem, and always has been.

[/quote]

Maybe. But it’s a problem that’s very difficult to address.
[/quote]

Yes and no.

The solution is simple. Implementation is a bit more complication.

Jesus said that “the poor you will have with you always”, but we only have the poor with us still because they continue to do the same things that they have always done: have as many babies as their scant resources will support. Any babies surplus to that number are killed, either after they are born (infanticide has been practiced in practically every society on the planet), or, where and when the technology has allowed, before they are born.

But the solution is a simple one, if perhaps complicated to implement. The only known cure for overpopulation, and by extension poverty, is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. Give women other REAL options than being baby factories, and everything about their village, their province, and their nation will improve within a generation.

Name one religion that sends its missionaries overseas to implement THIS.

29

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, and I’ll say it for the last time, SexMachine.

You really should read Fates of Nations.

Overpopulation is not a problem for the human species.

It is [b]THE[/b] problem, and always has been.

[/quote]

Maybe. But it’s a problem that’s very difficult to address.
[/quote]

Yes and no.

The solution is simple. Implementation is a bit more complication.

Jesus said that “the poor you will have with you always”, but we only have the poor with us still because they continue to do the same things that they have always done: have as many babies as their scant resources will support. Any babies surplus to that number are killed, either after they are born (infanticide has been practiced in practically every society on the planet), or, where and when the technology has allowed, before they are born.

But the solution is a simple one, if perhaps complicated to implement. The only known cure for overpopulation, and by extension poverty, is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. Give women other REAL options than being baby factories, and everything about their village, their province, and their nation will improve within a generation.

Name one religion that sends its missionaries overseas to implement THIS.[/quote]

I think you’re overlooking a few things. The poor don’t just have as many children as their resources allow. They have a biological reproductive mechanism that relies upon shifting the burden of their children onto other people; the more productive members of society, who in turn have less children. An imbalance is created with the dwindling productive class struggling to sustain the ballooning unproductive class. The poor also use mass migration into more productive countries and essentially act as a swarm of locusts; eating up all the government cheese, producing like rabbits etc. This is nothing new. In the ancient world tribal associations of more than a million Gauls or Germans would just gather together and then migrate into someone else’s territory and take over all the natural resources, means of production etc. Immigration today has a similar sort of outcome. The population trend for places Nigeria is frightening and if some natural disaster of epic famine ensues Western countries could very well find themselves in the position of taking literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of third world migrants all at once. Reminds me of when koalas breed up and eat all the eucalyptus leaves in a certain area and then there’s mass starvation. The Malthusian crisis.

30

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I think you’re overlooking a few things. The poor don’t just have as many children as their resources allow. They have a biological reproductive mechanism that relies upon shifting the burden of their children onto other people; the more productive members of society, who in turn have less children. An imbalance is created with the dwindling productive class struggling to sustain the ballooning unproductive class. The poor also use mass migration into more productive countries and essentially act as a swarm of locusts; eating up all the government cheese, producing like rabbits etc. This is nothing new. In the ancient world tribal associations of more than a million Gauls or Germans would just gather together and then migrate into someone else’s territory and take over all the natural resources, means of production etc. Immigration today has a similar sort of outcome. The population trend for places Nigeria is frightening and if some natural disaster of epic famine ensues Western countries could very well find themselves in the position of taking literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of third world migrants all at once. Reminds me of when koalas breed up and eat all the eucalyptus leaves in a certain area and then there’s mass starvation. The Malthusian crisis. [/quote]

Yeah. It never fails to amuse me to see signs telling me not to feed the squirrels or the pigeons because they will breed out of control, and grow dependent on handouts. It stands to reason that a similar phenomenon might occur in human populations, but it is evidently politically incorrect to assert so.

31

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Food for thought: Pro-lifers are some of the most ardent anti-welfare/nanny-state supporters. Since we are likely all adults, we known when abortions occur, it’s due to unwanted pregnancies in predominately poor communities and broken homes.

Interesting stance. [/quote]

This is a paradox I have often pondered.

It never occurs to the predominantly Christian conservative Republican pro-life advocates that if the fifty seven million babies aborted since Roe v Wade were alive today, about 35 million of them would now be of voting age, and would overwhelmingly vote Democrat.[/quote]

I consider neither being poor nor voting democrat reason enough to eliminate someone’s life.

I also would rather pay someone’s way under our nanny state system, these people having been given the chance at life and either failed or never tried, than sit back and risk the next Einstein, Gates or George Washington was among those 35 million.

I’m not a “social contract” type by any means, but I understand the herd will be responsible for a couple of those that can’t fend for themselves. [/quote]

I 100% agree with your stance on abortion.

The Einstein, Gates, George Washington paragraph has always given me pause though. You could just as easily say, “I would rather allow 35 million abortion then risk the next Hitler, Stalin, or _____ from being born.” I mean if Hitler were aborted how many Jewish family lines would still exist?

Just food for thought.

32

I watch a documentary awhile back. I think it was called Frankenumbers. Basically crushing the numbers. Then found that around 18 years after Roe vs Wade that the crime rate across the nation started to drop. Was this due to abortions, possible because two states had pasted the same law two years earlier and their crime rate started to drop two years earlier. Unwanted children are just that and treated as that

I am pro-choice. I believe no one was the right to tell others how to live. I do not think bringing a child into existence just to watch it starve to death is a good thing. Their are those that do not believe they are ready to raise a child, in which case they should not. Einstien, Gate and the like are nurtured children not disguarded ones.

33

[quote]streamline wrote:
I watch a documentary awhile back. I think it was called Frankenumbers. Basically crushing the numbers. Then found that around 18 years after Roe vs Wade that the crime rate across the nation started to drop. Was this due to abortions, possible because two states had pasted the same law two years earlier and their crime rate started to drop two years earlier. Unwanted children are just that and treated as that

I am pro-choice. I believe no one was the right to tell others how to live. I do not think bringing a child into existence just to watch it starve to death is a good thing. Their are those that do not believe they are ready to raise a child, in which case they should not. Einstien, Gate and the like are nurtured children not disguarded ones. [/quote]

Then at least be honest and admit you believe in social eugenics.

34

[quote]streamline wrote:
I do not think bringing a child into existence just to watch it starve to death is a good thing. Their are those that do not believe they are ready to raise a child, in which case they should not. [/quote]

I agree, it’s just that a womb exists as part of the world.

35

[quote]streamline wrote:
I believe no one was the right to tell others how to live. [/quote]

lmao… Because killing someone sure isn’t “telling them how to live” or anything.

That is the worst pro-choice argument on the planet, lmao, and all you guys trot it out as a blatant display that you don’t fucking think, like ever, just to troll us, don’t you?

36

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

The Einstein, Gates, George Washington paragraph has always given me pause though. You could just as easily say, “I would rather allow 35 million abortion then risk the next Hitler, Stalin, or _____ from being born.” I mean if Hitler were aborted how many Jewish family lines would still exist?

Just food for thought. [/quote]

Of course. I’ve thought about it. Yes there are evil people, and no doubt abortion has saved the world from evil at some point.

However, throughout human history we’ve always, thus far, over come evil, learned from it, and became better afterwards…

Similar to the 2nd argument. Yes there will be some negligent dolts who do stupid and evil things with their (or stolen) guns, however, I wouldn’t want to live in a land without them.

37

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

The Einstein, Gates, George Washington paragraph has always given me pause though. You could just as easily say, “I would rather allow 35 million abortion then risk the next Hitler, Stalin, or _____ from being born.” I mean if Hitler were aborted how many Jewish family lines would still exist?

Just food for thought. [/quote]

Of course. I’ve thought about it. Yes there are evil people, and no doubt abortion has saved the world from evil at some point.

However, throughout human history we’ve always, thus far, over come evil, learned from it, and became better afterwards…

Similar to the 2nd argument. Yes there will be some negligent dolts who do stupid and evil things with their (or stolen) guns, however, I wouldn’t want to live in a land without them. [/quote]

Ya, I agree.

38

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]streamline wrote:
I watch a documentary awhile back. I think it was called Frankenumbers. Basically crushing the numbers. Then found that around 18 years after Roe vs Wade that the crime rate across the nation started to drop. Was this due to abortions, possible because two states had pasted the same law two years earlier and their crime rate started to drop two years earlier. Unwanted children are just that and treated as that

I am pro-choice. I believe no one was the right to tell others how to live. I do not think bringing a child into existence just to watch it starve to death is a good thing. Their are those that do not believe they are ready to raise a child, in which case they should not. Einstien, Gate and the like are nurtured children not disguarded ones. [/quote]

Then at least be honest and admit you believe in social eugenics.[/quote]

I fail to see how nurturing has anything to do with eugenics. Not sure there is any proof eugenics work, if the royal family is an example I will stick with nurture

39

[quote]streamline wrote:
I am pro-choice. I believe no one was the right to tell others how to live. [/quote]

As has already been said, there is a giant hole in this line of thought. You are telling an unborn how to live their life by not letting them live it. You have literally robbed them of every choice they could ever conceivably make.

40

[quote]streamline wrote:

I fail to see how nurturing has anything to do with eugenics. Not sure there is any proof eugenics work, if the royal family is an example I will stick with nurture[/quote]

The elimination of undesirables is eugenics to the core.