Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

I’m curious, what makes a “life” valuable to you?
[/quote]
I am going to go out on a limb and say that life that is willing to give him some pussy is valuable to him.

[quote]
I doubt the response is “all life is equally valuable” because your toenails and hair are technically alive and part of you and I’m assuming you don’t have a problem “killing” or “ending” life that is non-essential to the whole.

Does being sentient play a role with valuing life? If a baby is alive and will be born alive but brain-wave dead and non sentient is this “life” worth the same as a baby that would be born sentient and functional? Is it ok to terminate the life of a brain-dead baby? Is it morally ok to view one of these live beings as worth less than the other? I think it is, but I’d like to hear your thoughts.

How about, hypothetically, you are a fire-fighter going into a hospital that is burning and there is a person who is brain dead and on life support in the same room as a person who’s brain is functioning but is disabled. You can only save one of them. Which one do you pick? Is it morally acceptable to make a choice by valuing one of these lives more than the another? Is there any circumstance under which you save the brain-dead patient and feel like you made the right choice? I say no, you pick the non-brain-dead person every single time and feel like you made the right choice.

Pat raised the point that how you “feel” about something doesn’t change what it is and the fact of “what it is” is important. At what point does a fetus become sentient (and I truly don’t know the answer to this)?. Before it becomes sentient–i.e. when it only has the potential to become sentient–it isn’t sentient. Is this an important distinction? I think it is.

I personally agree that a first-trimester or earlier baby is “alive,” but I am not convinced it is “sentient” and similarly situated to a sentient being even if it has the potential to become sentient in the future. [/quote]

Sentience cannot be measured. We can only identify sentient things by their ability to communicate. If it cannot communicate, we can’t know if it is sentient or not. Since there is no way to know if something is sentient or not. We cannot go by that.
We can identify what something is and whether or not it’s alive. We know that the fetal human is in fact human, we know that it is a separate human from it’s host, and we know it’s alive. You don’t need any other criteria than that.

362

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
On an emotional level and maybe its also on a biological or evolutionary level I just don’t get that worked up over, for example, the morning after pill.
[/quote]

For the record, there is a growing body of evidence that says emergency contraception, or at least Plan B, is not an abortifacient and works only by preventing the release of the egg for fertilization. So, assuming that this is the case, I don’t think anyone should be worked up over Plan B. In fact, people should be grateful for it, because its only real connection with abortion is that it can preclude the temptation to have one.[/quote]

Mind sharing sources? I haven’t heard this news yet[/quote]

Sure thing. This is a good recap of the evolution of the debate. Pages 2 and 3 get into specific studies:

I believe there have been a few more since that article was published last year.

363

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No you don’t. You cannot be pro-abortion and at the same time ‘value all life’.[/quote]

says you [/quote]

No actually, says you. Even though you know that a pre-born baby is alive and it is a human being, yet you are still willing to allow it to be killed for petty reasons.

364

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No you don’t. You cannot be pro-abortion and at the same time ‘value all life’.[/quote]

says you [/quote]

No actually, says you. Even though you know that a pre-born baby is alive and it is a human being, yet you are still willing to allow it to be killed for petty reasons.[/quote]
Do you value all life?

365

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I’ll just leave this here. [/quote]

Through the 2013 filter this seems crazy, odd and horrid.

Through the filter of human history however, this isn’t even a blip on the “omg” radar.

[/quote]

Through the filter of history, today’s teenagers are ignorant, frivolous and utterly ill-equipped for the responsibilities of adulthood, let alone parenthood. [/quote]

I think you are giving too much credit to the “serfs” of the past. Sure you list out all these examples of greatness had at young ages, but speaking to the ones that lead armies, out of all the grunts in the front lines born to teen parents, of which I’m sure there are more than a few, how many of them weren’t equally ignorant, frivolous and utterly ill-equipped for the responsibilities of adulthood by comparative standards of their day?

And speaking to the context of the thread, your picture seems to imply that the parents should have been aborted, so that the grandparents wouldn’t be grandparents at 30 years old… I know nothing of the back story except a picture, and if I were to judge that book by its cover I would say they seem to be doing just fine.

Okay. I mean I agree, but at the same time that doesn’t justify not even giving people the chance to reach thirteen just because they are conceived by young parents.

Too bad they didn’t have Planned PArenthood then I guess. Could have saved some of those concurred people.

Again I agree. So it is a good thing we have baby brain vacuums so they can take even less responsibility for themselves.

I’m not sure why you assume that. I don’t think the look “dumb”. What does smart look like if that is dumb? Does clothing selection matter?

[quote]
Drop what you’re doing and go watch Idiocracy. It is our future, gentlemen and ladies. And it sucks donkey balls. [/quote]

Well lets just go all Huxley with it then. Fuck this love, marriage and that jazz.

lol. Nothing you have posted is wrong, nor do I disagree with you. I just don’t see how this relates to abortion, nor a defense or condemnation of it. everything you have stated is our own damn fault. We have no one to blame but our own parents, and our kids will blame us.

366

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

I’m curious, what makes a “life” valuable to you?
[/quote]
I am going to go out on a limb and say that life that is willing to give him some pussy is valuable to him.
[/quote]

I don’t know that this is some sort of attack or not, but care to explain what you were getting at here?

367

I think the whole discussion is a legal issue natural and man made . It comes down to some people thinking they are qualified and justified to make the most intimate decisions in everyone’s lives .

Some of the arguments remind me of the gun debate . If some one is in favor of giving women the right to choose if this is the best time to bring a life into the word. Then that person has no value of life . I guess it is a standard straw man approach to debate

368

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If some one is in favor of giving women the right to choose if this is the best time to bring a life into the word. Then that person has no value of life . I guess it is a standard straw man approach to debate [/quote]

This is so utterly full of shit I can’t take you serious anymore.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the whole discussion is a legal issue natural and man made .[/quote]

Yes, removing a fetus from the womb by way of vacuum is a man made problem.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It comes down to some people thinking they are qualified and justified to make the most intimate decisions in everyone’s lives .
[/quote]

Yes, you think people are qualified and justified to choose whether or not someone lives or dies. Living and dying is a very intimate decision. I agree.

369

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the whole discussion is a legal issue natural and man made . It comes down to some people thinking they are qualified and justified to make the most intimate decisions in everyone’s lives .

Some of the arguments remind me of the gun debate . If some one is in favor of giving women the right to choose if this is the best time to bring a life into the word. Then that person has no value of life . I guess it is a standard straw man approach to debate

[/quote]

99.99% of the time a woman does choose to get pregnant. That is a choice NO ONE wants to take away from them. Having Sex is a choice. Using protection is a choice. Taking plan B is a choice. Leyting some guy bust inside her, is a choice. These are all choices no one wants to take from a woman because they involve ONLY HER.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If some one is in favor of giving women the right to choose if this is the best time to bring a life into the word. Then that person has no value of life .[/quote]

This is unbelievably contradictory. You want to continue to give woman the right to ELIMINATE A LIFE, but the anti-abortionist is the one that has no value of life…

370

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

This is unbelievably contradictory. You want to continue to give woman the right to ELIMINATE A LIFE, but the anti-abortionist is the one that has no value of life…[/quote]

I am not sure I understand you . I am not claiming any one is lacking value on life .

No one would want to interrupt a wanted pregnancy .

371

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

This is unbelievably contradictory. You want to continue to give woman the right to ELIMINATE A LIFE, but the anti-abortionist is the one that has no value of life…[/quote]

I am not sure I understand you . I am not claiming any one is lacking value on life .

No one would want to interrupt a wanted pregnancy .

[/quote]

You wrote this:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If some one is in favor of giving women the right to choose if this is the best time to bring a life into the word. Then that person has no value of life . [/quote]

How should I have interpreted it?

372

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

This is unbelievably contradictory. You want to continue to give woman the right to ELIMINATE A LIFE, but the anti-abortionist is the one that has no value of life…[/quote]

I am not sure I understand you . I am not claiming any one is lacking value on life .

No one would want to interrupt a wanted pregnancy .

[/quote]

You wrote this:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If some one is in favor of giving women the right to choose if this is the best time to bring a life into the word. Then that person has no value of life . [/quote]

How should I have interpreted it?[/quote]

I know my writing skills have something to be desired . But I have made major progress:)

I am in favor of giving women the right to choose and I have been told “I LACK VALUE OF LIFE”

373

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

This is unbelievably contradictory. You want to continue to give woman the right to ELIMINATE A LIFE, but the anti-abortionist is the one that has no value of life…[/quote]

I am not sure I understand you . I am not claiming any one is lacking value on life .

No one would want to interrupt a wanted pregnancy .

[/quote]

You wrote this:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If some one is in favor of giving women the right to choose if this is the best time to bring a life into the word. Then that person has no value of life . [/quote]

How should I have interpreted it?[/quote]

I know my writing skills have something to be desired . But I have made major progress:)

I am in favor of giving women the right to choose and I have been told “I LACK VALUE OF LIFE”

[/quote]

Why does the woman’s “right to choose” out weigh the man’s “right to choose”? It took two people to make the baby.

I will say there is a conflict of interest for the man if he is not married to the woman. Some men will choose for the abortion because then they will not be forced to pay child support till the baby is 18 yrs old. The woman can choose to have the baby, so she can stick it to the man so he will have to pay child support till the baby is 18 yrs old.

374

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Why does the woman’s “right to choose” out weigh the man’s “right to choose”? It took two people to make the baby.

[/quote]

because the baby is taxing mom’s body after the baby is born I think custody should go to the best parent if they are separate .

Believe me Moms get a huge advantage in custody

375

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

This is unbelievably contradictory. You want to continue to give woman the right to ELIMINATE A LIFE, but the anti-abortionist is the one that has no value of life…[/quote]

I am not sure I understand you . I am not claiming any one is lacking value on life .

No one would want to interrupt a wanted pregnancy .

[/quote]

You wrote this:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If some one is in favor of giving women the right to choose if this is the best time to bring a life into the word. Then that person has no value of life . [/quote]

How should I have interpreted it?[/quote]

I know my writing skills have something to be desired . But I have made major progress:)

I am in favor of giving women the right to choose and I have been told “I LACK VALUE OF LIFE”

[/quote]

Okay, I misunderstood your intent.

I don’t think anyone wants to take away a woman right to chose if this is the best time to bring a child into her life. However, that decision should be made before she gets pregnant because once she gets pregnant that decision no longer affects just her.

I think a woman, when it comes to a woman’s body and only that singular entity, should not have her personal liberty infrindged ever. However, when another life is involved I do not believe she should get to make another choice that ultimately ends another persons life.

376

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

because the baby is taxing mom’s body. [/quote]

The baby did not ask to be inside the mother. The baby is not an invading species. The mother made decisions that put that baby in the womb.

377

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

This is unbelievably contradictory. You want to continue to give woman the right to ELIMINATE A LIFE, but the anti-abortionist is the one that has no value of life…[/quote]

I am not sure I understand you . I am not claiming any one is lacking value on life .

No one would want to interrupt a wanted pregnancy .

[/quote]

You wrote this:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If some one is in favor of giving women the right to choose if this is the best time to bring a life into the word. Then that person has no value of life . [/quote]

How should I have interpreted it?[/quote]

I know my writing skills have something to be desired . But I have made major progress:)

I am in favor of giving women the right to choose and I have been told “I LACK VALUE OF LIFE”

[/quote]

Okay, I misunderstood your intent.

I don’t think anyone wants to take away a woman right to chose if this is the best time to bring a child into her life. However, that decision should be made before she gets pregnant because once she gets pregnant that decision no longer affects just her.

[/quote]

I DO THINK people want to take away her right to choose , that is what this thread is all about.

In a perfect world proper birth control is always used and always works

378

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

This is unbelievably contradictory. You want to continue to give woman the right to ELIMINATE A LIFE, but the anti-abortionist is the one that has no value of life…[/quote]

I am not sure I understand you . I am not claiming any one is lacking value on life .

No one would want to interrupt a wanted pregnancy .

[/quote]

You wrote this:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If some one is in favor of giving women the right to choose if this is the best time to bring a life into the word. Then that person has no value of life . [/quote]

How should I have interpreted it?[/quote]

I know my writing skills have something to be desired . But I have made major progress:)

I am in favor of giving women the right to choose and I have been told “I LACK VALUE OF LIFE”

[/quote]

Okay, I misunderstood your intent.

I don’t think anyone wants to take away a woman right to chose if this is the best time to bring a child into her life. However, that decision should be made before she gets pregnant because once she gets pregnant that decision no longer affects just her.

[/quote]

I DO THINK people want to take away her right to choose , that is what this thread is all about.

In a perfect world proper birth control is always used and always works

[/quote]

Like I said, no one wants to take that choice away as long as it’s made BEFORE she is pregnant.

379

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I DO THINK people want to take away her right to choose ,
[/quote]

No.

People want to take away the ability to end the life of another.

She can choose anything she wants, as it concerns her. She is not allowed to choose whether another human lives or dies. Period.

I bet the Democrats would have loved you.

Pitttbull in 1864: I THINK PEOPLE want to take away the right to enslave other humans for their economic benefit.

380

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The mother made decisions that put that baby in the womb. [/quote]

no silly. Stop trying to control other people.

We can willfully choose to murder anyone, anytime, anywhere as long as the Democrats say it is so in da lawz.

(Republicans if you talking about drone strikes, bombings or boots on the ground, except Vietnam, that fuck up is on LBJ. Oh and WWII that is FDR…)