Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[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]

What exactly is being done to take away her right to choose? A law can’t force someone to not decide something.

382

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

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

What if the aborted fetus is female?

Wasn’t she just denied her “right to choose”?

383

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

true , there are many unnecessary evils in this world . It is just my opinion but there are many fates worse than death

384

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

true , there are many unnecessary evils in this world . It is just my opinion but there are many fates worse than death

[/quote]

That’s easy to say, when you’re alive.

385

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

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

What if the aborted fetus is female?

Wasn’t she just denied her “right to choose”?

[/quote]

bump, more ignored tough questions.

386

[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]

You might not have a choice if birth control works—one of my best friends got a girl pregnant through a condom AND her birth control (she was taking a prescription that interfered with it but the doc didn’t bother to tell her). Then again, he always was a curve-breaker…

However, you do have the choice to USE birth control. And when used it is 99.9% effective. If I choose to spin a revolver’s chamber and fire a gun at myself, that’s my choice. On the other hand, if i blow half of my face away nobody should have sympathy for me because I did make one fucking DUMB choice. Not using birth control is a fucking DUMB choice.

You can’t argue with that.

387

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

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

What if the aborted fetus is female?

Wasn’t she just denied her “right to choose”?

[/quote]

bump, more ignored tough questions. [/quote]

LULZ you ask ridiculous questions , there is no difference if it is a boy or girl .

388

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

true , there are many unnecessary evils in this world . It is just my opinion but there are many fates worse than death

[/quote]

That’s easy to say, when you’re alive. [/quote]

It is easy to say because it is true . I truly understand why people are apposed to abortion. I still maintain it is the right of the mother . You and i will have to respectfully disagree as far as beans we will have to just disagree :slight_smile:

389

pittbulll - Ignorance is one thing I feakin’ [i]HATE[/i] far more than anything else. The true numbers of birth control show that because birth control fails, Pedophile Perpetuators is like a drug dealer on the streets of San Fran. The initial cost is tiny, but the profit is all in the comeback.

When time becomes readily available I will obviously share the information I have, PPâ??s largest profit is from abortions and they way they account for the “only 3%” is because when someone goes in for an abortion they can’t each service within that as a single service. So for example, when a woman goes in for a abortion she will get “counseling”, a urine test, the abortion, birth control, and a follow up check up. That is FIVE services counted separately for just ONE service. Do you know of any doctorsâ?? offices do not do that? PP does exactly that in order to water down their abortion rates vs their other services. It paints them as a necessity. And a consumer report tested their condoms and they were rated as the lowest quality. Not surprising that if people come to trust them for their healthcare needs including birth control, they will return when it fails.

[quote]pittbulll wrote: 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]

390

Why is man exempted from the responsibility for his seed? Because in practice, he is. So if the viable solution to minimize the amount of abortions is to illegalise it, shouldn’t everybody be responsible? Officials have the right to check your fatherhood against your will and so on. If you refuse to be a father, you must pay for it. It takes two to start a life. So to gain some respectability to the demand that abortion must be illegal, responsibility should fall as heavily on both parts and it should also be stated already in this stage, not after abortion is made illegal.

Sorry to interrupt you, especially when I don’t have the time to continue for a couple of days.

391

I’ll throw out some radical ideas for discussion:

If abortion is outlawed, men should have to register when they impregnate a woman such that their wages are garnished until the child is 18. Single mothers should not have to pay attorneys to track men down to get their child support. And hard times should not absolve a man of his financial responsibility to his offspring. Single mothers don’t have the option of not feeding and clothing their child because times are tight.

Also, if abortion becomes illegal, people need to get used to the idea of increased members of society being on food stamps and other government support. The true economic ramifications of such a decision have to be considered. You can’t be ethically consistent if you fight to protect the fetus and then jump to the other side of the fence regarding government support once the child is born.

Obviously, the best case scenario is to teach our sons and daughters to keep their pants zipped and use birth control. But there will always be stupid people and honest mistakes/technical failures that occur.

392

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

Obviously, the best case scenario is to teach our sons and daughters to keep their pants zipped [/quote]

Good luck with that:)

393

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Why is man exempted from the responsibility for his seed? Because in practice, he is. So if the viable solution to minimize the amount of abortions is to illegalise it, shouldn’t everybody be responsible? Officials have the right to check your fatherhood against your will and so on. If you refuse to be a father, you must pay for it. It takes two to start a life. So to gain some respectability to the demand that abortion must be illegal, responsibility should fall as heavily on both parts and it should also be stated already in this stage, not after abortion is made illegal.

Sorry to interrupt you, especially when I don’t have the time to continue for a couple of days.[/quote]

I absolutely agree! In point of fact I don’t know of any pro-life proponent that disagrees with that statement. To my knowledge every one of them has been railing against dead beat guys who would abstain from THEIR responsibility, or try to minimize it.

394

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I’ll throw out some radical ideas for discussion:

If abortion is outlawed, men should have to register when they impregnate a woman such that their wages are garnished until the child is 18. Single mothers should not have to pay attorneys to track men down to get their child support. And hard times should not absolve a man of his financial responsibility to his offspring. Single mothers don’t have the option of not feeding and clothing their child because times are tight.

Also, if abortion becomes illegal, people need to get used to the idea of increased members of society being on food stamps and other government support. The true economic ramifications of such a decision have to be considered. You can’t be ethically consistent if you fight to protect the fetus and then jump to the other side of the fence regarding government support once the child is born.

Obviously, the best case scenario is to teach our sons and daughters to keep their pants zipped and use birth control. But there will always be stupid people and honest mistakes/technical failures that occur.[/quote]

I’m on board with that. Although I would tend to point out that the welfare debate tends to be one of general principle, about responsibility, just as kaaleppi above stated about men. Although the debate tends to be extremely polarized and emotional, I do not know of a single critic of welfare thzt wants to kill welfare entirely–who doesn’t recognize that there are people who really need the help. I am sure there are a couple fringe people out there but nobody likes them or agrees with them, however it might come across. I think the general theme comes down to the corollary of what kaaleppi said above, only for welfare: ok, you want help. Fine, we’ll help you but you have to prove you’re being productive and bettering your situation, no freeloaders. Just like dads should never ever freeload where pregnancy is concerned. Responsibility and work ethic should not be optional either for prospective deadbeat dads or prospective gamers of the welfare system. Savvy?

That said, I do believe single moms are easily the most deserving demographic (in general) for help and should be for good reason.

395

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Why is man exempted from the responsibility for his seed? Because in practice, he is. So if the viable solution to minimize the amount of abortions is to illegalise it, shouldn’t everybody be responsible? Officials have the right to check your fatherhood against your will and so on. If you refuse to be a father, you must pay for it. It takes two to start a life. So to gain some respectability to the demand that abortion must be illegal, responsibility should fall as heavily on both parts and it should also be stated already in this stage, not after abortion is made illegal.

Sorry to interrupt you, especially when I don’t have the time to continue for a couple of days.[/quote]

I absolutely agree! In point of fact I don’t know of any pro-life proponent that disagrees with that statement. To my knowledge every one of them has been railing against dead beat guys who would abstain from THEIR responsibility, or try to minimize it.[/quote]

the problem is that it must also be stated in the law, or the proposition for a law. So far the discussion has been solely about the responsibility of women. I don’t like that, I like women and I think that the standard thinking that women are somehow more responsible of new life is utter bullshit. This has been 15 pages of utter bullshit. It’s half the story and not one word about male responsibility.

396

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Why is man exempted from the responsibility for his seed? Because in practice, he is. So if the viable solution to minimize the amount of abortions is to illegalise it, shouldn’t everybody be responsible? Officials have the right to check your fatherhood against your will and so on. If you refuse to be a father, you must pay for it. It takes two to start a life. So to gain some respectability to the demand that abortion must be illegal, responsibility should fall as heavily on both parts and it should also be stated already in this stage, not after abortion is made illegal.

Sorry to interrupt you, especially when I don’t have the time to continue for a couple of days.[/quote]

I absolutely agree! In point of fact I don’t know of any pro-life proponent that disagrees with that statement. To my knowledge every one of them has been railing against dead beat guys who would abstain from THEIR responsibility, or try to minimize it.[/quote]

the problem is that it must also be stated in the law, or the proposition for a law. So far the discussion has been solely about the responsibility of women. I don’t like that, I like women and I think that the standard thinking that women are somehow more responsible of new life is utter bullshit. This has been 15 pages of utter bullshit. It’s half the story and not one word about male responsibility. [/quote]

Two responses: 1) agreed, write it into law. 2) The reason it has centered.on the women in this thread is that guys are absolutely eithout say in the matter of abortion. ONLY the women have a say in that–and, as the process of abortion centers around dismemberment or otherwise killing a human life (which, incidentally is the part that people who believe fetuses are persons have a huge issue with…the killing part), the result is that in a situation where the center of the controversy boils around killing something it will be quite natural to center discussion around that. THIS of course does not involve the man (legally speaking).

It has absolutely nothing to do with a woman being held MORE responsible than a guy in the minds of those talking, which is why I brought up thefact that I totally agree with your suggestion and as far as I am aware every single pro life person I know of at least absolutely agrees the man who would ditch his responsibility is a fucking scumbag. The fact that the discussion has thus far centered around the fetus inside the woman and the woman is a byproduct of the fact that the center of the controversy about killing a human life who happens to be inside a woman, not–I repeat NOT–the fact that a woman is more responsibls for the situation than thd guy. It takes two people to get into the situation in the first place.

In still other words, this is marginally equivalent to the ACA bill/laws constitutionality and clusterfuckedness being the center of the controversy pre-SCOTUS and having somebody say “well you spent 15 pages on this whether or not this is constitutional but not a word about uninsured people! I hate seeing people left uninsured so the last 15 pages have been bullshit”. Well, yes–I do hate that too. but the center of discussion is properly put on whether or not that law is allowable under the current form of gov’t not whether or not there are uninsured people we all agree need help. Just like the center of discussion is very properly “should it be legal and is it ethical to kill a human life in the womb”.

I hope you see what I have been saying. That is a very poor analogy but it was all I could think up on the spot. I like women too as a matter of fact, and I like protecting them as well as making sure deadbeat guys don’t leave them when they are most vulnerable. But as very important as that is, it ultimately has no bearing on whether the central tenet is ethical or not.

Again, I do totally agree with putting that into a law so guys can’t get out of it. and I’ll reiterate again that I believe the guy is JUST AS RESPONSIBLE as the girl in this situation.

EDIT: Let me put it this way. the question of “is it ethical to kill X” whether x is a fetus, a felon on death row, le whatever, is independent and must always be held independent of the practical considerations of HOW to enact a set of ethics. This goes for not just this topic but all other ethical issues, as well as governmental issues of constitutionality and proper governance.

397

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I’ll throw out some radical ideas for discussion:

If abortion is outlawed, men should have to register when they impregnate a woman such that their wages are garnished until the child is 18. Single mothers should not have to pay attorneys to track men down to get their child support. And hard times should not absolve a man of his financial responsibility to his offspring. Single mothers don’t have the option of not feeding and clothing their child because times are tight.

Also, if abortion becomes illegal, people need to get used to the idea of increased members of society being on food stamps and other government support. The true economic ramifications of such a decision have to be considered. You can’t be ethically consistent if you fight to protect the fetus and then jump to the other side of the fence regarding government support once the child is born.

Obviously, the best case scenario is to teach our sons and daughters to keep their pants zipped and use birth control. But there will always be stupid people and honest mistakes/technical failures that occur.[/quote]

Good post. The “practical” side, as opposed to the philosophical one.

I was a reporter covering Brownsville Brooklyn a few years ago. One of the most dangerous, generally shitty places in the country. Cops would literally come up to me and ask me why I was there, and if I was lost.

It turns out that about 60 percent of viable pregnancies are terminated in that neighborhood. Which is absolutely horrifying. But the question needs to be asked: what would that place look like if all those children had been born?

Which is not to say that that’s a moral argument in favor of abortion, because it isn’t.

And I totally agree re: fathers.

398

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Conservative Christian “pro-lifers” are equivalent to retarded Liberal PETA fanatics. Idealistic, unrealistic, intrusive, idealogically convinced, and will resort to just about anything to inflict their views onto others.

Humans not special snowflakes, they are animals. And, as in the animal kingdom, there is no guarantee nor “right” to life. Either you can defend your life, or you cannot defend your life. In the animal kingdom, this problem is solved by the parents protecting their offspring until they can defend themselves. But when a parent fails to protect it’s offsphing, it DIES. A fetus cannot defend it’s life. If it’s parents choose not to defend it’s life, then it will die. It is a very natural order of things. Survival of the fittest is not a new idea. The world is not some “sacred” place where “life is cherished”. The world is a very violent place and life is VERY expendible. History proves this…

Just because your little book (written by MAN, translated by MAN and used throughout history to control MAN) tells you to “go forth and multiply” and says that the earth is however many thousand years old which contradicts EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC STUDY regarding the age of our planet, so it is OBVIOUSLY WRONG, this does not give you the right to FORCE other people into complying with your religious practice. Infanticide, in one form or another, has been carried out by MANY species, including humans, since we crawled out of the sea. It is a normal and natural part of the animal kingdom. Just like war, sex and death. We are not above it.

Abortion is legal. Deal with it. If abortion were illegal IT WOULD STILL HAPPEN. There are MANY different causes and injustices in the world to get involved with. How about trying to get behind something that doesn’t violate the rights of other people’s liberty?
[/quote]
Well chicken. We pro-lifers are motivated by only on thing, saving a life. You above percieved motivations are all bullshit. We rightly, factually recognize that the child in the womb is a human being. And to take it’s life is the same as taking the life of any other human being.
Try to find a factual, scientific resource that shows that the child in the womb is anything other than a human being. That’s all you have to do, prove it’s not a human being.

[quote]

For the record, I would never allow MY seed to be aborted. But that’s because I always produce VERY FIT offspring and I have the capacity to protect them and ensure their success. Not everyone is in that boat. And it’s not my, or ANYONE ELSE’S place, to tell them what the fuck to do with THEIR SEED.[/quote]

Aye, aye hitler.[/quote]

Hitler took the stance of “do what you want, I don’t give a fuck”?

399

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I’ll throw out some radical ideas for discussion:

If abortion is outlawed, men should have to register when they impregnate a woman such that their wages are garnished until the child is 18. Single mothers should not have to pay attorneys to track men down to get their child support. And hard times should not absolve a man of his financial responsibility to his offspring. Single mothers don’t have the option of not feeding and clothing their child because times are tight.

Also, if abortion becomes illegal, people need to get used to the idea of increased members of society being on food stamps and other government support. The true economic ramifications of such a decision have to be considered. You can’t be ethically consistent if you fight to protect the fetus and then jump to the other side of the fence regarding government support once the child is born.

Obviously, the best case scenario is to teach our sons and daughters to keep their pants zipped and use birth control. But there will always be stupid people and honest mistakes/technical failures that occur.[/quote]

Good post. The “practical” side, as opposed to the philosophical one.
[/quote]

I think it would an egregious oversight to not consider the consequences of any action. So everyone can wax philosophical about the issue of abortion, but the practical side can’t be ignored. If abortion were outlawed, women of education and financial means would still find a way to get one. But women rooted in poverty would not. Who is going to provide for all these unwanted children from backgrounds such as smh_23 showed in his horrific example? Why are people more concerned about a fetus than the myriad of children who currently live in environments of poverty and abuse and get cycled through the foster care system? There are thousands of children in this country alone who are unwanted and whose needs are not met. Do we add to that number?

One other hypothetical: a group of 8-year old boys is playing in the woods. They find a nest of eggs and decide to use them for target practice by throwing them against trees. Is this any different than the boys finding baby chickens and throwing them against the trees?

400

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I’ll throw out some radical ideas for discussion:

If abortion is outlawed, men should have to register when they impregnate a woman such that their wages are garnished until the child is 18. Single mothers should not have to pay attorneys to track men down to get their child support. And hard times should not absolve a man of his financial responsibility to his offspring. Single mothers don’t have the option of not feeding and clothing their child because times are tight.

Also, if abortion becomes illegal, people need to get used to the idea of increased members of society being on food stamps and other government support. The true economic ramifications of such a decision have to be considered. You can’t be ethically consistent if you fight to protect the fetus and then jump to the other side of the fence regarding government support once the child is born.

Obviously, the best case scenario is to teach our sons and daughters to keep their pants zipped and use birth control. But there will always be stupid people and honest mistakes/technical failures that occur.[/quote]

Good post. The “practical” side, as opposed to the philosophical one.
[/quote]

I think it would an egregious oversight to not consider the consequences of any action. So everyone can wax philosophical about the issue of abortion, but the practical side can’t be ignored. If abortion were outlawed, women of education and financial means would still find a way to get one. But women rooted in poverty would not. Who is going to provide for all these unwanted children from backgrounds such as smh_23 showed in his horrific example? Why are people more concerned about a fetus than the myriad of children who currently live in environments of poverty and abuse and get cycled through the foster care system? There are thousands of children in this country alone who are unwanted and whose needs are not met. Do we add to that number?

One other hypothetical: a group of 8-year old boys is playing in the woods. They find a nest of eggs and decide to use them for target practice by throwing them against trees. Is this any different than the boys finding baby chickens and throwing them against the trees?
[/quote]

In either case, if the nest belonged to Angry Chicken, the eight year old boys would be in a world of hurt, because AC would come and beat them into a pulp.

Kpsnap, you make excellent points, and I would be delighted to have your contribution on the Value of Life thread.