sleeper;1840664 wrote:Can't murder a fetus. This isn't the 1600's anymore; women are people too and have the right to make choices about their own bodies.

In the 1600's I'd have to bet the contraceptive market wasn't much more than a burlap sack and some twine or possibly a chastity belt. Your absolutely correct this is not the 1600's anymore. There are more than enough contraceptives on the market in this present day to alleviate the chances of conception to a very small percentage. I guess if a person/couple don't want a child they should use the given solutions that are readily available in the contraceptive market. Lack of preparation and responsibility seem to be the key factor regarding the senseless loss of a fetus, in most cases abortion could be prevented if the proper measures were taken in the first place.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1840731 wrote:In the 1600's I'd have to bet the contraceptive market wasn't much more than a burlap sack and some twine or possibly a chastity belt. Your absolutely correct this is not the 1600's anymore. There are more than enough contraceptives on the market in this present day to alleviate the chances of conception to a very small percentage. I guess if a person/couple don't want a child they should use the given solutions that are readily available in the contraceptive market. Lack of preparation and responsibility seem to be the key factor regarding the senseless loss of a fetus, in most cases abortion could be prevented if the proper measures were taken in the first place.

The problem with contraceptives boils down to access and failure rate.

Condoms are the cheapest form of contraceptive but their failure rate is really high. It's around 10% with proper use and slides all the way down to 20% and worse when accounting for actual usage. Other forms like the pill and IUDs are far more effective but they are also far more expensive for the average person to afford. Luckily, there's an organization that provides low cost birth control called Planned Parenthood but Republicans hate them because 3% of the services they provide goes to abortions.

So even if you account for responsible usage, there's still going to be a substantial amount of unwanted pregnancies each year of families that can't afford to raise children. And given that in a world where abortion is illegal, women are still going to have them just not in a safe way. All of this is because Republicans, champions of limited government, want the government to decide on what women can do with their own bodies. It's hypocrisy at best and shows a complete lack of understanding how the world works.

It's also worth mentioning, pro-choice people are not pro-abortion. Abortion is a tough decision for anyone to make and is for most women THE last resort to maintain control of their own life destiny. It's certainly the preferable option rather than deal with the risk of childbirth and the lifelong financial burden for the child and the potential future children. It's about choice; don't like abortions? Don't have one, but the option should be available.

Belly35;1840710 wrote:She lost the election because she thought she was entitled to win. Plus she had a lot of baggage Oh by the way 3 million voter fraud.

I'd love to see your evidence of the 3M votes that Hillary received were from voter fraud.

You've been lied to.

sleeper;1840734 wrote:Other forms like the pill and IUDs are far more effective but they are also far more expensive for the average person to afford

My wife and I invested in the five year IUD which cost us $400 and is extremely effective. I would have to assume that abortion costs compared to that of an IUD would be more expensive than $400. Pay now or pay later and at what expense? The decision is theirs to make.

Wally;1840584 wrote:I want to know when "International Mens Day" is. Can I take the day off?

Start one. If it gets enough support, then I'm sure plenty of people will celebrate it.

Automatik;1840592 wrote:I went to an event advocating for more women headliners to be booked in the dance/electronic music world. It was pretty cool and free open bar. It was spearheaded by the Black Madonna, Chicago DJ, partnered with Smirnoff and Mixmag.

[video=youtube;4STsxJwAvNA][/video]

That's actually really cool.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1840731 wrote:In the 1600's I'd have to bet the contraceptive market wasn't much more than a burlap sack and some twine or possibly a chastity belt. Your absolutely correct this is not the 1600's anymore. There are more than enough contraceptives on the market in this present day to alleviate the chances of conception to a very small percentage. I guess if a person/couple don't want a child they should use the given solutions that are readily available in the contraceptive market. Lack of preparation and responsibility seem to be the key factor regarding the senseless loss of a fetus, in most cases abortion could be prevented if the proper measures were taken in the first place.

I recall reading something along the lines of the Egyptians using sheep skin as far back as the BCE era.

sleeper;1840734 wrote:The problem with contraceptives boils down to access and failure rate.

Condoms are the cheapest form of contraceptive but their failure rate is really high. It's around 10% with proper use and slides all the way down to 20% and worse when accounting for actual usage. Other forms like the pill and IUDs are far more effective but they are also far more expensive for the average person to afford. Luckily, there's an organization that provides low cost birth control called Planned Parenthood but Republicans hate them because 3% of the services they provide goes to abortions.

A question I pose to this response (and to be forthright, I decidedly take a pro-choice stance) is whether or not this is even relevant.

Would anyone advocate for abortion to only be permissible under the assertion that birth control was used? Or should they be permitted even if birth control was admittedly not used?

If the latter, then the frequency of failure isn't really purposeful within the discussion.

sleeper;1840734 wrote:So even if you account for responsible usage, there's still going to be a substantial amount of unwanted pregnancies each year of families that can't afford to raise children. And given that in a world where abortion is illegal, women are still going to have them just not in a safe way. All of this is because Republicans, champions of limited government, want the government to decide on what women can do with their own bodies. It's hypocrisy at best and shows a complete lack of understanding how the world works.

Well, "how the world works" is, and has always been fungible in regard to nation states and their legal systems/laws. As such, I really don't think that part is necessarily the case, if those people believe that's not how the world "should" work.

Also, technically it's not hypocritical, either. Most people who advocate for "small government" aren't the same as those who advocate for "no government." It's possible to believe that what little government should exist might venture into the area of terminating a fetus without believing that government should necessarily be invasive on a regular basis. As such, libertarians and minarchists can be anti-abortion. It's the brands of anarchism that would struggle to integrate such a view into their politics.

sleeper;1840734 wrote:It's also worth mentioning, pro-choice people are not pro-abortion. Abortion is a tough decision for anyone to make and is for most women THE last resort to maintain control of their own life destiny. It's certainly the preferable option rather than deal with the risk of childbirth and the lifelong financial burden for the child and the potential future children. It's about choice; don't like abortions? Don't have one, but the option should be available.

It's also worth noting that "pro-life" people aren't necessarily anti-abortion. If the technology were developed that enabled an abortion to take place without killing the fetus, I'm willing to wager that there would be plenty (not all, of course) of those who currently oppose it who would then support the right to do so.

Again, I'm pro-choice, and decidedly so. However, the sides need to understand each other in order to engage each other.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1840743 wrote:My wife and I invested in the five year IUD which cost us $400 and is extremely effective. I would have to assume that abortion costs compared to that of an IUD would be more expensive than $400. Pay now or pay later and at what expense? The decision is theirs to make.

An abortion is around $400 at Planned Parenthood.

Regardless, the majority of Americans don't have $400 to drop on an IUD, especially the most vulnerable populations that are trapped in the poverty cycle. It's very easy to sit in your cushy life and go "Well it's only $400, just pay it and don't worry about abortions". You're out of touch with reality.

A question I pose to this response (and to be forthright, I decidedly take a pro-choice stance) is whether or not this is even relevant.

Would anyone advocate for abortion to only be permissible under the assertion that birth control was used? Or should they be permitted even if birth control was admittedly not used?

No. There does not need to be a litmus test on abortion. It is entirely a choice between the patient and the doctor.

Also, technically it's not hypocritical, either. Most people who advocate for "small government" aren't the same as those who advocate for "no government." It's possible to believe that what little government should exist might venture into the area of terminating a fetus without believing that government should necessarily be invasive on a regular basis. As such, libertarians and minarchists can be anti-abortion. It's the brands of anarchism that would struggle to integrate such a view into their politics.

It puts the government into the bedroom and into the wombs of free Americans. It's definitely not a "Small government" principle to have government interfering with the decision made by a patient and her doctor.

It's also worth noting that "pro-life" people aren't necessarily anti-abortion. If the technology were developed that enabled an abortion to take place without killing the fetus, I'm willing to wager that there would be plenty (not all, of course) of those who currently oppose it who would then support the right to do so.

Again, I'm pro-choice, and decidedly so. However, the sides need to understand each other in order to engage each other.

Pro-life people are anti-abortion. There is no other option. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice because you advocate that abortion should be available but you, yourself,, would never get one.

I'm not sure how you can have an abortion without killing the fetus.

Plus, if Republicans were truly trying to reduce abortions, they would advocate INCREASING substantially funding to Planned Parenthood. They provide a lot of cheap/free healthcare services to women and have drastically reduced the amount of abortions in areas where they operate.

Remember, every time you say "Defund Planned Parenthood" you are directly advocating for an increase in abortions and a decrease in women's health services. No federal funding pays for any abortion so its directly taking dollars away from prevention for the most vulnerable population.

sleeper;1840751 wrote:An abortion is around $400 at Planned Parenthood.

So, we decided IUD, the decision will never haunt me

sleeper;1840751 wrote:Regardless, the majority of Americans don't have $400 to drop on an IUD, especially the most vulnerable populations that are trapped in the poverty cycle.

So who's covering the cost of their poor choices?

sleeper;1840751 wrote:It's very easy to sit in your cushy life and go "Well it's only $400, just pay it and don't worry about abortions".

$400 now or later, the price doesn't change. Responsibility is not a cushy lifestyle

sleeper;1840751 wrote:You're out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with reality, because we chose to plan ahead? Your comment is extraneous.

sleeper;1840755 wrote:No. There does not need to be a litmus test on abortion. It is entirely a choice between the patient and the doctor.

Agreed. Inasmuch, discussing the success rate of birth control is relatively fruitless, is it not?

sleeper;1840755 wrote:It puts the government into the bedroom and into the wombs of free Americans. It's definitely not a "Small government" principle to have government interfering with the decision made by a patient and her doctor.

In the event that a person believes, for whatever reason, that a fetus is a person, then it is protecting a person's life, be it in the bedroom or wherever else. In this case, government would, at least in theory, be enforcing only minimalist ethics, which is well under the purview of small government.

I actually don't even think the whole "Is it a person or not?" argument is relevant, as I still would contend that personhood doesn't give the fetus the right to another person's body without consent, regardless of whether or not the fetus needs it to survive.

sleeper;1840755 wrote:Pro-life people are anti-abortion. There is no other option. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice because you advocate that abortion should be available but you, yourself,, would never get one.

I'm not sure how you can have an abortion without killing the fetus.

We're speaking in broader terms than personal preference. Using your description of being "anti-abortion," that would make me "anti-mixed race marriages" because I married a white woman, and I am also white.

And while I agree that those who identify as pro-life are, at present, against abortion, what I'm suggesting is that it isn't necessarily so. They oppose the killing of the fetus, and not the absence of taking responsibility for it. As such, if future scientific endeavors and technological advancements allowed us to abort a fetus ... that is, to remove it from the pregnant woman ... without killing it, then there would be some who would no longer oppose abortion. If we were able to remove a fetus and artificially incubate it, there are those who would no longer oppose it.

At present, it isn't possible. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it never would be, and moreover, it demonstrates that it is the "kill" part that so many object to, and not the "not carry with your body" part.

sleeper;1840757 wrote:Plus, if Republicans were truly trying to reduce abortions, they would advocate INCREASING substantially funding to Planned Parenthood. They provide a lot of cheap/free healthcare services to women and have drastically reduced the amount of abortions in areas where they operate.

Remember, every time you say "Defund Planned Parenthood" you are directly advocating for an increase in abortions and a decrease in women's health services. No federal funding pays for any abortion so its directly taking dollars away from prevention for the most vulnerable population.

Well, you'll note that I'm not decrying Planned Parenthood. I think it should be defunded, but I'm pro-choice, so I'm not suggesting it out of a desire to prevent abortions. I merely think it should be private.

My company is 86% women which is pretty cool. I wore red socks and shoes in solidarity.

sleeper;1840591 wrote:Men right have a right to make decisions over their own body. Women had to withstand the assault of Republican TRAP laws to make decisions over their own body.

We need a constitutional amendment affirm the right to a safe abortion. We do not compromise with the religious whack jobs.

This is actually false. Due to the feminists getting bad laws passed, in some states (Ohio is one), a married man can not get a vasectomy without his wife's consent. I know I had to have my wife sign off when I had one scheduled. The funny part is that my wife decided that she was going to get her tubes cut instead. I didn't have to sign off on hers.....imagine that.

jmog;1840814 wrote:This is actually false. Due to the feminists getting bad laws passed, in some states (Ohio is one), a married man can not get a vasectomy without his wife's consent. I know I had to have my wife sign off when I had one scheduled. The funny part is that my wife decided that she was going to get her tubes cut instead. I didn't have to sign off on hers.....imagine that.

This is completely false. Perhaps your clinic required consent, but it is not a law.

sleeper;1840734 wrote:It's also worth mentioning, pro-choice people are not pro-abortion. Abortion is a tough decision for anyone to make and is for most women THE last resort to maintain control of their own life destiny. It's certainly the preferable option rather than deal with the risk of childbirth and the lifelong financial burden for the child and the potential future children. It's about choice; don't like abortions? Don't have one, but the option should be available.

Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, of Roe v Wade, came to see the light; you and others may also.
God bless.

Fab4Runner;1840822 wrote:This is completely false. Perhaps your clinic required consent, but it is not a law.

There are reports across many states that clinics are telling customers that it is the law. You look at any feminist opinion piece on the subject and it is typically "why should the man get to choose what is best for the couple as a whole".

You are correct that I can't find any law on the books, but you can find many states where the clinics "require it by law" to have spousal consent.

The point is, imagine the women's group's going insane whenever the idea of abortion requiring the father's consent is brought up...on this end the women's groups don't want to allow men to choose their own reproductive rights because it might affect their spouse...

sleeper;1840757 wrote:Plus, if Republicans were truly trying to reduce abortions, they would advocate INCREASING substantially funding to Planned Parenthood. They provide a lot of cheap/free healthcare services to women and have drastically reduced the amount of abortions in areas where they operate.

Remember, every time you say "Defund Planned Parenthood" you are directly advocating for an increase in abortions and a decrease in women's health services. No federal funding pays for any abortion so its directly taking dollars away from prevention for the most vulnerable population.

QuakerOats;1840875 wrote:

Also false.

Sanger's exact quote from the NYT in 1923:

Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.

So best case, she was a proponent of eugenics.

I think we can safely move this to the Politics forum.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1840731 wrote:In the 1600's I'd have to bet the contraceptive market wasn't much more than a burlap sack and some twine or possibly a chastity belt. Your absolutely correct this is not the 1600's anymore. There are more than enough contraceptives on the market in this present day to alleviate the chances of conception to a very small percentage. I guess if a person/couple don't want a child they should use the given solutions that are readily available in the contraceptive market. Lack of preparation and responsibility seem to be the key factor regarding the senseless loss of a fetus, in most cases abortion could be prevented if the proper measures were taken in the first place.

What are your thoughts on a married mother who is 41, already has two children and decides to have an abortion when she gets knocked up again by her husband?

fish82;1840895 wrote:Sanger's exact quote from the NYT in 1923:



So best case, she was a proponent of eugenics.

She was definitely into Eugenics - so was everybody in the early 1900's. W.E.B. Dubois said shit that would be considered crazy to say today.

I actually don't even think the whole "Is it a person or not?" argument is relevant, as I still would contend that personhood doesn't give the fetus the right to another person's body without consent, regardless of whether or not the fetus needs it to survive.

without consent...
but there was consent, except in cases of rape... Seriously, how uneducated do you have to be to not understand that actions have consequences?
Murder. The only excuse you have to kill somebody, is war, self defense, and rape.

BoatShoes;1840905 wrote:What are your thoughts on a married mother who is 41, already has two children and decides to have an abortion when she gets knocked up again by her husband?

Tubes tied or dude snipped?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HitsRus;1840910 wrote:without consent...
but there was consent, except in cases of rape... Seriously, how uneducated do you have to be to not understand that actions have consequences?
Murder. The only excuse you have to kill somebody, is war, self defense, and rape.

Ain't murder until it's legitimately alive.

Heretic;1840941 wrote:Ain't murder until it's legitimately alive.

What makes one legitimately alive?