Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

So, you are equating having sex with needing food on daily basis?
That's why you can't be taken seriously.
But if you insist, I think sterilization is better option.

[Anonymous]

X100000 for free, easily accessible contraception, sex eduction, access to Plan B. All these things reduce the need for abortion. This is where you should put our energy, pro lifers. Plus, increased research on preventing miscarriage, which ends far more pregnancies than abortion.

How about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

So, you are equating having sex with needing food on daily basis?
That's why you can't be taken seriously.
But if you insist, I think sterilization is better option.

Sterilize everyone! Great plan!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

+1 I'm all for it. While we're at it, let's offer free sterilization to both men and women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

+1 I'm all for it. While we're at it, let's offer free sterilization to both men and women.

Sure why not- but why would anyone want to do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

x 1 million.

If someone truly cared about reducing the number of abortions this is what is effective and what they should support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

+1 I'm all for it. While we're at it, let's offer free sterilization to both men and women.

Sounds good.

Sounds like a good component of quality health care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

+1 I'm all for it. While we're at it, let's offer free sterilization to both men and women.

Sure why not- but why would anyone want to do this?

Because you'll have opportunity to do whatever you want with your body without those pesky "religious" people telling you not to (like don't get STDs). Meantime, you won't be killing unborn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

So, you are equating having sex with needing food on daily basis?
That's why you can't be taken seriously.
But if you insist, I think sterilization is better option.

Just because your own libido is low doesn’t mean that the sex drive for most humans isn’t a hormonally predicated animal instinct that is difficult to tame, and yes as strong as the need to eat. Has been for millennia and you will never get to a point where all humans can easily deny their basic urges. Just go look at the relationships forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

So, you are equating having sex with needing food on daily basis?
That's why you can't be taken seriously.
But if you insist, I think sterilization is better option.

Just because your own libido is low doesn’t mean that the sex drive for most humans isn’t a hormonally predicated animal instinct that is difficult to tame, and yes as strong as the need to eat. Has been for millennia and you will never get to a point where all humans can easily deny their basic urges. Just go look at the relationships forum.

Throughout most of history governments never subsidized citizens' sex life.

DCUM relationship forum is full of egotistic people that have financial opportunity to live trashy lifestyles that they really could not afford if they had to live anywhere else in ten world. Therefore, that forum cannot be true measure of anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

So, you are equating having sex with needing food on daily basis?
That's why you can't be taken seriously.
But if you insist, I think sterilization is better option.

Just because your own libido is low doesn’t mean that the sex drive for most humans isn’t a hormonally predicated animal instinct that is difficult to tame, and yes as strong as the need to eat. Has been for millennia and you will never get to a point where all humans can easily deny their basic urges. Just go look at the relationships forum.

Throughout most of history governments never subsidized citizens' sex life.

DCUM relationship forum is full of egotistic people that have financial opportunity to live trashy lifestyles that they really could not afford if they had to live anywhere else in ten world. Therefore, that forum cannot be true measure of anything.

Give an example of any society in history where there was never any out of wedlock births or infidelity. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

So, you are equating having sex with needing food on daily basis?
That's why you can't be taken seriously.
But if you insist, I think sterilization is better option.

Just because your own libido is low doesn’t mean that the sex drive for most humans isn’t a hormonally predicated animal instinct that is difficult to tame, and yes as strong as the need to eat. Has been for millennia and you will never get to a point where all humans can easily deny their basic urges. Just go look at the relationships forum.

Throughout most of history governments never subsidized citizens' sex life.

DCUM relationship forum is full of egotistic people that have financial opportunity to live trashy lifestyles that they really could not afford if they had to live anywhere else in ten world. Therefore, that forum cannot be true measure of anything.

Not so. China, India, Greece, Turkey, Mexico, Brail, Portugal, South Africa, Korea and Russia all provide free contraception. And on the other side of the coin, Nazi Germany awarded families who had four or more children for the Fatherland. So countries can and do subsidize the sex lives of their citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to high-tech ultrasound technology we know with 100% certainty that we are not dealing with frogs, aliens, or clumps of cells but human beings. We now have photos of babies born dead due to miscarriage because their mothers refused D&C but delivered them whole and intact after a miscarriage. We can clearly visualize all body parts of a tiny, tiny human being. So called pro-choice side keeps offending and alienating numerous women who endured miscarriages by calling their babies product of conception, medical waste and denying the humanity of those babies.
Images included:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/brave-mum-shares-images-dead-13517391

P.S. Watch for so called pro-choice posters demanding this post be removed so that any images of unborn humans are not seen. The more they do that the harder will be for them to sustain any kind of momentum in this conversation and legislations that will ensue.

No shit. They are early form of human development. Of course they look like humans. Are you stupid or something?

I have no problem with images of deceased or aborted embryos and fetuses. Feel free to post.

It's very sad, but a necessary evil. Grow the F up.

[phone]

At least you acknowledge that it's an evil act.

Yes, it’s a sh1tty situation. The kind that adults deal with every day. GROW UP.

Probably some religious nutter will take “evil” as meaning something more than it is though. Idiots.

Just those that have a life based in egoism and narcissism. They tend to spend their life walking over alive and dead to get what they want. Their ultimate goal is :me.me,me. They are also rude and entitled. When they get old they become miserable and die alone.

Actually, it's sad to assume that just because a family is poor that they can't or won't provide their kids with a stable support system and teach their children good values. Many parents teach their children to work hard, try their best in school, make plans for their future, stay away from drugs/alcohol, AND not have sex as often as rabbits with no protection. I work every day in schools with parents like that--they are amazing role models for their kids.

I totally agree with you. I was responding to the poster who was using insults to justify how being selfish is great. I agree with your every word. Just because someone has money they are not more entitled to be alive than someone without many. Many poor people raise wonderful and responsible children. It is so condescending when those with good jobs in DC tell people around the country that they should kill their offspring off because they are poor and/or disabled. Talk about playing an entitled god. Meantime, those same "well-off" people have sex without protection, cheat on their spouses (because they have time and money), get STDs and use abortion as contraception. What they are really "fighting" for is to use abortion as contraception. They don't give a rat's ass about poor people and their rights. And that's the essence of egoism. Most poor people work hard for decent life and want to make their families strong.

PP here. Well said.

Uh. No one was forcing anyone to have an abortion.

Which poor people wouldn’t want:
- sex education
- free/accessible health care
- free/accessible birth control (incl LARCs)
- maternity & paternity leave
- childcare
- and access to abortion if that is what they decided was the best option for them?

Still waiting on an answer to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

So, you are equating having sex with needing food on daily basis?
That's why you can't be taken seriously.
But if you insist, I think sterilization is better option.

Just because your own libido is low doesn’t mean that the sex drive for most humans isn’t a hormonally predicated animal instinct that is difficult to tame, and yes as strong as the need to eat. Has been for millennia and you will never get to a point where all humans can easily deny their basic urges. Just go look at the relationships forum.

Throughout most of history governments never subsidized citizens' sex life.

DCUM relationship forum is full of egotistic people that have financial opportunity to live trashy lifestyles that they really could not afford if they had to live anywhere else in ten world. Therefore, that forum cannot be true measure of anything.

Not so. China, India, Greece, Turkey, Mexico, Brail, Portugal, South Africa, Korea and Russia all provide free contraception. And on the other side of the coin, Nazi Germany awarded families who had four or more children for the Fatherland. So countries can and do subsidize the sex lives of their citizens.

USA should definitely subsidize sterilization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So not one person will think to herself...
Hmmm, if we have sex this weekend, we might make a baby. So maybe we better not, because we’re not ready for a baby.

Some of you are ridiculous with your narrative.

Exactly. It seems that personal responsibility is such a foreign idea to so many people today. Maybe they go into traffic behaving the same way; that if they take a wrong turn or misinterpret the traffic signs they should just be allowed to kill other drivers and be forgiven for it.

Yo dumbass. All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to protect an underaged child from rape, isn't going to magically correct a fatal ectopic pregnancy or fetal brain defect. Stop blaming the victims and forcing your uninformed, moronic idiocy on them.

Pulling the rape card in front of well informed and prepared pro-life crowd makes you sound incredibly uninformed, intellectually lazy, and downright stupid. But for the millionth time here it is: we know from years of tracking abortions that less than 1% are done for rape/incest, small percentage are done for fetal/maternal health issues, and overwhelming majority (>90%) out of personal convenience. So, we have been arguing against the use of that majority out of convenience this entire time. We know that overwhelming majority of women in America with unintended pregnancies are not victims as you claim, they are willing participants in sex. Yes, we think that consenting adults have personal responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy. But you just kind of parachuted stupidly in the midst of this discussion and think that calling someone names makes you look smart and informed. When you are too lazy to look up statistical evidence and find out what the discussion is really about you lose any credibility and sound like a moron that cannot be taken seriously.

Those are stats from a very flawed, very limited, decades-old Guttmacher study. However if you insist on using it then how about including one of their other key findings from that study, that 46% of abortions were due to not having contraception. Now, correlate that with the 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado as a function of providing free contraceptives.

How about getting on board with providing free contraceptives to anyone who needs them? That alone would have far better results where it comes to significantly reducing abortions than the idiocy and criminalization that the pro-lifers are trying to push.

Plus, it's fiscally responsible. The Guttmacher study found that a large percentage of abortions were because the mother could not afford to have children. That means WIC, likely food stamps, rent subsidies and other supports at great taxpayer expense that would be avoided. Or the cost of giving the child up, which likely means putting the child into foster care because the reality of it is that there are nowhere near enough families adopting. The cost of providing contraceptives for free is significantly lower than all of those social safety net services that would have to be provided. Any fiscal conservative should be wholly on board with it.

Free contraceptives. That is your best plan.

So, you are equating having sex with needing food on daily basis?
That's why you can't be taken seriously.
But if you insist, I think sterilization is better option.

Just because your own libido is low doesn’t mean that the sex drive for most humans isn’t a hormonally predicated animal instinct that is difficult to tame, and yes as strong as the need to eat. Has been for millennia and you will never get to a point where all humans can easily deny their basic urges. Just go look at the relationships forum.

Throughout most of history governments never subsidized citizens' sex life.

DCUM relationship forum is full of egotistic people that have financial opportunity to live trashy lifestyles that they really could not afford if they had to live anywhere else in ten world. Therefore, that forum cannot be true measure of anything.

Not so. China, India, Greece, Turkey, Mexico, Brail, Portugal, South Africa, Korea and Russia all provide free contraception. And on the other side of the coin, Nazi Germany awarded families who had four or more children for the Fatherland. So countries can and do subsidize the sex lives of their citizens.

USA should definitely subsidize sterilization.

Why not contraception?