Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because even with contraception people here absolutely hate personal responsibility and think that everyone else should be responsible for their sex lives. That attitude is generally not suited for anything serious in life, including parenting. The more choices, the less responsibility and humility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because even with contraception people here absolutely hate personal responsibility and think that everyone else should be responsible for their sex lives. That attitude is generally not suited for anything serious in life, including parenting. The more choices, the less responsibility and humility.

F#ck humility. Give us the IUDs.

That is, if you actually cared about reducing the number of abortions.

Providing free/accessible LARCs has been proven to be VERY effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortiond.

[Anonymous]

Have at sterilization if that works for you, folks!

Contraception is less expensive, less invasive, and reversible! Works for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

]

Because even with contraception people here absolutely hate personal responsibility and think that everyone else should be responsible for their sex lives. That attitude is generally not suited for anything serious in life, including parenting. The more choices, the less responsibility and humility.

That is, if you actually cared about reducing the number of abortio.

Providing free/accessible LARCs has been proven to be VERY effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortiond.

Agreed. Where'd you get your facts, contraception hater? Why are you doling out the weird logic about the more choices the less responsibility? You don’t sound like someone who trusts anybody but you to make decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

]

Because even with contraception people here absolutely hate personal responsibility and think that everyone else should be responsible for their sex lives. That attitude is generally not suited for anything serious in life, including parenting. The more choices, the less responsibility and humility.

That is, if you actually cared about reducing the number of abortio.

Providing free/accessible LARCs has been proven to be VERY effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortiond.

Agreed. Where'd you get your facts, contraception hater? Why are you doling out the weird logic about the more choices the less responsibility? You don’t sound like someone who trusts anybody but you to make decisions.

Almost 62,000,000 Americans murdered since RvW, at the time of historically unprecedented opportunities, such as pill, condom (can be used at the same time) and other contraceptives. This proves that generally the more opportunities the people have the poorer choices they will make. Limited number of choices actually produce better results (you can Google this phenomenon, I won't do it for you).

[Anonymous]

So Luz Rivas, a Representative from the Hollywood District of California floats a bill proposing that Hollywood based studios get a tax break if they leave states like Georgia based on their abortion laws.

"Rivas said her measure — Assembly Bill 1442 — was formally introduced Monday and would be in addition to existing incentives the state offers to film and television projects in a tax credit program. In 2014, California more than tripled the size of its film incentive program, from $100 million to $330 million annually."


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/21/calif-proposes-film-incentives-targeting-strict-abortion-ban-states.html


So what's the ultimate upshot of this? Well, I see it as Rivas wants to make a political statement and she's going to transfer taxes from the California state tax payers to the Hollywood studios in order to make it. Is that the right thing to do?

Why put working slobs on the line for your political views? California already has a state income tax of 10% or more on its citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Luz Rivas, a Representative from the Hollywood District of California floats a bill proposing that Hollywood based studios get a tax break if they leave states like Georgia based on their abortion laws.

"Rivas said her measure — Assembly Bill 1442 — was formally introduced Monday and would be in addition to existing incentives the state offers to film and television projects in a tax credit program. In 2014, California more than tripled the size of its film incentive program, from $100 million to $330 million annually."


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/21/calif-proposes-film-incentives-targeting-strict-abortion-ban-states.html


So what's the ultimate upshot of this? Well, I see it as Rivas wants to make a political statement and she's going to transfer taxes from the California state tax payers to the Hollywood studios in order to make it. Is that the right thing to do?

Why put working slobs on the line for your political views? California already has a state income tax of 10% or more on its citizens.

Good riddance. Let them leave. No one needs their filth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

]

Because even with contraception people here absolutely hate personal responsibility and think that everyone else should be responsible for their sex lives. That attitude is generally not suited for anything serious in life, including parenting. The more choices, the less responsibility and humility.

That is, if you actually cared about reducing the number of abortio.

Providing free/accessible LARCs has been proven to be VERY effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortiond.

Agreed. Where'd you get your facts, contraception hater? Why are you doling out the weird logic about the more choices the less responsibility? You don’t sound like someone who trusts anybody but you to make decisions.

Almost 62,000,000 Americans murdered since RvW, at the time of historically unprecedented opportunities, such as pill, condom (can be used at the same time) and other contraceptives. This proves that generally the more opportunities the people have the poorer choices they will make. Limited number of choices actually produce better results (you can Google this phenomenon, I won't do it for you).

62 million women who had control over their body. Bravo.

As contraceptives become easier to obtain (they are easier now than 20 years ago!) abortion rates go down.

Look at Colorado, they went way down when LARCs became more available.

Your argument isn’t supported by facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

]

Because even with contraception people here absolutely hate personal responsibility and think that everyone else should be responsible for their sex lives. That attitude is generally not suited for anything serious in life, including parenting. The more choices, the less responsibility and humility.

That is, if you actually cared about reducing the number of abortio.

Providing free/accessible LARCs has been proven to be VERY effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortiond.

Agreed. Where'd you get your facts, contraception hater? Why are you doling out the weird logic about the more choices the less responsibility? You don’t sound like someone who trusts anybody but you to make decisions.

Almost 62,000,000 Americans murdered since RvW, at the time of historically unprecedented opportunities, such as pill, condom (can be used at the same time) and other contraceptives. This proves that generally the more opportunities the people have the poorer choices they will make. Limited number of choices actually produce better results (you can Google this phenomenon, I won't do it for you).

Doesn’t prove anything of the kind. You don’t know that all those aborted fetuses would have been brought to healthy full-term birth. And the fact that there were abortions during a time where contraception exists is not the same as contraception being free and readily available to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Luz Rivas, a Representative from the Hollywood District of California floats a bill proposing that Hollywood based studios get a tax break if they leave states like Georgia based on their abortion laws.

"Rivas said her measure — Assembly Bill 1442 — was formally introduced Monday and would be in addition to existing incentives the state offers to film and television projects in a tax credit program. In 2014, California more than tripled the size of its film incentive program, from $100 million to $330 million annually."


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/21/calif-proposes-film-incentives-targeting-strict-abortion-ban-states.html


So what's the ultimate upshot of this? Well, I see it as Rivas wants to make a political statement and she's going to transfer taxes from the California state tax payers to the Hollywood studios in order to make it. Is that the right thing to do?

Why put working slobs on the line for your political views? California already has a state income tax of 10% or more on its citizens.

Good riddance. Let them leave. No one needs their filth.

I think California is afraid of Georgia. Georgia has been doing a real number on California's overpriced film industry.

[Anonymous]

From the other thread:

The argument at hand is about RIGHTS. When does the baby have rights that equal those of the mother. Period. From the moment of conception, a human is a human, just in various phases of development;

Right. It’s a human in a different phase of development - not fully-formed.

[Anonymous]

From the other thread:

My father was born into extreme poverty and I spent most of my childhood in less extreme poverty. Yes, I’ve been there and it is not fun, but I enjoy being alive. It was not in any way convenient for my parents to become pregnant with me when they did, but I sure am happy they had me, even though we had very little money when I was growing up. And maybe they weren’t the very best parents in the world because they weren’t quite ready to be parents yet, but I am still happy I was born.

My parents worked hard to provide opportunities for college for their kids, even though they couldn’t pay for it themselves, so I am not poor now, but not rich either. I’m still very happy to be here in this world.

Life is worthwhile even if it isn’t comfortable and lovely and perfect at every moment.

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

[Anonymous]

It's not free birth control and health care. Someone has to pay for it. You get that, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not free birth control and health care. Someone has to pay for it. You get that, right?

Cheaper than paying food stamps, housing, healthcare, and education of unwanted children. You get that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not free birth control and health care. Someone has to pay for it. You get that, right?

Cheaper than paying food stamps, housing, healthcare, and education of unwanted children. You get that right?

So kill em.