Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Film industry is pulling out of GA because the talent doesn't want to be there and risk being arrested for being pregnant or some stupid sh!t. GA is doing a number on itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't need to. RW Gun users and Anti-vaxxers are taking care of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't need to. RW Gun users and Anti-vaxxers are taking care of it.

Funny how the most progressive privates are full of anti-vaxxers.

[Anonymous]

The Bible is pretty clear about how you must act toward your neighbor, paying your taxes, not judging others and being kind. Not a word about abortion. Yet pro-lifers never follow the things it does say. Sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Bible is pretty clear about how you must act toward your neighbor, paying your taxes, not judging others and being kind. Not a word about abortion. Yet pro-lifers never follow the things it does say. Sickening.

Over the time period when the Bible was written, it's very likely that most women weren't having sex out of wedlock and weren't having abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Bible is pretty clear about how you must act toward your neighbor, paying your taxes, not judging others and being kind. Not a word about abortion. Yet pro-lifers never follow the things it does say. Sickening.

Abortion was common in the reign of Constantine, first Christian emperor, as it was throughout Christian lands throughout history. It's only in much more recent years that some Christians have suddenly decided it's wrong.

[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.

Again, 42% reduction in abortions in Colorado by simply providing free contraceptives. Nothing you have can top that. Your arguments are pointless.

[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).

Above poster is 100% correct.

[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:

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).

Above poster is 100% correct.

Holy flawed logic, Batman. Just because contraceptives exist does not mean they were used. Just because conception happened does not guarantee a live healthy birth. Proves nothing.

[Anonymous]

ALL human beings DESERVE the RIGHT to LIFE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible is pretty clear about how you must act toward your neighbor, paying your taxes, not judging others and being kind. Not a word about abortion. Yet pro-lifers never follow the things it does say. Sickening.

Over the time period when the Bible was written, it's very likely that most women weren't having sex out of wedlock and weren't having abortions.

You think God, in all his omnipotence, was not aware that women were having abortions, nor that abortions could become more frequent in the future?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

ALL human beings DESERVE the RIGHT to LIFE.

When it’s capable of existing independent of me, sure. But while it’s a parasite endangering my life for its own sake, it’s my choice whether to continue as a host.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible is pretty clear about how you must act toward your neighbor, paying your taxes, not judging others and being kind. Not a word about abortion. Yet pro-lifers never follow the things it does say. Sickening.

Over the time period when the Bible was written, it's very likely that most women weren't having sex out of wedlock and weren't having abortions.

LOL, ok let me know when you come back to reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Over the time period when the Bible was written, it's very likely that most women weren't having sex out of wedlock and weren't having abortions.

People didn't have sex and they didn't pee either. Humans were different than all other mammals back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ALL human beings DESERVE the RIGHT to LIFE.

When it’s capable of existing independent of me, sure. But while it’s a parasite endangering my life for its own sake, it’s my choice whether to continue as a host.

Then you're AGAINST the killing of a VIABLE human life in utero. Thank you!