It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.

[Anonymous]

Right, because that shit is realistic

Bristol Palin, who tried to make herself the poster child for abstinence, had 2 kids out of wedlock

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And especially for the 18 year old, read about the women on this thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenarankin/status/1091341366465101824 These are women who want nothing more than to take their baby home with them, and they are not going to get to do that. Some women wish to carry to term. Some women do not want the agony of being visibly pregnant and knowing that their baby is dead. It is one of the vilest acts of misogyny to force a woman to carry a doomed pregnancy to term.

I read the story. It’s good in the end though that the rapist’s joint legal custody was revoked.

Basically what I think it comes down to is whether abortion is murder or not. Let’s say the mother may die if she doesn’t abort. If she chooses not to abort, there is a small chance that both the mother and baby will live. But if she does choose to abort, there is a 0% chance that they both will live, every time. I do care about women’s health. My anti-abortion stance doesn’t mean I don’t care about women’s health or the suffering that they go through. I totally empathize with them. But I can’t ignore the unborn’s life. 600 million babies have been aborted in the US. I just feel like that’s too many. Abortion should be a last-case scenario, but I feel like it’s turned into a convenience for many people. So that’s what I struggle with.

Yeah, you didn’t read what I linked. And you have no idea what we’re talking about here.

+1. And abstinence barely works as a personal choice. It does NOT work as public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And especially for the 18 year old, read about the women on this thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenarankin/status/1091341366465101824 These are women who want nothing more than to take their baby home with them, and they are not going to get to do that. Some women wish to carry to term. Some women do not want the agony of being visibly pregnant and knowing that their baby is dead. It is one of the vilest acts of misogyny to force a woman to carry a doomed pregnancy to term.

I read the story. It’s good in the end though that the rapist’s joint legal custody was revoked.

Basically what I think it comes down to is whether abortion is murder or not. Let’s say the mother may die if she doesn’t abort. If she chooses not to abort, there is a small chance that both the mother and baby will live. But if she does choose to abort, there is a 0% chance that they both will live, every time. I do care about women’s health. My anti-abortion stance doesn’t mean I don’t care about women’s health or the suffering that they go through. I totally empathize with them. But I can’t ignore the unborn’s life. 600 million babies have been aborted in the US. I just feel like that’s too many. Abortion should be a last-case scenario, but I feel like it’s turned into a convenience for many people. So that’s what I struggle with.

SO if you struggle so much with the number of abortions, you must be a zealous advocate for accessible and effective birth control to prevent conception, right?

Because you know that the data shows that is the most effective way to decrease the number of abortions, right?

I would advocate abstinence from sex until marriage. Because when you say, “use birth control” you are saying it’s okay to have sex as long as it’s safe. But morally I believe it’s wrong to have premarital sex at all, whether people use contraception or not. So rather than advocating for accessible birth control, I would advocate for abstinence. For people who are married, I believe using birth control is fine. I think they should just know that there is still a chance that they might get pregnant, because birth control isn’t always 100% effective. I know I’ll probably take a lot of heat for having this view , as it’s not a popular view.

So you say you "struggle" with how many abortions there are, but stopping them isn't your priority. You place more importance on regulating people's sexual choices than stopping abortions.

At least you are honest, I guess. Yay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And especially for the 18 year old, read about the women on this thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenarankin/status/1091341366465101824 These are women who want nothing more than to take their baby home with them, and they are not going to get to do that. Some women wish to carry to term. Some women do not want the agony of being visibly pregnant and knowing that their baby is dead. It is one of the vilest acts of misogyny to force a woman to carry a doomed pregnancy to term.

I read the story. It’s good in the end though that the rapist’s joint legal custody was revoked.

Basically what I think it comes down to is whether abortion is murder or not. Let’s say the mother may die if she doesn’t abort. If she chooses not to abort, there is a small chance that both the mother and baby will live. But if she does choose to abort, there is a 0% chance that they both will live, every time. I do care about women’s health. My anti-abortion stance doesn’t mean I don’t care about women’s health or the suffering that they go through. I totally empathize with them. But I can’t ignore the unborn’s life. 600 million babies have been aborted in the US. I just feel like that’s too many. Abortion should be a last-case scenario, but I feel like it’s turned into a convenience for many people. So that’s what I struggle with.

SO if you struggle so much with the number of abortions, you must be a zealous advocate for accessible and effective birth control to prevent conception, right?

Because you know that the data shows that is the most effective way to decrease the number of abortions, right?

I would advocate abstinence from sex until marriage. Because when you say, “use birth control” you are saying it’s okay to have sex as long as it’s safe. But morally I believe it’s wrong to have premarital sex at all, whether people use contraception or not. So rather than advocating for accessible birth control, I would advocate for abstinence. For people who are married, I believe using birth control is fine. I think they should just know that there is still a chance that they might get pregnant, because birth control isn’t always 100% effective. I know I’ll probably take a lot of heat for having this view , as it’s not a popular view.

So you say you "struggle" with how many abortions there are, but stopping them isn't your priority. You place more importance on regulating people's sexual choices than stopping abortions.

At least you are honest, I guess. Yay?

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not trying to regulate people’s sexual choices. Part of being a Christian to me is about being honest about what’s right and what’s wrong. I believe that premarital sex is wrong and usually has negative consequences. If I tell someone that lying is wrong, for example, I am not trying to regulate their freedom of speech. I’m just saying that lying is wrong and will have negative consequences and that they shouldn’t do it. So by advocating for abstinence I am trying to help people avoid doing things that they will ultimately regret. I might get accused a lot of trying to control people’s actions, but that’s not why I do it. I don’t know if that makes sense to you but it makes me feel bad if someone thinks I am trying to control them, because I genuinely only want the best for them.

[Anonymous]

You can’t make public policy that way, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And especially for the 18 year old, read about the women on this thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenarankin/status/1091341366465101824 These are women who want nothing more than to take their baby home with them, and they are not going to get to do that. Some women wish to carry to term. Some women do not want the agony of being visibly pregnant and knowing that their baby is dead. It is one of the vilest acts of misogyny to force a woman to carry a doomed pregnancy to term.

I read the story. It’s good in the end though that the rapist’s joint legal custody was revoked.

Basically what I think it comes down to is whether abortion is murder or not. Let’s say the mother may die if she doesn’t abort. If she chooses not to abort, there is a small chance that both the mother and baby will live. But if she does choose to abort, there is a 0% chance that they both will live, every time. I do care about women’s health. My anti-abortion stance doesn’t mean I don’t care about women’s health or the suffering that they go through. I totally empathize with them. But I can’t ignore the unborn’s life. 600 million babies have been aborted in the US. I just feel like that’s too many. Abortion should be a last-case scenario, but I feel like it’s turned into a convenience for many people. So that’s what I struggle with.

SO if you struggle so much with the number of abortions, you must be a zealous advocate for accessible and effective birth control to prevent conception, right?

Because you know that the data shows that is the most effective way to decrease the number of abortions, right?

I would advocate abstinence from sex until marriage. Because when you say, “use birth control” you are saying it’s okay to have sex as long as it’s safe. But morally I believe it’s wrong to have premarital sex at all, whether people use contraception or not. So rather than advocating for accessible birth control, I would advocate for abstinence. For people who are married, I believe using birth control is fine. I think they should just know that there is still a chance that they might get pregnant, because birth control isn’t always 100% effective. I know I’ll probably take a lot of heat for having this view , as it’s not a popular view.

So you say you "struggle" with how many abortions there are, but stopping them isn't your priority. You place more importance on regulating people's sexual choices than stopping abortions.

At least you are honest, I guess. Yay?

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not trying to regulate people’s sexual choices. Part of being a Christian to me is about being honest about what’s right and what’s wrong. I believe that premarital sex is wrong and usually has negative consequences. If I tell someone that lying is wrong, for example, I am not trying to regulate their freedom of speech. I’m just saying that lying is wrong and will have negative consequences and that they shouldn’t do it. So by advocating for abstinence I am trying to help people avoid doing things that they will ultimately regret. I might get accused a lot of trying to control people’s actions, but that’s not why I do it. I don’t know if that makes sense to you but it makes me feel bad if someone thinks I am trying to control them, because I genuinely only want the best for them.

You might as well advocate for unicorns.

Sexuality is a part of human nature. It’s an intensely strong drive you can’t suppress through “advocating.”

What is prove on to work for lowering unintended pregnancies is making contraception easily, freely, and widely available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And especially for the 18 year old, read about the women on this thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenarankin/status/1091341366465101824 These are women who want nothing more than to take their baby home with them, and they are not going to get to do that. Some women wish to carry to term. Some women do not want the agony of being visibly pregnant and knowing that their baby is dead. It is one of the vilest acts of misogyny to force a woman to carry a doomed pregnancy to term.

I read the story. It’s good in the end though that the rapist’s joint legal custody was revoked.

Basically what I think it comes down to is whether abortion is murder or not. Let’s say the mother may die if she doesn’t abort. If she chooses not to abort, there is a small chance that both the mother and baby will live. But if she does choose to abort, there is a 0% chance that they both will live, every time. I do care about women’s health. My anti-abortion stance doesn’t mean I don’t care about women’s health or the suffering that they go through. I totally empathize with them. But I can’t ignore the unborn’s life. 600 million babies have been aborted in the US. I just feel like that’s too many. Abortion should be a last-case scenario, but I feel like it’s turned into a convenience for many people. So that’s what I struggle with.

SO if you struggle so much with the number of abortions, you must be a zealous advocate for accessible and effective birth control to prevent conception, right?

Because you know that the data shows that is the most effective way to decrease the number of abortions, right?

I would advocate abstinence from sex until marriage. Because when you say, “use birth control” you are saying it’s okay to have sex as long as it’s safe. But morally I believe it’s wrong to have premarital sex at all, whether people use contraception or not. So rather than advocating for accessible birth control, I would advocate for abstinence. For people who are married, I believe using birth control is fine. I think they should just know that there is still a chance that they might get pregnant, because birth control isn’t always 100% effective. I know I’ll probably take a lot of heat for having this view , as it’s not a popular view.

So you say you "struggle" with how many abortions there are, but stopping them isn't your priority. You place more importance on regulating people's sexual choices than stopping abortions.

At least you are honest, I guess. Yay?

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not trying to regulate people’s sexual choices. Part of being a Christian to me is about being honest about what’s right and what’s wrong. I believe that premarital sex is wrong and usually has negative consequences. If I tell someone that lying is wrong, for example, I am not trying to regulate their freedom of speech. I’m just saying that lying is wrong and will have negative consequences and that they shouldn’t do it. So by advocating for abstinence I am trying to help people avoid doing things that they will ultimately regret. I might get accused a lot of trying to control people’s actions, but that’s not why I do it. I don’t know if that makes sense to you but it makes me feel bad if someone thinks I am trying to control them, because I genuinely only want the best for them.

No, you want what YOU think is best for them. It’s all about YOU and your religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And especially for the 18 year old, read about the women on this thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenarankin/status/1091341366465101824 These are women who want nothing more than to take their baby home with them, and they are not going to get to do that. Some women wish to carry to term. Some women do not want the agony of being visibly pregnant and knowing that their baby is dead. It is one of the vilest acts of misogyny to force a woman to carry a doomed pregnancy to term.

I read the story. It’s good in the end though that the rapist’s joint legal custody was revoked.

Basically what I think it comes down to is whether abortion is murder or not. Let’s say the mother may die if she doesn’t abort. If she chooses not to abort, there is a small chance that both the mother and baby will live. But if she does choose to abort, there is a 0% chance that they both will live, every time. I do care about women’s health. My anti-abortion stance doesn’t mean I don’t care about women’s health or the suffering that they go through. I totally empathize with them. But I can’t ignore the unborn’s life. 600 million babies have been aborted in the US. I just feel like that’s too many. Abortion should be a last-case scenario, but I feel like it’s turned into a convenience for many people. So that’s what I struggle with.

SO if you struggle so much with the number of abortions, you must be a zealous advocate for accessible and effective birth control to prevent conception, right?

Because you know that the data shows that is the most effective way to decrease the number of abortions, right?

I would advocate abstinence from sex until marriage. Because when you say, “use birth control” you are saying it’s okay to have sex as long as it’s safe. But morally I believe it’s wrong to have premarital sex at all, whether people use contraception or not. So rather than advocating for accessible birth control, I would advocate for abstinence. For people who are married, I believe using birth control is fine. I think they should just know that there is still a chance that they might get pregnant, because birth control isn’t always 100% effective. I know I’ll probably take a lot of heat for having this view , as it’s not a popular view.

So you say you "struggle" with how many abortions there are, but stopping them isn't your priority. You place more importance on regulating people's sexual choices than stopping abortions.

At least you are honest, I guess. Yay?

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not trying to regulate people’s sexual choices. Part of being a Christian to me is about being honest about what’s right and what’s wrong. I believe that premarital sex is wrong and usually has negative consequences. If I tell someone that lying is wrong, for example, I am not trying to regulate their freedom of speech. I’m just saying that lying is wrong and will have negative consequences and that they shouldn’t do it. So by advocating for abstinence I am trying to help people avoid doing things that they will ultimately regret. I might get accused a lot of trying to control people’s actions, but that’s not why I do it. I don’t know if that makes sense to you but it makes me feel bad if someone thinks I am trying to control them, because I genuinely only want the best for them.

Okay. And that's more important to you than stopping abortions -- because we know that abortion rates plummet when you do things like make Nexplanon readily available.

You place more priority on telling people not to have sex (unless it's at a time and place you agree with) than you do on "stopping the murder of all those babies!" You can see, I'm sure, why there are going to be people who don't buy that the baby issue is such a burning one for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And especially for the 18 year old, read about the women on this thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenarankin/status/1091341366465101824 These are women who want nothing more than to take their baby home with them, and they are not going to get to do that. Some women wish to carry to term. Some women do not want the agony of being visibly pregnant and knowing that their baby is dead. It is one of the vilest acts of misogyny to force a woman to carry a doomed pregnancy to term.

I read the story. It’s good in the end though that the rapist’s joint legal custody was revoked.

Basically what I think it comes down to is whether abortion is murder or not. Let’s say the mother may die if she doesn’t abort. If she chooses not to abort, there is a small chance that both the mother and baby will live. But if she does choose to abort, there is a 0% chance that they both will live, every time. I do care about women’s health. My anti-abortion stance doesn’t mean I don’t care about women’s health or the suffering that they go through. I totally empathize with them. But I can’t ignore the unborn’s life. 600 million babies have been aborted in the US. I just feel like that’s too many. Abortion should be a last-case scenario, but I feel like it’s turned into a convenience for many people. So that’s what I struggle with.

SO if you struggle so much with the number of abortions, you must be a zealous advocate for accessible and effective birth control to prevent conception, right?

Because you know that the data shows that is the most effective way to decrease the number of abortions, right?

I would advocate abstinence from sex until marriage. Because when you say, “use birth control” you are saying it’s okay to have sex as long as it’s safe. But morally I believe it’s wrong to have premarital sex at all, whether people use contraception or not. So rather than advocating for accessible birth control, I would advocate for abstinence. For people who are married, I believe using birth control is fine. I think they should just know that there is still a chance that they might get pregnant, because birth control isn’t always 100% effective. I know I’ll probably take a lot of heat for having this view , as it’s not a popular view.

So you say you "struggle" with how many abortions there are, but stopping them isn't your priority. You place more importance on regulating people's sexual choices than stopping abortions.

At least you are honest, I guess. Yay?

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not trying to regulate people’s sexual choices. Part of being a Christian to me is about being honest about what’s right and what’s wrong. I believe that premarital sex is wrong and usually has negative consequences. If I tell someone that lying is wrong, for example, I am not trying to regulate their freedom of speech. I’m just saying that lying is wrong and will have negative consequences and that they shouldn’t do it. So by advocating for abstinence I am trying to help people avoid doing things that they will ultimately regret. I might get accused a lot of trying to control people’s actions, but that’s not why I do it. I don’t know if that makes sense to you but it makes me feel bad if someone thinks I am trying to control them, because I genuinely only want the best for them.

No, you want what YOU think is best for them. It’s all about YOU and your religious beliefs.

+1

Very selfish POV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And especially for the 18 year old, read about the women on this thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenarankin/status/1091341366465101824 These are women who want nothing more than to take their baby home with them, and they are not going to get to do that. Some women wish to carry to term. Some women do not want the agony of being visibly pregnant and knowing that their baby is dead. It is one of the vilest acts of misogyny to force a woman to carry a doomed pregnancy to term.

I read the story. It’s good in the end though that the rapist’s joint legal custody was revoked.

Basically what I think it comes down to is whether abortion is murder or not. Let’s say the mother may die if she doesn’t abort. If she chooses not to abort, there is a small chance that both the mother and baby will live. But if she does choose to abort, there is a 0% chance that they both will live, every time. I do care about women’s health. My anti-abortion stance doesn’t mean I don’t care about women’s health or the suffering that they go through. I totally empathize with them. But I can’t ignore the unborn’s life. 600 million babies have been aborted in the US. I just feel like that’s too many. Abortion should be a last-case scenario, but I feel like it’s turned into a convenience for many people. So that’s what I struggle with.

SO if you struggle so much with the number of abortions, you must be a zealous advocate for accessible and effective birth control to prevent conception, right?

Because you know that the data shows that is the most effective way to decrease the number of abortions, right?

I would advocate abstinence from sex until marriage. Because when you say, “use birth control” you are saying it’s okay to have sex as long as it’s safe. But morally I believe it’s wrong to have premarital sex at all, whether people use contraception or not. So rather than advocating for accessible birth control, I would advocate for abstinence. For people who are married, I believe using birth control is fine. I think they should just know that there is still a chance that they might get pregnant, because birth control isn’t always 100% effective. I know I’ll probably take a lot of heat for having this view , as it’s not a popular view.

So you say you "struggle" with how many abortions there are, but stopping them isn't your priority. You place more importance on regulating people's sexual choices than stopping abortions.

At least you are honest, I guess. Yay?

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not trying to regulate people’s sexual choices. Part of being a Christian to me is about being honest about what’s right and what’s wrong. I believe that premarital sex is wrong and usually has negative consequences. If I tell someone that lying is wrong, for example, I am not trying to regulate their freedom of speech. I’m just saying that lying is wrong and will have negative consequences and that they shouldn’t do it. So by advocating for abstinence I am trying to help people avoid doing things that they will ultimately regret. I might get accused a lot of trying to control people’s actions, but that’s not why I do it. I don’t know if that makes sense to you but it makes me feel bad if someone thinks I am trying to control them, because I genuinely only want the best for them.

Okay. And that's more important to you than stopping abortions -- because we know that abortion rates plummet when you do things like make Nexplanon readily available.

You place more priority on telling people not to have sex (unless it's at a time and place you agree with) than you do on "stopping the murder of all those babies!" You can see, I'm sure, why there are going to be people who don't buy that the baby issue is such a burning one for you.

+1

Don’t complain about abortions if you aren’t willing to do anything to prevent them.

People have sex. Abstinence education isn’t effective. That’s a fact.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

And you have no place to impose your morals on anyone else.

[Anonymous]

What did the New York law say that was passed? Was it more permissive than the draft Virginia bill?

[Anonymous]

Trump takes away your “you can give the babies up for adoption” line:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/trump-adoption-same-sex-couples-jews-miracle-mill.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump takes away your “you can give the babies up for adoption” line:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/trump-adoption-same-sex-couples-jews-miracle-mill.html

Adoption should always be encouraged. It’s a good outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump takes away your “you can give the babies up for adoption” line:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/trump-adoption-same-sex-couples-jews-miracle-mill.html

Adoption should always be encouraged. It’s a good outcome.

Then why is Trump taking it away from some people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump takes away your “you can give the babies up for adoption” line:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/trump-adoption-same-sex-couples-jews-miracle-mill.html

Adoption should always be encouraged. It’s a good outcome.

Not from what I’ve heard from adoptees.