Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A woman has a right to control her body. Period. It doesn't matter the reason.

Too bad the body control only occurs after the pregnancy.

Abortion is the only way women can seemingly control their bodies.

I like how you let men off the hook so easily.

Unfortunately, I didn’t create humankind. I made no personal decision to build a woman’s body to carry unborn babies, and gift a man with a penis.

I also don’t force women to have sex with men who will not support them in case pregnancy occurs. Women choose who they have sex with. If they have sex with a man who won’t help support a possible pregnancy I can’t prevent that.

However, a man can be forced to take a paternity test and the government will even take money out of his check for child support should he prove to be the father and refuse financial responsibility.

What if the man who impregnated the woman does not work. Suppose, for the next several years the man decides to continue his studies (say complete high school, undergrad, and grad studies). How will the govt. force him to pay child support when he doesn't have any earnings?

Men who are ordered to pay child support are jailed if they do not comply.
Men aren’t going to be able to get their education from jail. Pay up dad.

My bff got pregnant and college and the dad was an exceptional athlete who went on to play in the NFL.

They hammered out an agreement where she supported their child until he finished college and got an NFL contract- which he did. He then repaid her and paid generous child support.

I don’t know why men should get a free pass to continue their education if pregnancy occurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok so if the government can order women to go through pregnancy and L&D against their will, in the name of “saving lives,” it should be able to harvest your body for parts after your death against your will in order to save lives. After all you’ll be dead and it will be of no consequence to you if the government takes your kidneys, liver, eyes, or limbs to save or improve the lives of others. And also everyone should be forced to give blood regularly and to be in a bone marrow databank to be available to donate if the government finds a match. After all, giving blood and bone marrow is a temporary inconvenience and doesn’t harm you. Exceptions can be made for the sick and children, but once you turn 18 you need to register for the blood bank and bone marrow database.

Anti-abortion folks, you call yourself pro-life so are you with me? I would assume you will agree with both these proposals

Abortion is the death of another body, not your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According the the CDC, there were 560,715 live births of African Americans in 2017 while there were 141,825 abortions, or 26% of their population was eliminated.

Uh - that's 20.2%.

Pro-birthers can't handle analogies....or math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so if the government can order women to go through pregnancy and L&D against their will, in the name of “saving lives,” it should be able to harvest your body for parts after your death against your will in order to save lives. After all you’ll be dead and it will be of no consequence to you if the government takes your kidneys, liver, eyes, or limbs to save or improve the lives of others. And also everyone should be forced to give blood regularly and to be in a bone marrow databank to be available to donate if the government finds a match. After all, giving blood and bone marrow is a temporary inconvenience and doesn’t harm you. Exceptions can be made for the sick and children, but once you turn 18 you need to register for the blood bank and bone marrow database.

Anti-abortion folks, you call yourself pro-life so are you with me? I would assume you will agree with both these proposals

Red Herring and nothing to do with the Abortion debate. One is talking about saving innocent babies from being killed for convenience, the other is your futile attempt to be an authoritarian.

^^^Would let an innocent child die rather than take a body part from a corpse that didn’t sign a donation form. Shame on you for not caring about babies. Friends of mine lost their baby while waiting too long on a transplant list. She could have been saved by such a law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so if the government can order women to go through pregnancy and L&D against their will, in the name of “saving lives,” it should be able to harvest your body for parts after your death against your will in order to save lives. After all you’ll be dead and it will be of no consequence to you if the government takes your kidneys, liver, eyes, or limbs to save or improve the lives of others. And also everyone should be forced to give blood regularly and to be in a bone marrow databank to be available to donate if the government finds a match. After all, giving blood and bone marrow is a temporary inconvenience and doesn’t harm you. Exceptions can be made for the sick and children, but once you turn 18 you need to register for the blood bank and bone marrow database.

Anti-abortion folks, you call yourself pro-life so are you with me? I would assume you will agree with both these proposals

Abortion is the death of another body, not your own.

So is the death of someone who could be saved by your bone marrow.

[Anonymous]

Men should go to jail for causing unwanted pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortions performed that end a persons life for no other reason than convenience isn't healthcare - change my mind....

"convenience"? No changing your mind with a perspective like that.

look at the chart earlier. Rarely is it ever for medical reasons - mostly it's for convenience.

You dismiss women as not being fully human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so if the government can order women to go through pregnancy and L&D against their will, in the name of “saving lives,” it should be able to harvest your body for parts after your death against your will in order to save lives. After all you’ll be dead and it will be of no consequence to you if the government takes your kidneys, liver, eyes, or limbs to save or improve the lives of others. And also everyone should be forced to give blood regularly and to be in a bone marrow databank to be available to donate if the government finds a match. After all, giving blood and bone marrow is a temporary inconvenience and doesn’t harm you. Exceptions can be made for the sick and children, but once you turn 18 you need to register for the blood bank and bone marrow database.

Anti-abortion folks, you call yourself pro-life so are you with me? I would assume you will agree with both these proposals

Abortion is the death of another body, not your own.

It’s not “the death of another body.” Sorry, but most of us don’t agree with your weird ass interpretation of thousand year-old scripture. It’s not a legitimate basis for rational government and policy making, especially in a country where separation of church and state is supposed to be paramount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so if the government can order women to go through pregnancy and L&D against their will, in the name of “saving lives,” it should be able to harvest your body for parts after your death against your will in order to save lives. After all you’ll be dead and it will be of no consequence to you if the government takes your kidneys, liver, eyes, or limbs to save or improve the lives of others. And also everyone should be forced to give blood regularly and to be in a bone marrow databank to be available to donate if the government finds a match. After all, giving blood and bone marrow is a temporary inconvenience and doesn’t harm you. Exceptions can be made for the sick and children, but once you turn 18 you need to register for the blood bank and bone marrow database.

Anti-abortion folks, you call yourself pro-life so are you with me? I would assume you will agree with both these proposals

Red Herring and nothing to do with the Abortion debate. One is talking about saving innocent babies from being killed for convenience, the other is your futile attempt to be an authoritarian.

^^^Would let an innocent child die rather than take a body part from a corpse that didn’t sign a donation form. Shame on you for not caring about babies. Friends of mine lost their baby while waiting too long on a transplant list. She could have been saved by such a law.

Adults die waiting for transplants too. This has nothing to do with abortion and your attempts at comparison is intellectually dishonest at best.

And I call BS. There is no way a young child would be able to have an adult organ transplanted into them. It's just not going to be possible.

https://www.texasheart.org/heart-health/heart-information-center/frequently-asked-patient-questions/can-a-child-receive-a-heart-transplant-from-an-adult/

So not only are you an idiot - you're a liar as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:taking away birth control options and access to abortions is NOT the way to make this cultural change

It is not taking away birth control and contraception options, it is getting people to use them. Abortions could the bevrare.

The Alabama law makes IUDs illegal. They are one of the most effective, cheapest, easiest options. (Although LD nurse, I had one fail and the pregnancy was ectopic. Exceptions happen). They are taking away contraception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Abortions performed that end a persons life for no other reason than convenience isn't healthcare - change my mind....

Embryos and fetuses aren't people you weirdo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortions performed that end a persons life for no other reason than convenience isn't healthcare - change my mind....

"convenience"? No changing your mind with a perspective like that.

look at the chart earlier. Rarely is it ever for medical reasons - mostly it's for convenience.

You dismiss women as not being fully human.

ad hominem attacks are usually the lowest form of debate tactics.

The chart clearly shows that medical reasons for abortion are rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Abortions performed that end a persons life for no other reason than convenience isn't healthcare - change my mind....

A fetus who cannot live outside the mother is not a life. We can debate when life begins. But those are religious arguments. And we don’t live in a society of theocracy rule by a repressive minority.

Or, we didn’t use to.

[Anonymous]

I feel strongly pro choice, but I think we could pursue a general compromise and have it be at least better than it is today.

Make abortion and birth control and sex education widely accessible and affordable until 16 weeks and then ban abortions after that time except if fetal anomalies are identified or risk to the mother's health is identified. No listing out of what qualifies or not, after 16 weeks it is between a woman and the doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortions performed that end a persons life for no other reason than convenience isn't healthcare - change my mind....

Embryos and fetuses aren't people you weirdo.

Yes they are. Alabama is protecting them. Sorry.