Anonymous
02/04/2019 19:53
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Well I’d rather be adopted than the alternative...
Live a short, painful life?
Kill your mother in the process?
I wouldn’t be so sure.
Physicians are saying it's not possible for mother to be better off to abort while she's already in labor, than to allow the baby to be born alive.
How many mothers decide to abort after they’ve already started labor?
The poor woman who had to wait 4 days for her partially born child to die because it would be illegal for the hospital to induce labor at 20 weeks.
Babies don't stay stuck being "partially born" for four days, you creep.
DP
Oh, for heaven's sake. The old medical term for this is "failure to progress," a.k.a. "prolonged labor." There are newer terms for the same thing. It's a real diagnosis that physicians use.
If you don't understand the most basic facts of what can (and does) happen, then it's no wonder you hold untenable beliefs that you can't defend.
Go educate yourself, for god's sake, instead of just spouting off.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/307462.php
https://evidencebasedbirth.com/friedmans-curve-and-failure-to-progress-a-leading-cause-of-unplanned-c-sections/
Anonymous
02/04/2019 19:44
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Actually, there was no such thing as rape within marriage, according to law at the time.
"marital rape was legal" sounds pretty accurate then.
Oh, I am not disagreeing with you.
I am noting that it is extraordinarily difficult to criticize a practice or advocate for change if you literally do not have the language to describe it. That's a peculiarly systems-level version of toxic control.
Anonymous
02/04/2019 19:39
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So,let’s bring more unwanted kids into the world. That will end well.
Tell that to the couples who wait years to adopt a healthy infant.
What about the babies with poor prenatal care.
Maybe alcohol or drug use during the pregnancy?
Maybe black?
Are they lining up for all babies? If not, then STFU.
I can speak to this, as I have two friends who adopted "unwanted" kids. One couple took a teen from foster care. Another couple - white - adopted a black baby with a drug addicted birth mother.
Poor prenatal care - there's no excuse these days. Services are affordable. It's up to the mother (or couple) to be responsible enough to take responsibility on their end. But services are available.
Stop making excuses. You're part of the problem.
How many of those kids have you adopted? There are unwanted kids available today. What about them?
Did you feel wanted or unwanted?
Where you "Planned"?
Anonymous
02/04/2019 19:23
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Well I’d rather be adopted than the alternative...
Live a short, painful life?
Kill your mother in the process?
I wouldn’t be so sure.
Physicians are saying it's not possible for mother to be better off to abort while she's already in labor, than to allow the baby to be born alive.
How many mothers decide to abort after they’ve already started labor?
The poor woman who had to wait 4 days for her partially born child to die because it would be illegal for the hospital to induce labor at 20 weeks.
Babies don't stay stuck being "partially born" for four days, you creep.
Please acquaint yourself with Savita Halappanavar. Her fetus's gestational sac dropped out of her cervix into her vagina and the hospital she went to refused to do anything about it because they said they had to wait until the baby died first because of the law. She developed sepsis and died. All because the life of the doomed fetus was valued more than her own life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
Anonymous
02/04/2019 19:09
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Well I’d rather be adopted than the alternative...
Live a short, painful life?
Kill your mother in the process?
I wouldn’t be so sure.
Physicians are saying it's not possible for mother to be better off to abort while she's already in labor, than to allow the baby to be born alive.
How many mothers decide to abort after they’ve already started labor?
The poor woman who had to wait 4 days for her partially born child to die because it would be illegal for the hospital to induce labor at 20 weeks.
Babies don't stay stuck being "partially born" for four days, you creep.
Anonymous
02/04/2019 19:05
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:Actually, there was no such thing as rape within marriage, according to law at the time.
"marital rape was legal" sounds pretty accurate then.
Anonymous
02/04/2019 19:01
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Actually, there was no such thing as rape within marriage, according to law at the time.
Anonymous
02/04/2019 15:10
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.
– Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood
This is obviously a horrific quote. However, so is being forced to have 12 kids because marital rape is legal and birth control is banned.
+10000
Anonymous
02/04/2019 13:41
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Well I’d rather be adopted than the alternative...
Live a short, painful life?
Kill your mother in the process?
I wouldn’t be so sure.
Physicians are saying it's not possible for mother to be better off to abort while she's already in labor, than to allow the baby to be born alive.
How many mothers decide to abort after they’ve already started labor?
The poor woman who had to wait 4 days for her partially born child to die because it would be illegal for the hospital to induce labor at 20 weeks.
Anonymous
02/04/2019 09:38
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Exactly. I am thinking you all did not see the post from the prior page, clarifying some of the context.
Read it in context. Remember that this was written in 1920, eight years before we had penicillin G. Strep throat, pneumonia, even ear infections often proved fatal in the first year of life.
She wrote about a study that showed the 11th and 12th child in a family were more likely to die in the first year than survive. And that's just the ones who died -- life was suffering for those that survived with morbidity of various causes, even if not mortality. She cited the likelihood of children born in very large families spending much of their lives in debtors' prison or almshouses -- and recall these prisons were closer to Dickens' setup than our own.
This was also written almost two decades before the first US child labor laws. Child labor was horrific at that time.
You can disagree with her, but she was not arguing from a place of triviality. It was very much a text of the times, when life was nasty and brutish, as well as being short.
https://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html
Anonymous wrote:The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.
– Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood
Read it in context. Remember that this was written in 1920, eight years before we had penicillin G. Strep throat, pneumonia, even ear infections often proved fatal in the first year of life.
She wrote about a study that showed the 11th and 12th child in a family were more likely to die in the first year than survive. And that's just the ones who died -- life was suffering for those that survived with morbidity of various causes, even if not mortality. She cited the likelihood of children born in very large families spending much of their lives in debtors' prison or almshouses -- and recall these prisons were closer to Dickens' setup than our own.
This was also written almost two decades before the first US child labor laws. Child labor was horrific at that time.
You can disagree with her, but she was not arguing from a place of triviality. It was very much a text of the times, when life was nasty and brutish, as well as being short.
https://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html
Margaret Sanger (1879–1966). Woman and the New Race. 1920.
V. The Wickedness of Creating Large Families
THE MOST serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children. These statements may startle those who have never made a thorough investigation of the problem. They are, nevertheless, well considered, and the truth of them is abundantly borne out by an examination of facts and conditions which are part of everyday experience or observation. 1
...
Yet the poverty and neglect which drives a girl into prostitution usually has its source in a family too large to be properly cared for by the mother, if the girl is not actually subnormal because her mother bore too many children, and, therefore, the more likely to become a prostitute.
...
Excessive childbearing is now recognized by the medical profession as one of the most prolific causes of ill health in women. There are in America hundreds of thousands of women, in good health when they married, who have within a few years become physical wrecks, incapable of mothering their children, incapable of enjoying life. 4
...
In the United States, some 300,000 children under one year of age die each twelve months. Approximately ninety per cent of these deaths are directly or indirectly due to malnutrition, to other diseased conditions resulting from poverty, or to excessive childbearing by the mother. 7
The direct relationship between the size of the wage-earner’s family and the death of children less than one year old has been revealed by a number of studies of the infant death rate. One of the clearest of these was that made by Arthur Geissler among miners and cited by Dr. Alfred Ploetz before the First International Eugenic Congress. 1 Taking 26,000 births from unselected marriages, and omitting families having one and two children, Geissler got this result:
Deaths During First Year
1st born children 23%
...
10th " " 41%
11th " " 51%
12th " " 60%
Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months. 8
This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five. 9
...
The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment. Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feebleminded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers. 11
...
The immorality of bringing large families into the world is recognized by those who are combatting the child-labor evil.
...
"How many are too many?… Any more than the mother can look after and the father make a living for … Under present conditions as soon as there are too many children for the father to feed, some of them go to work in the mine or factory or store or mill near by.
Anonymous
02/04/2019 09:13
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.
– Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood
I think you need to look at the time period when she stated this. As a nurse during the early 20th century, she was probably seeing a lot infants being neglected, abused, dying of starvation, particularly those from large families because they couldn't take care of the child. Back then, there were no social safety nets. Such a child's life would've been hell growing up, and odds are, the child would've died early, a slow and painful death. Back then, people weren't as willing to adopt children, and homes for orphans were only a little bit better than 3rd world prisons. So it would have been more merciful for that child to have never been born.
There are many verses in the Bible that if you read it today, you'd think it was horrible and inhumane... like the verse where God tells his people to kill every man, woman and child in a village.
Context matters.
Going back to the thread topic... I think the only solution is forced vasectomies. You'd have no need for abortions then, or very very little need.
Anonymous
02/04/2019 09:04
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.
– Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood
This is obviously a horrific quote. However, so is being forced to have 12 kids because marital rape is legal and birth control is banned.
Anonymous
02/04/2019 09:03
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So,let’s bring more unwanted kids into the world. That will end well.
Everyone is wanted by someone. Being unwanted doesn’t justify your death.
So, you must be born. If your parents actually give a shit doesn’t matter.
There are plenty of parents who never should have reproduced who just brought pain and suffering on their children until they were killed by those who were supposed to care.
Spare me the “everyone is wanted by someone” nonsense. It is just not true.
Even if someone is not wanted by anyone, it still doesn’t justify their death. Just because someone’s future looks bleak, you will never really know what happens unless you let their life play out. Yes, a lot a children are born into suffering, but not all of them.
Go help the people already suffering. Once they are all ok then we can talk abortions.
We will never get rid of all the suffering of those already alive on Earth, it’s not realistic. Does that mean we should ignore the topic of abortion forever?
Yes, because you're unwilling to consider the ethical nuances. You claim to have a value of "protect life and prevent suffering!!" but it only applies in this ONE scenario, and completely ignores the other suffering (the woman, the fetus in cases of fetal anomoly.) So, until you advance an intellectual and morally coherent viewpoint about how the law should operate to "prevent suffering," you need to STFU about abortion. Protip: If you favor universal access to LTBC, single-payer health care, living wages, and unions, then you may start to have grounds to stand on. Until then, STFU.
Anonymous
02/04/2019 07:52
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
So it takes more money and years of schooling to become a tatoo artist compared with a doctor?
Who knew?
Who knew?
Anonymous
02/04/2019 07:46
Subject: It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
DP
Let me be clear -- regardless of your politics, if your argument is that little girl and boy babies are important, then they should be just as important after they are born. If you leave them to their own fates after the birth, then it's not them themselves you really care about.
If you use the argument. then be consistent. Or admit it's about policing sexual behavior, not really about what that produces.
Let me be clear -- regardless of your politics, if your argument is that little girl and boy babies are important, then they should be just as important after they are born. If you leave them to their own fates after the birth, then it's not them themselves you really care about.
If you use the argument. then be consistent. Or admit it's about policing sexual behavior, not really about what that produces.