Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Trump Takes First Strike Against Abortion

Page 3 of 7 [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,009
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Jan 2017, 10:19 pm

Raptor wrote:
diablo wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Extraneous sexual intercourse seems to wreak more havoc than the feels are worth for the most part.


Most birth control methods aren't 100% effective. I've heard from couples that used the pill and condoms together and still managed to get pregnant.

They are close enough to 100% effective, and abstinence actually is 100% effective.


Quote:
While it was obvious trump was going to approve this, since it flops back and forth depending on the president, I hope trump and his supporters are willing to fund the lives of the babies that'll be born into welfare thanks to this gag order. Its not like republicans are warm to the idea of tax payer money going to preventative birth control options either.
That's easy; we just won't pay for either.


So what do you propose couples who don't want kids just shouldn't have sex...well that's not realistic.

Also if you republicans don't want to pay for and care for these unwanted children once they are born, why the f*** do you care if people get abortions before the thing growing inside even becomes a baby? 'OMG it's murder to kill that poor clump of cells.' but as soon as it's born and takes its first breath of air...it's a useless eater. Some logic there. Maybe we should split this country in half so you religious fundies who want everyone to practice abstinence and follow other religious law can have your own side, and us progressives who believe in a secular government can have our side. Maybe that is the solution.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,009
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Jan 2017, 10:20 pm

Raptor wrote:
^ then have an abortion, but not at the taxpayers expense.


Well care for the children once they are born will be at the taxpayers expense.


_________________
We won't go back.


smudge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,716
Location: Moved on

28 Jan 2017, 6:14 am

Raptor wrote:
diablo wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Extraneous sexual intercourse seems to wreak more havoc than the feels are worth for the most part.


Most birth control methods aren't 100% effective. I've heard from couples that used the pill and condoms together and still managed to get pregnant.

They are close enough to 100% effective, and abstinence actually is 100% effective.


Being realistic here, do you really think suddenly telling everyone to refrain from sex is going to stop them? It is our instincts, you cannot stop people.


_________________
I've left WP.


smudge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,716
Location: Moved on

28 Jan 2017, 6:16 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also if you republicans don't want to pay for and care for these unwanted children once they are born, why the f*** do you care if people get abortions before the thing growing inside even becomes a baby? 'OMG it's murder to kill that poor clump of cells.' but as soon as it's born and takes its first breath of air...it's a useless eater. Some logic there.


This.


_________________
I've left WP.


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

28 Jan 2017, 10:38 am

smudge wrote:
Raptor wrote:
diablo wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Extraneous sexual intercourse seems to wreak more havoc than the feels are worth for the most part.


Most birth control methods aren't 100% effective. I've heard from couples that used the pill and condoms together and still managed to get pregnant.

They are close enough to 100% effective, and abstinence actually is 100% effective.


Being realistic here, do you really think suddenly telling everyone to refrain from sex is going to stop them? It is our instincts, you cannot stop people.

This.Even sterilization isn't always effective.I know of a pregnancy that resulted from this.Rare,but it can happen.My tubes are tied but if the rare event happened that I got knocked up I would choose abortion.Im too old to take care of a kid and one of the medications I take is linked to birth defects.
In some countries the woman is pretty much considered the man's chattel she dosent get to choose to abstain if he wants sex.So if a women gets raped she didn't have any choice about abstinence.Someting a few men just don't seem to grasp.If they could get impregnated they might see it differently.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

28 Jan 2017, 11:29 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:
diablo wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Extraneous sexual intercourse seems to wreak more havoc than the feels are worth for the most part.


Most birth control methods aren't 100% effective. I've heard from couples that used the pill and condoms together and still managed to get pregnant.

They are close enough to 100% effective, and abstinence actually is 100% effective.


Quote:
While it was obvious trump was going to approve this, since it flops back and forth depending on the president, I hope trump and his supporters are willing to fund the lives of the babies that'll be born into welfare thanks to this gag order. Its not like republicans are warm to the idea of tax payer money going to preventative birth control options either.
That's easy; we just won't pay for either.


So what do you propose couples who don't want kids just shouldn't have sex...well that's not realistic.

Yes it is realistic. Some people choose abstinence even when they do have partner and we're not talking old people, either. You do what you can afford to do at the time. It's animals that can't help but have sex, not humans.

Quote:
Also if you republicans don't want to pay for and care for these unwanted children once they are born, why the f*** do you care if people get abortions before the thing growing inside even becomes a baby? 'OMG it's murder to kill that poor clump of cells.' but as soon as it's born and takes its first breath of air...it's a useless eater. Some logic there.
Again, you can have all the abortions you want as long as the public isn't paying for them. I lean toward pro-life but don't really care that much if women have abortions, I just don't think they should be taxpayer funded.[/quote]
If you wanna play you gotta pay.

Quote:
Maybe we should split this country in half so you religious fundies who want everyone to practice abstinence and follow other religious law can have your own side, and us progressives who believe in a secular government can have our side. Maybe that is the solution.

That would suit me just fine.

Image


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

29 Jan 2017, 3:00 pm

Men are just going to have to recognize women as equals for this argument to end.

People can say that they want traditional roles for women, and everyone acts like that's okay. We don't respect the desire for traditional roles for people of color, and there's no difference.

Remember, married black men could legally dispose of their own property for decades before married women could.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

29 Jan 2017, 3:23 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Men are just going to have to recognize women as equals for this argument to end.

If men were the ones to carry children this wouldn't even be an issue, I think. A man's right to self-fulfillment would be an end in itself and would supersede anything else.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,009
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

29 Jan 2017, 4:14 pm

Raptor wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:
diablo wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Extraneous sexual intercourse seems to wreak more havoc than the feels are worth for the most part.


Most birth control methods aren't 100% effective. I've heard from couples that used the pill and condoms together and still managed to get pregnant.

They are close enough to 100% effective, and abstinence actually is 100% effective.


Quote:
While it was obvious trump was going to approve this, since it flops back and forth depending on the president, I hope trump and his supporters are willing to fund the lives of the babies that'll be born into welfare thanks to this gag order. Its not like republicans are warm to the idea of tax payer money going to preventative birth control options either.
That's easy; we just won't pay for either.


So what do you propose couples who don't want kids just shouldn't have sex...well that's not realistic.

Yes it is realistic. Some people choose abstinence even when they do have partner and we're not talking old people, either. You do what you can afford to do at the time. It's animals that can't help but have sex, not humans.

Quote:
Also if you republicans don't want to pay for and care for these unwanted children once they are born, why the f*** do you care if people get abortions before the thing growing inside even becomes a baby? 'OMG it's murder to kill that poor clump of cells.' but as soon as it's born and takes its first breath of air...it's a useless eater. Some logic there.
Again, you can have all the abortions you want as long as the public isn't paying for them. I lean toward pro-life but don't really care that much if women have abortions, I just don't think they should be taxpayer funded.

If you wanna play you gotta pay.

Quote:
Maybe we should split this country in half so you religious fundies who want everyone to practice abstinence and follow other religious law can have your own side, and us progressives who believe in a secular government can have our side. Maybe that is the solution.

That would suit me just fine.

Image[/quote]

No its not realistic...so because some people choose abstinence it should be forced on everyone who doesn't want a child? You know what is a lot more realistic birth control to prevent pregnancies, and abortion in the case that fails..lol most people don't want to go back to the 1900's you know.

Also would you rather some tax funds be allocated for abortions or even more tax money having to go to the care of the child when it is born...lol the second one costs more. And I really doubt it would be possible to get rid of public assistance for mothers in poverty would probably be political suicide. How would forcing a woman in poverty to have a baby she can't afford save the taxpayer any money? abortions are certainly a lot cheaper, you do the math.


And good, I think it would be interesting to see whether the regressive or progressive side of the country does better. Except it wouldn't look like your map as I am talking of splitting the united states in two, why should all the americans who respect the first amendment go to canada?


_________________
We won't go back.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

29 Jan 2017, 6:03 pm

Abortion should not be tolerated as means of birth control, it is murder and there are more than enough alternatives. I don't think it is unrealistic or asking to much for people male and female to take responsibility for the lives they create before and after they are born. There can be exceptions but it shouldn't be normalized.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,009
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

29 Jan 2017, 6:15 pm

Image


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,009
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

29 Jan 2017, 6:23 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Abortion should not be tolerated as means of birth control, it is murder and there are more than enough alternatives. I don't think it is unrealistic or asking to much for people male and female to take responsibility for the lives they create before and after they are born. There can be exceptions but it shouldn't be normalized.


Considering most abortions take place before the fetus even develops, and late term abortions are illegal outside of medical emergencies...how exactly is it murder? I am not suggesting using abortion alone as a birth control method, but if birth control methods fail and an unwanted pregnancy occurs abortion should be availible. I've even said I entirely agree with a limit on how long one can wait to get one...but don't really see how what amounts to a medically induced miscarriage is 'murder' when it occurs before the fetus develops into a baby, and based on anything I look up it seems most take place before the embryo even becomes a fetus.

Using birth control like condoms or the pill and getting an abortion if those fail is taking responsibility, before they irresponsibly bring a life into the world.


_________________
We won't go back.


Last edited by Sweetleaf on 29 Jan 2017, 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

29 Jan 2017, 6:24 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I don't think it is unrealistic or asking to much for people male and female to take responsibility for the lives they create before and after they are born.

How so?
Jacoby wrote:
There can be exceptions but it shouldn't be normalized.

Why not? If you're trying to hang on to Eden it's not going to happen.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,009
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

29 Jan 2017, 6:33 pm

androbot01 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I don't think it is unrealistic or asking to much for people male and female to take responsibility for the lives they create before and after they are born.

How so?
Jacoby wrote:
There can be exceptions but it shouldn't be normalized.

Why not? If you're trying to hang on to Eden it's not going to happen.


I don't know how its responsible not to get an abortion if say the condom breaks, and you don't get a morning after pill in time. Though to some of these fundies even morning after pills are 'murder' to them.


_________________
We won't go back.


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

29 Jan 2017, 6:41 pm

I don't really think churches expect religious people to follow these rules; they expect them to break the rules and feel guilty. Guilt is their stock in trade, and superiority to those more guilty, of course.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

29 Jan 2017, 6:45 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I don't think it is unrealistic or asking to much for people male and female to take responsibility for the lives they create before and after they are born.

How so?
Jacoby wrote:
There can be exceptions but it shouldn't be normalized.

Why not? If you're trying to hang on to Eden it's not going to happen.


I don't know how its responsible not to get an abortion if say the condom breaks, and you don't get a morning after pill in time. Though to some of these fundies even morning after pills are 'murder' to them.

I have to admit I am not understanding the anti-woman thinking on this issue. Not only anti-woman thinking, but anti-life - why would someone bring an unwanted child into this world; it's hard enough when people care for you. It is my opinion, but when I hear the pro-lifers go on about their love of life I can only see a child tearing the wings off a bug, and enjoying it.