Heartbeat-Abortion Bill Ohio

[vla1ne]

if i had the free time i'd respond to more things, but i do not, so i'll make this as quick as i can atm.

Welfare is problematic because it promotes people to not get employed
 
Childcare would promote people to have more kids, or atleast be less reluctant to have children
 
They're not the same vla1ne
 
I'm suggesting a temporary fix, maybe Trump and Pence can clean up adoption, but ectogeneis is alteast 10 year away. You'll have more fetuses murdered in the US along before that cure comes than Jews killed in the Holocaust
 
We're gonna be pretty close to a post scarcity world, and tolerating a racial holocaust (which is really what it is when you look at the races that get abortion) isn't ok IMO
 
I'm not saying stop giving out contraception or trying to fix nuclear families, I'm saying just doing that isn't enough
 

---

it promotes mothers having children they may or may not be even remotely able to raise, even with the father in the house. because the two still provide benefits at little to no cost. the better the program's benefits, the more people will try to abuse it, and since you want to outlaw abortion ,your responsibility is to care for all of them, be it via taking them out of the home, or otherwise, and if some prove unfit for motherhood, what are you going to do to stop them from having children that wouldn't devolve into merely authoritarian methods or continuous taking of children that you have forced into existence? this is but one area of the issue, you are using the law to hinder what should be a personal decision, and in order to enforce it, you still have to provide equal benefits, or be considered a hypocrite, and beyond that, those who already abuse the system are not going to get any better once the government steps even frther into the ring and deepens the benefits, but to move on from that for now
 
your point? i'm not crying for a fetus, i just don't care about them. what i do care about, is that you are going to forcefully ruin the lives of people who should not, and do not want to be mothers or fathers, and are not willing to wait even 10 years, so that you can provide an alternative for adoption. i saw this in the global warming thread as well, you are willing to gamble massive damages, simply because you don't wish to take the time needed to reach an area of compromise.
 
no, it's not a holocaust, and if a race does wipe itself out via abortion, then that's on them. if you have something inside your body, be it human, pre-human, or non-human, you have full rights to remove it at will.
 
 
it is enough, until you can get ectogenics properly established as the rightful substitute, you cannot interfere with abortions as they are. the argument that it is not your body holds insane weight, you may see babies a human, but if a human wer inside you, draining you, making you sick, and you had never asked to have said being inside you, i doubt you'd want to carry them around with you, and be saddles for 9 months, unable to work or keep your life together.
 
 
also, a minor aside to your response to giga, no. women won't stop getting abortions just because you outlaw it, remember the war on drugs? the prohibition? ect? this'll be those, all over again. you'll create another drain on the system, from women who refuse to have the law force them to sheet on their lives, and a division across the country, alongside all the problems that go with a population that is literally forced to increase under threat of law. there's so many problems with forcing birth that i honestly don't have time to address them all right now.

Because I'm saying the line between human and fetus is a gray one that ever recedes (abortion is defined as the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus Val1ne, so removing a viable child is not abortion)
 
In that regard, using current science to justify termination of "inferior" life forms is going against the principles this country was built on. Val1ne brought up the point that slaves were removed from their home and relocated here, but the fact still remains that individuals in that period used "science" of that era to justify (falsely) the right to treat Blacks however they wanted as they owned the blacks
 
The "my body, my choice" is similarly built on that fallacy. Just because you own something based on the current set of laws does not make it correct. 
 
You might say that the government isn't hindered by it, as in the existence of abortion isn't harming the running of the government, but I would argue that the government not holding the equal protection clause to strict scrutiny is a hindrance

 
the law does not deal in gray areas, is it human or not, by the criteria, a fetus is not a human yet. because potential to become =/= actually is right now. as such, abortions on something that can't live on it's own, is not murder
 
they used science. so? they categorized slaves as property, not as "unwanted item within my body that i never wanted and wish to be rid of as soon as possible" also, if we are comparing the two, the property would be the theoretical pregnant woman, not the fetus. the body of the woman, belongs to her, and her alone, if she is pregnant, she has full rights to remove said fetus at will, because her body is her property, and therefore, it is her right t remove anything in her body that she does not want, of that she feels is trespassing.
 
 
the equal protection clause only applies to those under it's jurisdiction, the law does not apply to a fetus, therefore, the law does not have to protect a fetus. can it? sure, but it has no responsibility to do so. the law covers from birth to death, nothing about conception.
 
 

The science wasn't wrong for slaves back then either. They even came up with skull cavities to "prove" slaves were meant to be submissive
 
The science isn't set lol. That's the entire point. Back in the age of Roe, we couldn't save babies as early as we can now. They didn't magically become human now that we can. And you can't say they're fetuses outside the womb either because those babies can now grow entirely without the mother. The fetus->baby barrier is conception. Life begins at conception. 
 
Incest is a stupid thing to restrict. And while I disagree, there is a case to be made for rape that two wrongs don't make a right
 
The same right I would use to judge any parent who willingly murders their child for convenience actually. But how about the left put their actions where their mouth is, and actually get the father some rights w/ regards to the matter before acting all high and mighty to the right. Clearly it seems like you think I shouldn't judge the parents

psuedo science, there was very little actual biology taking place in said times. it may have been real to them, but we know far more, and we know that they were simply wrong back then.
 
science is never set, its always ready to be knocked back to the drawing board, but that doesn't mean it's going to be. yes, you can grow babies without the mother, but that doesn't make it any more alive. a fetus, no matter what it's grown inside, cannot live on it's own under the conditions i've already described. but again if you can grow babies without the mother, then what's your problem with abortion again? just move the baby from the mother to the test tube and call it a day.  if the mother doesn't want it, you can have it and grow it all you like,
 
incest is it's own pit of worms, having children via incest is basically dooming said child to a shitty life of both a social, and genetic front. as for rape, the second wrong is irrelevant to the first because you are creating a third wrong that can arguably become worse, with your very restriction. rape + abortion = closure for the mother should she choose to, and more room to move on. rape + forced birth = evil committed by you for your own sense of justice. you can take the child, but you've already done more than enough damage to the mother. you've merely swapped one perceived evil for your own preferred evil with no regard to the main victim.
 
 
the keyword is "birthed" they aren't parents yet, they are potential parents, and a child that is carried to term and then murdered, is a different beast entirely than an fetus aborted as early as possible. at the point of a parent murdering an already born child, they could have merely sent said child in for an adoption, death was by no means an option, because the kid could immediately be sent to an orphanage, at no cost. as a fatus, it's literally inside you, funking with your body as it grows. unless you provide an alternative, there is no second option. no, birth is not a second option, because birth, and the problems leading up to it, are what you are avoiding with an abortion
 
 
 
 [spoiler=enguin s post']
.

http://www.actionlife.org/index.php/life-issues/abortion/item/124-the-real-reason-women-choose-abortion
 
"Ninety-two % of women said social or "other" factors were the reason behind their abortion. Only seven percent said physical problems or possible health problems with the baby were the reason, and only 0.5% said they were seeking an abortion because they had been raped.
 
Bad timing was the most common reason women gave for having an abortion-they weren't ready to have another child. Not being able to afford a child, (or another child) was the second most important reason given."
 
"The reasons they gave in 2004
25% Not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong
23% Can't afford a baby now"
 
So that's 48% of the women surveyed who were having an abortion because it was inconvenient. That's from 2004, this one has surveys from other years:
 
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

"Unready for responsibility" and "can't afford baby now" can certainly be categorised under inconvenience, so let's say this is 42%. The 2004 survey is in here as well, it's just the same information as the first article but in a table like the image above. Now it goes onto the part I find most interesting, there are state-by-state breakdowns compiled over 10+ years (the years used vary by chart). A few examples of this;

98.3% personal choice, wew says I. There's no further detail on what these reasons are, but going by the information otherwise available it's reasonably fair to assume that it'd line up with the ~45% figure for "inconvenient" pregnancies.

Now this one, as it notes, allowed multiple reasons to be given. Thus "can't afford" and "doesn't want" combined go beyond 100% and this does make the interpretation difficult but with such high figures for both I think the point is established, the majority of births are on the grounds of either not wanting or not feeling able to afford to keep the child rather than anything, which can be argued as "killing for convenience" (note: I don't care if you consider fetuses people, doesn't matter, Winter does and that's the context in which his claim is made).
 
I'm going to just sidetrack myself if I post anymore, but you can just look at this one and the first article is less important. There are charts showing the number of abortions done in cases of rape, incest, threat to maternal life (in no case does this exceed 0.04% of the total number), and fatal fetal abnormality, and they're all miniscule in the overall context. This does substantiate the claim that the majority, or more accurately, the most common reason for abortions, is that the child cannot be kept/is not wanted, which could lead one to conclude that they are being "killed" due to being an inconvenience.
 
Owait I missed this delicious bit of spice right at the end, a conclusion thing:

 
98.3% elective. If we take "avoid adjusting life", "economic", and "too young/immature/not ready" as being fair to interpret as "the child would be an inconvenience", then the estimated % of abortions done for such reasons is about 78%. You could argue to cut out economic and bring it down to 48%, but the other two I don't really see as disputable. So there are the statistics ye've been wanting.

 

 
 
long post. so i'll shorten this reply into 2 pieces, so that i can get some sleep:
that still tells me nothing that backs the statement of fetuses are already humans. yes, i can, and have no choice but to, grant that they have the potential to become humans, and if left within the mother, or fostered inside of a lab, they will become human, but that does no mean they are human. potential to become =/= actually is. so you have to make an actually strong statement for it instead of just "it's human-like and will grow up if nourished"
 
as for the facts themselves, the factors don't really include how/why they got pregnant (aside from rape). it merely tells you why they got their abortions. that percentage doesn't tell you if a condom may have broke, the pill may have been faulty or ineffective, they might be having  problems with ther actions taken to prevent pregnancy, and so on and so forth.  yeah, the stats are impressive, but they're impressive in a manner where many questions that they raise are still large issues. 
 
rape/insest/health/ are all, i assume understandable reasons for abortion though. so let's move onto the rest, the ones you chalked up to convenience, and to those, i say, why is the inability to raise a child a bad reason to have an abortion? you are basically saying, "even though you cannot afford to have this child, and your life will be in a far worse place because of all that the pregnancy will cause you to miss, and you must still have this child" looking at it, you are telling women that they have no say in the matter, you are, effectively making women go through hell for a child the do not want, and while abortion becomes an option after birth, you have still caused 9 months of damage that cannot be repaired, all for something that should never have come into existence. possibly causing a job or two to be lost thanks to the government forcing women to carry to term, which lowers work output. 
next up, what's so bad about admitting you're too young or too immature to have kids? a 18 year old having a child they aren't ready to raise is screwed from the start, for multiple reasons, forced parenthood not suiting the children who deserve the time to advance their own lives is a true problem.
 
fear of a changing life sounds like a decent reason too. but i'm starting to drift in and out of sleep, so i can get more in detail in the morning if you wish.

 

[VCR_CAT]

 

Yes that's why at the end the chart breaks it down into 7 sub-categories which, while still encompassing a lot, establish that most are done on the basis of feeling unready, not being economically capable, or not being willing to adjust their life. Sure you don't get the backstory of every single statistic but you never will unless you have a sample size of about 4, so that doesn't discredit the numbers in any way.

 

The point I was trying to get across is that the chart doesn't tell you their context; the chart doesn't get you to know these people. It takes those people, slaps a single-sentence label on their reasoning, and tells you nothing more beyond that. My attempt was not to discredit the numbers themselves (as Tom said, it's a peer-reviewed study), but rather to point out that the information these charts give you is incredibly limited. I read "enough children already", but what does this tell me? What kind of jobs are they working, what's their income? What's their family situation, are the parents able to properly look after and raise the children they already have? Those three words only tell me so much, and that "so much" is not nearly enough, because even in that one reason there's going to be a rainbow of different contexts and situations.

 

So, as I was saying, this isn't a black-and-white issue, and even with the information those charts provide they still don't tell you enough about what these situations are going to look like. And of course you can't get all of this information with a large-form study, that would be insanity, but maybe this can shed some light that as useful as this information is, it's not enough that one can just judge the use of the system based on these reasons alone; there's far too much going on for that to be a sufficient conclusion as to what each category and sub-category really means for everyone involved.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Iirc, and unfortunately for her, Winter has a daughter.

pretty sure this is just not a thing. After I called him out on it, literally everyone did, and from what I saw he never gave a defense, said we were wrong, or mentioned her ever again. So there's that.

 

As for the link between morality and law: morality is often (and classically) determined by religion, which I think we can all agree should stay the funk away from government.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

pretty sure this is just not a thing. After I called him out on it, literally everyone did, and from what I saw he never gave a defense, said we were wrong, or mentioned her ever again. So there's that.

I told you to make up your own mind on the matter. There's very little I can do to convince you or Brightfire on the matter, because there's plenty of ways for me to "fake" it. The fact remains, in practice you're right. Me, her mother, my parents, and her mother's parents want me to have nothing to do with her. In practice she's not relevant as my daughter. I don't see her, I don't talk to her, and I don't have to finance her. But I did in fact contest Brightfire after he brought it up. 

 

In any case it's not relevant to the matter here. If we're talking about labor, neither Elly nor I can ever have children

 

Edit:

 

The reason I didn't bring is up was I'm an arrogent toe rag and the posterchild for someone who has no right to be a parent. It was only gonna be a matter of time before someone pointed at me, and said there's a reason why parents should get abortions. But that's on me being a sheet pile, my her grandparents and mother do more than enough to compensate for the lack of a decent father in her life

 

This is too big for it to devolve into a referendum on me, not because I'm afraid you're gonna start questioning me again

 

The point I was trying to get across is that the chart doesn't tell you their context; the chart doesn't get you to know these people. It takes those people, slaps a single-sentence label on their reasoning, and tells you nothing more beyond that. My attempt was not to discredit the numbers themselves (as Tom said, it's a peer-reviewed study), but rather to point out that the information these charts give you is incredibly limited. I read "enough children already", but what does this tell me? What kind of jobs are they working, what's their income? What's their family situation, are the parents able to properly look after and raise the children they already have? Those three words only tell me so much, and that "so much" is not nearly enough, because even in that one reason there's going to be a rainbow of different contexts and situations.

 

So, as I was saying, this isn't a black-and-white issue, and even with the information those charts provide they still don't tell you enough about what these situations are going to look like. And of course you can't get all of this information with a large-form study, that would be insanity, but maybe this can shed some light that as useful as this information is, it's not enough that one can just judge the use of the system based on these reasons alone; there's far too much going on for that to be a sufficient conclusion as to what each category and sub-category really means for everyone involved.

There are two sets of people who need abortion. Those who were aware of the risks of pregnancy and willingly engaged in sex, and those burdened by unforeseen circumstances out of their control (danger to child or mother)

 

The first group are enguin's 92%

 

If you can't take care of a child, and aren't willing to accept the risks associated with your behaviors, don't have sex. It's not that hard 

 

 

if i had the free time i'd respond to more things, but i do not, so i'll make this as quick as i can atm.

It's no difficult Val1ne, causality and probability are is the rules of the land. For every action, there is a reaction. And things may or may not happen.

 

There's 0 probability you're gonna get pregnant if you don't screw around with people whom you're not willing to settle down with. If you're not ready for the consequences, don't go for the action

[Dad]

If you can't take care of a child, and aren't willing to accept the risks associated with your behaviors, don't have sex. It's not that hard 

 

 

IIRC: You advocated for a better adoption system so that people didn't have to give up sex.  So why is this an issue now?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

IIRC: You advocated for a better adoption system so that people didn't have to give up sex.  So why is this an issue now?

There's still the 9 months of hard labor in between. Adoption can save you the labor after that, which is considerable, but nothing short of ectogenesis can reduce the actual pregnancy. That's the risk that you should give up sex for (or get something like a vasectomy done) if you're not willing to suffer through 

[Dad]

Doesn't that come with accepting responsibility?  Should we just stop populating the earth save for when its a dictated need because "you can't afford it"?  That sounds like an economic problem.  Not a sexual one.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Doesn't that come with accepting responsibility?  Should we just stop populating the earth save for when its a dictated need because "you can't afford it"?  That sounds like an economic problem.  Not a sexual one.

No, because most people can afford is. Only 1/5 pregnancies end in abortion atm, if the nightmare situation you were describing was reality, it would exceed 1/2

[Dad]

No, because most people can afford is. Only 1/5 pregnancies end in abortion atm, if the nightmare situation you were describing was reality, it would exceed 1/2

 

Then the problem is people want sex but not kids.  But giving up sex is stupid too.  And since most people can afford it, revamping the Adoption system to people who can afford kids would allow them to get as many as they want.  You're talking about basically making sex more controlled and restricted, and abortion illegal.  At least one of these can be better handled.

 

Cutting sex out of your life isn't healthy.  It's literally a need.  

[VCR_CAT]

There are two sets of people wh

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

 

what about people that are practicing sensible contraception methods (condoms, birth control, etc.) and something just doesn't work properly, the condom is damaged, or a mistake is made? What about the people that did the deed with the full intention of having a child but then their life's circumstances change significantly (you mentioned health, I mean factors such as job, income, spouse's well being or interest in remaining in the relationship, etc.)?

 

It's never that simple, Winter, and you need to stop thinking that life is so black and white, because it rarely is. Please, for once, come to a point where you at least consider that maybe you don't know everything that's going on, that the picture is much bigger than you realize. And listen to Vla1ne, because you also need to realize how little good that making abortion illegal actually accomplishes, and what it means for the people that are going to find themselves either losing their jobs and/or financial position, or undergoing an abortion in an non-sanitary or professional environment and placing their lives at risk.

 

And before you argue "But consequences", don't act for a minute like making the decision of an abortion and going through with it isn't a consequence. These women aren't going to be happy to do it, and especially in the case of the women that originally wanted to have a child but now face themselves with the decision of having it killed? Having to make that decision is a consequence in and of itself, and we don't have a right to heap more amounts of hell on these people just because we want to feel better about our nation's laws.

[a bad post]

So, from what I understand you're saying that people should only have sex to procreate? Cause no offense bu that's kinda dumb. First of all that would never happen anyway, but secondly having sex on a regular basis has major health benefits, so... 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So, from what I understand you're saying that people should only have sex to procreate? Cause no offense bu that's kinda dumb. First of all that would never happen anyway, but secondly having sex on a regular basis has major health benefits, so... 

No, you can have sex for whatever reason you want to, but you need to realize there are consequences that can result from sex

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

 

what about people that are practicing sensible contraception methods (condoms, birth control, etc.) and something just doesn't work properly, the condom is damaged, or a mistake is made? What about the people that did the deed with the full intention of having a child but then their life's circumstances change significantly (you mentioned health, I mean factors such as job, income, spouse's well being or interest in remaining in the relationship, etc.)?

 

It's never that simple, Winter, and you need to stop thinking that life is so black and white, because it rarely is. Please, for once, come to a point where you at least consider that maybe you don't know everything that's going on, that the picture is much bigger than you realize. And listen to Vla1ne, because you also need to realize how little good that making abortion illegal actually accomplishes, and what it means for the people that are going to find themselves either losing their jobs and/or financial position, or undergoing an abortion in an non-sanitary or professional environment and placing their lives at risk.

 

And before you argue "But consequences", don't act for a minute like making the decision of an abortion and going through with it isn't a consequence. These women aren't going to be happy to do it, and especially in the case of the women that originally wanted to have a child but now face themselves with the decision of having it killed? Having to make that decision is a consequence in and of itself, and we don't have a right to heap more amounts of hell on these people just because we want to feel better about our nation's laws.

Huhn, but pro-choice people are saying that women aren't negatively mentally impacted by abortion 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8441077/Abortion-doesnt-harm-mothers-mental-health.html

 

Sigh, VCR you can make it seem like I'm making it Black and White, but I'm not. I support measures such as giving contraception free in insurances packages (to lower the the chance of pregnancy), and moderate financing during pregnancy and post pregnancy to support the parents. I'm not trying to put the coat hanger business back on top

 

There's a wide range of policies you can take to make the 92% have an easier life, I def support that much

 

Val1ne is taking a too black and white view on why the war on drugs failed, the law makers did a lot to mess that up

[Aerion Brightflame]

The telegraph article doesn't support either argument. It actually spends half it's length pointing out flaws in the the studies that came to the conclusion, it actually concluded that having an abortion makes you more likely to develop a mental health condition if you respond negatively to it.

 

Saying that because only 1/5 pregnancies end in abortion means the other 4/5 can afford it seems like a weak argument without more statistics involved. You'd have to look at the statistics for unplanned pregnancies surely to get an accurate figure on that number? Because the people who planned a pregnancy are almost certaintly going to be able to afford it because they actively want the child.

 

We want to be talking about unwanted pregnancies, because those are the only times where abortion will occur for socioeconomic reasons.

 

Sigh, VCR you can make it seem like I'm making it Black and White, but I'm not. I support measures such as giving contraception free in insurances packages (to lower the the chance of pregnancy), and moderate financing during pregnancy and post pregnancy to support the parents. I'm not trying to put the coat hanger business back on top

 

There are two sets of people who need abortion. Those who were aware of the risks of pregnancy and willingly engaged in sex, and those burdened by unforeseen circumstances out of their control (danger to child or mother)

 

The first group are enguin's 92%

 

If you can't take care of a child, and aren't willing to accept the risks associated with your behaviors, don't have sex. It's not that hard

 

If that's not making it black and white, I don't know what is. You've assigned abortion into two distinct groups. One of which are given entirely negative connatations or blame, and one which is given positive connotations or freedom from blame.

 

VCR gave you a great example as to why the issue is complex; a person who say used condoms correctly, and there partner used the pill, and yet due to random chance of both failing still winds up getting there partner pregnant. They didn't just f*** without condoms and go 'it'll be fine'. They acknowledged risks and took every possible step to prevent it happening whilst still obeying a biological need. And yet they will get punished equally with someone who just f***ed and hoped.

 

Part of the issue I think is that you wish to assign blame in any case. That someone getting pregnant requires at least one party to be at fault, who made a rational decision to f*** even though they knew the consequences. But sex isn't rational. Teens who are messing around for the first time might be told and know on an intellectual level that 'sex can get you pregnant' but there's so much going on they don't understand that mistakes happening is likely. Especially when sex ed is supbar. Similar can be argued say for the drunken mistake. Or how about the case where you wanted the have a child with your partner, you get pregnant, but you and the partner split between it. Circumstances change, and thus you need to re-evaluate the choice to have a baby. There are a lot of reasons as to why one might want an abortion that fit under the banner of a social reason. But it doesn't mean it's happening because it's convient say.

 

It's why your exceptions are the ones that foreclude blame upon the Woman. She can't help being raped. She can't help if her baby is killing her. But you then say that every other case is always the womans fault, and thus she must bear the consequences (Even if you don't believe this, it's the line of logic). And I think that's a simplificiation. Because as we've established, sex is a biological imperitive, and thus it means that assigning blame to one for having sex becomes more innaccurate.

 

Of course again, then you run into the issue of 'well is it alive or isn't it?', and so the thing repeats on and on. Which is why I personally think that abortion is always an argument about morality, even the laws, because a difference in morality is at the heart of the issue. 

 

But I think you should consider, if nothing else, that your view is one that's based around a need to assign blame. Which I, and presumably others, will disagree with because sometimes, s*** is just nobodies fault. And that life becomes more simple than it need be and is if you always need to blame someone for an action.

 

EDIT: I think some of my phrasing is off here, and it sounds more aggresive than I intend. All I am trying to say is that you seem keen to blame everyone in the 92% equally as if they were just recklessly funking without considering the consequences when I think that will alway be a simplification.

 

I've also thought of another talking point; What if, when you only allow abortion due to rape say, the response by women in these kinds of situations is just to increase the number of false rape accusations such that they can still get the abortion they feel they need?

[vla1ne]

 

It's no difficult Val1ne, causality and probability are is the rules of the land. For every action, there is a reaction. And things may or may not happen.

 

There's 0 probability you're gonna get pregnant if you don't screw around with people whom you're not willing to settle down with. If you're not ready for the consequences, don't go for the action

yeas, but just bacause a potential outcome might be pregnancy, that is not the result thatyou a re aiming for when your contraception fails, nor does it remain the 

 

no, all contraceptives have a risk of failure, condom breaks, pills occasionally don't kick in properly with some people, ect, even with somebody that you want to be with, you should not be blamed for something that was not supposed to happen. and a vasectomy is risking nver having kids at all, so why would you ever advise it to somebody who is simply not ready for children?

 

There's still the 9 months of hard labor in between. Adoption can save you the labor after that, which is considerable, but nothing short of ectogenesis can reduce the actual pregnancy. That's the risk that you should give up sex for (or get something like a vasectomy done) if you're not willing to suffer through 

then develop ectogenesis first, and then swap it out with standard abortion, that way everybody wins, the babies aborted in between development and implementation are your motivations to work harder.

 

 

 

 

Val1ne is taking a too black and white view on why the war on drugs failed, the law makers did a lot to mess that up

the war on drugs failed because they made something illegal with no thought on how to best implement it, same goes with prohibition, ect. none of those things dropped the rates to zero, as you claim a ban on abortion would do, and for the exact same reasons, until you can properly substitute abortion, you cannot claim that nobody will want to, or not find a way around, your ban. and until you implement something like that, you have literally nothing that matches abortion for sheer effectiveness. if only 1/4th of people are getting abortions, it's not exactly a mass problem yet, but once you ban it, the problem will rise, because of the divide it will cause between those who want/can afford families, and those who do not. adoption sounds nice in theory, but only so many people can adopt children, and not all children will actually be wanted, increasing the overall amount will not fix this, even if you streamline the process, you'll still flood the market by creating an artificial baby boom, and an unsustainably fast rise in the population.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

w

 

What changed since the 50's? Destruction of the traditional family 

 

Roe v wade only accelerated the slide upwards that the destruction of the black family started

[Delibirb]

w

 

What changed since the 50's? Destruction of the traditional family

 

Roe v wade only accelerated the slide upwards that the destruction of the black family started

This is relevant how?

 

Society, and what is acceptable by and within it, is ever-changing. This graph is pointless data. How are we meant to interpret it? Because as I see it, it's displaying that it is becoming more acceptable to have sex prior to marriage (which is absolutely reasonable given the biology of sex), while sexual education remains unchanged, and thus outdated and ineffective.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is relevant how?

 

Society, and what is acceptable by and within it, is ever-changing. This graph is pointless data. How are we meant to interpret it? Because as I see it, it's displaying that it is becoming more acceptable to have sex prior to marriage (which is absolutely reasonable given the biology of sex), while sexual education remains unchanged, and thus outdated and ineffective.

Overlap with the portion of people who felt their current situation wasn't right for raising a child. 

 

The biology of sex is to procreate. 

[a bad post]

Overlap with the portion of people who felt their current situation wasn't right for raising a child. 

 

The biology of sex is to procreate. 

It has nothing to do with abortion though. People can have babies and raise them without being married.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Huh, Aerion, Vlaine, and Heinous said what I wanted. Well there's this too

Overlap with the portion of people who felt their current situation wasn't right for raising a child. 

 

The biology of sex is to procreate. 

First of all that graph is "children BORN out of wedlock" meaning it has nothing to do with abortion.

Second of all. How is that second part relevant? What are you trying to say with it?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Huh, Aerion, Vlaine, and Heinous said what I wanted. Well there's this too

First of all that graph is "children BORN out of wedlock" meaning it has nothing to do with abortion.

Second of all. How is that second part relevant? What are you trying to say with it?

I was trying to address his second part about the biology of sex?

 

Dude cowcow, there's 7% of abortions most of us can agree with, those are the 3 exceptions Trump supports, in tackling the other 92%, there's a large portion who feel their current familial situation isn't right for child rearing. I'm saying the destruction of the traditional family and the lack of good adoption alternatives help consolidate that percentage 

It has nothing to do with abortion though. People can have babies and raise them without being married.

They can, they usually don't though. I was rabidly pro-choice 3 years back and thought that was the right way to look at matters

 

I was pro-choice right up till the point when a brave young woman had the guts to stand up to her shitty BF and refuse to punish an innocent child for the mistakes he made. 

 

Thanks to that choice, there's now a beautiful little girl in this world despite her father's best attempts to try to steal her future at that time.

 

Gonna be honest, there's very little that's gonna change my stance on this, because I've come to firmly value that potential of life. Eyes don't easily shut once open. And there's a large portion of America that has likewise come to the same conclusion.

[a bad post]

I was trying to address his second part about the biology of sex?

 

Dude cowcow, there's 7% of abortions most of us can agree with, those are the 3 exceptions Trump supports, in tackling the other 92%, there's a large portion who feel their current familial situation isn't right for child rearing. I'm saying the destruction of the traditional family and the lack of good adoption alternatives help consolidate that percentage 

They can, they usually don't though. I was rabidly pro-choice 3 years back and thought that was the right way to look at matters

 

I was pro-choice right up till the point when a brave young woman had the guts to stand up to her shitty BF and refuse to punish an innocent child for the mistakes he made. 

 

Thanks to that choice, there's now a beautiful little girl in this world despite her father's best attempts to try to steal her future at that time.

 

Gonna be honest, there's very little that's gonna change my stance on this, because I've come to firmly value that potential of life. Eyes don't easily shut once open. And there's a large portion of America that has likewise come to the same conclusion.

Nobody is trying to change your mind. What we are trying to do is make you see that your opinion is not the only right one.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Nobody is trying to change your mind. What we are trying to do is make you see that your opinion is not the only right one.

The fact that roe. v wade remains law for almost double my life time says that much

[Delibirb]

The fact that roe. v wade remains law for almost double my life time says that much

Yes, let's assume all law created by politically ancient authorities is inherently the best and most correct way of looking at things. In fact, why even have a repeal system in congress, or even an appeal system in courts?

 

Oh, perhaps because Roe v Wade wouldn't really exist without those. Nor would Obergefell v Hodges, the Supreme Court case which made it illegal to prohibit same sex marriages, a major milestone in eliminating ancient laws which were believed to be acceptable for the time, but no longer were, despite the clinging by people whose ignorance is only superceded by their arrogance.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes, let's assume all law created by politically ancient authorities is inherently the best and most correct way of looking at things. In fact, why even have a repeal system in congress, or even an appeal system in courts?

 

Oh, perhaps because Roe v Wade wouldn't really exist without those. Nor would Obergefell v Hodges, the Supreme Court case which made it illegal to prohibit same sex marriages, a major milestone in eliminating ancient laws which were believed to be acceptable for the time, but no longer were, despite the clinging by people whose ignorance is only superceded by their arrogance.

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say here

 

Let's not assume that, because 1) I never suggested that were the case 2) I don't agree with that view. 

 

Before you misinterpret what I said to spin some more political capital from this discussion, let me be clear what I said. I'm 20. Roe is more than double my age. If the opposing viewpoint did not exist, the case would have been over turned by now. I was merely tipping my hat to Elly and agreeing that she had a point.

 

I may not agree with the validity of the pro-choice view anymore, but it's clearly there as evident by even people I look to as close friends, such a vla1ne arguing so passionately for it.

 

It's hard to personally for me to ever consider being pro-choice again, when I realize that my daughter would not exist if my pro-choice pleas to my then GF to get an abortion had panned out. I've seen the error in my way. But that's really all there is to it. I won't go back. And I find it deeply shameful in retrospect that I ever believed in resorting to, what I now view as murder, for my convenience.

 

THAT being said, the Supreme court has a habit of riding the wave of public opinion. Obergefell had Majority American support when it was ruled, and has since only grown to gain a super majority. And it's support shows no sign of ceasing growth 

 

Roe on the other hand was a clever ploy by two new york layers who used a woman who neither got nor wanted an abortion to push their own agenda (look it up, Roe, is one of the most predominant pro-lifers out there ironically).  It was judicial activism that took advantage of an outcry over a particularly poor year of fatal illegal abortions.

 

Since then finances and sex ed has gotten better. 

 

But that all aside, pro-choice cannot consistently maintain a plurality over pro-life let alone a growing majority. The fact remains that number of people against abortion, and neutral to the idea, outnumber those for it. Comparing it to a popular view such as obergefell to try to give it coattails of public support it does not posses is disingenuous and you know better

 

I think we've beaten the horse with this one quite enough