fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I wouldn't characterize it that way. Of course it's "human" in biological sense, it isn't some other species.The distinction is whether and when a fetus constitutes a human life.
I wouldn't characterize it that way. Of course it's "human" in biological sense, it isn't some other species.The distinction is whether and when a fetus constitutes a human life.
It's all semantics anyway, but I don't think that simply being biologically human and biologically alive is sufficient to constitute what most people would consider a "human life". A tissue sample could meet those conditions.I wouldn't characterize it that way. Of course it's "human" in biological sense, it isn't some other species.The distinction is whether and when a fetus constitutes a human life.
I'm on the same side as you (and Tobias) here. I've just been in too many of these discussions here and know the reaction a post like his will get.It's all semantics anyway, but I don't think that simply being biologically human and biologically alive is sufficient to constitute what most people would consider a "human life". A tissue sample could meet those conditions.I wouldn't characterize it that way. Of course it's "human" in biological sense, it isn't some other species.The distinction is whether and when a fetus constitutes a human life.
Fair point, I don't really know how to draw the distinction semantically.I'm on the same side as you (and Tobias) here. I've just been in too many of these discussions here and know the reaction a post like his will get.It's all semantics anyway, but I don't think that simply being biologically human and biologically alive is sufficient to constitute what most people would consider a "human life". A tissue sample could meet those conditions.I wouldn't characterize it that way. Of course it's "human" in biological sense, it isn't some other species.The distinction is whether and when a fetus constitutes a human life.
So unwanted by the parents = not worth living? Awesome criteria there. If this is the logic, then why do we prosecute parents who kill their own children?Odd. I was just thinking to myself that what this country needs is another 50ish million unwanted children
Correlation is not causation.On the bright side, violent crime is way down.
I am.If you are alarmed at that, I strongly advise that you should also be in favor of free access to birth control and a universal and honest "here is how you prevent pregnancy when you have sex" sex education program. Not the BS "abstinence only" sex "education" that seems to be all the rage with those who are "religious." Those are the programs that should make you nauseous.
Here's the basic fact: People like to ####. And people are going to ####. You can wave a Bible around and preach waiting all you want, but in the end, people are going to do the one thing that they were put on this Earth to do. They are going to ####. And they are going to want to #### when they are teens because their libidos are through the roof. Want to drop the abortion rate? Start with education and birth control.
I wonder if any of those potential humans were against abortion? Wish we could ask them.if you are against abortion, don't have one. pretty ####### simple.This pie graph depicts the number of abortions performed since Roe v Wade in comparison to the US deaths in all of the major wars in US history.
The only wars you can even make out are the Civil War, WWI & WWII. The total section of all wars combined is maybe 3% of the total.
I don't care if you are pro-life or pro-choice, this is disgusting. I've never actually seen the numbers on abortions, but I would have never guessed it was so high. While abortions have been declining in recent years, there are still at around 750K - 1.2M abortions per year.
I'm honestly not looking to pick a fight, just think these numbers need to be seen by everyone to make an informed decision. The sheer volume is the equivalent of aborting the entire population of San Francisco or Austin each year.
If all the women you knew were honest...you'd be awestruck at how many of them have had abortions.
Its clearly stated. Its just comparing counts and doesn't claim they are "deaths".Not deaths. Whole premise of the chart is wrong.
Because murder is against the law.So unwanted by the parents = not worth living? Awesome criteria there. If this is the logic, then why do we prosecute parents who kill their own children?Odd. I was just thinking to myself that what this country needs is another 50ish million unwanted children
Came to post exactly this. Very well said sir!If you are alarmed at that, I strongly advise that you should also be in favor of free access to birth control and a universal and honest "here is how you prevent pregnancy when you have sex" sex education program. Not the BS "abstinence only" sex "education" that seems to be all the rage with those who are "religious." Those are the programs that should make you nauseous.
Here's the basic fact: People like to ####. And people are going to ####. You can wave a Bible around and preach waiting all you want, but in the end, people are going to do the one thing that they were put on this Earth to do. They are going to ####. And they are going to want to #### when they are teens because their libidos are through the roof. Want to drop the abortion rate? Start with education and birth control.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. The point being that unwanted is a poor criteria for who lives and who doesn't.Because murder is against the law.So unwanted by the parents = not worth living? Awesome criteria there. If this is the logic, then why do we prosecute parents who kill their own children?Odd. I was just thinking to myself that what this country needs is another 50ish million unwanted children
If all these people stopped having abortions and left their babies on your doorstep instead you'd change your mind pretty quickly.
It doesn't bother me in the slightest because I'm pro-choice, not "pro-choice, but only if I agree with the reasons behind the choice."Sorry, but it's entirely accurate. Most abortions are driven by some variant of "Now isn't a good time for me to have a child" i.e. it's inconvenient. If you find that troubling, I do as well and I'm sure the OP does too.Oh, good lord. What an absolutely disgusting turn of phrase.plain old convenience-driven abortions.
My guess is that most of them wouldn't be able to answer because they don't have tongues, or lungs, or the capacity to understand language. But why not give it a try? Next time you rub one out ask all the potential humans in the tissue what they think about abortion and let us know how it goes.I wonder if any of those potential humans were against abortion? Wish we could ask them.if you are against abortion, don't have one. pretty ####### simple.This pie graph depicts the number of abortions performed since Roe v Wade in comparison to the US deaths in all of the major wars in US history.
The only wars you can even make out are the Civil War, WWI & WWII. The total section of all wars combined is maybe 3% of the total.
I don't care if you are pro-life or pro-choice, this is disgusting. I've never actually seen the numbers on abortions, but I would have never guessed it was so high. While abortions have been declining in recent years, there are still at around 750K - 1.2M abortions per year.
I'm honestly not looking to pick a fight, just think these numbers need to be seen by everyone to make an informed decision. The sheer volume is the equivalent of aborting the entire population of San Francisco or Austin each year.
The charts title is United States DEATHS, captain obvious.Its clearly stated. Its just comparing counts and doesn't claim they are "deaths".Not deaths. Whole premise of the chart is wrong.
Kind of unsettling if it were though, huh?
Abortion is still legal, but access to abortion services has been diminishing steadily. It doesn't do much good for a woman if abortion is legal but she can't actually get one because she doesn't have any way to travel the 5 hours (sometimes twice in 48 hours) it would take to get to the nearest clinic. Pro-choice organizations have to continue to exert energy on this stuff, sorry.On the flip side it seems like the pro-choice side wants to spend more time arguing something that is now legal instead of focusing their energy on reducing the number of abortions.
Is it worse than all those children being born who dont want them and/or take care of them.This pie graph depicts the number of abortions performed since Roe v Wade in comparison to the US deaths in all of the major wars in US history.
The only wars you can even make out are the Civil War, WWI & WWII. The total section of all wars combined is maybe 3% of the total.
I don't care if you are pro-life or pro-choice, this is disgusting. I've never actually seen the numbers on abortions, but I would have never guessed it was so high. While abortions have been declining in recent years, there are still at around 750K - 1.2M abortions per year.
I'm honestly not looking to pick a fight, just think these numbers need to be seen by everyone to make an informed decision. The sheer volume is the equivalent of aborting the entire population of San Francisco or Austin each year.
just reading this post makes me want to ####.If you are alarmed at that, I strongly advise that you should also be in favor of free access to birth control and a universal and honest "here is how you prevent pregnancy when you have sex" sex education program. Not the BS "abstinence only" sex "education" that seems to be all the rage with those who are "religious." Those are the programs that should make you nauseous.
Here's the basic fact: People like to ####. And people are going to ####. You can wave a Bible around and preach waiting all you want, but in the end, people are going to do the one thing that they were put on this Earth to do. They are going to ####. And they are going to want to #### when they are teens because their libidos are through the roof. Want to drop the abortion rate? Start with education and birth control.
Yes. Your ideal world would have rape victims carrying to full term unwanted children? How about extremely high risk pregnancies such as fallopina tube pregnancy? Where do you draw the line.Am I wrong in thinking that in an ideal world we would have 0 abortions but it was still legal? Sometimes I think that wouldn't be good enough for the anti-choice side. On the flip side it seems like the pro-choice side wants to spend more time arguing something that is now legal instead of focusing their energy on reducing the number of abortions. So frustrating.
Or people that think it is okay to leave dogs outside tied to a tree.So unwanted by the parents = not worth living? Awesome criteria there. If this is the logic, then why do we prosecute parents who kill their own children?Odd. I was just thinking to myself that what this country needs is another 50ish million unwanted children
Thanks for answering - no need to be sorry. I completely stand behind my idea that in an ideal world it would be legal and we'd have 0 - can you point me to more details on what you are talking about? I still maintain that there's not enough emphasis on prevention and I'm full behind increasing our efforts on that front.Abortion is still legal, but access to abortion services has been diminishing steadily. It doesn't do much good for a woman if abortion is legal but she can't actually get one because she doesn't have any way to travel the 5 hours (sometimes twice in 48 hours) it would take to get to the nearest clinic. Pro-choice organizations have to continue to exert energy on this stuff, sorry.On the flip side it seems like the pro-choice side wants to spend more time arguing something that is now legal instead of focusing their energy on reducing the number of abortions.
But they aren't counted as living or counted as deaths, by law. They aren't considered a "who".Thank you, Captain Obvious. The point being that unwanted is a poor criteria for who lives and who doesn't.Because murder is against the law.So unwanted by the parents = not worth living? Awesome criteria there. If this is the logic, then why do we prosecute parents who kill their own children?Odd. I was just thinking to myself that what this country needs is another 50ish million unwanted children
If all these people stopped having abortions and left their babies on your doorstep instead you'd change your mind pretty quickly.
And yes, I would struggle to care for 57 million children by myself, but I don't think it would come to that.
Honestly wasn't, but came back in here after lunch and about 5-6 posts really pissed me off. I toned down my initial responses.lol okI'm honestly not looking to pick a fight
In my ideal world there's no rape - HTH. I'm not sure why I need to argue that. As for ones for health reasons - I have no issues with those and get your point. If we lump all those together then I would agree with you. To be clear I'm excluding those in my comment and should have stated that. I think most reasonable people agree that your two scenarios are not controversial.Yes. Your ideal world would have rape victims carrying to full term unwanted children? How about extremely high risk pregnancies such as fallopina tube pregnancy? Where do you draw the line.Am I wrong in thinking that in an ideal world we would have 0 abortions but it was still legal? Sometimes I think that wouldn't be good enough for the anti-choice side. On the flip side it seems like the pro-choice side wants to spend more time arguing something that is now legal instead of focusing their energy on reducing the number of abortions. So frustrating.
Agreed. Not letting a women choose what happens to her body is immoral.I'll step back now as there are fundamental differences in morality here that likely cannot be breached through an online discussion.
What justifications wouldn't disgust you?Honestly wasn't, but came back in here after lunch and about 5-6 posts really pissed me off. I toned down my initial responses.lol okI'm honestly not looking to pick a fight
I'm just disgusted by the justifications used for the practice in here.
I'll step back now as there are fundamental differences in morality here that likely cannot be breached through an online discussion.
You say that but it's kind of hard to believe. You make comments about leaving and then jump back in with a thread like this. It's only going to be perceived as looking for a fight.Honestly wasn't, but came back in here after lunch and about 5-6 posts really pissed me off. I toned down my initial responses.lol okI'm honestly not looking to pick a fight
I'm just disgusted by the justifications used for the practice in here.
I'll step back now as there are fundamental differences in morality here that likely cannot be breached through an online discussion.
Pro-lifers hate talking about this.So.....let's outlaw abortions and increase these numbers? Talk about disgusting. Stop crying about abortion and do something relevant to actually help the unwanted kids that are here now.The latest statistics from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data for FY 2014 (link is external).
415,129 children were in foster care on September 30th, 2014, a 4% increase from 2012
264,746 children entered care - that translates to a child entering care every two minutes in the United States
238,230 children existed foster care
107,918 children waiting to be adopted on September 30th, 2014
60,898 children waiting to be adopted whose parental rights (for all living parents) were terminated
50,644 children adopted with public child welfare agency involvement
Justification - the act of showing something is right or reasonable. I think the supreme court already ruled on that for us.Honestly wasn't, but came back in here after lunch and about 5-6 posts really pissed me off. I toned down my initial responses.lol okI'm honestly not looking to pick a fight
I'm just disgusted by the justifications used for the practice in here.
I'll step back now as there are fundamental differences in morality here that likely cannot be breached through an online discussion.
Yep. If only people were as perfect as you and never made mistakes.Jayrod said:If only we could figure out what caused these unwanted pregnancies in the first place....hmmmm...maybe someday science will figure out how to start those darn storks from just showing up.Agreed. Not letting a women choose what happens to her body is immoral.I'll step back now as there are fundamental differences in morality here that likely cannot be breached through an online discussion.
Fair point.You say that but it's kind of hard to believe. You make comments about leaving and then jump back in with a thread like this. It's only going to be perceived as looking for a fight.Honestly wasn't, but came back in here after lunch and about 5-6 posts really pissed me off. I toned down my initial responses.lol okI'm honestly not looking to pick a fight
I'm just disgusted by the justifications used for the practice in here.
I'll step back now as there are fundamental differences in morality here that likely cannot be breached through an online discussion.
Yeah and also If women would just stop getting raped.Yep. If only people were as perfect as you and never made mistakes.Jayrod said:If only we could figure out what caused these unwanted pregnancies in the first place....hmmmm...maybe someday science will figure out how to start those darn storks from just showing up.Agreed. Not letting a women choose what happens to her body is immoral.I'll step back now as there are fundamental differences in morality here that likely cannot be breached through an online discussion.
Yeah, but the collateral damage to the mom when that sucker goes off.. Plus it would blow a hole in the placenta, which would kind of negate the purpose.If those kids owned guns they could have prevented getting aborted.
I'd just google "access to abortion" and you can read tons of stuff about it. Here's a NY Times article from 2014 that came up -- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us/women-losing-access-to-abortion-as-opponents-gain-ground-in-state-legislatures.html. I think there are some states now where there's only one place to get an abortion in the entire state. The Supreme Court case being heard this term involves the Texas law that threatens to shut down one third of their abortion facilities.Thanks for answering - no need to be sorry. I completely stand behind my idea that in an ideal world it would be legal and we'd have 0 - can you point me to more details on what you are talking about? I still maintain that there's not enough emphasis on prevention and I'm full behind increasing our efforts on that front.Abortion is still legal, but access to abortion services has been diminishing steadily. It doesn't do much good for a woman if abortion is legal but she can't actually get one because she doesn't have any way to travel the 5 hours (sometimes twice in 48 hours) it would take to get to the nearest clinic. Pro-choice organizations have to continue to exert energy on this stuff, sorry.On the flip side it seems like the pro-choice side wants to spend more time arguing something that is now legal instead of focusing their energy on reducing the number of abortions.
Only nutcases are opposed to that. Sbonomo makes a good point with rape/health issues. I'm not proposing that we find a new word for it but I see them as fundamentally different. Back to my whole complaint about both sides - that they ignore the damage to the women. In rape/health cases that is almost the sole focus - the women in these situations (as it should be). I think other abortions get all mixed up in these endless debates and back and forth and meanwhile you have poor women who aren't getting the care they need after the fact and you have woman not being educated (enough) on how to prevent it or what they may go through if they do get one.Yeah and also If women would just stop getting raped.Yep. If only people were as perfect as you and never made mistakes.Jayrod said:If only we could figure out what caused these unwanted pregnancies in the first place....hmmmm...maybe someday science will figure out how to start those darn storks from just showing up.Agreed. Not letting a women choose what happens to her body is immoral.I'll step back now as there are fundamental differences in morality here that likely cannot be breached through an online discussion.
The vast majority of women that get abortions report that their primary emotion afterwards is relief. Yes, there are some women that regret getting abortions but that is not the norm.what they may go through if they do get one.
Am I wrong in thinking that in an ideal world we would have 0 abortions but it was still legal? Sometimes I think that wouldn't be good enough for the anti-choice side. On the flip side it seems like the pro-choice side wants to spend more time arguing something that is now legal instead of focusing their energy on reducing the number of abortions. So frustrating.
Guarantee you it beats the impact of screaming, yelling, pooping, vomiting, crying blobs of molecules that soak you for life financially, emotionally, mentally and physically. Trust me, I have 5 of these lifeforms.I typically don't jump in to abortion conversations because people lose their mind and it's funny here especially because we are 99% men. I am disturbed by the numbers though - and I outlined it somewhat earlier. I think abortions can be physically (and especially) mentally harmful to women and we've made it very passé to get one. I'm not saying that women don't take the decision lightly, what I'm saying is I don't think there's as much seriousness given before getting pregnant. I don't think they understand the impact an abortion will have on them.if you are against abortion, don't have one. pretty ####### simple.
Yup, stupid idea.New definition for wacko- religious dude starting a thread about abortion and expects no argument or perceived disturbing argument from the opposite side.
Why don't you go and ask one of the many kids out there without any parents how they're doing? And then do something about it. Stop crying on a message board about something you can't control. Go out there and make a difference in the lives of the thousands of kids who need love and hope.I wonder if any of those potential humans were against abortion? Wish we could ask them.if you are against abortion, don't have one. pretty ####### simple.This pie graph depicts the number of abortions performed since Roe v Wade in comparison to the US deaths in all of the major wars in US history.
The only wars you can even make out are the Civil War, WWI & WWII. The total section of all wars combined is maybe 3% of the total.
I don't care if you are pro-life or pro-choice, this is disgusting. I've never actually seen the numbers on abortions, but I would have never guessed it was so high. While abortions have been declining in recent years, there are still at around 750K - 1.2M abortions per year.
I'm honestly not looking to pick a fight, just think these numbers need to be seen by everyone to make an informed decision. The sheer volume is the equivalent of aborting the entire population of San Francisco or Austin each year.
Thanks for posting that - it's a sad article to read IMO. It just reinforces my opinion that people are focused on the wrong things. Both sides but more-so the pro-life side in this case. This is potentially dangerous to women who will seek other means.I'd just google "access to abortion" and you can read tons of stuff about it. Here's a NY Times article from 2014 that came up -- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us/women-losing-access-to-abortion-as-opponents-gain-ground-in-state-legislatures.html. I think there are some states now where there's only one place to get an abortion in the entire state. The Supreme Court case being heard this term involves the Texas law that threatens to shut down one third of their abortion facilities.Thanks for answering - no need to be sorry. I completely stand behind my idea that in an ideal world it would be legal and we'd have 0 - can you point me to more details on what you are talking about? I still maintain that there's not enough emphasis on prevention and I'm full behind increasing our efforts on that front.Abortion is still legal, but access to abortion services has been diminishing steadily. It doesn't do much good for a woman if abortion is legal but she can't actually get one because she doesn't have any way to travel the 5 hours (sometimes twice in 48 hours) it would take to get to the nearest clinic. Pro-choice organizations have to continue to exert energy on this stuff, sorry.On the flip side it seems like the pro-choice side wants to spend more time arguing something that is now legal instead of focusing their energy on reducing the number of abortions.