Pro-Woman

[I.P.Freely]

what a load of old bollocks, in 10 years 27 foetus have been aborted because of cleft lips and palates plus other defects that would cause serious handicaps. Only one foetus out of the 27 was aborted after 24weeks,

Please provide evidence.

You seem to have gotten your info from this article. But it looks like the facts sloshed around in your tiny brain for some time and eventually came out as crap.

quote: The Department of Health statistics, which go back almost a decade, were released after a six-year legal battle. They reveal that between 2002 and 2010 there were 17,983 terminations on the grounds that there was a “substantial risk” that the babies would be “seriously handicapped” — known as Ground E abortions. Of these, 1,189 were aborted after 24 weeks, after which there must be such a serious risk for an abortion to be legal if the mother is not in danger. Last year 147 foetuses were aborted after 24 weeks, a rise of 29 per cent since 2002.
As well as the babies with cleft lips and palates, another 27 were aborted because of “congenital malformations of the ear, eye, face or neck”, which can include problems such as having glaucoma or being born with an ear missing. Of those, one was aborted after 24 weeks, in 2003.

I.P.Freely's lie: "in 10 years 27 foetus have been aborted because of cleft lips and palates plus other defects that would cause serious handicaps. Only one foetus out of the 27 was aborted after 24weeks,"

reality:

here you go drek
Twenty-six babies aborted for cleft lips or palates - Telegraph

 

[koshergrl]

See, you can't make them feel bad. They hate infants and when they see them, they aren't moved by a desire to help them. They find them scary and a threat.

 

[I.P.Freely]

See, you can't make them feel bad. They hate infants and when they see them, they aren't moved by a desire to help them. They find them scary and a threat.

Induced Abortion in the United States

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

None of those stories are unsubstantiated. They are all cited, every single one.

But progressive goons who want to kill babies don't care about facts anyway.

what babies are killed?

None.

References to ‘baby killing’ are nothing more than ignorant hyperbole and demagoguery by most on the right hostile to citizens’ civil liberties.

It is a fact of Constitutional case law that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘baby’ in any legal sense, and not entitled to 14th Amendment protections (Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)).

 

[I.P.Freely]

See, you can't make them feel bad. They hate infants and when they see them, they aren't moved by a desire to help them. They find them scary and a threat.

some more scary pics here
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/191829-my-pet-troll.html

 

[priceless]

No. I don't think placing people in colonies and dictating what they can and can't do is appropriate. Ever. Get pregnant win a vacation at a concentration camp.

First of all, I'm not talking about a concentration camp. What I'm really saying is that if you prohibit abortion, you have to guarantee some level of welfare for the family. However, many people are against guaranteeing family welfare if it gives people a blank check to have as many kids as they want regardless of their means to support them.

This would be sort of an in-between (compromise) where neither abortion or birth-control would be an issue because people would not come in contact with people of the opposite gender. So you're essentially saying to a pregnant woman or a man who got a woman pregnant, "ok, you're entitled to a mistake and we're going to make sure you can take care of this baby and yourself but to gain access to this welfare support, you have to live only among people of your same sex so that you won't make any more babies until you've achieved the life-position that affords you the ability to take economic responsibility for your own children."

This seems to me the only practical way of prohibiting abortion and defunding birth-control. Otherwise, you end up with situations where women are claiming rape (either legitimately or deceptively) in order to legitimate abortions and or welfare support. Most people who live around people of the other sex end up having some kind of sexual contact (very few people abstain as I understand it) so abortion, birth-control, and/or child-welfare guarantees/entitlements are a given. The other option is to prohibit abortion, defund birth-control, and then just allow unemployed people to beg in the streets and live on whatever handouts they get.

 

[Disir]

No. I don't think placing people in colonies and dictating what they can and can't do is appropriate. Ever. Get pregnant win a vacation at a concentration camp.

First of all, I'm not talking about a concentration camp. What I'm really saying is that if you prohibit abortion, you have to guarantee some level of welfare for the family. However, many people are against guaranteeing family welfare if it gives people a blank check to have as many kids as they want regardless of their means to support them.

This would be sort of an in-between (compromise) where neither abortion or birth-control would be an issue because people would not come in contact with people of the opposite gender. So you're essentially saying to a pregnant woman or a man who got a woman pregnant, "ok, you're entitled to a mistake and we're going to make sure you can take care of this baby and yourself but to gain access to this welfare support, you have to live only among people of your same sex so that you won't make any more babies until you've achieved the life-position that affords you the ability to take economic responsibility for your own children."

This seems to me the only practical way of prohibiting abortion and defunding birth-control. Otherwise, you end up with situations where women are claiming rape (either legitimately or deceptively) in order to legitimate abortions and or welfare support. Most people who live around people of the other sex end up having some kind of sexual contact (very few people abstain as I understand it) so abortion, birth-control, and/or child-welfare guarantees/entitlements are a given. The other option is to prohibit abortion, defund birth-control, and then just allow unemployed people to beg in the streets and live on whatever handouts they get.

Well, you might not view it as a concentration camp but I am quite sure that the individuals that would be there might not view it in the same way. So, don't prohibit abortion.

 

[priceless]

Well, you might not view it as a concentration camp but I am quite sure that the individuals that would be there might not view it in the same way. So, don't prohibit abortion.

What do you think about some women being pressured into choosing abortion by their economic situation (or that of the father)? Should there be protection for a woman (or man) who wants to choose to keep a baby instead of aborting it?

 

[Disir]

Well, you might not view it as a concentration camp but I am quite sure that the individuals that would be there might not view it in the same way. So, don't prohibit abortion.

What do you think about some women being pressured into choosing abortion by their economic situation (or that of the father)? Should there be protection for a woman (or man) who wants to choose to keep a baby instead of aborting it?

This is an attempt to make the woman the victim in the decision. Technically, her role is the secondary victim and the perpetrator is the abortion provider. I don't buy it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No. I don't think placing people in colonies and dictating what they can and can't do is appropriate. Ever. Get pregnant win a vacation at a concentration camp.

First of all, I'm not talking about a concentration camp. What I'm really saying is that if you prohibit abortion, you have to guarantee some level of welfare for the family. However, many people are against guaranteeing family welfare if it gives people a blank check to have as many kids as they want regardless of their means to support them.

This would be sort of an in-between (compromise) where neither abortion or birth-control would be an issue because people would not come in contact with people of the opposite gender. So you're essentially saying to a pregnant woman or a man who got a woman pregnant, "ok, you're entitled to a mistake and we're going to make sure you can take care of this baby and yourself but to gain access to this welfare support, you have to live only among people of your same sex so that you won't make any more babies until you've achieved the life-position that affords you the ability to take economic responsibility for your own children."

This seems to me the only practical way of prohibiting abortion and defunding birth-control. Otherwise, you end up with situations where women are claiming rape (either legitimately or deceptively) in order to legitimate abortions and or welfare support. Most people who live around people of the other sex end up having some kind of sexual contact (very few people abstain as I understand it) so abortion, birth-control, and/or child-welfare guarantees/entitlements are a given. The other option is to prohibit abortion, defund birth-control, and then just allow unemployed people to beg in the streets and live on whatever handouts they get.

The is prima facie un-Constitutional.

Moreover, it’s repugnant to the fundamental tenets of a free and democratic society.

You’re attacking the symptom, not the actual cause of the problem; which is why the courts have wisely and appropriately prohibited such ‘solutions.’

 

[jillian]

Vaccinations cause autism which is why many parents are becoming concerned about being forced to give their children vaccinations. I remember when my cousin was born my grandmothers sister said she was as normal as any child. After the vaccination she was not normal. This was years ago and they diagnosed her with autism. My grandmothers sister was a very wise woman and she said without question it was the vaccination that caused the autism. Vaccinations should be a choice made by the family. Not the government.

vaccinations do not cause autism. that is a fallacy.

 

[priceless]

This is an attempt to make the woman the victim in the decision. Technically, her role is the secondary victim and the perpetrator is the abortion provider. I don't buy it.

I don't want to assume you're just going to react negatively to anything I say but it's starting to appear that way.

Are you willing to discuss any of what I have laid out in previous posts or are you going to make this into a discussion about who's a victim and who's a perpetrator, etc.?

If possible, I would like to stick with the issue of welfare-guarantees for the choice to have a child and what, if any, legitimate reproductive restrictions can be imposed on people as a condition of taking advantage of welfare benefits.

If no welfare protection is offered whatsoever, women are faced with the choice between abortion and doing whatever it takes to provide for their child. If the public provides them with a non-exploitative option, taxpayers will complain about women having children as a means to gain access to entitlements.

Are you capable of acknowledging the possibility of a woman (or man) being in a situation of wanting to have a child but lacking access to the economic means to provide for the child's welfare and upbringing? If so, what do you propose is an alternative to abortion for such people?

 

[priceless]

The is prima facie un-Constitutional.

Moreover, it’s repugnant to the fundamental tenets of a free and democratic society.

You’re attacking the symptom, not the actual cause of the problem; which is why the courts have wisely and appropriately prohibited such ‘solutions.’

I'm just trying to think of ways to render abortion and birth control unnecessary. Abstinence is really the only way but this choice seems to be exceedingly unpopular.

Currently, C-sections are an informal method of limiting childbirth for poorer women because once you have a C-section, doctors can prescribe abortion as a health measure against potential risks of subsequent births.

Is that constitutional?

 

[DGS49]

"Effective ten (1) months from today, abortion will be considered a form of voluntary homicide, even if done by the mother. Furthermore, no social welfare program will recognize or subsidize a 'family' that is created by the birth of an illegitmate child."

Problem (basically) solved.

 

[priceless]

"Effective ten (1) months from today, abortion will be considered a form of voluntary homicide, even if done by the mother. Furthermore, no social welfare program will recognize or subsidize a 'family' that is created by the birth of an illegitmate child."

Problem (basically) solved.

What if they marry before the child is born and then divorce?

 

[Disir]

This is an attempt to make the woman the victim in the decision. Technically, her role is the secondary victim and the perpetrator is the abortion provider. I don't buy it.

I don't want to assume you're just going to react negatively to anything I say but it's starting to appear that way.

Are you willing to discuss any of what I have laid out in previous posts or are you going to make this into a discussion about who's a victim and who's a perpetrator, etc.?

If possible, I would like to stick with the issue of welfare-guarantees for the choice to have a child and what, if any, legitimate reproductive restrictions can be imposed on people as a condition of taking advantage of welfare benefits.

If no welfare protection is offered whatsoever, women are faced with the choice between abortion and doing whatever it takes to provide for their child. If the public provides them with a non-exploitative option, taxpayers will complain about women having children as a means to gain access to entitlements.

Are you capable of acknowledging the possibility of a woman (or man) being in a situation of wanting to have a child but lacking access to the economic means to provide for the child's welfare and upbringing? If so, what do you propose is an alternative to abortion for such people?

I am very familiar with your prior argument. There are no legitimate reproductive restrictions. None. You don't punish women for pregnancy.

Further, you have many women that are what we call intellectually disabled. They will always work in low paying jobs and they are not capable of doing any other type of work. By no means is that all of the women but there is a group of women that are. They will have children. They will always require aid. They aren't going to wear their IQ on their forehead. So, before we even begin to head down that track of punishing pregnancy or more welfare restrictions then we should probably have a very good idea of the needs of the populations.

 

[priceless]

I am very familiar with your prior argument. There are no legitimate reproductive restrictions. None. You don't punish women for pregnancy.

I agree with you that no one has the right to limit someone else's reproductive activity. But can you say that some people have the responsibility to provide for the economic welfare of others limitlessly? E.g. If you were legally required to continue providing for your adult children as long as you were both alive, would they have the right to have as many children as they want and require you to continue supporting them and their children? Or should you have some say in their life choices?

Further, you have many women that are what we call intellectually disabled. They will always work in low paying jobs and they are not capable of doing any other type of work. By no means is that all of the women but there is a group of women that are. They will have children. They will always require aid. They aren't going to wear their IQ on their forehead. So, before we even begin to head down that track of punishing pregnancy or more welfare restrictions then we should probably have a very good idea of the needs of the populations.

When you say that certain people will 'always require aid,' is that different to you from saying that some people will always require servants? What it sounds like you're saying is that someone has the right to be served by others without the ability to pay them simply because they (supposedly) aren't capable of doing work for themselves.

It sounds like the old argument during the time of slavery that whites weren't capable of working in the fields because their skin was too sensitive to the hot sun. At what point do you stop requiring people to provide for other people? Or is it that we had things right with slavery, only basing the mandate to work and provide for others unilaterally on color instead of need was the problem?

 

[Disir]

I am very familiar with your prior argument. There are no legitimate reproductive restrictions. None. You don't punish women for pregnancy.

I agree with you that no one has the right to limit someone else's reproductive activity. But can you say that some people have the responsibility to provide for the economic welfare of others limitlessly? E.g. If you were legally required to continue providing for your adult children as long as you were both alive, would they have the right to have as many children as they want and require you to continue supporting them and their children? Or should you have some say in their life choices?

Further, you have many women that are what we call intellectually disabled. They will always work in low paying jobs and they are not capable of doing any other type of work. By no means is that all of the women but there is a group of women that are. They will have children. They will always require aid. They aren't going to wear their IQ on their forehead. So, before we even begin to head down that track of punishing pregnancy or more welfare restrictions then we should probably have a very good idea of the needs of the populations.

When you say that certain people will 'always require aid,' is that different to you from saying that some people will always require servants? What it sounds like you're saying is that someone has the right to be served by others without the ability to pay them simply because they (supposedly) aren't capable of doing work for themselves.

It sounds like the old argument during the time of slavery that whites weren't capable of working in the fields because their skin was too sensitive to the hot sun. At what point do you stop requiring people to provide for other people? Or is it that we had things right with slavery, only basing the mandate to work and provide for others unilaterally on color instead of need was the problem?

That ship sailed with deinstutionalization. So, the ramifications of that are that yes, indeed, now you won't be able to tell who is who and now you will pay limitlessly. Privatization is awesome! Reagan was awesome. Yes, it is very different from saying that some people will always require servants. That was a very nice try though. That's nothing close to slavery. No matter how you slice it.

No, you don't get a say in reproductive health. No, you are not a slave for paying taxes.

 

[priceless]

That ship sailed with deinstutionalization. So, the ramifications of that are that yes, indeed, now you won't be able to tell who is who and now you will pay limitlessly. Privatization is awesome! Reagan was awesome. Yes, it is very different from saying that some people will always require servants. That was a very nice try though. That's nothing close to slavery. No matter how you slice it.

No, you don't get a say in reproductive health. No, you are not a slave for paying taxes.

How exactly is paying limitlessly different than enslavement? Will you pay limitlessly for me to live however I want? If so, why is taking care of me your responsibility and not my own? Please explain your logic? Is there some reason behind what you're saying or is it just about making other people work to pay whatever you want them to and then telling them it's not slavery?

 

[Disir]

That ship sailed with deinstutionalization. So, the ramifications of that are that yes, indeed, now you won't be able to tell who is who and now you will pay limitlessly. Privatization is awesome! Reagan was awesome. Yes, it is very different from saying that some people will always require servants. That was a very nice try though. That's nothing close to slavery. No matter how you slice it.

No, you don't get a say in reproductive health. No, you are not a slave for paying taxes.

How exactly is paying limitlessly different than enslavement? Will you pay limitlessly for me to live however I want? If so, why is taking care of me your responsibility and not my own? Please explain your logic? Is there some reason behind what you're saying or is it just about making other people work to pay whatever you want them to and then telling them it's not slavery?

You consented.