Religoius Extremism + Conservative GOP Governors = Forced Pregnancy Slavery

FreeWorld

Rookie
Apr 10, 2011
7
7
1
Women do not simply become pregnant by themselves.
Male sperm has to reach a females fertile egg.

For a woman to prevent pregnancy they need to prevent their eggs from becoming fertilized by male sperm by birth control such as abstinance, pills, condoms, etc.

This all sounds rather simple to do yet some women still become "accidentally" pregnant even though they had absolutely no desire to conceive and have done absolutely everything possible to prevent conception.

In 2010, GOP conservatives and Tea Party candidates campaigned on creating jobs and fighting to keep government out of healthcare.

In 2011 the opposite is happening - No real help for job creation and Government forced tests and obstacles for women wanting certain medical procedures that effectively create a coerced and forced pregnancy slavery via Religious Right pushed Republican legislation.

This is all done under a rather false flag of "Pro-Life" advocates and perceived rights to life of an embryo or fetus and the problem is the sole fault of women mindlessly spreading their legs and letting men "get them pregnant" and using abortion as some sort of birth control.

This scenario is not the typical reality of how women have unintended pregnancies.

Many women use oral contraceptive pills to prevent pregnancy and the pill is about 99 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. Even so, between 2 and 8 percent of women become pregnant each year while using it.

A Family Planning study, found that of 1 020 women referred for abortions, a fifth claimed to have been using the pill, one of the methods commonly regarded as the most effective for birth control.

Here are five things that may cause the pill to become less effective or even fail:

1.) Not taking the pill at the same time every day
2.) Missing a dose.
3.) Alcohol may reduce the effectiveness of the pill
4.) Antibiotics/seizure medication
4.) Antibiotics/seizure medication
5.) Taking a generic form of the pill.

An 'accidentally on purpose' pregnancy may even be the consequence of a woman's insecurity about her own fertility. The frequent discussions about infertility in newspapers, women's magazines and on television may lead some women to doubt their own ability to have a child when the time is right. If a woman who has never had a child frequently reads about the sub-fertility problems of others, and takes to heart the statistic that one couple in six experiences fertility problems, she may well suffer all manner of doubts and fears about her reproductive future. She may not want a child now but in the recesses of her subconscious mind she may be desperate to discover if she can. She may even develop an irrational belief that she is subfertile and be cavalier as to her contraception as a consequence. This may also lead to an 'accidentally on purpose' pregnancy.

Men can just as easily manipulate things so that risk situations occur. He may 'forget' to buy condoms, insist if they have sex he will withdraw before ejaculation and then get 'carried away', or he may deliberately engineer situations where unprotected sex is likely. Sometimes these manoeuvres are quite conscious and deliberate.

A shocking percentage of unintended pregnancies were caused by abusive men sabotaging contraception, using pregnancy as a weapon to control their partners.
A study from the National Domestic Violence Hotline found that 1 in 4 women calling the hotline had experienced some form of pregnancy coercion.

the definition of "rape" just doesn't take into account the wide array of ways women get pregnant against their will because of domestic or sexual violence. If a wife-beater flushes his wife's pills down the toilet and gets her pregnant in order to trap her in an abusive relationship, putting obstacles between that woman and her abortion is a form of siding with the abuser.

It would be wrong to see unplanned pregnancy as a problem only for young women. Public attention focuses on teenage pregnancies partly because they are ideal subjects for the sensational media stories and partly because they are a particularly vulnerable social group, but older women are also at risk.

It is no longer expected that women in their twenties should be either married and preparing to embark on family life or on the lookout for a husband. The twenty-somethings of the 1990s are likely to be continuing their education, forging careers, or simply enjoying a break between leaving their parents family life and starting their own.

Even if a couple settles into a stable heterosexual relationship and achieves a secure income and a decent home, it is still considered normal and appropriate for them to defer children until their late twenties or early thirties. And, all the time that they are deferring a deliberate pregnancy they are at risk of an accidental one.

Whilst previous generations may have assumed that any pregnancy was wanted and deliberate so long as the couple were married, married couples today may have other plans which do not include children at all. Society in general still assumes that 'normal' women will want children at some time in their lives, but an increasing number of couples are deciding that their priorities lie elsewhere and parenthood is not for them.

It is easy to forget that unplanned pregnancies are not just a problem for those who wish to remain childless. They can be just as great a problem to couples who already have planned and wanted children. Another addition to the family may bring about emotional and financial pressures that are damaging to the couple and their existing children. A woman struggling to cope with young children may find that organising her own contraception is the one job that drops from her busy agenda.

Women are at particular risk of accidental pregnancy shortly after the birth of a planned child, when they may be preoccupied with mothering and not yet settled into a new contraceptive regime. Fertility can return within a few months of childbirth, particularly if the new mother is not breastfeeding.

Similarly, a surprise pregnancy can be a particular nightmare for a woman approaching her menopause. We expect our sex lives to continue until well into old age, and while a woman's fertility level starts to decline from her mid-thirties, women can and do get pregnant right up until their menopause. There are many reasons why an unplanned pregnancy at this stage in life can seem disastrous. A couple may resent the thought of having to embark on another round of child-raising just when they were organizing some time for themselves. The woman may be distressed by the knowledge that the child will have a far greater statistical risk of a genetic disability such as Downs Syndrome.

The couple may worry that they are just 'too old' to cope with the stresses and strains of baby-care. Yet as long as they are having sex they are at risk - and their risk may be increased if they have relied on the pill for contraception and the woman has now been advised to change, perhaps because she smokes, to a new and unfamiliar method.

An added difficulty for an older women with an unexpected pregnancy is that she may mistake the absence of her periods for the start of menopausal symptoms and not identify the problem for months.

In conclusion accidental pregnancy is a potential problem for all fertile women who are sexually active. We live in an age when it is accepted that pregnancies are no longer events that just happen either by the 'grace of God' or by 'acts of nature'. Our lives are organized to incorporate sex for enjoyment and emotional satisfaction and it is seen as quite normal that we should wish to suppress our fertility. We expect to plan pregnancy just as we expect to be able to plan other aspects of our lives. Unfortunately keeping our fertility in check is far easier to say than to do.
 
Last edited:
so then stop getting ecited about them using abortion as birth control

really its just that simple
 
Are you trying to argue that I have to accept that people get to kill babies because they are irresponsible?
 
Are you trying to argue that I have to accept that people get to kill babies because they are irresponsible?
no

i am saying you will have to accept that irresponsible people will pick the easiest way to relieve themselves of their responsiibility

that said unless i missed it somewhere there isnt any precedent for our govt or our law to insist or compel someone to give birth ..under any circumstances ..let alone because some other people dont like the idea of terminating a pregnancy

its funny how cons want to talk about how everyone has individual freedom but then suddenly its their business how responsible or irresponsible some other person is and they want the govt and the law to dictate what options a pregnant woman can or can exercise.

you cant have it both ways

if you want less govt and a less intrusive government you aint gonna get that setting up a system to prevent abortion or make adults "face the consequences" of having sex

i mean really ...what or who do you think you are? the sex police??
 
oh and mind you - the OP is yet again another example of the " punish them with pregnancy crowd "
 
Are you trying to argue that I have to accept that people get to kill babies because they are irresponsible?
no

i am saying you will have to accept that irresponsible people will pick the easiest way to relieve themselves of their responsiibility

that said unless i missed it somewhere there isnt any precedent for our govt or our law to insist or compel someone to give birth ..under any circumstances ..let alone because some other people dont like the idea of terminating a pregnancy

its funny how cons want to talk about how everyone has individual freedom but then suddenly its their business how responsible or irresponsible some other person is and they want the govt and the law to dictate what options a pregnant woman can or can exercise.

you cant have it both ways

if you want less govt and a less intrusive government you aint gonna get that setting up a system to prevent abortion or make adults "face the consequences" of having sex

i mean really ...what or who do you think you are? the sex police??

There is, however, plenty of precedent for our government protecting the lives of individuals, not matter what their age is.

By the way, try not to put words in other peoples mouths. It makes you look silly.
 
I've come to see that there is little point is having a discussion on this board about abortion, as most people on this board on either side of the issue are incapable of discussing the matter honestly. They'll just try to frame the issue in terms that presume their perspective to be right, and then try to invent scientific facts or invoke scientific knowledge and understand to which they are not actually privy.
 
Are you trying to argue that I have to accept that people get to kill babies because they are irresponsible?
no

i am saying you will have to accept that irresponsible people will pick the easiest way to relieve themselves of their responsiibility

that said unless i missed it somewhere there isnt any precedent for our govt or our law to insist or compel someone to give birth ..under any circumstances ..let alone because some other people dont like the idea of terminating a pregnancy

its funny how cons want to talk about how everyone has individual freedom but then suddenly its their business how responsible or irresponsible some other person is and they want the govt and the law to dictate what options a pregnant woman can or can exercise.

you cant have it both ways

if you want less govt and a less intrusive government you aint gonna get that setting up a system to prevent abortion or make adults "face the consequences" of having sex

i mean really ...what or who do you think you are? the sex police??

There is, however, plenty of precedent for our government protecting the lives of individuals, not matter what their age is.

By the way, try not to put words in other peoples mouths. It makes you look silly.

it cant protect an individual by suspending ot violating someone elses right

if a baby has SEPARATE rights from the mother the mothers "right" to do her body as she is wont to do is not superceeded by the baby " wanting" to be born - ie the baby cant insist the mother birth it - noone can do that not even the govt not the dad not the grandparents not the ice-cream man - noone

no person no govt no entity no body other than a woman whose pregnant gets to say " hey you gotta have this kid because although you may not want him/her , i do "- no person including the baby has such a right

you wanna kid give birth to em yourself - and if you are a baby in a womb you dont get to demand someone birth you.
 
I've come to see that there is little point is having a discussion on this board about abortion, as most people on this board on either side of the issue are incapable of discussing the matter honestly. They'll just try to frame the issue in terms that presume their perspective to be right, and then try to invent scientific facts or invoke scientific knowledge and understand to which they are not actually privy.

Are you holding yourself up as an example? Because it is pretty evident that you are inventing a scientific fact and invoking scientific knowledge that does not exist.

The honest doctors and scientists admit that they have no idea when life begins. There are 4 distinct moments that can be used to chart the beginning of human life.

The first is conception. This is not generally accepted, but there is nothing we can point to to disprove it.

The second is the point of gastrulation, which occurs about 14 days after conception. This is the point where twinning can no longer occur.

The third is when an EEG is detectable, and occurs about 24 to 27 weeks after conception. This is the one that I believe most doctors are comfortable with.

The fourth is at or near birth, and is fetal viability. This is the one that SCOTUS came down with in Roe v Wade.

The strange thing is that the pro abortion crowd has chosen to ignore all of these possibilities and unilaterally decided that life begins after birth. They insist that every woman has a right to abortion on demand at any point during their pregnancy, even during labor.

Most pro choice people do not know this, and are offended by the term pro abortion. that does not change the fact that this is the stance of the pro abortion crowd, and that they are the ones that are ignoring science.
 
no

i am saying you will have to accept that irresponsible people will pick the easiest way to relieve themselves of their responsiibility

that said unless i missed it somewhere there isnt any precedent for our govt or our law to insist or compel someone to give birth ..under any circumstances ..let alone because some other people dont like the idea of terminating a pregnancy

its funny how cons want to talk about how everyone has individual freedom but then suddenly its their business how responsible or irresponsible some other person is and they want the govt and the law to dictate what options a pregnant woman can or can exercise.

you cant have it both ways

if you want less govt and a less intrusive government you aint gonna get that setting up a system to prevent abortion or make adults "face the consequences" of having sex

i mean really ...what or who do you think you are? the sex police??

There is, however, plenty of precedent for our government protecting the lives of individuals, not matter what their age is.

By the way, try not to put words in other peoples mouths. It makes you look silly.

it cant protect an individual by suspending ot violating someone elses right

if a baby has SEPARATE rights from the mother the mothers "right" to do her body as she is wont to do is not superceeded by the baby " wanting" to be born - ie the baby cant insist the mother birth it - noone can do that not even the govt not the dad not the grandparents not the ice-cream man - noone

no person no govt no entity no body other than a woman whose pregnant gets to say " hey you gotta have this kid because although you may not want him/her , i do "- no person including the baby has such a right

you wanna kid give birth to em yourself - and if you are a baby in a womb you dont get to demand someone birth you.

It can't?

I am pretty sure that if I were committing a murder somewhere the government could ignore my right to privacy, my Fourth Amendment right to a warrant, and even my right to live in order to prevent it. Or did police suddenly lose the right to use deadly force in the defense of others at some point?

Your argument needs to be refined a bit, it does not hold up to reality.
 
Are you holding yourself up as an example? Because it is pretty evident that you are inventing a scientific fact and invoking scientific knowledge that does not exist.

Actually, I've never done anything of the sort. Hopefully, you'll be able to understand that a little better here.

The honest doctors and scientists admit that they have no idea when life begins. There are 4 distinct moments that can be used to chart the beginning of human life.

This has been the crux of my arguments regarding the abortion debate. Many people will claim there is some kind of definitive evidence about this. One person I recall even going so far as to make the stupid claim that the medical field and scientists have "proven" that there is no difference between a cell, tissue, and an organism. My basic argument has always been that since there is no meaningful scientific answer provided, people must be free to draw their own conclusions. If one person seeks the guidance of their faith, that is their prerogative. If another person uses some other guide, then that is also their prerogative.

The first is conception. This is not generally accepted, but there is nothing we can point to to disprove it.

The second is the point of gastrulation, which occurs about 14 days after conception. This is the point where twinning can no longer occur.

The third is when an EEG is detectable, and occurs about 24 to 27 weeks after conception. This is the one that I believe most doctors are comfortable with.

The fourth is at or near birth, and is fetal viability. This is the one that SCOTUS came down with in Roe v Wade.

All of these guiding points, if you will, have their own merits and flaws. The SCOTUS relied on the viability point, and I find that a reasonable one for guiding legality issues, as it protects the rights of individuals to make their own decisions on the matter.

The strange thing is that the pro abortion crowd has chosen to ignore all of these possibilities and unilaterally decided that life begins after birth. They insist that every woman has a right to abortion on demand at any point during their pregnancy, even during labor.

See, this is where the dishonesty comes in. When has anyone ever said that a woman should have the right to an abortion up to the moment before "natural" birth?

Most pro choice people do not know this, and are offended by the term pro abortion.

This is ludicrous. You claim that the whole "crowd" embraces a line of thinking, and then turn around and claim that most do not know they embrace it. That doesn't even make any sense.

that does not change the fact that this is the stance of the pro abortion crowd, and that they are the ones that are ignoring science.

Like I said, an honest discussion cannot be had about the subject, because most people will insist on framing the discussion in terms that presume their own view to be accurate. You profess to know what every pro-choice person thinks. You've put those words into my mouth, even, when I have never made such statements and in fact have consistently explained my position otherwise. But you're going to always start off with the presumption that fuels your own position, and will never be able to have an honest discussion, unless you eventually put aside your dogma.
 
Last edited:
There is, however, plenty of precedent for our government protecting the lives of individuals, not matter what their age is.

By the way, try not to put words in other peoples mouths. It makes you look silly.

it cant protect an individual by suspending ot violating someone elses right

if a baby has SEPARATE rights from the mother the mothers "right" to do her body as she is wont to do is not superceeded by the baby " wanting" to be born - ie the baby cant insist the mother birth it - noone can do that not even the govt not the dad not the grandparents not the ice-cream man - noone

no person no govt no entity no body other than a woman whose pregnant gets to say " hey you gotta have this kid because although you may not want him/her , i do "- no person including the baby has such a right

you wanna kid give birth to em yourself - and if you are a baby in a womb you dont get to demand someone birth you.

It can't?

I am pretty sure that if I were committing a murder somewhere the government could ignore my right to privacy, my Fourth Amendment right to a warrant, and even my right to live in order to prevent it. Or did police suddenly lose the right to use deadly force in the defense of others at some point?

Your argument needs to be refined a bit, it does not hold up to reality.

getting an abortion ISNT murder

murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of someone elses life

so for your little scenario to exist

first the law would have to recognize a fetus or baby inutero as separate from the mother ( which it doesnt )

then youd have to get the court to believe that
a) a fetuses or in utero babies "wants" can be presumed by someone other than the mother
b) that the court recognize extended and limiting the motehrs "rights" at the expense of the other person ( or baby)
c) that some kind of structure to inform on pregnant women will be in place to actually enforce such a "ban"

i mean really what are you gonna do if a woman gets an abortion?

shoot her?

kill her?

how about if she goes to another country and gets an abortion?

ah i could go on but already the ridiculousness of anti abortioninsts is apparent

its setting up a system so intrusive no one who belives in indivudal freedom could have any truck with it
 
Women do not simply become pregnant by themselves.
Male sperm has to reach a females fertile egg.

For a woman to prevent pregnancy they need to prevent their eggs from becoming fertilized by male sperm by birth control such as abstinance, pills, condoms, etc.

This all sounds rather simple to do yet some women still become "accidentally" pregnant even though they had absolutely no desire to conceive and have done absolutely everything possible to prevent conception. Obviously not.

In 2010, GOP conservatives and Tea Party candidates campaigned on creating jobs Link and fighting to keep government out of healthcare.

In 2011 the opposite is happening - No real help for job creation It's down 1% and Government forced tests and obstacles for women wanting certain medical procedures that effectively create a coerced and forced pregnancy slavery via Religious Right pushed Republican legislation. That's just a made up lie.

This is all done under a rather false flag of "Pro-Life" advocates and perceived rights to life of an embryo or fetus and the problem is the sole fault of women mindlessly spreading their legs and letting men "get them pregnant" and using abortion as some sort of birth control.

This scenario is not the typical reality of how women have unintended pregnancies.

Many women use oral contraceptive pills to prevent pregnancy and the pill is about 99 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. not trueEven so, between 2 and 8 percent of women become pregnant each year while using it. Use just proved that you lied. :lol:

A Family Planning study, found that of 1 020 women referred for abortions, a fifth claimed to have been using the pill, one of the methods commonly regarded as the most effective for birth control.

Here are five things that may cause the pill to become less effective or even fail:

1.) Not taking the pill at the same time every day
2.) Missing a dose. duh
3.) Alcohol may reduce the effectiveness of the pill
4.) Antibiotics/seizure medication
4.) Antibiotics/seizure medication
5.) Taking a generic form of the pill.

An 'accidentally on purpose' pregnancy may even be the consequence of a woman's insecurity about her own fertility. The frequent discussions about infertility in newspapers, women's magazines and on television may lead some women to doubt their own ability to have a child when the time is right. If a woman who has never had a child frequently reads about the sub-fertility problems of others, and takes to heart the statistic that one couple in six experiences fertility problems, she may well suffer all manner of doubts and fears about her reproductive future. She may not want a child now but in the recesses of her subconscious mind she may be desperate to discover if she can. She may even develop an irrational belief that she is subfertile and be cavalier as to her contraception as a consequence. This may also lead to an 'accidentally on purpose' pregnancy. link plz

Men can just as easily manipulate things so that risk situations occur. He may 'forget' to buy condoms, insist if they have sex he will withdraw before ejaculation and then get 'carried away', or he may deliberately engineer situations where unprotected sex is likely. Sometimes these manoeuvres are quite conscious and deliberate. Does the woman retain the ability to say no?

A shocking percentage of unintended pregnancies were caused by abusive men sabotaging contraception, using pregnancy as a weapon to control their partners.
A study from the National Domestic Violence Hotline found that 1 in 4 women calling the hotline had experienced some form of pregnancy coercion. That must be linked.

the definition of "rape" just doesn't take into account the wide array of ways women get pregnant against their will because of domestic or sexual violence. If a wife-beater flushes his wife's pills down the toilet and gets her pregnant in order to trap her in an abusive relationship, putting obstacles between that woman and her abortion is a form of siding with the abuser. The woman still needs to get out, preggers or not, it is her choice.

It would be wrong to see unplanned pregnancy as a problem only for young women. Public attention focuses on teenage pregnancies partly because they are ideal subjects for the sensational media stories and partly because they are a particularly vulnerable social group, but older women are also at risk.

It is no longer expected that women in their twenties should be either married and preparing to embark on family life or on the lookout for a husband. The twenty-somethings of the 1990s are likely to be continuing their education, forging careers, or simply enjoying a break between leaving their parents family life and starting their own.

Even if a couple settles into a stable heterosexual relationship and achieves a secure income and a decent home, it is still considered normal and appropriate for them to defer children until their late twenties or early thirties. And, all the time that they are deferring a deliberate pregnancy they are at risk of an accidental one.

Whilst previous generations may have assumed that any pregnancy was wanted and deliberate so long as the couple were married, married couples today may have other plans which do not include children at all. Society in general still assumes that 'normal' women will want children at some time in their lives, but an increasing number of couples are deciding that their priorities lie elsewhere and parenthood is not for them.

It is easy to forget that unplanned pregnancies are not just a problem for those who wish to remain childless. They can be just as great a problem to couples who already have planned and wanted children. Another addition to the family may bring about emotional and financial pressures that are damaging to the couple and their existing children. A woman struggling to cope with young children may find that organising her own contraception is the one job that drops from her busy agenda.

Women are at particular risk of accidental pregnancy shortly after the birth of a planned child, when they may be preoccupied with mothering and not yet settled into a new contraceptive regime. Fertility can return within a few months of childbirth, particularly if the new mother is not breastfeeding.

Similarly, a surprise pregnancy can be a particular nightmare for a woman approaching her menopause. We expect our sex lives to continue until well into old age, and while a woman's fertility level starts to decline from her mid-thirties, women can and do get pregnant right up until their menopause. There are many reasons why an unplanned pregnancy at this stage in life can seem disastrous. A couple may resent the thought of having to embark on another round of child-raising just when they were organizing some time for themselves. The woman may be distressed by the knowledge that the child will have a far greater statistical risk of a genetic disability such as Downs Syndrome.

The couple may worry that they are just 'too old' to cope with the stresses and strains of baby-care. Yet as long as they are having sex they are at risk - and their risk may be increased if they have relied on the pill for contraception and the woman has now been advised to change, perhaps because she smokes, to a new and unfamiliar method.

An added difficulty for an older women with an unexpected pregnancy is that she may mistake the absence of her periods for the start of menopausal symptoms and not identify the problem for months.

In conclusion accidental pregnancy is a potential problem for all fertile women who are sexually active. We live in an age when it is accepted that pregnancies are no longer events that just happen either by the 'grace of God' or by 'acts of nature'. Our lives are organized to incorporate sex for enjoyment and emotional satisfaction and it is seen as quite normal that we should wish to suppress our fertility. We expect to plan pregnancy just as we expect to be able to plan other aspects of our lives. Unfortunately keeping our fertility in check is far easier to say than to do.

I got bored reading all that.

Please provide links to prove your claims.
 
it cant protect an individual by suspending ot violating someone elses right

if a baby has SEPARATE rights from the mother the mothers "right" to do her body as she is wont to do is not superceeded by the baby " wanting" to be born - ie the baby cant insist the mother birth it - noone can do that not even the govt not the dad not the grandparents not the ice-cream man - noone

no person no govt no entity no body other than a woman whose pregnant gets to say " hey you gotta have this kid because although you may not want him/her , i do "- no person including the baby has such a right

you wanna kid give birth to em yourself - and if you are a baby in a womb you dont get to demand someone birth you.

If a baby that is being carried by it's mother has rights as well as the mother, one right is the right to LIFE. The mother has the right to her life, however, the baby does also. If the mother kills her baby she is carrying, she is preventing the baby it's right to life. A baby 'wanting' to be born is not what is the issue. The baby having the right to life is. Being pregnant is not taking the mother's right to life away, however, killing the baby before it is born IS taking it's right to live away.

The government is supposed to be there to 'protect' our rights. This would mean they are there to also protect the rights of the unborn child, INCLUDING the right to LIFE.

You said 'you wanna kid give birth to em yourself'. You do know that there are people out there that can not have a baby!? They are incapable to do so. These people see pregnance as a gift that they do not have. They would love to have a kid themselves.

Also, KILLING is the taking of someone else's life. This is what Quantum meant as 'murder'. He was not being PC about it so you taking things and throwing in PC will not get you anywhere.

its setting up a system so intrusive no one who belives in indivudal freedom could have any truck with it

Accually, anyone who believes in indivudal freedom and see an unborn child having just as much freedom to life as the mother would also see that the mother getting an abortion as taking away that child's right to life. Unless the mother's life is at stake, it is unconstitutional to let the child get killed due only to inconvenancing the mother.
 

Forum List

Back
Top