When You Can’t Face Reality....

[PoliticalChic]

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know I shouldn't let you drag me off into a different topic....but, it is interesting.

"Similarly, is abortion keeping the prison population down? (I've seen studies)

As cold-blooded as this sounds, I'd rather see dead druggies than keep supporting them in prison.
Babies don't have a choice, so their moms make it for them..."

First, why use a felon's drug habit as a reason to allow the slaughter of an innocent?
Second, how about we simply solve the drug problem:
Confiscate drugs as we arrest users.
Adulterate the drugs with chemicals that turn users green.
Recirculate the drugs via undercovers, and use the profits to support law enforcement.
Finally......we arrest all the green people.

Third, pass laws such as "Georgia governor Brian Kemp signed perhaps the most impressive and comprehensively pro-life “heartbeat bill” in the nation. The law (set to go into effect in 2020) not only bans abortion when the baby has a “detectable human heartbeat” it declares the scientific, philosophical, and theological truth that an unborn child is a “natural person” under state law."
Georgia Heartbeat Bill Won't Imprison Women Who Have Abortions | National Review

First, my point was that unwanted babies, or those born into low-life homes generally end up in prison. Nothing to do with a "felon's drug habit". Who takes care of those 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?

Second, drugs can never be removed, they are all over and come into the US from everywhere. Can drugs be used to advantage to eliminate bad segments, such as by allowing fentanyl to be used, i.e, stupid is as stupid does, aka "chlorine in the gene pool"?

Third, philosophically agree with the GA heartbeat Bill, but then what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?
Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia

Sorry, but what makes you think there would be 600,000 unaborted babies a year? The assumption that rates of unintended pregnancies would remain static and unchanged by a change in abortion law is a very big and utterly unsupported assumption to make.

I don't make optimistic assumptions. Even if the birth rate is cut in half, that's still 300,000 more babies to care for.
So who takes care of the 300,000 unwanted babies? Foster care?

Which brings me to my following point: Why is this such a shocking, bewildering question to you? And why do you think anyone else is going to be as horrified as you are by it?

Why is it that you always ask rhetorical questions instead of answering the ones in the post you're responding to?
Who takes care of the ~300,000 unwanted babies born if abortion of outlawed? Hint: the babies' mothers cannot.
Maybe we should start a signup sheet for the women against abortion to adopt those unwanted babies?
You sign up for a few?
View attachment 260739If not you, then who?

Pretty easy. I answer questions with questions - which usually AREN'T rhetorical; you just don't want to answer - because I flatly refuse to let others set the debate parameters and meekly accept their assertions and implications as correct.

Why do YOU insist on parroting your questions over and over, demanding answers, while utterly ignoring the existence of any questions aimed at you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

"do you support Planned Parenthood and subsidized birth control?"

Are you serious???? We already do.
Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million in 2014).

"Otherwise, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? "
If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options.

"If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options."

Disagree!! If abortions won't stop unwanted pregnancies, "no abortions" won't either. Dumb human beings do not alter behavior. So the question remains, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Say even 300,000 more, half get smart and half don't. That's still a lot of babies to care for!!

Excuse me, but why would abortion stop unwanted pregnancies? What is there about, "You can just kill any babies you make" which would in any way incline people to make fewer babies in the first place? Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

Also, even dumb human beings still have basic stimuli response. And I frankly doubt there's all that high a number of humans THAT stupid, that they can't figure out, "Hey, if I get pregnant, I'm gonna have to actually have a baby!"

So the question remains, why do you keep insisting that the number will remain static, and why do you act like the idea of "How do you deal with a living baby?!" is such a stumper? Are you actually telling us killing them is somehow preferable because they're inconvenient?

The abortion discussion is going something like this:
1. Currently there are about 600,000 abortions performed in the US each year.
2. If abortions are made illegal, how many new babies will be born, and who will care for them.
3. My number is 300,000 new unaborted babies, half, not static, so who takes care of them? (100,000 or 200,000 is just as problematic, but planning needs to be done to address whatever the number is)

So having an abortion, or having a baby and then putting it up for adoption (or Foster care) needs new funding. Who pays for uninsured births? MEDICAID. Who pays for the foster care cost? That's right, taxpayers.

No, the abortion discussion is going something like this: "OMG, unplanned babies will live and have to be taken care of!! PANIC!!!"

If you're looking for, "It's cheaper to just kill babies" to be your winning argument here, please say so now, because I don't feel any need to have soulless evil on my screen.

I'm looking for your contingency plan to address new babies that are born because abortions are made illegal, and the mothers can't care for the baby for whatever reason.
How about, option to have tubes tied for free? How about, free vasectomys too?
If abortions are made illegal, planning needs to be done. If you think no new babies would happen, you're wrong.

Are debating ideas too difficult for you, so you resort to "soulless evil" comments?
I could call you names too and we could be just like the rest of the idiots here.

I'm looking for YOU to explain why you think I'M the one who needs to defend killing babies, and YOU are the one with some sort of rational, moral high ground for "Letting them live is too expensive!"

Do you understand the difference between "debate" and "interrogation", Torquemada? If you thought you get to demand answers and then hand down lofty judgements on whether or not they meet your approval, without ever being expected to provide anything yourself, you vastly overestimated your control and importance here.

You want your questions answered? Demonstrate that they're valid questions DESERVING an answer. I don't answer questions that require me to accept an evil premise to do so. And I don't show people or their questions more respect than they earn.

 

[kyzr]

"If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options."

Disagree!! If abortions won't stop unwanted pregnancies, "no abortions" won't either. Dumb human beings do not alter behavior. So the question remains, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Say even 300,000 more, half get smart and half don't. That's still a lot of babies to care for!!

Excuse me, but why would abortion stop unwanted pregnancies? What is there about, "You can just kill any babies you make" which would in any way incline people to make fewer babies in the first place? Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

Also, even dumb human beings still have basic stimuli response. And I frankly doubt there's all that high a number of humans THAT stupid, that they can't figure out, "Hey, if I get pregnant, I'm gonna have to actually have a baby!"

So the question remains, why do you keep insisting that the number will remain static, and why do you act like the idea of "How do you deal with a living baby?!" is such a stumper? Are you actually telling us killing them is somehow preferable because they're inconvenient?

The abortion discussion is going something like this:
1. Currently there are about 600,000 abortions performed in the US each year.
2. If abortions are made illegal, how many new babies will be born, and who will care for them.
3. My number is 300,000 new unaborted babies, half, not static, so who takes care of them? (100,000 or 200,000 is just as problematic, but planning needs to be done to address whatever the number is)

So having an abortion, or having a baby and then putting it up for adoption (or Foster care) needs new funding. Who pays for uninsured births? MEDICAID. Who pays for the foster care cost? That's right, taxpayers.

No, the abortion discussion is going something like this: "OMG, unplanned babies will live and have to be taken care of!! PANIC!!!"

If you're looking for, "It's cheaper to just kill babies" to be your winning argument here, please say so now, because I don't feel any need to have soulless evil on my screen.

I'm looking for your contingency plan to address new babies that are born because abortions are made illegal, and the mothers can't care for the baby for whatever reason.
How about, option to have tubes tied for free? How about, free vasectomys too?
If abortions are made illegal, planning needs to be done. If you think no new babies would happen, you're wrong.

Are debating ideas too difficult for you, so you resort to "soulless evil" comments?
I could call you names too and we could be just like the rest of the idiots here.

I'm looking for YOU to explain why you think I'M the one who needs to defend killing babies, and YOU are the one with some sort of rational, moral high ground for "Letting them live is too expensive!"

Do you understand the difference between "debate" and "interrogation", Torquemada? If you thought you get to demand answers and then hand down lofty judgements on whether or not they meet your approval, without ever being expected to provide anything yourself, you vastly overestimated your control and importance here.

You want your questions answered? Demonstrate that they're valid questions DESERVING an answer. I don't answer questions that require me to accept an evil premise to do so. And I don't show people or their questions more respect than they earn.

If you can't debate properly, you lose. Thanks for playing.
1. Abortions are legal in the US [who asked you to defend killing babies?, please show me where I said that]
2. I think you want to prohibit abortions [ i.e. stop killing babies, correct?]
3. IMHO prohibiting abortions will result in many more babies being born that their mothers can't care for, or they wouldn't have opted for an abortion. [this seems obvious to me]
4. A practical question is, "who is supposed to care for all the unwanted babies?" [yes its expensive!!]

A. If your position is "stop killing babies, God will provide". That's a valid answer, naive, impractical, but at least its an answer.
B. If you actually plan for what happens to all the unwanted babies after they are born, that's extra credit!!
C. If you have no clue what we're discussing, but have a God complex, that explains a lot too.
D. What "evil premise" can't you handle? Reality?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Excuse me, but why would abortion stop unwanted pregnancies? What is there about, "You can just kill any babies you make" which would in any way incline people to make fewer babies in the first place? Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

Also, even dumb human beings still have basic stimuli response. And I frankly doubt there's all that high a number of humans THAT stupid, that they can't figure out, "Hey, if I get pregnant, I'm gonna have to actually have a baby!"

So the question remains, why do you keep insisting that the number will remain static, and why do you act like the idea of "How do you deal with a living baby?!" is such a stumper? Are you actually telling us killing them is somehow preferable because they're inconvenient?

The abortion discussion is going something like this:
1. Currently there are about 600,000 abortions performed in the US each year.
2. If abortions are made illegal, how many new babies will be born, and who will care for them.
3. My number is 300,000 new unaborted babies, half, not static, so who takes care of them? (100,000 or 200,000 is just as problematic, but planning needs to be done to address whatever the number is)

So having an abortion, or having a baby and then putting it up for adoption (or Foster care) needs new funding. Who pays for uninsured births? MEDICAID. Who pays for the foster care cost? That's right, taxpayers.

No, the abortion discussion is going something like this: "OMG, unplanned babies will live and have to be taken care of!! PANIC!!!"

If you're looking for, "It's cheaper to just kill babies" to be your winning argument here, please say so now, because I don't feel any need to have soulless evil on my screen.

I'm looking for your contingency plan to address new babies that are born because abortions are made illegal, and the mothers can't care for the baby for whatever reason.
How about, option to have tubes tied for free? How about, free vasectomys too?
If abortions are made illegal, planning needs to be done. If you think no new babies would happen, you're wrong.

Are debating ideas too difficult for you, so you resort to "soulless evil" comments?
I could call you names too and we could be just like the rest of the idiots here.

I'm looking for YOU to explain why you think I'M the one who needs to defend killing babies, and YOU are the one with some sort of rational, moral high ground for "Letting them live is too expensive!"

Do you understand the difference between "debate" and "interrogation", Torquemada? If you thought you get to demand answers and then hand down lofty judgements on whether or not they meet your approval, without ever being expected to provide anything yourself, you vastly overestimated your control and importance here.

You want your questions answered? Demonstrate that they're valid questions DESERVING an answer. I don't answer questions that require me to accept an evil premise to do so. And I don't show people or their questions more respect than they earn.

If you can't debate properly, you lose. Thanks for playing.
1. Abortions are legal in the US [who asked you to defend killing babies?, please show me where I said that]
2. I think you want to prohibit abortions [ i.e. stop killing babies, correct?]
3. IMHO prohibiting abortions will result in many more babies being born that their mothers can't care for, or they wouldn't have opted for an abortion. [this seems obvious to me]
4. A practical question is, "who is supposed to care for all the unwanted babies?" [yes its expensive!!]

A. If your position is "stop killing babies, God will provide". That's a valid answer, naive, impractical, but at least its an answer.
B. If you actually plan for what happens to all the unwanted babies after they are born, that's extra credit!!
C. If you have no clue what we're discussing, but have a God complex, that explains a lot too.
D. What "evil premise" can't you handle? Reality?

And there we have it. "You won't tell me when you stopped beating your wife, so you don't debate properly, and I WIIIINNNN!!!!" So sad, how infectious left-think is.

I notice that you are STILL thinking you're running an Inquisition here, firing questions and demanding answers and utterly ignoring the existence of any return questions. And you're still basing your questions on the notion that I'm going to accept your premises as fact. How about not?

"IMHO, prohibiting abortion will result in more babies. I've been told otherwise, but I'm going to competely ignore that, and keep asserting it. Now, assume that I'm right, and answer my question!"

Fuck you.

 

[kyzr]

The abortion discussion is going something like this:
1. Currently there are about 600,000 abortions performed in the US each year.
2. If abortions are made illegal, how many new babies will be born, and who will care for them.
3. My number is 300,000 new unaborted babies, half, not static, so who takes care of them? (100,000 or 200,000 is just as problematic, but planning needs to be done to address whatever the number is)

So having an abortion, or having a baby and then putting it up for adoption (or Foster care) needs new funding. Who pays for uninsured births? MEDICAID. Who pays for the foster care cost? That's right, taxpayers.

No, the abortion discussion is going something like this: "OMG, unplanned babies will live and have to be taken care of!! PANIC!!!"

If you're looking for, "It's cheaper to just kill babies" to be your winning argument here, please say so now, because I don't feel any need to have soulless evil on my screen.

I'm looking for your contingency plan to address new babies that are born because abortions are made illegal, and the mothers can't care for the baby for whatever reason.
How about, option to have tubes tied for free? How about, free vasectomys too?
If abortions are made illegal, planning needs to be done. If you think no new babies would happen, you're wrong.

Are debating ideas too difficult for you, so you resort to "soulless evil" comments?
I could call you names too and we could be just like the rest of the idiots here.

I'm looking for YOU to explain why you think I'M the one who needs to defend killing babies, and YOU are the one with some sort of rational, moral high ground for "Letting them live is too expensive!"

Do you understand the difference between "debate" and "interrogation", Torquemada? If you thought you get to demand answers and then hand down lofty judgements on whether or not they meet your approval, without ever being expected to provide anything yourself, you vastly overestimated your control and importance here.

You want your questions answered? Demonstrate that they're valid questions DESERVING an answer. I don't answer questions that require me to accept an evil premise to do so. And I don't show people or their questions more respect than they earn.

If you can't debate properly, you lose. Thanks for playing.
1. Abortions are legal in the US [who asked you to defend killing babies?, please show me where I said that]
2. I think you want to prohibit abortions [ i.e. stop killing babies, correct?]
3. IMHO prohibiting abortions will result in many more babies being born that their mothers can't care for, or they wouldn't have opted for an abortion. [this seems obvious to me]
4. A practical question is, "who is supposed to care for all the unwanted babies?" [yes its expensive!!]

A. If your position is "stop killing babies, God will provide". That's a valid answer, naive, impractical, but at least its an answer.
B. If you actually plan for what happens to all the unwanted babies after they are born, that's extra credit!!
C. If you have no clue what we're discussing, but have a God complex, that explains a lot too.
D. What "evil premise" can't you handle? Reality?

And there we have it. "You won't tell me when you stopped beating your wife, so you don't debate properly, and I WIIIINNNN!!!!" So sad, how infectious left-think is.

I notice that you are STILL thinking you're running an Inquisition here, firing questions and demanding answers and utterly ignoring the existence of any return questions. And you're still basing your questions on the notion that I'm going to accept your premises as fact. How about not?

"IMHO, prohibiting abortion will result in more babies. I've been told otherwise, but I'm going to completely ignore that, and keep asserting it. Now, assume that I'm right, and answer my question!"

Fuck you.

You have NOT put up any credible links proving/supporting that prohibiting abortions would not result in more births. I found this Columbia study proving my point. So far you haven't provided any "facts" to support your position, just whines and attempted insults. Yes that means you lose the debate. Thanks for playing.
http://www.columbia.edu/~cp2124/papers/popeleches_abortion_children.pdf
"The immediate impact of this change in policy was a dramatic increase in births: the birth rate increased from 14.3 to 27.4 between 1966 and1967, and the total fertility rate increased from 1.9 to 3.7 children per woman (Legge 1985)"

Who is supposed to care for all the extra babies?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You think, “Nope, progressives can’t possibly be any dumber,” and then they proceed to reset the dumbness bar. The latest example is Alyssa Milano, who has publicly announced she’s not going to have sex anymore until people can once again kill babies without restraint.

...Milano is not going to have sex unless and until you allow her to kill babies. I am unclear on what our reaction is supposed to be. Does she expect us to pull a 180 on pre-birth infanticide in order ...?"
Liberal Sex Strike Fails To Score




Perhaps Milano hasn't heard the rumor that having sex is somehow related to......becoming pregnant.
And if one refused to become pregnant......well, she falls right into the clutches of us evil pro-lifers!
Can't kill your baby if you don't become pregnant.
(Shhhh......keep it on the downlow......don't let the Liberal dunces in on this)

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the abortion discussion is going something like this: "OMG, unplanned babies will live and have to be taken care of!! PANIC!!!"

If you're looking for, "It's cheaper to just kill babies" to be your winning argument here, please say so now, because I don't feel any need to have soulless evil on my screen.

I'm looking for your contingency plan to address new babies that are born because abortions are made illegal, and the mothers can't care for the baby for whatever reason.
How about, option to have tubes tied for free? How about, free vasectomys too?
If abortions are made illegal, planning needs to be done. If you think no new babies would happen, you're wrong.

Are debating ideas too difficult for you, so you resort to "soulless evil" comments?
I could call you names too and we could be just like the rest of the idiots here.

I'm looking for YOU to explain why you think I'M the one who needs to defend killing babies, and YOU are the one with some sort of rational, moral high ground for "Letting them live is too expensive!"

Do you understand the difference between "debate" and "interrogation", Torquemada? If you thought you get to demand answers and then hand down lofty judgements on whether or not they meet your approval, without ever being expected to provide anything yourself, you vastly overestimated your control and importance here.

You want your questions answered? Demonstrate that they're valid questions DESERVING an answer. I don't answer questions that require me to accept an evil premise to do so. And I don't show people or their questions more respect than they earn.

If you can't debate properly, you lose. Thanks for playing.
1. Abortions are legal in the US [who asked you to defend killing babies?, please show me where I said that]
2. I think you want to prohibit abortions [ i.e. stop killing babies, correct?]
3. IMHO prohibiting abortions will result in many more babies being born that their mothers can't care for, or they wouldn't have opted for an abortion. [this seems obvious to me]
4. A practical question is, "who is supposed to care for all the unwanted babies?" [yes its expensive!!]

A. If your position is "stop killing babies, God will provide". That's a valid answer, naive, impractical, but at least its an answer.
B. If you actually plan for what happens to all the unwanted babies after they are born, that's extra credit!!
C. If you have no clue what we're discussing, but have a God complex, that explains a lot too.
D. What "evil premise" can't you handle? Reality?

And there we have it. "You won't tell me when you stopped beating your wife, so you don't debate properly, and I WIIIINNNN!!!!" So sad, how infectious left-think is.

I notice that you are STILL thinking you're running an Inquisition here, firing questions and demanding answers and utterly ignoring the existence of any return questions. And you're still basing your questions on the notion that I'm going to accept your premises as fact. How about not?

"IMHO, prohibiting abortion will result in more babies. I've been told otherwise, but I'm going to completely ignore that, and keep asserting it. Now, assume that I'm right, and answer my question!"

Fuck you.

You have NOT put up any credible links proving/supporting that prohibiting abortions would not result in more births. I found this Columbia study proving my point. So far you haven't provided any "facts" to support your position, just whines and attempted insults. Yes that means you lose the debate. Thanks for playing.
http://www.columbia.edu/~cp2124/papers/popeleches_abortion_children.pdf
"The immediate impact of this change in policy was a dramatic increase in births: the birth rate increased from 14.3 to 27.4 between 1966 and1967, and the total fertility rate increased from 1.9 to 3.7 children per woman (Legge 1985)"

View attachment 260946 Who is supposed to care for all the extra babies?

What part of "This isn't the Inquisition, and you don't get to demand shit from me" is it that's whooshing past you, Sparkles? "You haven't posted links proving stuff!" Yeah, that's because we haven't gotten that far. We're still hung up on you pretending you get to interrogate me and ignore questions. Whenever you're ready to drop the thumbscrews, sack up, and accept your end of a discussion, we'll have a discussion.

Until then, the answer is still, "Fuck you."

Btw, I didn't read anything in your post beyond the first sentence. I scanned it enough to know you're still lecturing and ignoring any and all questions, and then I dismissed it, and you, as so much cowardly bullshit.

“I had an abortion when I was young, and it was the best decision I have ever made. Both for me, and for the baby I didn’t want, and wasn’t ready for, emotionally, psychologically and financially. So many children will end up in foster homes. So many lives ruined. So very cruel.” - Jameela Jamil

Look, your soulmate! You two can sit around congratulating each other on how "compassionately" you're killing babies for their own good.

 

[kyzr]

LOL, your tag lines perfectly express the discussion we're not having about what are the ramifications of banning abortions? Way more babies will be born. So who will care for them? Its a simple "common sense" question, because if you ban abortions, the "effect of that folly" will be "to fill the world with fools". <g>

"A chalk outline is being drawn around common sense in this country, and most Americans can't even identify the victim. - Dennis Miller"

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer"