In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.
Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.
Why do you insist on thinking that WE are forcing them to do anything? They forced THEMSELVES into that position by engaging in an act designed to produce the result they just said they don't want. I for one neither plan to feel guilty, nor to endorse infanticide, because some dumbass indulged in self-destructive behavior, got the obvious result, and is now whining to me because it's "unfair" that nature didn't reverse its rules for her "specialness".
Not sure I'm interested in your idea of "practical", which looks remarkably like the "practicality" shown by every evil dictator in human history: these people are inconvenient, so the "practical" thing to do is kill them. Pass.
Sex is not "self-destructive behavior." LOL It is one of the fundamental urges hardwired into our brains and people will NOT stop participating in it, no matter how much you scowl at them or wag your finger.
Of course you call it evil; what a shocker.
Poverty breeds all kinds of negative behaviors and poor outcomes that cost our government much more in the long run than a $600 termination of pregnancy. That is known, settled fact. If parents can't afford a child, why you are championing more of that, I am not sure.
Sex is frequently self-destructive behavior. "LOL" That you don't know this tells me everything I need to know about your life. Look at people who cheat on their spouses; people who get drunk and wake up next to a total stranger; people who wind up in therapy for sex addiction. Just because something is a fundamental urge doesn't mean that any and every expression of that urge is a good and positive thing for you. Eating is a whole lot more fundamental and necessary than sex, but I dare you to walk into a Weight Watchers and tell those people that that means eating can't ever be self-destructive.
Of course you think acknowledging that people should control and channel their urges is "calling it evil". Nothing shocking about a leftist being amoral and illogical at the same time.
Do not ******* start lecturing me on "If we just had more government giveaway programs, all problems would be solved, and we wouldn't have to stop ******* like crazed weasels."
I'm not championing parents having children they can't afford, you obtuse ****. I champion them not making extra children in the first place. But I don't think killing a child once you HAVE made it is any kind of solution. I'm afraid I just can't muster your level of soulless, cold-blooded evil.
Providing safe affordable daycare so that mothers can work and keep a roof over their heads and NOT on welfare is not a government giveaway program. It allows mothers to work; even you should agree that is a good thing.
No one said people shouldn't control their urges and I'd love to see where I called that "evil." It is simply impractical to assume that people are going to fall in line with that thinking. The majority of folks do not immediately think "PREGNANCY" when the mood strikes. They are thinking something quite different. Unless you are now and have always been frigid, you know that, too.
I agree with you that sex CAN be self-destructive. It is not usually self-destructive, which seemed to be your premise. Perhaps I was wrong.
I have responded to you civilly, and I would appreciate a reply in kind.
Clearly, you don't understand English the first time it comes at you, so let me do you the courtesy of repeating myself for the comprehension-impaired:
Do not ******* start lecturing me on "If we just had more government giveaway programs, all problems would be solved, and we wouldn't have to stop ******* like crazed weasels."
Moving along to other things that reveal you're completely illiterate and should be embarrassed to speak where someone might hear you:
No one said people shouldn't control their urges and I'd love to see where I called that "evil."
Seriously, learn English, cow. What the hell's wrong with you?! HERE is the actual conversation that your stupid ass couldn't follow the first time around:
ME: I for one neither plan to feel guilty, nor to endorse infanticide, because some dumbass indulged in self-destructive behavior . . . Not sure I'm interested in your idea of "practical", which looks remarkably like the "practicality" shown by every evil dictator in human history . . .
YOU: Sex is not "self-destructive behavior." Of course you call it evil; what a shocker.
ME: Sex is frequently self-destructive behavior . . . Of course you think acknowledging that people should control and channel their urges is "calling it evil".
YOU: No one said people shouldn't control their urges and I'd love to see where I called that "evil."
Do you see where you're conversing with the voices in your own senile head, and responding to me about things THEY said? Do you get that you're in a completely different ******* conversation than THIS one, getting your granny panties all riled up over things you only imagine were said? Do you recognize that you sound like a babbling moron? If you're going to talk to ME, then respond to MY words, not the ones you wish I had said.
Now go back and try it again, and at least PRETEND to be coherent.