Why Can't The So-Called Pro-Life Crowd Be Honest?

[AllieBaba]

why would i - you are making the perfect case for my points
youve bitched already about how much you dont want an expansion of social programs

well if you are gonna insist that women give birth to babies that they cant take care of then you complain about how much it costs to take care of them -

you guys talk out of your ass so much about how much you care about babies and the unborn but the minute it hits you in the pocketbook you get upset at the cost

you ( meaning RTLers) dont care about taking care of kids - not the real part about raising them - again its always someone elses job or responsibility or it will just "magically" happen.

so full of shit - a woman cant decide to end her pregnancy with an abortion because you dont belive in abortion - well sorry your sensibilities are so offended- get on line with the offended immams that think all women should have to cover their hair.

Logical fallacy again.

Nobody has ever proven that legalized abortion DECREASES the number of unwanted babies. Until you can prove that, this argument is useless and ignorant.

i wasnt making the argument that abortion decreases the number of unwanted babies

if a baby is unwanted the mother should be able to get an abortion - thats the ONLY argument i am making

That's funny, because this is the first time you've said it.

I've highlighted some of the garbage you did say. I responded to what you said in REALITY. Not what you are now pretending you said.

 

[misteroboto]

Logical fallacy again.

Nobody has ever proven that legalized abortion DECREASES the number of unwanted babies. Until you can prove that, this argument is useless and ignorant.

i wasnt making the argument that abortion decreases the number of unwanted babies

if a baby is unwanted the mother should be able to get an abortion - thats the ONLY argument i am making

That's funny, because this is the first time you've said it.

I've highlighted some of the garbage you did say. I responded to what you said in REALITY. Not what you are now pretending you said.

uh actually what you highlighted was my response to how hypocritical RTLers as a general rule are

that certainly WAS in my post - you guys advocate to "save the babies" then want nothing to do with them once they are here

 

[AllieBaba]

And again, saving babies has nothing to do with how many we adopt personally.

 

[Cecilie1200]

is there some other way to stop a pregnancy before birth occurs that doesnt result in a death??

we are all ears

You don't get pregnant in the first place.

If you're looking for sympathy for the position of "I can't think of any other way to get this inconvenient person to stop existing besides killing him! Those damned babies are FORCING us to do it! Waaaaah!!!" then you're whining to the wrong people.

you dont get pregnant in the first place- well thats nto really a solution and certianly not an answer to someone already pregnant.

Well, at that point, the train has left the station, son. The genie is out of the bottle, and I feel no compulsion whatsoever to find a way to put it back in just because you want it. Once again, "The damned babies MADE me kill them!" is not an argument you're going to get a lot of traction with around here.

this is the problem with lifers- you lack focus - noones asking for your sympathy or your permission ; so quit acting like you have to give it.


how do you end a pregnancy thats unwanted other than abortion?

We have plenty of focus, and whatever you want to believe, every iota of that focus is centered on the helpless infants being killed.

And thanks for informing me that you don't wish to be seen as sympathetic in your arguments. Since it doesn't bother you to be viewed as a sick, heartless bastard with screwed-up priorities, I won't have to feel bad about stating it outright.

Once again - because apparently, you're not very swift on the uptake - I feel no need to end a pregnancy once it has started. Certainly the mere fact that you want one, or want to kill inconvenient babies if you don't get one, is no motivating factor whatsoever.

Sounds to me like your problem is with basic human physiology, not pro-lifers. I suggest you take it up with God.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anguille wants fewer children in the world. That's the long and short of it.

Then I for one devoutly hope HE has been sterilized before having a chance to reproduce.

Anguille is a guy?

I don't think so...

They would have to invent new technology to measure my indifference.

 

[misteroboto]

You don't get pregnant in the first place.

If you're looking for sympathy for the position of "I can't think of any other way to get this inconvenient person to stop existing besides killing him! Those damned babies are FORCING us to do it! Waaaaah!!!" then you're whining to the wrong people.

you dont get pregnant in the first place- well thats nto really a solution and certianly not an answer to someone already pregnant.

Well, at that point, the train has left the station, son. The genie is out of the bottle, and I feel no compulsion whatsoever to find a way to put it back in just because you want it. Once again, "The damned babies MADE me kill them!" is not an argument you're going to get a lot of traction with around here.

this is the problem with lifers- you lack focus - noones asking for your sympathy or your permission ; so quit acting like you have to give it.


how do you end a pregnancy thats unwanted other than abortion?

We have plenty of focus, and whatever you want to believe, every iota of that focus is centered on the helpless infants being killed.

And thanks for informing me that you don't wish to be seen as sympathetic in your arguments. Since it doesn't bother you to be viewed as a sick, heartless bastard with screwed-up priorities, I won't have to feel bad about stating it outright.

Once again - because apparently, you're not very swift on the uptake - I feel no need to end a pregnancy once it has started. Certainly the mere fact that you want one, or want to kill inconvenient babies if you don't get one, is no motivating factor whatsoever.

Sounds to me like your problem is with basic human physiology, not pro-lifers. I suggest you take it up with God.

i never said you had a NEED to end a pregnancy - i said other people do , and for those people i dont substitute MY ideas about what they should or shoudnt do -m unlike you and the RTL crowd

see again this is exactly what the OP is talking about and you proved it in spades - you dont give a damn about individual peoples freedom - the whole right to life argument is completely about not having thier view of whats right or wrong contradicted

sorry to inform youu people can make decisions about what is or isnt convienient for them - yes even life and death decisions - and in this society people can decide when and under what conditions they want to give birth

thanks for illustrating how your sides argument has more to do with imposing your own values rather than simply protecting them

 

[Cecilie1200]

oh please - where are right to lifers pushing to expand child care or expand services for women who cant afford the kids they have already ?? please ...

Yes, the only POSSIBLE way to care for children is to push for more goddamned government spending. If you don't want more welfare, you hate babies!!!

Give me a ******* break.



The definition of "hypocrite" is NOT "someone who holds a different worldview and different priorities than me", so please write that down somewhere and try to remember it in the future.

When YOU can start putting your energies into PROVING that right-to-lifers don't do anything for babies instead of merely making assumptions and flinging insults like a monkey flinging poo, you might have something to say on this subject. But frankly, your knowledge of this topic ends at the tip of your nose.

Once again, anyone whose idea of "responsibility" is to kill a child has NO moral high ground to claim, and certainly not based on his "generosity" in using public monies to create a permanent underclass.

[its exactly as the OP suggested - RTlers are only concerned that their sensibilities and belief system isnt countered - they could give a damn about a baby born

Well, good. If it's "exactly as the OP suggested", then you will have no problem producing PROOF that that is the case, rather than merely asserting it as incontrovertible fact. I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath, since I doubt you'll be any more able to substantiate your "outraged" squawks than any of your comrades have ever done.

why would i - you are making the perfect case for my points
youve bitched already about how much you dont want an expansion of social programs.

In other words, you can't prove or substantiate your viewpoint. All you can do is restate it. Once again, your viewpoint does not constitute a universal moral standard. All it constitutes is your viewpoint. "If you hate welfare, you hate babies!" is not evidence.

Strike one.

well if you are gonna insist that women give birth to babies that they cant take care of then you complain about how much it costs to take care of them - .

I insist on nothing of the sort. I didn't impregnate them.

Furthermore, I do not complain about the cost of taking care of them. I complain about the insanely incompetent method leftist dipshits like you insist on fobbing societal responsibilities off onto, and I complain about the horrific harm it does to our society as a whole, and to the very people you intend it to help.

Try to comprehend (maybe you can get someone to draw you a crayon diagram of it): no matter how convinced you are that the ONLY way to care about and care for babies is massive welfare payments, that doesn't make it true, nor does it make it a universally-accepted opinion.

you guys talk out of your ass so much about how much you care about babies and the unborn but the minute it hits you in the pocketbook you get upset at the cost.

Still waiting for you to produce proof that pro-lifers do nothing to take care of babies after they're born. Once again, "You disagree with me, so that means you hate babies!" is not proof.

you ( meaning RTLers) dont care about taking care of kids - not the real part about raising them - again its always someone elses job or responsibility or it will just "magically" happen.

Blah blah ******* blah de blah. ::yawn:: One more time, Shitbrain: PROVE IT.

so full of shit - a woman cant decide to end her pregnancy with an abortion because you dont belive in abortion - well sorry your sensibilities are so offended- get on line with the offended immams that think all women should have to cover their hair.

That's ******* correct: a person cannot decide to kill another person because I don't believe in killing people. Neither do most people. You got a problem with that, ass hat, or is it only that you have a problem with that concept when we're talking about people YOU PERSONALLY want to kill?

Talk about hypocrisy.

And unless YOU are a woman yourself, MISTERoboto, don't take it upon yourself to tell an ACTUAL woman what is and isn't "women's rights" and what constitutes oppression of women. Got it, you arrogant penis bearer?

 

[Cecilie1200]

How many unwanted babies have you adopted?

Zero...none of them ever do. They just like to look down on people and say tsk tsk. Another thread on this board is full of people talking about what they basically are calling roach infested whores...single women with kids.

Humongous logical fallacy. You cannot prove necessity for legalized abortion by claiming (falsely, incidentally) that pro-lifers don't like single parents or adopt unwanted children.

It's just too stupid for words. And yet, again, you've managed to put words to it. Well done, rav!

Well, it is certainly a fact that most pro-lifers don't have a particularly high respect for women who get pregnant by way of careless promiscuity - which, sadly, IS most of them, according to the pro-aborts' own statistics - I'd say most of us have at least SOME respect for those women who wind up in that situation and take the responsibility to let their children live rather than killing them. So it's certainly untrue to say that we "don't like single parents".

Furthermore, it is a self-evident fact that many, if not most, adoptive and prospectively adoptive parents aren't big fans of abortion on demand, since it certainly makes it harder for them to adopt. And I have yet to see ANY of these sanctimonious leftist cretins who like to proclaim that pro-lifers don't adopt unwanted babies actually offer a single bit of PROOF of that assertion. (To any leftist cretins reading this far along, shouting, "How many babies have YOU adopted?" at people on an Internet message board does not constitute proof.)

 

[misteroboto]

Yes, the only POSSIBLE way to care for children is to push for more goddamned government spending. If you don't want more welfare, you hate babies!!!

Give me a ******* break.



The definition of "hypocrite" is NOT "someone who holds a different worldview and different priorities than me", so please write that down somewhere and try to remember it in the future.

When YOU can start putting your energies into PROVING that right-to-lifers don't do anything for babies instead of merely making assumptions and flinging insults like a monkey flinging poo, you might have something to say on this subject. But frankly, your knowledge of this topic ends at the tip of your nose.

Once again, anyone whose idea of "responsibility" is to kill a child has NO moral high ground to claim, and certainly not based on his "generosity" in using public monies to create a permanent underclass.



Well, good. If it's "exactly as the OP suggested", then you will have no problem producing PROOF that that is the case, rather than merely asserting it as incontrovertible fact. I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath, since I doubt you'll be any more able to substantiate your "outraged" squawks than any of your comrades have ever done.

why would i - you are making the perfect case for my points
youve bitched already about how much you dont want an expansion of social programs.

In other words, you can't prove or substantiate your viewpoint. All you can do is restate it. Once again, your viewpoint does not constitute a universal moral standard. All it constitutes is your viewpoint. "If you hate welfare, you hate babies!" is not evidence.

Strike one.



I insist on nothing of the sort. I didn't impregnate them.

Furthermore, I do not complain about the cost of taking care of them. I complain about the insanely incompetent method leftist dipshits like you insist on fobbing societal responsibilities off onto, and I complain about the horrific harm it does to our society as a whole, and to the very people you intend it to help.

Try to comprehend (maybe you can get someone to draw you a crayon diagram of it): no matter how convinced you are that the ONLY way to care about and care for babies is massive welfare payments, that doesn't make it true, nor does it make it a universally-accepted opinion.



Still waiting for you to produce proof that pro-lifers do nothing to take care of babies after they're born. Once again, "You disagree with me, so that means you hate babies!" is not proof.

you ( meaning RTLers) dont care about taking care of kids - not the real part about raising them - again its always someone elses job or responsibility or it will just "magically" happen.

Blah blah ******* blah de blah. ::yawn:: One more time, Shitbrain: PROVE IT.

so full of shit - a woman cant decide to end her pregnancy with an abortion because you dont belive in abortion - well sorry your sensibilities are so offended- get on line with the offended immams that think all women should have to cover their hair.

That's ******* correct: a person cannot decide to kill another person because I don't believe in killing people. Neither do most people. You got a problem with that, ass hat, or is it only that you have a problem with that concept when we're talking about people YOU PERSONALLY want to kill?

Talk about hypocrisy.

And unless YOU are a woman yourself, MISTERoboto, don't take it upon yourself to tell an ACTUAL woman what is and isn't "women's rights" and what constitutes oppression of women. Got it, you arrogant penis bearer?

well yeah i DO have a problem with it

yeah if the LAW and the GOVT is going to insist that someone GIVE birth - then yeah it has a obligation care for em - again - you contradict yourself - if YOU want more kids running around get ready to foot the bill- i already "proved" what i said about RTL insisting that unwanted babies to be born - the answer from someone in thsi very thread is "someone else will adopt them or care for them " its ALWAYS someone else for you guys

in fact the hilarious thing is RTLers will run on and on about a woman having too many abortion - let her have too many kids and not be able to afford them - you gonna do what then ? whats the RTL solution to someone who just keeps poppin em out?

and for the last time - im not telling anyone they HAVE to give birth or that they HAVE to have an abortion- im not insisting on a universal moral standard- most people dont have the same morality - why would i insist that everyone abide by a law that makes such a leap?

again if the govt cant insist someone have an abortion (which it cant) - it damn sure shouldnt and cant insist they give birth

and especially because some OTHER people dont like the procedure that is used to prevent giving birth.

sorry you dont understand a concept so simple as mind your own ******* business

 

[misteroboto]

oh and the proof that RTLers dont adopt (or that there are enough people to adopt) are the thousands of kids that are languishing NOW in th foster care system that need to be adopted

the only thing thats is making it hard for adoptive parents to adopt isthe adoptive parents themselves - not abortion

quit treating kids like an accessory before you start preaching about how much other people dont value children

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, the only POSSIBLE way to care for children is to push for more goddamned government spending. If you don't want more welfare, you hate babies!!!

Give me a ******* break.



The definition of "hypocrite" is NOT "someone who holds a different worldview and different priorities than me", so please write that down somewhere and try to remember it in the future.

When YOU can start putting your energies into PROVING that right-to-lifers don't do anything for babies instead of merely making assumptions and flinging insults like a monkey flinging poo, you might have something to say on this subject. But frankly, your knowledge of this topic ends at the tip of your nose.

Once again, anyone whose idea of "responsibility" is to kill a child has NO moral high ground to claim, and certainly not based on his "generosity" in using public monies to create a permanent underclass.



Well, good. If it's "exactly as the OP suggested", then you will have no problem producing PROOF that that is the case, rather than merely asserting it as incontrovertible fact. I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath, since I doubt you'll be any more able to substantiate your "outraged" squawks than any of your comrades have ever done.

why would i - you are making the perfect case for my points
youve bitched already about how much you dont want an expansion of social programs

well if you are gonna insist that women give birth to babies that they cant take care of then you complain about how much it costs to take care of them -

you guys talk out of your ass so much about how much you care about babies and the unborn but the minute it hits you in the pocketbook you get upset at the cost

you ( meaning RTLers) dont care about taking care of kids - not the real part about raising them - again its always someone elses job or responsibility or it will just "magically" happen.

so full of shit - a woman cant decide to end her pregnancy with an abortion because you dont belive in abortion - well sorry your sensibilities are so offended- get on line with the offended immams that think all women should have to cover their hair.

Logical fallacy again.

Nobody has ever proven that legalized abortion DECREASES the number of unwanted babies. Until you can prove that, this argument is useless and ignorant.

In fact, there is some substantial evidence that legalized abortion actually INCREASES the number of unwanted babies.

"Remember the fundamental principle of economics: if something becomes more costly, people do less of it. If abortion is illegal, the "cost" of sex is relatively high due to the possibility of pregnancy. No method of birth control is 100 percent effective, and without the option of having an abortion as a last-ditch safeguard, having sex carries a risk. When contemplating having pre-marital sex, women know that they might have to bear and raise a child, possibly on their own. Likewise, men know that they might end up having to support a child, and both know that having a baby could create pressures on them to marry even if they don't want to do so. Consequently, both men and women tend to be more reluctant to engage in casual sex, especially unprotected sex, when abortion is illegal. 1

In contrast, if abortion is legal, the incentives are different. Knowing that the abortion option is there to save them from raising an unexpected child, women who are willing to have an abortion - as well as men in general - become less concerned with contraceptives and more likely to engage in pre-marital sex. As more women have premarital sex, social mores become more accommodating to the practice. This creates social pressure on other women to have premarital sex, including women who would never have an abortion. Increasing rates of premarital sex among these latter women leads to higher pregnancy rates. The result is rising numbers of women who are single, pregnant, and unwilling to have an abortion.

Indeed, multiple studies have shown that legalized abortion, by raising the rate of unprotected premarital sex, increases the number of unplanned births, even outweighing the reduction in unplanned births due to abortion. 2 From the early 1970s, when abortion was liberalized, through the late 1980s, there was a tremendous increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock births, rising from an average of 5 percent in 1965-69 to over 16 percent twenty years later (1985-1989). For African-Americans, the numbers jumped from 35 percent to 62 percent."
(Thanks to John Lott, Jr., Freedomnomics)

1) George Akerloff, Janet Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1996, 277-317. See also Jonathan Klick and Thomas Stratmann, "The Effect of Abortion Legalization on Sexual Behavior: Evidence from Sexually Transmitted Diseases", Journal of Legal Studies, June 2003, 407-433. Klick and Stratmann find that "a large increase in gonorrhea and syphilis rates [occurred] due to changing sexual behavior" as a result of abortion (p. 431). See also George Akerloff and Janet Yellen, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Births in the United States", Brookings Policy Brief, August 1996 (http://www.heartland.org/pdt/24604a.pdf), 3.

2) Alberto F. Alesina and Paola Giuliano, "Divorce, Fertility and the Shot Gun Marriage", Harvard University Institute for Economic Research Working Paper, No. 2117, June 2006. Alesina and Giuliano find that reducing restrictions on abortion increases out-of-wedlock births, but decreases births in two-parent families. Se all Akerloff, Yellen, and Katz, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing", 277-317, and John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, "Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births", Economic Inquiry, Advanced Access published June 29, 2006, 19-20.

 

[Cecilie1200]

BTW...

Some ways the pro-life crowd funds assistance to women facing unwanted pregnancies:

Pennsylvania Family Institute - Research Library

We spend an insane amount of money privately and through faith organizations as well.

How much do the pro-abortion people spend to help these families?

Hey! They offered to help them kill their children, didn't they? If those stupid people refused their offer and insisted on keeping the kids alive instead, it's not the pro-aborts' problem, now is it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unplanned Pregnancy Support: Unexpected Pregnancy Counseling

Loving & Caring - serving the pro-life community

Birthright International - 800-550-4900

https://www.care-net.org/

Pro-life organizations funded by pro-life supporters that provide $$, housing, clothing, counseling (real counseling, not the address of an abortion clinic), and adoption assistance to women who are dealing with unplanned pregnancies.

So please provide a list of like organizations that the compassionate pro-abortionists support that provide support to women in this situation. Besides PP, which we ALL pay for.

Furthermore, I have yet to encounter ANY pro-lifer who objects to the money spent on foster care programs for children of unfit parents or who do not have parents at all. That, however, is a far cry from the idea that we should hand a monthly check to people to REWARD them for making bad life choices and thus encourage them to continue being unproductive leeches on society. Only a child, or one who reasons like a child, would think that is actually HELPING children.

 

[Cecilie1200]

BTW...

Some ways the pro-life crowd funds assistance to women facing unwanted pregnancies:

Pennsylvania Family Institute - Research Library

We spend an insane amount of money privately and through faith organizations as well.

How much do the pro-abortion people spend to help these families?

Might want to take a look at how much of your tax dollars they have funneled to Planned Parenthood for an idea on that. You should know by now that abortion is the best way to help these families. Haven't you figured that out yet?

Immie

Interestingly, while pro-aborts SCREAM at the idea of cutting any government funding to abortion providers, they ALSO rant and rail about any sort of government funding to pro-life groups who offer assistance to women who choose NOT to abort.

And then they wonder why we draw the conclusion that they WANT babies aborted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

i wasnt making the argument that abortion decreases the number of unwanted babies

if a baby is unwanted the mother should be able to get an abortion - thats the ONLY argument i am making

That's funny, because this is the first time you've said it.

I've highlighted some of the garbage you did say. I responded to what you said in REALITY. Not what you are now pretending you said.

uh actually what you highlighted was my response to how hypocritical RTLers as a general rule are

that certainly WAS in my post - you guys advocate to "save the babies" then want nothing to do with them once they are here

And once again, you are unable to offer any proof of that assertion other than the fact that you're asserting it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you dont get pregnant in the first place- well thats nto really a solution and certianly not an answer to someone already pregnant.

Well, at that point, the train has left the station, son. The genie is out of the bottle, and I feel no compulsion whatsoever to find a way to put it back in just because you want it. Once again, "The damned babies MADE me kill them!" is not an argument you're going to get a lot of traction with around here.

this is the problem with lifers- you lack focus - noones asking for your sympathy or your permission ; so quit acting like you have to give it.


how do you end a pregnancy thats unwanted other than abortion?

We have plenty of focus, and whatever you want to believe, every iota of that focus is centered on the helpless infants being killed.

And thanks for informing me that you don't wish to be seen as sympathetic in your arguments. Since it doesn't bother you to be viewed as a sick, heartless bastard with screwed-up priorities, I won't have to feel bad about stating it outright.

Once again - because apparently, you're not very swift on the uptake - I feel no need to end a pregnancy once it has started. Certainly the mere fact that you want one, or want to kill inconvenient babies if you don't get one, is no motivating factor whatsoever.

Sounds to me like your problem is with basic human physiology, not pro-lifers. I suggest you take it up with God.

i never said you had a NEED to end a pregnancy - i said other people do , and for those people i dont substitute MY ideas about what they should or shoudnt do -m unlike you and the RTL crowd

see again this is exactly what the OP is talking about and you proved it in spades - you dont give a damn about individual peoples freedom - the whole right to life argument is completely about not having thier view of whats right or wrong contradicted

sorry to inform youu people can make decisions about what is or isnt convienient for them - yes even life and death decisions - and in this society people can decide when and under what conditions they want to give birth

thanks for illustrating how your sides argument has more to do with imposing your own values rather than simply protecting them

::sigh:: My GOD, you're illiterate.

You DID say I had a need to end a pregnancy, because you demanded to know how to do it, which presumes that I have some need to fulfill your demand. That makes it incumbent upon me to point out that I feel no need to fulfill your demand, or anyone else's, in that regard.

Sorry, but "How can I get this inconvenient person to stop existing if I don't kill him?" is STILL, despite the number of times you say it, not an argument that's going to get any traction around here.

You're quite correct. I do not give a damn about an individual's freedom to harm other individuals. If you're expecting to trigger some guilt reflex with your choice of buzzwords, you're in the wrong place, talking to the wrong person, because I have no tolerance for people who expect me to let them move the goalposts and redefine the parameters of a debate to suit themselves. You can try to obscure the salient points of the argument with your propagandistic phrasing all you like, but the only person you're fooling is yourself.

Speaking of fooling yourself, if you're laboring under the delusion that YOU have an open-minded, cosmopolitan view of all the perspectives out there and are carefully weighing them against each other, you're delusional to the point of needing medication. You and your ilk are more dogmatically devoted to - what was your phrase? - "not having thier view of whats right or wrong contradicted" than any pro-lifer could ever dream of, simply because WE don't routinely ignore basic scientific fact in pursuit of our view of right and wrong.

Then again, WE don't have to.

Sorry to inform you, but people CANNOT make life and death decisions based on convenience in this society . . . except in the realm of abortion. I am further sorry to inform you that the abortion debate is not and never has been what the law CURRENTLY IS. It is about what the law SHOULD BE. And "abortion should be legal because abortion is legal" is an argument that marks you as an even bigger mouthbreather than anything you've said so far, so congratulations.

Actually, I not sorry to inform you of any of this. I hope reality is a nasty shock to you.

You're very welcome for having the fact that saving the lives of innocent babies IS a matter of moral values explained to you. Too bad you were too dumb to figure it out on your own, and even worse that you're STILL too dumb to understand that none of us intend to be the least bit ashamed of it. Not due to any lack of respect YOU might have for those moral values (as if!) and certainly not due to any lame uses of buzzwords on your part.

How you think one "protects values" without "imposing values" is a question to be asked by someone still maintaining the belief that you're engaging in any sort of logical thinking to create your posts.

 

[Immanuel]

oh and the proof that RTLers dont adopt (or that there are enough people to adopt) are the thousands of kids that are languishing NOW in th foster care system that need to be adopted

the only thing thats is making it hard for adoptive parents to adopt isthe adoptive parents themselves - not abortion

quit treating kids like an accessory before you start preaching about how much other people dont value children

I would hope that you realize that the goal of most foster placements is something other than adoption. Here are some stats:

Foster Care Statistics

Permanency Goals

The preferred goal for children in care is permanency with caring parents. Permanency goals refer to the goals for permanent placement that are reported to AFCARS.3

Point in Time. Of the estimated 463,000 children in foster care on September 30, 2008:

* 49 percent had a goal of reunification with parent(s) or primary caregiver(s)
* 24 percent had a goal of adoption
* 8 percent had a goal of living with a relative or guardian
* 8 percent had a goal of long-term foster care
* 6 percent had a goal of emancipation
* 5 percent had not yet had a permanency goal established

Trends. Due to a significant improvement in the quality of data on permanency goals since 2000, a comparison between the 2 years is not provided.

Half of all foster placements have the goal of reunification with parents. Many who are placed in foster care, the parents continue to fight for custody thus even if the goal is eventual adoption, that is held up in court.

Key Findings

* On September 30, 2008, there were an estimated 463,000 children in foster care. (See Exhibit 1.)
* Almost a quarter (24 percent) were in relative homes, and nearly half (47 percent) were in nonrelative foster family homes. (See Exhibit 2.)
* Almost half (49 percent) had a case goal of reunification with their families.
* The majority of children left the system to be reunited with their families (52 percent). (See Exhibit 3.)
* Close to half of the children (46 percent) who left foster care in FY 2008 were in care for less than 1 year. (See Exhibit 4.)

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

why would i - you are making the perfect case for my points
youve bitched already about how much you dont want an expansion of social programs.

In other words, you can't prove or substantiate your viewpoint. All you can do is restate it. Once again, your viewpoint does not constitute a universal moral standard. All it constitutes is your viewpoint. "If you hate welfare, you hate babies!" is not evidence.

Strike one.



I insist on nothing of the sort. I didn't impregnate them.

Furthermore, I do not complain about the cost of taking care of them. I complain about the insanely incompetent method leftist dipshits like you insist on fobbing societal responsibilities off onto, and I complain about the horrific harm it does to our society as a whole, and to the very people you intend it to help.

Try to comprehend (maybe you can get someone to draw you a crayon diagram of it): no matter how convinced you are that the ONLY way to care about and care for babies is massive welfare payments, that doesn't make it true, nor does it make it a universally-accepted opinion.



Still waiting for you to produce proof that pro-lifers do nothing to take care of babies after they're born. Once again, "You disagree with me, so that means you hate babies!" is not proof.



Blah blah ******* blah de blah. ::yawn:: One more time, Shitbrain: PROVE IT.

so full of shit - a woman cant decide to end her pregnancy with an abortion because you dont belive in abortion - well sorry your sensibilities are so offended- get on line with the offended immams that think all women should have to cover their hair.

That's ******* correct: a person cannot decide to kill another person because I don't believe in killing people. Neither do most people. You got a problem with that, ass hat, or is it only that you have a problem with that concept when we're talking about people YOU PERSONALLY want to kill?

Talk about hypocrisy.

And unless YOU are a woman yourself, MISTERoboto, don't take it upon yourself to tell an ACTUAL woman what is and isn't "women's rights" and what constitutes oppression of women. Got it, you arrogant penis bearer?

well yeah i DO have a problem with it

yeah if the LAW and the GOVT is going to insist that someone GIVE birth - then yeah it has a obligation care for em - again - you contradict yourself - if YOU want more kids running around get ready to foot the bill- i already "proved" what i said about RTL insisting that unwanted babies to be born - the answer from someone in thsi very thread is "someone else will adopt them or care for them " its ALWAYS someone else for you guys

in fact the hilarious thing is RTLers will run on and on about a woman having too many abortion - let her have too many kids and not be able to afford them - you gonna do what then ? whats the RTL solution to someone who just keeps poppin em out?

and for the last time - im not telling anyone they HAVE to give birth or that they HAVE to have an abortion- im not insisting on a universal moral standard- most people dont have the same morality - why would i insist that everyone abide by a law that makes such a leap?

again if the govt cant insist someone have an abortion (which it cant) - it damn sure shouldnt and cant insist they give birth

and especially because some OTHER people dont like the procedure that is used to prevent giving birth.

sorry you dont understand a concept so simple as mind your own ******* business

And again.

There is ZERO evidence that abortion reduces the number of unwanted babies. Zip. Nada.

So that leaves your poorly worded, misspelled and incoherent rant exactly where?

In the trash. Along with your brain.

 

[JBeukema]

countries that live in poverty...cannot afford to decimate their birth rates if they ever want to have a hope of getting OUT of poverty.

Bullshit.

If you can't feed the people you have, the solution isn't to keep trying to increase the population.

If you want people to stop making unwanted pregnancies, simply remove the incentives to do so.

So you're for ending the aid to Africa that helps artificially inflate the population above what the region can sustain?

 

[JBeukema]

if a baby is unwanted the mother should be able to get an abortion - thats the ONLY argument i am making

Why not just throw it in a dumpster?

What's the difference?