The Leftist Fascists WAR on the Family and Children.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Flyattractor
Something that has been going on for a Long Time. Why the Lefties hate the Kids so much?


aClXo6NmXL8

Flyattractor
I will take the non-replys from our Little group of Lefty Fascists to mean that ...

1. None had the fortitude to ACTUALLY Watch the Vid
&
2. They can't really defend their shitty PC Nazi Views on the destruction of the Nuclear Family.

-Pr-
Please leave Ireland out of your weird agenda.

Also, that video is biased as ****.

Bentley
Originally posted by -Pr-
Please leave Ireland out of your weird agenda.

Also, that video is biased as ****.

He cannot leave Ireland out of it because Flyattractor has always been... Your long lost twin brother.

Surtur
His font is green. Guess what else is green? 4 leaf clovers.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Bentley
He cannot leave Ireland out of it because Flyattractor has always been... Your long lost twin brother.

Originally posted by Surtur
His font is green. Guess what else is green? 4 leaf clovers.

eVSlE28hOgI

Bashar Teg
wow great topic

"look at my yootoobz guyz. i are being smart."

Emperordmb
Ireland has an amendment protecting the view of the unborn? I'm jealous. We could use that in the US instead of ****ing Roe v Wade.

Stigma
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Ireland has an amendment protecting the view of the unborn? I'm jealous. We could use that in the US instead of ****ing Roe v Wade. Interesting. How does it look in the US exactly?

Emperordmb
Abortion is legal. Taxpayer money is given to planned parenthood (the organization responsible for the most abortions) despite planned parenthood having enough of a profit to donate millions of dollars to democrat campaigns and despite planned parenthood being an organization found with the intent of using abortion as a form of eugenics to decrease the number of black people. There is an actual abortion procedure in practice called partial birth abortion where you drag the fetus partway through the birth canal, basically everything but their head, and then you stab them in the base of the skull and kill them.

Now on a state level, there are attempts with mixed success to enact state legislation that constrains access to abortion, however these usually receive a lot of backlash no matter what the measure is. Anything that makes abortion more difficult to get will get you screeched at and called a sexist who treats women as second class citizens and has this weird fixation with controlling their bodies (even though no man profits from women not getting an abortion so this is the stupidest claim ever), and you'll even get screeched at if you dare to suggest that planned parenthood shouldn't receive government funding.

It's pretty ****ed up all in all.

Stigma
Ok. Thanks for a very lucid explanation, DMB thumb up

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Abortion is legal. Taxpayer money is given to planned parenthood (the organization responsible for the most abortions) despite planned parenthood having enough of a profit to donate millions of dollars to democrat campaigns and despite planned parenthood being an organization found with the intent of using abortion as a form of eugenics to decrease the number of black people. There is an actual abortion procedure in practice called partial birth abortion where you drag the fetus partway through the birth canal, basically everything but their head, and then you stab them in the base of the skull and kill them.

Now on a state level, there are attempts with mixed success to enact state legislation that constrains access to abortion, however these usually receive a lot of backlash no matter what the measure is. Anything that makes abortion more difficult to get will get you screeched at and called a sexist who treats women as second class citizens and has this weird fixation with controlling their bodies (even though no man profits from women not getting an abortion so this is the stupidest claim ever), and you'll even get screeched at if you dare to suggest that planned parenthood shouldn't receive government funding.

It's pretty ****ed up all in all.


Remember when poor American women and poor immigrants to America used to have back-alley abortions because they couldn't afford another mouth to feed? That happened quite often in the slums in the 1910s and 1920s. Dead fetuses in the puddles in back-alley puddles were sometimes seen in the working slums remember those times.

Remember during the bubonic plague where women would strangle their newborn infants to spare them the ravages of The Plague and because everyone was dying around them? Strangled new borns remember those times.



Just a tiny glance at history allows me to remember that we should have safe and very common access to abortions to prevent the deaths of more than one person. Take it away, shitty illegal abortions are done and instead of one human life being taken, two human lives end. That's not all: the poor need to not have more babies they cannot afford.



I strongly oppose abortion. Very strongly (even in cases of Rape: I prefer the baby be kept because the baby is innocent...but I am not heartless and I would never expect a woman to keep a "rape baby" because of my desire to spare the innocent life: it's between her and God and those two, only, on how she should proceed. TL - DR: it's not of my f*cking business).

But I strongly oppose restricting safe medical access to abortion procedures.


Free access to contraceptives and education on safe-sex prevents the greatest number of abortions. Let's focus our attention on that because that saves the most lives.

Robtard
Originally posted by Stigma
Ok. Thanks for a very lucid explanation, DMB thumb up

DMB went full retard there, sorry.

PP does receive tax dollars, but $0.00 (mark it zero) tax dollars go to abortion procedures. Abortions also make up around only 3% of the total services PP provides to people, mostly medical screenings, anti-pregnancy, counseling etc.

Partial birth abortion's do happen, but they're extremely rare and done only in extreme cases where the mother's life is at high risk and/or the fetus is not viable outside the womb.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by dadudemon
Remember when poor American women and poor immigrants to America used to have back-alley abortions because they couldn't afford another mouth to feed? That happened quite often in the slums in the 1910s and 1920s. Dead fetuses in the puddles in back-alley puddles were sometimes seen in the working slums remember those times.

Remember during the bubonic plague where women would strangle their newborn infants to spare them the ravages of The Plague and because everyone was dying around them? Strangled new borns remember those times.

Just a tiny glance at history allows me to remember that we should have safe and very common access to abortions to prevent the deaths of more than one person. Take it away, shitty illegal abortions are done and instead of one human life being taken, two human lives end.
I don't really find the "people will do it anyways" argument all that compelling, because that doesn't prove pro-life legislation wouldn't cut down on the loss of life. If somebody can give me a statistic that proves that if abortions are illegal, a larger number of total deaths will occur (so the combined number fetus deaths from the abortions and mother deaths from back alley abortions in this pro-life system would have to be greater than the total number of fetus deaths from our current pro-choice system), which I highly doubt would be the case. If this can be proven to me, I'd reluctantly be pro-choice. But as it stands I think a pro-life system would reduce human death overall, so the argument that women would be victim to self-inflicted harm from their own choice to try and terminate human life isn't an argument I find compelling.

While it's true that back alley abortions are more dangerous than medically safe abortions, I don't find it reasonable to assume that the number of abortions that occur would be remotely the same, because I think it's extremely obvious that people would be much more incentivized to pick a safe abortion over say adoption, raising the child, or sexual responsibility than they would be to seek an unsafe abortion that could potentially kill them over just say giving the baby up for adoption if they don't want to care for it.

Back alley abortions aren't remotely as appealing as safe abortions to people amidst an array of options, so even assuming every back alley abortion kills the child and the mother, I don't find it reasonable to assume there would be even half as many illegal abortions taking place as there currently are legal abortions.

I need to see the statistics that would prove more death under this system before I take up a stance where the government is morally permissive of the termination of human life.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not all: the poor need to not have more babies they cannot afford.
Convenience just isn't an excuse that justifies the termination of human life to me. If you can actually practice sexual responsibility or put the child up for adoption, then there's no excuse for abortion as a form of birth control.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I strongly oppose abortion. Very strongly (even in cases of Rape: I prefer the baby be kept because the baby is innocent...but I am not heartless and I would never expect a woman to keep a "rape baby" because of my desire to spare the innocent life: it's between her and God and those two, only, on how she should proceed. TL - DR: it's not of my f*cking business).
I find it impossible to hold a stance on rape abortions without violating my principles in some way, so I'm not going to argue against you on the point of rape.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I strongly oppose restricting safe medical access to abortion procedures.
I don't think the termination of human life is something people are owed comfort and safety while doing quite frankly. I don't think the government has an obligation to protect you in the act of terminating human life as awful as I think self-inflicted injury is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Free access to contraceptives and education on safe-sex prevents the greatest number of abortions. Let's focus our attention on that because that saves the most lives.
I'm not one of those right-wingers who disagrees on the importance of birth control, contraceptives, and sex-ed, I'm very much in favor of those things, but at the same time I'm not going to ignore the legalized termination of human life just because I could be focusing on other things.

Originally posted by Robtard
PP does receive tax dollars, but $0.00 (mark it zero) tax dollars go to abortion procedures.
Firstly I'm not convinced by this. Even if taxpayer money is not allowed to directly fund abortions, it's still alleviating the financial burden on Planned Parenthood as a whole which means they could put more of their money towards abortion knowing the government could pick up the slack on their other services. Unless I see evidence to the contrary that PP could do this, then that point isn't going to convince me.

Plus regardless of whether or not PP can put more money towards abortions with their other services subsidized, that's still not an excuse to give them taxpayer money. Regardless of whether that taxpayer money has any impact on abortion I find it disgusting that the money of taxpayers meant to be in the public interest is subsidizing an organization that apparently has millions of dollars to spare to donate to political campaigns.

Originally posted by Robtard
Abortions also make up around only 3% of the total services PP provides to people, mostly medical screenings, anti-pregnancy, counseling etc.
This is a misleading statistic iirc. I'm fairly certain that to get an abortion at planned parenthood you have to do a counseling thing, get a screening, that sort of thing and that those services you must necessarily receive to get an abortion are counted among the non-abortion services, and if that's the case then the statistic you just provided is extremely misleading.

Robtard
Sorry, the vast majority of what PP does is to kept women healthy (cancer, stds etc) and to lower the amount of abortions by lowering the amounts of unwanted pregnancies. Which is the main cause of abortions, an unwanted baby. ie A woman who doesn't get pregnant in the first place, is a woman who doesn't need to ever consider an abortion.

As someone who is anti-abortions/rights, you really should actually be championing PP, they make it so girls and women don't even need to consider getting an abortion in the first place.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, the vast majority of what PP does is to kept women healthy and to lower the amount of abortions by lowering the amounts of unwanted pregnancies.

As someone who is anti-abortions/rights, you should actually be championing PP, they make it so girls and women don't even need to consider getting an abortion in the first place.
No I'm not going to champion the #1 abortion provider in the country. I don't care what else they do, if they're terminating innocent human life they're not getting my support when people could turn to other places for these types of other services.

If anything, I'd like it if abortion and these other services could be divided into two completely separate organizations. But a lot of people don't want that because they know they can browbeat their political opponent over the head with "planned parenthood helps whamen in many ways" to impede their opposition to abortion. They know that if these other services weren't bundled into an abortion providing organization, that organization wouldn't have remotely the same shield for criticism that they currently leverage politically.

Also nice label there. Can we not have a reasonable conversation where I call you pro-choice instead of pro-death or anti-life and you call me pro-life instead of anti-rights? Can we leave the childish mudslinging out of here?

Robtard
That's really your shortcoming, PP stops more abortions from ever happening, than the abortions they perform. Remove the cause, you remove the need.

Without PP there would be more unwanted pregnancies and therefore more abortions, which isn't a good thing, imo.

Sorry, imo, anti-abortion is being anti-rights to a person's body. But sure, we can do without.

Naugrim
You gotta look at it from his point of view though tbh.

Does saving a shit ton of people excuse somebody shooting up a school? You might think so. But he obviously doesn't.

If you don't do that, then there's no way you can ever engage in debate on the topic.

Emperordmb
And IMO pro-choice is anti-rights to a person's right to life if the government is not protecting someone's right to not have their life terminated. We could go back and forth on this, but we can clearly do without the pejorative labeling.

Robtard
Originally posted by Naugrim
You gotta look at it from his point of view though tbh.

Does saving a shit ton of people excuse somebody shooting up a school? You might think so. But he obviously doesn't.

If you don't do that, then there's no way you can ever engage in debate on the topic.


That's a faulty analogy. PP stops more abortions from every happening in the first place.

Emperordmb
Again if those other services that "help prevent abortions" are really the important thing, then those services would best exist within an organization that doesn't provide abortions so that organization could operate without the drag-weight of people hating them and opposing them because they provide abortions.

It is not expedient to the goal of these other services that prevent abortions to bundle them up in an organization that also does abortion, but again I think quite a few people would oppose that because they like legal abortion and like having the capacity to use these other services as a political club in defense of an organization that provides abortions.

Robtard
Originally posted by Emperordmb
And IMO pro-choice is anti-rights to a person's right to life if the government is not protecting someone's right to not have their life terminated. We could go back and forth on this, but we can clearly do without the pejorative labeling.

Like I said, we can go with pro life/choice.

We do have a legal definition of when a person is a person though and when those rights kick in.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Ireland has an amendment protecting the view of the unborn? I'm jealous. We could use that in the US instead of ****ing Roe v Wade.

It's an archaic system that's caused the deaths of actual women.

They're supposed to be holding a vote soon to repeal it, and replace it with an "Abortions available up to twelve weeks" thing, but we'll see how it goes, as abortion is currently illegal in Ireland.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't really find the "people will do it anyways" argument all that compelling,

Your opinion literally doesn't matter, then. Because they will do it anyways and have been for thousands of yours. Choosing to ignore facts is very asinine. Frankly, you're a huge douche-bag for having this position, too.

I didn't read anything else in your post and deleted it. You do not deserve a response with this kind of attitude and perspective. It is your shitty, *ssholish, attitude and position that really needs to die quickly so we can actually move forward.



Stop posting so damn much, jeez. Not every reply warrants a novel.


Also: increase PP funding. Max it out, bitches. smile Prevents lots of abortions. The more innocent lives that can be saved, the better.

Emperordmb
We also had a legal definition of personhood at one point that defined black slaves as property and 3/5 of a person.

The legal definition for rights is not an ethical excuse to me, because I don't believe the ethical obligation to not violate someone's rights only exists if the government defines it as such. I believe in a concept of negative rights, that the immorality of murder, slavery, imprisonment, and theft is still a violation of rights and ethics regardless of whatever legal definition is imposed from top down.

I don't think the legal protection of a right defines whether or not the right itself exists in an ethical sense. If the government decides tomorrow that I'm not a person, it's still a violation of my rights for you to murder me, the government just isn't recognizing or defending my rights.

Robtard
It's not a "important" or "not important", they're all important, screenings, sex safety, birth control etc. A woman getting a cancer screening is as important as a woman getting a safe abortion should she want/need one. So I see no point to your 'let's separate them'.

That doesn't take away the fact that abortions are a minuscule part of what PP provides and the fact that PP stops far more abortions from ever needing to happen than they perform. It's really a win/win situation for pro-life people, they're just too blinded by the "abortions are bad!" dazzle.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your opinion literally doesn't matter, then. Because they will do it anyways and have been for thousands of yours. Choosing to ignore facts is very asinine. Frankly, you're a huge douche-bag for having this position, too.

I didn't read anything else in your post and deleted it. You do not deserve a response with this kind of attitude and perspective. It is your shitty, *ssholish, attitude and position that really needs to die quickly so we can actually move forward.

Stop posting so damn much, jeez.
Again I'm not denying that back alley abortions would take place, I'm saying you haven't provided jack shit in the way of evidence that these abortions would be similarly common and thus lead to a greater loss of human life overall in a system where they're illegal. Just the fact that some people will illegally pursue abortion if it's made illegal is not remotely enough evidence that making abortion illegal will increase the loss of human life because you haven't provided the statistical evidence to suggest as much.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't take away the fact that abortions are a minuscule part of what PP provides and the fact that PP stops far more abortions from ever needing to happen than they perform. It's really a win/win situation for pro-life people, they're just too blinded by the "abortions are bad!" dazzle.

Right.


I was opposed to PP until an anti-Abortion Mormon, of all people, pointed out I was just damn wrong.


PP can improve. For sure. And they clearly have race-targetted marketing (proven).

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon


Also: increase PP funding. Max it out, bitches. smile Prevents lots of abortions. The more innocent lives that can be saved, the better.

^ Bingo

Make it so we reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies to as close to zero as possible.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Again I'm not denying that back alley abortions would take place, I'm saying you haven't provided jack shit in the way of evidence that these abortions would be similarly common and thus lead to a greater loss of human life overall in a system where they're illegal. Just the fact that some people will illegally pursue abortion if it's made illegal is not remotely enough evidence that making abortion illegal will increase the loss of human life because you haven't provided the statistical evidence to suggest as much.

You confirm they exist. Since it is not a point of debate, why try to make it a point of debate?
I don't care about anything else you want to argue about. This is the crux. Safe, legal, access to abortions will always be>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal back-alley abortions. They will do it anyway. Not matter what you say, no matter how much sophistry you try to inject into your argument, you cannot change this fact. You want to play a numbers game? Fine, play it. Not going to engage it. We agree on my premise so there's no need. You want to argue numbers? Look it up yourself and argue with the researchers.

Robtard
Originally posted by Emperordmb
We also had a legal definition of personhood at one point that defined black slaves as property and 3/5 of a person.

The legal definition for rights is not an ethical excuse to me, because I don't believe the ethical obligation to not violate someone's rights only exists if the government defines it as such. I believe in a concept of negative rights, that the immorality of murder, slavery, imprisonment, and theft is still a violation of rights and ethics regardless of whatever legal definition is imposed from top down.

I don't think the legal protection of a right defines whether or not the right itself exists in an ethical sense. If the government decides tomorrow that I'm not a person, it's still a violation of my rights for you to murder me, the government just isn't recognizing or defending my rights.

Except we know that was scientifically bullshit, Black people are people and not 3/5ths of one. A cluster of cells in a womb isn't (yet).

Naugrim
Originally posted by Robtard
Except we know that was scientifically bullshit, Black people are people. A cluster of cells isn't (yet).

That's kind of their point man...

lazybones
Making abortions illegal does not significantly decrease their frequency. They just move from the legal sphere to back alley operations. We know this because Mexico, which bans abortions in most of the country, was found in a study to have an abortion rate 40% higher than the US. Here's an interesting article reporting on some official findings on the subject:

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2009/despite-being-largely-illegal-abortion-mexico-far-more-prevalent-united-states

The author of the study then goes on to explain that the disparity is to do with the USA's broader access to family planning and contraceptive services, which are some of the most crucial aspects of Planned Parenthood. Fund Planned Parenthood and those services, reduce abortion. Making abortion illegal and defunding the PP just puts lives at risk. Again, we can look at Mexico:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673241/

dadudemon
Originally posted by lazybones
Making abortions illegal does not significantly decrease their frequency. They just move from the legal sphere to back alley operations. We know this because Mexico, which bans abortions in most of the country, was found in a study to have an abortion rate 40% higher than the US. Here's an interesting article reporting on some official findings on the subject:

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2009/despite-being-largely-illegal-abortion-mexico-far-more-prevalent-united-states

The author of the study then goes on to explain that the disparity is to do with the USA's broader access to family planning and contraceptive services, which are some of the most crucial aspects of Planned Parenthood. Fund Planned Parenthood and those services, reduce abortion. Making abortion illegal and defunding the PP just puts lives at risk. Again, we can look at Mexico:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673241/

IMO, arguing this is not necessary. This type of information is ubiquitous. It is common knowledge. And he agrees with my premise. But, yet, he still wants to engage in numbers just to argue. I don't know why.

I told him to look this stuff up, himself, and argue with the researchers. While your efforts are good, I think it is a waste of your time.

Robtard
And DMB, please don't take this as I'm eShitting on you. Just trying to make you see logic/reason. When I was around your age and even a bit older, I had very similar views towards abortion, just not from a religious pov.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
And DMB, please don't take this as I'm eShitting on you.

I'm not with Robtard on this. I am shitting on you, DMB. You're position makes you a huge douchebag, insensitive, and quite the *sshole.


Outside of the abortion topic, you're awesome. lol

Emperordmb
Originally posted by dadudemon
You confirm they exist. Since it is not a point of debate, why try to make it a point of debate?
I don't care about anything else you want to argue about. This is the crux. Safe, legal, access to abortions will always be>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal back-alley abortions. They will do it anyway. Not matter what you say, no matter how much sophistry you try to inject into your argument, you cannot change this fact. You want to play a numbers game? Fine, play it. Not going to engage it. We agree on my premise so there's no need. You want to argue numbers? Look it up yourself and argue with the researchers.
Yes I am going to play a numbers game. Because that's what you were doing by saying unsafe abortions could kill the mother too.

A single safe abortion is better than a single back alley abortion, I can absolutely agree with you on that.

However I happen to think that 20 safe abortions which leads to the loss of twenty human lives is worse than 5 worst case scenario back alley abortions which leads to the loss of 10 human lives.

I need the statistics in order to weigh the utility, and if you're not capable of providing the evidence, then I'm not compelled to take the stance that our government should hold the standard of being permissive towards the termination of innocent human life.

You're asking me to research and provide evidence for your argument for you, to which my answer is... no. Do it yourself if you want me to accept your position.

It's not sophistry. You haven't proven that the outcome of a pro-life system is worse because all you've done is compare two situations without giving any credence to how common those situations would be under each system. You are not making a compelling argument or proving to me a worse overall outcome in a pro-life system, and you're expecting me to side with the government saying terminating innocent human life is legally protected on what amounts to a weakly grounded argument.

I actually respect you and would like to have a cordial conversation because I know the two of us are capable of such a conversation, so if you would stop refusing to read my arguments and stop slinging pejorative and emotionally charged statements at me and discuss the issue I would greatly appreciate it.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Robtard
And DMB, please don't take this as I'm eShitting on you. Just trying to make you see logic/reason. When I was around your age and even a bit older, I had very similar views towards abortion, just not from a religious pov.
Fair enough on the eShitting, we're debating a topic we disagree on, I expect you to disagree with me.

My view on abortion is independent of my view on religion. I don't cite any higher authority or Biblical text for my stances and honestly don't really think to God or the Bible as the basis to my position. I'm in a couple circles with friends who are atheists that feel exactly the same way, so I don't think I'd suddenly become pro-choice if I lost my faith in God. I don't think it's fair to attribute my stance to religious motivations if that makes sense.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes I am going to play a numbers game. Because that's what you were doing by saying unsafe abortions could kill the mother too.

A single safe abortion is better than a single back alley abortion, I can absolutely agree with you on that.


Okay. Then just one is good enough for me. We done? smile


Also, you typed a lot for nothing. You should cut your point down to just one sentence or 3 at the most. You can google everything you want on this. We agree on the premise. Everything else is a waste of time to discuss.




So, you tell me? How many illegal and unlicensed abortions is at a high enough ratio to legal abortions before you consider, "Well, okay...we need to get abortions made legal and regulated and fund contraceptives and education."?

Tell me where your douchebaggery ends and your kindness begins. My douchebaggery on this topic ends at the first trimester. After that, no abortions.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I actually respect you and would like to have a cordial conversation

Not possible. thumb up

Robtard
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Fair enough on the eShitting, we're debating a topic we disagree on, I expect you to disagree with me.

My view on abortion is independent of my view on religion. I don't cite any higher authority or Biblical text for my stances and honestly don't really think to God or the Bible as the basis to my position. I'm in a couple circles with friends who are atheists that feel exactly the same way, so I don't think I'd suddenly become pro-choice if I lost my faith in God. I don't think it's fair to attribute my stance to religious motivations if that makes sense.

DMB, the best way to lower abortion rates is to lower the amount of unwanted pregnancies. This is a fact. PP does this.

If you disagree with the method above, what do you believe is the best way?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
DMB, the best way to lower abortion rates is to lower the amount of unwanted pregnancies. This is a fact. PP does this.

If you disagree with the method above, what do you believe is the best way?

One of my suggestions was turning off all reproduction in humans and requiring a license to turn it back on. Similar to some dystopian Sci-Fi concepts.

Obvious, that's partially in jest but that's the only way, that I know of, that would be very close to stopping almost all unnecessary abortions.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by lazybones
Making abortions illegal does not significantly decrease their frequency. They just move from the legal sphere to back alley operations. We know this because Mexico, which bans abortions in most of the country, was found in a study to have an abortion rate 40% higher than the US. Here's an interesting article reporting on some official findings on the subject:

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2009/despite-being-largely-illegal-abortion-mexico-far-more-prevalent-united-states

The author of the study then goes on to explain that the disparity is to do with the USA's broader access to family planning and contraceptive services, which are some of the most crucial aspects of Planned Parenthood. Fund Planned Parenthood and those services, reduce abortion. Making abortion illegal and defunding the PP just puts lives at risk. Again, we can look at Mexico:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673241/
I mean comparing Mexico with the US doesn't really work for me because they're a different country and you said it yourself the disparity was owed to differences in services, quality of life, and economic factors, and this is not enough to establish a causal link between abortion legislation and the prevalence of abortion.

Also planned parenthood isn't the only organization through which you can get access to these things, and I'm not saying ban abortion and defund Planned Parenthood.

If abortion was illegal and PP couldn't perform abortions, AND if planned parenthood wasn't donating millions of dollars to democrat political campaigns I wouldn't have that impetus to defund them. I don't think any organization donating millions of dollars to partisan political campaigns should get handouts from the taxpayer. If an organization wants to get handouts from the taxpayer they shouldn't then donate money to political candidates.

Naugrim
Originally posted by dadudemon
Obvious, that's partially in jest

You had me worried there for a moment my friend.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Naugrim
You had me worried there for a moment my friend.

Thanks for letting me know.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay. Then just one is good enough for me. We done? smile


Also, you typed a lot for nothing. You should cut your point down to just one sentence or 3 at the most. You can google everything you want on this. We agree on the premise. Everything else is a waste of time to discuss.
I'm not researching your argument for you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, you tell me? How many illegal and unlicensed abortions is at a high enough ratio to legal abortions before you consider, "Well, okay...we need to get abortions made legal and regulated and fund contraceptives and education."?
At the very least to the point where the total number of mothers and unborn children die from back alley abortions is greater than the number of unborn children who currently die from abortion. If it's equal to or less than that number it's not worth the moral compromise of a government being legally permissive of that kind of thing.

Edit: And again, I'm fine with contraceptives and sex ed

Originally posted by dadudemon
Tell me where your douchebaggery ends and your kindness begins. My douchebaggery on this topic ends at the first trimester. After that, no abortions.
Either at conception or gastrulation (2 weeks) I'm a bit conflicted there. And as previously mentioned I have no stance on rape abortion since neither stance satisfies my conscience, and medical danger to the mother's life is a perfectly valid defense for abortion.

Naugrim
Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for letting me know.

You're welcome my friend.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm not researching your argument for you.

Yes you will if you really want your argument, that I did not make or agree to engage in, to be addressed.


Originally posted by Emperordmb
At the very least to the point where the total number of mothers and unborn children die from back alley abortions is greater than the number of unborn children who currently die from abortion.

Why? Why do I want to make that argument? This is a red herring. I don't want to talk about that nor was that my point. That's your point. If you want that as your point, great, google it and research it and then argue with yourself about it.

But if you want to research my actual point, I can help you and I intend this in the most extreme of condescending ways (I mean it as insultingly as possibly towards you and I have 0 kind intentions in doing this, just to be clear):

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+many+women+die+from+illegal+abortions

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Either at conception or gastrulation (2 weeks) I'm a bit conflicted there. And as previously mentioned I have no stance on rape abortion since neither stance satisfies my conscience, and medical danger to the mother's life is a perfectly valid defense for abortion.

I once held that stance. But it's just not possible to hold women to that standard as most don't even know they are pregnant until well after that point. They will get illegal abortions if it is only at 2 weeks.

And, no, I do not have data on that. But find me a single woman who knows for sure that they are pregnant at even 1 week.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Robtard
DMB, the best way to lower abortion rates is to lower the amount of unwanted pregnancies. This is a fact. PP does this.

If you disagree with the method above, what do you believe is the best way?
Other organizations that don't participate in abortion providing these services, and planned parenthood is not the only organization that provides these services. And condoms for example aren't very expensive.

I'm also completely in support of proper comprehensive sex-ed in schools, I'm not one of those dipshits whose like "teachin people to have safe sex is the path to Satan" or whatever.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes you will if you really want your argument, that I did not make or agree to engage in, to be addressed.

Why? Why do I want to make that argument? This is a red herring. I don't want to talk about that nor was that my point. That's your point. If you want that as your point, great, google it and research it and then argue with yourself about it.

But if you want to research my actual point, I can help you and I intend this in the most extreme of condescending ways (I mean it as insultingly as possibly towards you and I have 0 kind intentions in doing this, just to be clear):

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+many+women+die+from+illegal+abortions
Again though, your argument and premise is completely unconvincing to me without the answer to the question I'm interested. If you're not interested in arguing that point, then your argument isn't shifting my position.

Emperordmb
I'm sick AF right now, need a shower, haven't eaten today, have class in two hours, and have been arguing with multiple people in this thread for the past couple hours.

I'm signing off for now.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
And condoms for example aren't very expensive.

And they suck. Not all use them or will ever use them. No matter how much education you give them.

And they still cost money. When you're poor and horny (humans are very sexual...no matter what, they will still squish their genitals together), you're not too concerned about spending money on contraceptives.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm also completely in support of proper comprehensive sex-ed in schools, I'm not one of those dipshits whose like "teachin people to have safe sex is the path to Satan" or whatever.

That's great. It's demonstrably provable to prevent more unwanted pregnancies. I'm all about preventing abortions.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Again though, your argument and premise is completely unconvincing to me without the answer to the question I'm interested.

But, I just don't care about your question as I think it is unnecessary from my bottom-line to take my stance. Remember, I put my limit at a single dead woman getting an illegal abortion.

My line is already crossed. So why should I care about your line? It's not mine. It's yours. You agree with my premise, anyway. So what are we even arguing about?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
If you're not interested in arguing that point, then your argument isn't shifting my position.

Again, I don't want to. I will not try to convince you of it. I am not interesting in doing so. There's nothing left to my argument. If you're not convinced of it, there's no point to continue especially to try to force me to argue your point: not going to happen. If you're not convinced that a single dead woman, due to an illegal abortion, is bad, then there's no point to continue because that's already my bottom line.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm sick AF right now, need a shower, haven't eaten today, have class in two hours, and have been arguing with multiple people in this thread for the past couple hours.

I'm signing off for now.

Have fun and get well, soon. Try not to get sicker by pushing yourself too hard.

Flyattractor
Oh Feetal's Gizz... Almost 4 pages already? It only had 3 repsones for almost two days and then I wake up to THIS!?

Fuhhh.. Now I gotta Read all this crap. |
|
Well Lefty Fascist Crap to see how much the thread has been derailed anyway...

cdtm
Originally posted by -Pr-
Please leave Ireland out of your weird agenda.

Also, that video is biased as ****.

This actually explains a lot.

Another Irish poster on a wrestling board was on pretty good terms with me, until we got to abortion. Taking the "pro life" stance seemed to put me on his shitlist.

I guess I stumbled into a pretty personal topic, between that and the fact in recent history, some people actually died from being denied an abortion (Which I also didn't know at the time)

Surtur
Originally posted by cdtm
This actually explains a lot.

Another Irish poster on a wrestling board was on pretty good terms with me, until we got to abortion. Taking the "pro life" stance seemed to put me on his shitlist.

I guess I stumbled into a pretty personal topic, between that and the fact in recent history, some people actually died from being denied an abortion (Which I also didn't know at the time)

I don't think people should be forced to go through with a pregnancy if it presents a danger to their health.

Thing is though, getting abortions because there is a physical danger are very very rare. As abortions due to rape. Most of the time it's just due to being irresponsible.

cdtm
Originally posted by -Pr-
Please leave Ireland out of your weird agenda.

Also, that video is biased as ****.

The video touch's on who's pushing anti-abortion agendas.l

You said you're in PR, didn't you?


...and just noticed your name is Pr, but I digress... smile


I find myself often wondering how we get to where we are in political discourse. Take gay marriage.. The support wasn't nearly as universal a short time ago. As early as 2001 or so, I was the one defending people's right to marry, on the basis I believed people should have the right to do what makes them happy, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Now, it seems everyone supports gay marriage. In many cases, vehemently.

Polls reflect this.. In only a few decades, we went from something like a quarter of people supporting same sex marriage, to a majority.

And yes, some of this will be due to changing demographics, kids coming of age and such, but there's no way a change that big will happen in such a short time unless a lot of people changed their minds, or a lot of people dropped dead.


So, more likely they were swayed. I don't know what convinced them, but it's mind boggling to me that a marketing campaign over a mere two decades can be THAT effective.

But I'm also wondering, what if they decided to market the opposite way, No gay marriage for anyone!

Or, maybe market for killing the gays.

Just how effective is this shit? How impressionable are people? I mean, my base views of abortion were formed back in my early school days, because of a very personal feeling that makes up the core of my ethics, which is based on my personality (In dirty terms, I usually think "If that were me..."wink

Seems to me, most other people spout off talking points. Points they got from somewhere else, or someone else. And I can't help but wonder if years of psychology and think tanks have created the most sophisticated propaganda machine on this planet, and if almost all of our politics, from the news to Twitter flame wars, are exactly what someone, somewhere, wanted them to be.

-Pr-
Originally posted by cdtm
This actually explains a lot.

Another Irish poster on a wrestling board was on pretty good terms with me, until we got to abortion. Taking the "pro life" stance seemed to put me on his shitlist.

I guess I stumbled into a pretty personal topic, between that and the fact in recent history, some people actually died from being denied an abortion (Which I also didn't know at the time)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't give anyone shit purely for being pro-life. My only issue is when anyone who does it uses their opinion to hurt others.

Originally posted by cdtm
The video touch's on who's pushing anti-abortion agendas.l

You said you're in PR, didn't you?


...and just noticed your name is Pr, but I digress... smile


I find myself often wondering how we get to where we are in political discourse. Take gay marriage.. The support wasn't nearly as universal a short time ago. As early as 2001 or so, I was the one defending people's right to marry, on the basis I believed people should have the right to do what makes them happy, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Now, it seems everyone supports gay marriage. In many cases, vehemently.

Polls reflect this.. In only a few decades, we went from something like a quarter of people supporting same sex marriage, to a majority.

And yes, some of this will be due to changing demographics, kids coming of age and such, but there's no way a change that big will happen in such a short time unless a lot of people changed their minds, or a lot of people dropped dead.


So, more likely they were swayed. I don't know what convinced them, but it's mind boggling to me that a marketing campaign over a mere two decades can be THAT effective.

But I'm also wondering, what if they decided to market the opposite way, No gay marriage for anyone!

Or, maybe market for killing the gays.

Just how effective is this shit? How impressionable are people? I mean, my base views of abortion were formed back in my early school days, because of a very personal feeling that makes up the core of my ethics, which is based on my personality (In dirty terms, I usually think "If that were me..."wink

Seems to me, most other people spout off talking points. Points they got from somewhere else, or someone else. And I can't help but wonder if years of psychology and think tanks have created the most sophisticated propaganda machine on this planet, and if almost all of our politics, from the news to Twitter flame wars, are exactly what someone, somewhere, wanted them to be.

I'm in IT. I wouldn't be able to be in PR, as that's the kind of job that deals with people too much.

It did feel like a very quick shift, aye.

Whatever your opinion, even if it's different from mine, the guy in the video is being woefully biased.

Flyattractor
Its always fun to watch Leftists come up with ways to DEVALUE Human life while trying to make it look like they actually value it.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Its always fun to watch Leftists come up with ways to DEVALUE Human life while trying to make it look like they actually value it.

Who are you actually talking about?

Flyattractor
All of them.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Flyattractor
All of them.

Might want to be careful about hypocrisy, because it's not like the "right" has any huge concern for Human life either.

RHaggis
Originally posted by Flyattractor
All of them.

Bit on an unfair generalisation, no?

Emperordmb
I mean I was pro-life even when I was on the left tbh

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Emperordmb
. If an organization wants to get handouts from the taxpayer they shouldn't then donate money to political candidates.
Then let's ban lobbyists.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Robtard
PP stops more abortions from every happening in the first place.
That should end this argument, if it's true.

Can you source me?

Surtur

Rockydonovang
Yeah, the post you're responding to is a comparison, so you're going to need to respond, with a comparison.

Robtard
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That should end this argument, if it's true.

Can you source me?

But it won't good sir, it won't. Just look at Surtur and his redic appeal to emotion headline story. ie "LOOK HOW MANY DEAD BABIES THEY MURDERED AND KILLED!"

But here you go, there's lots of info on PP in the story but here's what I think you're looking for:

-Planned Parenthood says it prevents an estimated 579,000 unintended pregnancies per year.

-Contraception accounted for 34% of the services it provided, according to the 2015 GAO report. (abortion is around 3%)

-2 million reversible contraception patients

-91,589 emergency contraception kits

-According to the Guttmacher Institute (PDF), publicly funded family planning in 2014 helped women avoid 2 million unintended pregnancies.

Link

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
-According to the Guttmacher Institute (PDF), publicly funded family planning in 2014 helped women avoid 2 million unintended pregnancies.

Link


Which is where my stance comes from on Planned Parenthood. That's a lot of NOT-murdered babies.

That makes my heart happy.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Robtard


-Planned Parenthood says it prevents an estimated 579,000 unintended pregnancies per year.

Is that net? Does it take into account the number of funded abortions?

Robtard
Not sure what you mean? PP says it prevents 579k unintended pregnancies per year. Considering unintended pregnancies are the main cause of abortions, as women who are trying to get pregnant don't often decide to terminate unless there's a medical complication, so that means PP potentially stop over half a million abortions from every needing to happen.

Even if we lowball and say only 20% of those unintended pregnancies would end up as abortions, that's over 115,000 abortions not happening due to PP per year. That's a good thing.

DarthSkywalker0
Well, well, well, I must say I was somewhat surprised at how terribly dickish DDM was to DMB. He brutally attacked his position with no remorse. I think it is worth taking a look at the data on abortion legislation and abortion rates and see if a causative effect can be found and that cross-referencing that information with maternal deaths in illegal abortions. I will also cross-reference the data with the increased contraceptives that planned parenthood provides. Full disclosure, I am pro-life. I was pro-choice for years and years until I finally deduced the point of personage.

I have seen a lot of bad data on this subject some of which has been posted on this thread(no offense Lazybones you are a great debater and a formidable opponent).

Here are the articles I have seen: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/wnwm8q/banning-abortion-doesnt-actually-reduce-abortion-rates-at-all, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reducing-abortion-rates-policy_us_589b8ea5e4b09bd304bfd920, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html, http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/05/11/ abortion_rates_are_constant_in_developing_countrie
s_while_developed_ones.html

The entire premise of these articles is flawed. The articles use cross-country data to extrapolate no correlation between abortion policy and abortion rates. There are some immediate issues which result from this type of analysis.

1. The culture and access to contraceptives. In general, the more affluent the culture, the fewer abortions. If a mother has more money to sustain her child, she is likely to abort it. Also, many of these low-income countries have fewer contraceptives. Given the fact that neither of these variables is accounted for the data becomes are less convincing.

2. To truly find the effect of abortion laws, one must see the abortion rate before the ban after the ban and use a regression analysis to discount other variables.

With those two issues in mind, let's take a closer look at the data. We need a study which looks at abortion laws before or after their enactment or removal and observes the change with a regression analysis. Luckily, Web(2007) does just that. They found,



This legislation transpired mainly at the state level,



The study also analyzes the majority of the empirical research. There has not been THAT much data on the subject but based on the scope of the research and the methodology as detailed in the report; I contend it is the best study we have at this point. But the study itself looks only at the national abortion rate. If we look individually at states and analyze abortion's effect there, the results become far more marked. To quote Web(2007),



DDM was extraordinarily unfair in dismissing DMB's allegations. As far as illegal abortion deaths go, I question the amount of carnage. The issue with a lot of this data is that it analyzes developing countries. Even if we take these numbers at face value(which I doubt we should), abortion deaths still trump illegal motherly deaths. If we look at states that have enacted anti-abortion legislation the parental consent statute alone reduced abortions by 15% among minors. One law has that much of a reverberating effect. In 1980, Massachusetts had 375,213 adolescent abortions. A 15% decrease would save 40,774 unborn babies. That is one legislation in one state. If we illegalized abortion entirely in all 50 states, I would imagine that the numbers of killed babies would drop by at least 10%. That number drastically outstrips the number of illegal abortion deaths in developing countries. 68,000 women worldwide die from illegal abortions. In 2014, there were 652,639 abortions a year. 10% of that number is 65,263. So, the cost-benefit analysis quite clearly favors the pro-life position. I am quite disappointed at how flippantly everyone disregarded DMB's excellent argument.

Surtur
My main issue with abortion is I've seen dipshits say it's not murder cuz it's not a life. But then say if someone beats down a woman who is 3 months pregnant and she loses the kid it is murder.

Momma don't decide if it's a life or not. Nobody who feels the latter situation is murder but abortion isn't is to be taken seriously.

Some interesting numbers: since Cecile Richards was in charge of PP the number of abortions we've had...if you take the number of non suicide related firearm deaths per year, it would take over 600 years to match the number of babies aborted under her.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
DDM was extraordinarily unfair in dismissing DMB's allegations.

HowcanmyopiniononDMBsquestionbefairorunfair? It'smyopinionandIthinkDMBhasaveryshittyperspective
onhumanlife. You'reseriouslyallthewayupyourassandwastedalotofti
me.thumb upYou'vegonedowntoa4:belowaverage.Edit-Youclearlydidn'tread. Iwasveryclear:asinglewoman'slifeisenoughformetoset
myline. DMBishunguponratioswhichIdonotgiveaflyingf*ckabout
...it'sapoorstandard.Also,Iwasn'tjustbeingdickish:IAMadick.Andahuge*ssholeaboutspecifictopics. Beabitmorebraveanddon'tbeataroundthebushwithuseles
sfluff.


smile

DarthSkywalker0
TBH, I truly doubt we would have many illegal abortion deaths. I think most mothers who truly needed it would find a black market doctor or go overseas. We would just have a serious decline in abortions.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
TBH, I truly doubt we would have many illegal abortion deaths. I think most mothers who truly needed it would find a black market doctor or go overseas. We would just have a serious decline in abortions.



I appreciate the level headed reply to my underlying point. thumb up

To address your point, no, that's incorrect. I do not think you understand how the poor and less privileged have to function, day-to-day. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The rich and middle class may be able to afford going out of the country for an abortion. But the lower-middle and lower classes just cannot afford the cost and time to leave the country for abortions. When you are paid hourly and live paycheck to paycheck, affording time off of work, for even sickness, is just not acceptable.

I agree that some "black market" doctors will perform it which would increase the safety (legit doctors performing it for whatever their reasons: organized crime, money, humanitarian efforts because they disagree with government policy, etc.). But that's not how all elements of black markets work. According to the numbers, quite a few women die from illegal abortions every year. These are the facts we have to deal with.

Instead of 1 dead person, we now have several negative scenarios:

1. 2 dead people (which this is across my bottom line).
2. Permanently damaged woman who can no longer have children.
3. A damaged reproductive system that may deform or cause other problems trying to have babies in the future.
4. The loss of multiple human lives because the mother can no longer have any future babies.

If we look at a developing human life as a potential life, I also consider potential future babies as potential life. Destroying the ability for a mother to have any future babies due to an illegal abortion is a similar loss of potential life for that mother.


What is your position? Make all abortion illegal? Make abortions legal up to 3 years old? Something in between?

DarthSkywalker0
Back to your old levelheadedness. My issue with those numbers is that they mainly based on developing countries where 97% of these unsafe abortions occur. There are social, religious, and political obstacles which exist in those countries. The point of personage, for me, is six weeks as that is when the brain waves begin. I would support legislation which illegalizes abortion beyond that point.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The point of personage, for me, is six weeks as that is when the brain waves begin. I would support legislation which illegalizes abortion beyond that point.

I hold a similar position. However, your position is even earlier than mine. Your 6 week number will force many women in a place like the US to seek unsafe treatment. So your policy would cause the death or or harm to many women.

How do you feel about that? Does that change your position? Would you focus on avoiding the point of abortions to begin with?

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by dadudemon
I hold a similar position. However, your position is even earlier than mine. Your 6 week number will force many women in a place like the US to seek unsafe treatment. So your policy would cause the death or or harm to many women.

How do you feel about that? Does that change your position? Would you focus on avoiding the point of abortions to begin with?

I question the amount of harm and whether or not that harm is enough to outweigh the deaths of hundreds of thousands of fetuses every year. But, yes I would try to support a family-value centric culture and encourage more sexual restraint.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I question the amount of harm and whether or not that harm is enough to outweigh the deaths of hundreds of thousands of fetuses every year. But, yes I would try to support a family-value centric culture and encourage more sexual restraint.

Again, for me, it's just one death of a mother forced to do an illegal abortion.

Which means no matter my position, there will be a normal, functioning woman that wants an abortion past my arbitrary and personal limit of 3 months and they will kill themselves trying to do it.

That really sucks.

Encourage sexual restraint just is not possible. As I said to DMB, humans are extremely sexual. While you may be fine and can control yourself, almost no other humans can...and they f*ck all the damn time, are trying to f*ck, or do all sorts of sexually deviant things just to get off. That is how humans are.

Telling humans to "restrain yourselves, don't get pregnant until you're in a stable relationship with a functioning adult male that will be a good father, and then have sex as much as you want with the idea that a baby could result" just won't work.

Family values a great. To restore the core family, lower divorce, lower single parent home rates, we have to put women back into a patriarchal society like it was pre-1960s. Do you want that?

Let's talk solutions to the problems.

-Pr-
Just to provide some perspective for anyone that watched the video:

-If the referendum ends with the 8th amendment being repealed in Ireland, it won't suddenly make all abortions legal. The current plan is to make abortions legal but only if the pregnancy hasn't passed the twelve week point.
-Ireland already offers emergency abortions if there's a threat to the life of the mother regardless of pregnancy length (be it illness or suicide). This had been something that a large number of people had been asking for ever since the early 90s during what's now known as the "X" case, but the tipping point was in 2012, when a woman by the name of Savita Halappanavar died in a hospital in Ireland because of complications during a miscarriage. People were PISSED. It was a national scandal, and it was in 2013 that the government finally brought in provisions to protect the life of the mother in such a scenario.

As far as the video goes, I can't speak for whether the pro-marriage people were funded by foreign companies. They very well might have been. What I can say, however, is that in the run-up to the vote, I saw far more media rallying AGAINST gay marriage on television and online. At LEAST half the youtube videos I watched during that period started with ads spouting uninformed rhetoric about how the country would fall apart if gay marriage was allowed.

He doesn't talk about how it's been commonly reported here that foreign companies are sponsoring the side that wants to KEEP the abortion legislation the way it is at the moment, offering far more funding than the alternative are getting that I can see.

He speaks about the signs that the extremists are using at rallies. Tasteless, sure, but no more tasteless than the pro-life extremists that stand in the middle of O'Connell Street (to you Americans, basically our Times Square), shoving pictures of dead foetuses in to the faces of both adults AND children with no regard for the people they're doing it to.

It's going to be a messy next few months, and I'm sure people will report all sorts of things about it.

For me personally? If you're pro life, great. Cool beans. I'm pro choice. I don't want a say in what happens to a baby unless it's a baby I helped make. So I will be voting to repeal the legislation myself. The vote at this point could go either way because socially, Ireland has shifted a LOT in the last thirty years. So it remains to be seen how close things will get.

Oh, and his comments about Brexit make him sound ****ing retarded.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure what you mean? PP says it prevents 579k unintended pregnancies per year. Considering unintended pregnancies are the main cause of abortions, as women who are trying to get pregnant don't often decide to terminate unless there's a medical complication, so that means PP potentially stop over half a million abortions from every needing to happen.

Even if we lowball and say only 20% of those unintended pregnancies would end up as abortions, that's over 115,000 abortions not happening due to PP per year. That's a good thing.
I mean. does PP fund more abortions than it prevents? If not, I see no reason why someone who considers abortion immoral and akin to murder would support PP.

cdtm
Originally posted by -Pr-
Just to provide some perspective for anyone that watched the video:

-If the referendum ends with the 8th amendment being repealed in Ireland, it won't suddenly make all abortions legal. The current plan is to make abortions legal but only if the pregnancy hasn't passed the twelve week point.
-Ireland already offers emergency abortions if there's a threat to the life of the mother regardless of pregnancy length (be it illness or suicide). This had been something that a large number of people had been asking for ever since the early 90s during what's now known as the "X" case, but the tipping point was in 2012, when a woman by the name of Savita Halappanavar died in a hospital in Ireland because of complications during a miscarriage. People were PISSED. It was a national scandal, and it was in 2013 that the government finally brought in provisions to protect the life of the mother in such a scenario.

As far as the video goes, I can't speak for whether the pro-marriage people were funded by foreign companies. They very well might have been. What I can say, however, is that in the run-up to the vote, I saw far more media rallying AGAINST gay marriage on television and online. At LEAST half the youtube videos I watched during that period started with ads spouting uninformed rhetoric about how the country would fall apart if gay marriage was allowed.

He doesn't talk about how it's been commonly reported here that foreign companies are sponsoring the side that wants to KEEP the abortion legislation the way it is at the moment, offering far more funding than the alternative are getting that I can see.

He speaks about the signs that the extremists are using at rallies. Tasteless, sure, but no more tasteless than the pro-life extremists that stand in the middle of O'Connell Street (to you Americans, basically our Times Square), shoving pictures of dead foetuses in to the faces of both adults AND children with no regard for the people they're doing it to.

It's going to be a messy next few months, and I'm sure people will report all sorts of things about it.

For me personally? If you're pro life, great. Cool beans. I'm pro choice. I don't want a say in what happens to a baby unless it's a baby I helped make. So I will be voting to repeal the legislation myself. The vote at this point could go either way because socially, Ireland has shifted a LOT in the last thirty years. So it remains to be seen how close things will get.

Oh, and his comments about Brexit make him sound ****ing retarded.

Why is the pro-choice side allowing foreign money to dictate the issue abroad?

Surely, the industries in England, the US, and other first world countries can match/exceed the pro life side in capital.

Do they simply not care? A "We have our own problems, let them have this" sentiment?

Would be a surprisingly callous attitude, if so. The common rhetoric is the side supporting pro-life are generally conservative nationalists that wouldn't life a finger to help a foreigner, while the pro-choice side falls in the liberal camp, where they have a more cosmopolitan interest in the welfare of everyone in the world.

-Pr-
Originally posted by cdtm
Why is the pro-choice side allowing foreign money to dictate the issue abroad?

Surely, the industries in England, the US, and other first world countries can match/exceed the pro life side in capital.

Do they simply not care? A "We have our own problems, let them have this" sentiment?

Would be a surprisingly callous attitude, if so. The common rhetoric is the side supporting pro-life are generally conservative nationalists that wouldn't life a finger to help a foreigner, while the pro-choice side falls in the liberal camp, where they have a more cosmopolitan interest in the welfare of everyone in the world.

You say that like they have a choice. There's nothing they can really do about it bar trying to get funding themselves. I won't be surprised if they do, but I still expect the bulk of advertising on the issue that I see on TV/online to be pro-life based, as opposed to the opposite.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by -Pr-
You say that like they have a choice. There's nothing they can really do about it bar trying to get funding themselves. I won't be surprised if they do, but I still expect the bulk of advertising on the issue that I see on TV/online to be pro-life based, as opposed to the opposite.

Well They DO have a Choice. They DO NOT Have to take Money from any one that throws it at them.

But then when your BELIEFS are already Built upon the Sand, it don't take much to get them to fall down.

Especially when Greed is involved.


evil face

-Pr-
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Well They DO have a Choice. They DO NOT Have to take Money from any one that throws it at them.

But then when your BELIEFS are already Built upon the Sand, it don't take much to get them to fall down.

Especially when Greed is involved.


evil face

You mean like the pro-life crowd is taking money from foreign interests, like it's been doing for a good five years now?

Flyattractor
Which Countries?

And one takes money to SAVE LIVES.

Whereas the Other Side Takes it to TAKE LIVES!

I know which side I side with.

You obviously side with MURDER!!!!


You jerk you!

-Pr-
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Which Countries?

And one takes money to SAVE LIVES.

Whereas the Other Side Takes it to TAKE LIVES!

I know which side I side with.

You obviously side with MURDER!!!!


You jerk you!

pr1983

Flyattractor
Originally posted by -Pr-
pr1983

yes.


stick out tongue

-Pr-
Originally posted by Flyattractor
yes.


stick out tongue

Hey, I just find it interesting that methods are justified as long as they serve the "right" side of the argument.

==

As far as the thread goes, it was revealed this week that the pro-life side will be using a boy with downs-syndrome as part of their ad campaign, arguing that with abortion, he would never have been born.

Of course, the fact that you can't detect downs before 12 weeks doesn't seem to matter to them.

If I see anything shady that the other side is doing, I'll post that too.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by -Pr-
Hey, I just find it interesting that methods are justified as long as they serve the "right" side of the argument.

==

As far as the thread goes, it was revealed this week that the pro-life side will be using a boy with downs-syndrome as part of their ad campaign, arguing that with abortion, he would never have been born.

Of course, the fact that you can't detect downs before 12 weeks doesn't seem to matter to them.

If I see anything shady that the other side is doing, I'll post that too.

SO what you are saying is that You think the Policies that groups like he NAZIS employed are a good way to go.


Nice.

YOU MURDERING JERK YOU!!!!!!!

cdtm
Originally posted by -Pr-
Hey, I just find it interesting that methods are justified as long as they serve the "right" side of the argument.

==

As far as the thread goes, it was revealed this week that the pro-life side will be using a boy with downs-syndrome as part of their ad campaign, arguing that with abortion, he would never have been born.

Of course, the fact that you can't detect downs before 12 weeks doesn't seem to matter to them.

If I see anything shady that the other side is doing, I'll post that too.

Want to bet some people would walk away from their little show and think "I'm convinced. That disabled boy could have been MY problem. We NEED abortion!"


A shitty thing to think, but lets not pretend this isn't every prospective parents worst fear.

cdtm
Originally posted by -Pr-
You say that like they have a choice. There's nothing they can really do about it bar trying to get funding themselves. I won't be surprised if they do, but I still expect the bulk of advertising on the issue that I see on TV/online to be pro-life based, as opposed to the opposite.

I'm saying, where's the offers to fund?

I guess I should have asked where the funding's coming from, but I assumed ultra conservative groups based in the US and England, where a lot of groups with a lot of money funding a lot of causes exist.

So what are the pro-choicers doing there. They have as much money as the cons, get off their asses and offer funding to the opposition..

-Pr-
Originally posted by Flyattractor
SO what you are saying is that You think the Policies that groups like he NAZIS employed are a good way to go.


Nice.

YOU MURDERING JERK YOU!!!!!!!

So you're equating being pro-choice to being pro-holocaust? pr1983

Aren't you American? Where's all that boisterous "freedom!" talk I see so often from you?

Originally posted by cdtm
Want to bet some people would walk away from their little show and think "I'm convinced. That disabled boy could have been MY problem. We NEED abortion!"


A shitty thing to think, but lets not pretend this isn't every prospective parents worst fear.

They might. And tbh, I'm of the belief that it's not so terrible to abort a baby that you know is going to have downs either. But again, that's me.

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm saying, where's the offers to fund?

I guess I should have asked where the funding's coming from, but I assumed ultra conservative groups based in the US and England, where a lot of groups with a lot of money funding a lot of causes exist.

So what are the pro-choicers doing there. They have as much money as the cons, get off their asses and offer funding to the opposition..

Last I heard it was some American groups, and yeah, I'm sure that the pro-abortion side will be getting their own funding too.

Thankfully our news here is balanced enough that if either side starts ****ing around, it isn't long before you hear about it.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by -Pr-
So you're equating being pro-choice to being pro-holocaust? pr1983

Aren't you American? Where's all that boisterous "freedom!" talk I see so often from you?





So you support the Notion of FREEDOM TO MURDER!?


Sorry My Little Lefty Looney. That AINT MY America.


smokin'

-Pr-
Originally posted by Flyattractor
So you support the Notion of FREEDOM TO MURDER!?


Sorry My Little Lefty Looney. That AINT MY America.


smokin'

Who's talking about murder?

lol, you're precious. To the "left" I'm on the right, and vice versa. You people need to be more consistent, especially when I'm neither.

Putinbot1
Many mothers want their daughters to marry a rich man just like Donald Trump.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Many mothers want their daughters to marry a rich man just like Donald Trump.

You mean many daughters want their mothers to marry a rich man just like Donald Trump.



That statement resonates with me. Grabs me quite firmly. I hope you don't even wait.

BackFire
Move on him like a *****.

Putinbot1
Men like President Trump are the monogamous family type.

Flyattractor
Has he stained the dress of a Fat Chick in the Oval Office yet?

Surtur
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Many mothers want their daughters to marry a rich man just like Donald Trump.

Why? Females only marry for love. Not money. Never money, nor will they blow a rich dude just cuz he's rich or can give them a part in a movie.

Putinbot1
All women love President Trump.

Flyattractor
That is why Putin is jealous of him.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.