And how many of them are actually pro lifers? This is simply taking credit from what someone else is doing Save the living first THEN worry about those who may never be
Yes many do behave in this way Since a very significant number of women seeking abortions live near of well under the USA federal poverty level then preventing abortions should be as simple as providing monetary support
Here in Iowa we have strong abortion laws and while some left wing news papers from Des Moines will tell you it's not all that great I disagree. We have child assistance programs and I never hear of anybody who has complained about the laws. I support Kim Reynolds for keeping these laws and I will be voting for her as Govenor for Iowa. The left wants everyone to think worst case scenarios to scare people into being pro choice.
Well I would think most Christians would consider themselves pro lifers. This is probably why the Democratic party has a low conservative christian base if you do a google search for statistics and why the Republican party with still a majority said to be Christians is pro life.
No this "left" believes in statistics and the results in the USA and the world state that where abortion is illegal maternal and infant mortality increases
If they’re one of “Gods children” why is it okay to kill them even if the woman was raped or dying? Who are you to be God?
Many people of all different world views are helping starving people across the world. This is just a red herring and a meaningless argument on both sides.
The answer is folks being responsible. You don't believe they can be. I think that's sad. Not having sex is the best contraceptive. The response wasn't an inability to discuss the issue, more a comment on your delivery and lack of tact and accuracy.
I know, there was actual nuance here... not surprised that you are unable to see that... As this was a discussion of reproductive regulation, using a prebuilt model that progressives would enforce that they all see to agree with seems then the place to start the conversation. The progressive world almost universally approve of the regulatory model I cited. You have, on these forums in fact. So, why not apply the same regulatory model here? Can you explain why you wouldn't, other than froth about it? You suggest these are "different", and yet are unable to articulate why you think so. Feel free to contribute though.
Your OP link contained no factual science! Instead it just repeated FALLACIES such as these about the zygote! Here are the ACTUAL scientific FACTS about the zygote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote In layman's terms a zygote contains BOTH SETS OF GENES, rather than a UNIQUE set of genes. It is only AFTER the process of MEIOSIS, which takes 72 hours, that there is a "unique" DNA combination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis During the above phase any number of things can and do go wrong and the process FAILS to form a "unique" human DNA. Even once that process has completed the blastocyst might fail to implant in the uterine wall. The DNA itself might contain errors that cause the FETUS to fail to develop properly. There is NO GUARANTEE at conception that there will be another "unique human being" born into this world. In fact about HALF of all pregnancies result in MISCARRIAGES. So once again all we have from the OP is yet another abysmal failure of those who OPPOSE women's rights trying to SUBVERT their own lack of subject matter knowledge into a blunt instrument for their MISBEGOTTEN cause.
And yet... it isn't. It's a question about priorities. I simply provided the regulatory model the progressive folks in the US like. It's been used for so many things already. The question becomes, why not use it here. The model exists. It's codified already, a la Obamacare. It's your model. Literally.
You mean "good morals" like Prohibition and DOMA? How did those abysmal failures work out for the "moralists"?
In which case your god is 100% responsible for the "murder" of the "unborn babies" in the 50% of all pregnancies that end in miscarriages. What is it like worshiping a mass murderer who wantonly kills all of those MILLIONS of "unborn babies"?
Can't we quantify to certain extent how much of a human being a human is by the amount of brain cells?
Know what pro choicers have never committed to? Prevention. Here's a progressive idea. Mandatory contraceptives. See ... US schools kids MUST vaccinate. So why not mandate contraceptives? Pro choicers & abortion clinics maintain it's all about womens health. Ergo, unwanted pregnancy is a public health crisis. As with other disease, and for the public interest, preventable disease is vaccinated. Intravenous contraceptives are available for men and women. Let's stomp out unwanted pregnancy, and let's start with teens who cannot raise or support their offspring.
Ignoring the disingenuous fallacious allegations it is ironic since those who are opposed to women's rights are also opposed to FUNDING contraception. There are studies establishing that providing Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARC's) to the most at risk group reduces abortions by 40%. LARC's are more expensive than regular contraceptives but they are the MOST EFFECTIVE form of contraception. In essence they cost about $1000 per individual. It will require TAXPAYER DOLLARS to provide these LARC's that will REDUCE abortion by 40%. I have yet to encounter a single poster who is opposed to abortion who is willing to pay those additional taxes in order to reduce abortion by 40%. OTOH I have NEVER encountered anyone on the Pro-Choice side who has a problem with paying those additional taxes. Are YOU willing to pay those additional taxes? Yes or no?
Per all the non sequitur nonsense in #145. I don't oppose abortion. Sorry if the "fallacy" of preventitive medicine destroys the disingenuous womens health meme. Intravenous contraception is a cheap and ultimately more savory "solution". I often cite progressive short sightedness, so image how pleased I am to submit this proposal. Ironically, the condition upon allowing my 16 yr old daughter to date without supervision was intravenous contraception. She was happy to oblige and has never missed an appointment in the 3 yrs since. The legal precedent has been set. The public interest can be demonstrated. The pro choicers insincerity is obvious ... you're welcome.
Another "error". I never said people can't be responsible....and you can't prove I did. That's of no relevance to me. THAT'S true...but I have the entire history of the world to prove that telling people not to have sex doesn't work. Then you were off topic
Oh, I saw your little "nuance" for what it was...and stated the fact that gun ownership and a woman's right to her own body have nothing in common....I am not surprised you can't see that. Giving me permission to contribute ? I guess you are anti choice then....they think women need their "permission" to live their lives as they see fit...
Baloney! Most Pro-Choicers believe all contraceptives should be covered by all health insurance. Anti-Choicers don't. . Oh, this old crap about immunizations. Immunizations prevent massive outbreaks of illness that AFFECT society, affect OTHER people. Abortion does not affect society in a negative way....(it actually benefits society by not having so many unwanted/poor kids.....) Abortion has been around for thousands of years and has not affected society in a negative way.
No. That is what I honestly believe. You may call it whatever you like but abortion is a beautiful procedure if you really need one
