Thread: Adult-Fetuses For Healthcare [Life] Unite!

Originally Posted by Silhouette

It isn't THEM who will suffer as many consequences as it is the child who they conceive.

Which is why I suggested tweaking the system.

Originally Posted by Silhouette

When you cut funding to older women's access to affordable birth control, you're going to have lots of babies born into poverty. It isn't the women without means and the baby-daddies who are not wanting the birth control. It is the legislators who are keeping them from it fiscally.

Who in the hell can't afford a pack of condoms from the corner store? I have yet to hear anyone successfully refute this. "Affordable birth control" is readily available to just about anyone who wants it. If people are not taking advantage of this, it is difficult to have any sympathy for them.

Originally Posted by Frogger

I call bull (*)(*)(*)(*), Goldwater.

I was a teenager during the fifties and sixties. That's the period when there was a drive-in theater every few miles. If there was any venue just made for teenagers to have sex it was the dark drive-ins where we were in our own cars away from the staring eyes of others. If teens were unable to control their hormones the numbers of children born to unmarried girls would at least approach what they are today.

Sure kids had active libidos. Sure they thought of sex all the time. The difference was, they realized the consequences and knew getting pregnant before marriage was not simply business as usual. It was a big deal. The girl had to leave school and both she and the boy were looked down upon.

The major difference is that today's teens don't have the maturity necessary to either abstain from premarital sex or at least use protection. Condoms were extremely difficult to come by during the sixties and birth control pills were non-existent. If lusty teenagers in the back of cars were never going to stop there would have been far more illegitimate children born then compared to how many are born now.

Sorry Frogger.....Ward and June Clever are long gone, and you won't get the moral climate from those days back by vputting Romney in the white house.

This isn't 1958

Who in the hell can't afford a pack of condoms from the corner store?

Thanks for that point Unifier. I meant the kind of birth control that people actually use. Oral contraceptives for both men and women make "the moment" spontaneous and pleasurable. Men and women both in the heat of the moment are just not statistically into, "wait a minute..hold on...there, can you feel that? No? Neither can I.."

Originally Posted by Silhouette

Thanks for that point Unifier. I meant the kind of birth control that people actually use. Oral contraceptives for both men and women make "the moment" spontaneous and pleasurable. Men and women both in the heat of the moment are just not statistically into, "wait a minute..hold on...there, can you feel that? No? Neither can I.."

maybe they can give up their cigarettes, and use the money for birth control instead.

Do you realize how "let them eat cake" that sounds?

Originally Posted by Silhouette

Do you realize how "let them eat cake" that sounds?

Am i supposed to feel for someone who would rather smoke than buy contraception ?

Originally Posted by Silhouette

The GOP professes endlessly to be "pro-life"...unless that life is already born. Even just days after it is born, they gladly would turn it out into a family that has no provisions or ability to provide for it. That's what you do when you require poor women to carry every single pregnancy to term: you condemn fetuses to death. What's their obsession that the only sacred life is one that still has an umbilical cord attached?

Discuss. [My vote was for the last option so that makes me "Pro-Life".]

I'm pro-life as well and agree with you. But even being pro-life I can not deny the mother the right to abort. If we ban abortions, it only places the less fortunate one's in a position of forced position. Those who have the money will simply get it done out of the country. I care very much about abortion and life. But ask yourself, do we really want to force women to have babies they do not want? What will the out come of that really be?

No. I'm pro-life and for abortion. To some that may seem strange but if you follow the logic in my posts you will see that if a woman's poverty or abusive situation [many poor women become pregnant by their abusers forcing themselves on them, "soft rape" at home] is so dire that a baby would suffer untold psychological horrors, the woman should be able to get a safe, cheap or subsidized abortion. There are a thousand good reasons why a baby should not be brought to term. If it's going to be born to an addicted mother, a mother in an abusive situation, from rape or incest, that baby's life is best served by being terminated before it opens its eyes instead of stamped with a thousand horrors by the time it's 6 years old. [formative years].

On the other hand, women choosing abortion because they don't like what gender the child will be or because the pregnancy interferes with a vacation they had planned...that is where I am also pro-life.

Originally Posted by Unifier

Which is why I suggested tweaking the system.




Who in the hell can't afford a pack of condoms from the corner store? I have yet to hear anyone successfully refute this. "Affordable birth control" is readily available to just about anyone who wants it. If people are not taking advantage of this, it is difficult to have any sympathy for them.

Condoms are between 95-97% effective; you realize that means people who are "responsible" will still get pregnant using your suggestion, correct?

Condoms are 95-97% effective when people use them. Now factor in the calculations for those people who have them and simply get caught up in the passion of the moment and decide "just this once" they won't put one on. Poor people rank the highest in that demographic group. That's likely because their educational level is much lower than the priveleged classes. Ah...the snowball effect of denying good basics to the poor.

If women had 100% guaranteed ease of getting safe oral contraceptives or IUDs, or even perhaps the perfection of reversible tubal ligation at low cost, we'd have this abortion thing beat before it even becomes a problem. Or if vasectomies were perfected to be a matter of complete ease to reverse with near-perfect success, that would be even cheaper. Imagine a world where young males were encouraged at 18 to get reversible vasectomies and they CHOSE when to become fathers; when they'd made a name for themselves and had assets and income to raise said children?

Wow, there's about 90% of your social woes solved right there.

But no. That involves tampering with sacred male junk. Better abortions than that! The GOP would agree with me 100% hands down on that one..lol..