Is abortion ok

[LRRPF52]

The most overlooked reality with the abortion debate is population growth or collapse.

We’ve seen what has happened to Europe and Asia with demographic winter. China made it worse with ONE CHILD policy by enacting forced abortions and infanticide, so that at least 100,000 million baby girls never made it past the delivery room, but were counted in their population records.

Had America not embraced the murderous policies of abortion since Roe v Wade, we would not need as many immigrants to come fill the labor force, and they would all speak English, having been raised in US homes with common experiences to their countrymen.

Instead, schools, academics, and media pushed hard with 2nd-wave feminism and right-to-murder policies that wiped out millions of Americans before they ever had a chance at life the rest of us had.

This has also contributed to the aging of the population with fewer new births being allowed life, in exchange for illegal immigrants who are then expected to do the work in their place, many of whom come with criminal records, disease, and no sense of kinship with US citizens.

What an epic disaster it has been.

You can make a moral argument that shows the blatantly-evil act of infanticide, but you can also look at the population and demographic math. Regardless of how you feel about the ethics or morality of murdering the innocent, you can’t make a sound argument about the math.

If you abort, you must import.

 

[Darayavaus]

that question can only be answered in retrospect.

 

[doubloon]

Every law is not based on collective thinks. That's load of bullshit.

Really?

With the exception of EOs and dictatorships (attempting to limit the discussion to U.S. law) which laws have been enacted by authority of a single individual? Not even the Constitution is the work of an individual working by himself without the consent of a collective.

Even EOs are not the direct result of a POTUS doing anything he wants by himself without counsel of a collective. Laws are generally enacted by a collective called congress who are appointed/elected by a collective called "the people".

As always, I recognize the fact that I could easily be wrong and I'm open to considering facts when presented so please feel free to provide a list of standing U.S. laws, especially federal laws, that were enacted by a single individual working alone.

Glad you think murder is morally subjective. Good to know. Murder is the intentional ending of a life.

The act of "murder" is defined by law and what legally constitutes "murder" in the U.S. varies by jurisdiction and type (intentional or unintentional). This is the very epitome of "fluid and subjective".

By your stated "definition", "Murder is the intentional ending of a life.", an act of self defense that ends in the death of the attacker/assailant or killing an enemy on the field of battle and more is "murder".

It may be you actually said what you mean and believe any killing of any other human being is immoral and should be illegal. There are plenty of people on the planet who believe this and if enough of them get together they can make all "intentional ending of a life" in their jurisdiction illegal to match their morality.

There are numerous standing laws (federal, state and local) which codify other "immoral" behavior as well. Morality has never been the litmus test for law except in fairy tales and fables.

 

[supercorndogs]

Really?

With the exception of EOs and dictatorships (attempting to limit the discussion to U.S. law) which laws have been enacted by authority of a single individual? Not even the Constitution is the work of an individual working by himself without the consent of a collective.

Even EOs are not the direct result of a POTUS doing anything he wants by himself without counsel of a collective. Laws are generally enacted by a collective called congress who are appointed/elected by a collective called "the people".

As always, I recognize the fact that I could easily be wrong and I'm open to considering facts when presented so please feel free to provide a list of standing U.S. laws, especially federal laws, that were enacted by a single individual working alone.



The act of "murder" is defined by law and what legally constitutes "murder" in the U.S. varies by jurisdiction and type (intentional or unintentional). This is the very epitome of "fluid and subjective".

By your stated "definition", "Murder is the intentional ending of a life.", an act of self defense that ends in the death of the attacker/assailant or killing an enemy on the field of battle and more is "murder".

It may be you actually said what you mean and believe any killing of any other human being is immoral and should be illegal. There are plenty of people on the planet who believe this and if enough of them get together they can make all "intentional ending of a life" in their jurisdiction illegal to match their morality.

There are numerous standing laws (federal, state and local) which codify other "immoral" behavior as well. Morality has never been the litmus test for law except in fairy tales and fables.

Yes. Really. See how simple an answer can be when someone is not trying to twist truth and reality to fit their agenda...

 

[supercorndogs]

Right and wrong are not never have been and never will be fluid. Joining the mob that's wants to do wrong because it's popular means you're weak.

 

[doubloon]

Yes. Really. See how simple an answer can be when someone is not trying to twist truth and reality to fit their agenda...

Right and wrong are not never have been and never will be fluid. Joining the mob that's wants to do wrong because it's popular means you're weak.

It's easy to just label everything you're incapable of understanding or unwilling to accept as "twisting the truth" without ever having to actually participate in a discussion and preach from an unsubstantiated "superior" position.

The concept of "morality" is clearly and verifiably different in various cultures around the globe and many of them that differs from your particular brand of morality would take the same white tower position. It doesn't make any of them, even you, right.

 

[quietmike]

It's easy to just label everything you're incapable of understanding or unwilling to accept as "twisting the truth" without ever having to actually participate in a discussion and preach from an unsubstantiated "superior" position.

The concept of "morality" is clearly and verifiably different in various cultures around the globe and many of them that differs from your particular brand of morality would take the same white tower position. It doesn't make any of them, even you, right.

Is it just mere coincidence the same group advocating for abortion used to say pre-civil rights African-Americans and Native Americans didn't really count as people and could be killed w/o consequence? They had "special" names for them to, to dehumanize them and assuage any guilt over their mistreatment or killing.

 

[Doctorwho1138]

knowing what is right and wrong is what sets us apart from animals. The problem is that you lack any sense of morality because you want to live your life without any moral repercussions. Murder is wrong across all cultures. You just want to justify your actions by removing any sense of conscience for those actions. Slavery use to be legal too and in some cultures is still used today. But to you that’s morally ok because it’s morally accepted by those cultures. It’s still wrong.

 

[doubloon]

group advocating for abortion

Women? Or I'm guessing you're referring to democrats. But the democratic party of today isn't the same democratic party from before the Civil War.

 

[doubloon]

knowing what is right and wrong is what sets us apart from animals

Well, that's not the only thing and, as a statement, this really lacks any focus. There are a number of examples where it could be said animals know right and wrong better than humans.

The problem is that you lack any sense of morality because you want to live your life without any moral repercussions.

Because of the ambiguity of your previous posts I can't tell if you are directing that at me personally or if you're using the "royal you" or talking about people in general.

If it's directed at me personally then the real problem is your inability to comprehend what you read without tainting it with your personal preconceptions. You have no idea what my sense of morality is, only what you've twisted from misinterpreting my words.

You just want to justify your actions by removing any sense of conscience for those actions

Now you're just repeating yourself.

Slavery use to be legal too and in some cultures is still used today. But to you that’s morally ok because it’s morally accepted by those cultures. It’s still wrong.

Again you fail to comprehend what you think you read about my personal moral beliefs.

Is there any society where slavery has *never* been "OK"? I'm not aware of one. Biblical texts condone slavery and have for thousands of years.

What are the morally valid reasons for intentionally taking a life?

 

[Beefmanne]

Women? Or I'm guessing you're referring to democrats. But the democratic party of today isn't the same democratic party from before the Civil War.

Agreed, far more evil.

 

[quietmike]

Women? Or I'm guessing you're referring to democrats. But the democratic party of today isn't the same democratic party from before the Civil War.

Lol
The black codes, Jim Crow and any of the other segregation laws said if you aren't just like us, we don't want to see or hear you, your excluded.
Take that same idea and rename it cancel culture and tell me what changed.

Nat Turner led a slave rebellion in 1831. By the end of that year all but three slave states passed laws making it illegal to teach a slave to read or write. Some states even made it illegal to teach free blacks.
If you send them to schools and give them diplomas while a sizable number can't read or do math at anything approaching a 12th grade level, what changed?

The last republican mayor of Chicago left office in 1931. With over 90 years of uninterrupted control, Chicago should be the shining example of successful democrat policy. It is. A trapped dependent underclass so focused on poverty, crime, drugs and day to day survival they never realize they're slaves on the new plantation.


Nothing at all has changed, modern democrats just have much better publicists.

 

[Doctorwho1138]

Well, that's not the only thing and, as a statement, this really lacks any focus. There are a number of examples where it could be said animals know right and wrong better than humans.

Because of the ambiguity of your previous posts I can't tell if you are directing that at me personally or if you're using the "royal you" or talking about people in general.

If it's directed at me personally then the real problem is your inability to comprehend what you read without tainting it with your personal preconceptions. You have no idea what my sense of morality is, only what you've twisted from misinterpreting my words.

Now you're just repeating yourself.

Again you fail to comprehend what you think you read about my personal moral beliefs.

Is there any society where slavery has *never* been "OK"? I'm not aware of one. Biblical texts condone slavery and have for thousands of years.

What are the morally valid reasons for intentionally taking a life?

No. Your moral beliefs are completely clear. You are in fact pro-choice and pro murder.

you are trying to conflate the idea that animal psyche and humans are equivocal. I assure you they are not. For instance, cannabolism
Is quite common in the animal kingdom. That is detestable in Homo sapiens yet fully acceptable in the animal kingdom. But I will
Concede that many do a better job of caring for their young than many mothers do in the human species unfortunately. Animals even the smartest Ones do not have the mental capability that we do as humans. So stop trying to paint a moral equivalency.

You need to read the Bible and actually try and understand what it is you are reading. The Bible doesn’t go into politics and actually lays the groundwork for abolition. It doesn’t condone slavery but rather tries to regulate it and eventually abolish it by changing people’s hearts. This actually gets discussed regularly in Christian circles.



Excerpt from the video above

Even in the New Testament era, the Bible did not demand that every slave owner immediately emancipate his slaves. Rather, the apostles gave instructions to slaves and their owners on godly behavior within that social system. Masters were admonished on the proper treatment of their slaves. For example, in Ephesians 6:9 masters are told, “Treat your slaves in the same way [with goodwill]. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” Elsewhere, the command is, “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1).

Jesus and the apostles did not outright condemn slavery. They didn’t need to. The effect of the gospel is that lives are changed, one by one, and those changed lives in turn bring transformation to entire families, clans, and cultures. Christianity was never designed to be a political movement, but, over time, it naturally affected political policy. Alexander MacLaren wrote that the gospel “meddles directly with no political or social arrangements, but lays down principles which will profoundly affect these, and leaves them to soak into the general mind” (The Expositor’s Bible, vol. VI, Eerdmans, 1940, p. 301). In nations where Christianity spread and took firm hold, slavery was brought to an end through the efforts of born-again individuals.

The seeds of the emancipation of slaves are in the Bible, which teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27), which condemns those who kidnap and sell a person (Exodus 21:16; cf. 1 Timothy 1:8–10), and which shows that a slave can truly be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16).

Some criticize the Bible because it did not demand an immediate overthrow of every ingrained, centuries-old sinful custom of the day. But, as Warren Wiersbe pointed out, “The Lord chooses to change people and society gradually, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the proclamation of the truth of the Word of God” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, David C. Cook, 2007, p. 245).

 

[doubloon]

No. Your moral beliefs are completely clear. You are in fact pro-choice and pro murder.

The morality I choose to live by and the laws of man overlap but they are not identical.

cannabolism ... is detestable in Homo sapiens yet fully acceptable in the animal kingdom.

Not detestable everywhere by all homo sapiens.

the Bible ... doesn’t condone slavery but rather tries to regulate it and eventually abolish it by changing people’s hearts.

Regulation being a form of acceptance, accepting or allowing behavior that is wrong. Condoning something doesn't mean approval, it means overlooking and allowing it to continue.

ETA: Many "good christian men" who founded this "christian nation" owned slaves until they day they died.

But apologies for derailing you to the topic of slavery.

This thread is abortion and, apparently, "murder".

What are the morally valid reasons for intentionally taking a life?

 

[Doctorwho1138]

The morality I choose to live by and the laws of man overlap but they are not identical.


Not detestable everywhere by all homo sapiens.

Regulation being a form of acceptance, accepting or allowing behavior that is wrong. Condoning something doesn't mean approval, it means overlooking and allowing it to continue.

It’s detestable by everyone not name named Jeffrey Dahmer. What a load of BS. Again i am correct.

Again, you have zero idea of the times in history and what the Bible actually means and what it is trying to say. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[doubloon]

It’s detestable by everyone not name named Jeffrey Dahmer. What a load of BS. Again i am correct.

As long as you keep your head in the sand and your thoughts narrow you will always be right. But you're probably statistically correct which may be good enough for you.

Back to the topic.

You've stated "Murder is the intentional ending of a life." and murder is morally wrong.

Still looking for clarification on whether that includes self defense or other forms of "murder" by your definition.

 

[theLBC]

i can be wrong of course, but the argument for or against killing babies shouldn't require multiple paragraphs.

you either object to a tiny living human being being cut up into pieces while screaming in silent agony, or you don't.

 

[theLBC]

the short version is funny, but the long version...maybe not so much.
too many people already? ok, so why import 10 million in a couple years?

 

[doubloon]

you either object to a tiny living human being being cut up into pieces while screaming in silent agony, or you don't.

I clearly stated I personally objected to it long ago.

I have personal objections against many things that are legal but that doesn't necessarily mean there are valid reasons for them not to be.

The world does not operate in black and white and anyone who believes it could or should is fooling themselves.

“I am very cautious of people who are absolutely right, especially when they are vehemently so.” ― Michael Palin

 

[theLBC]

I clearly stated I personally objected to it long ago.

I have personal objections against many things that are legal but that doesn't necessarily mean there are valid reasons for them not to be.

The world does not operate in black and white and anyone who believes it could or should is fooling themselves.

“I am very cautious of people who are absolutely right, especially when they are vehemently so.” ― Michael Palin

sorry if my reply being right after your comment seemed like i was pointing at you. that wasn't my intention at the time.

but then your reply, which i cannot really fault, forced me to examine my opinion, and why i would bother to express it.
to what degree should we suppress whatever personal objections we hold and express some opposition to what we perceive as wrong?
will we allow babies to be "aborted" after live birth? should we extend this period of legal homicide to a year, or perhaps 3? i mean, it isn't until at least 3 years old before we know for sure it's a keeper, sometimes even later than that, when it's too late.
i have the luxury of not being religious.

 

[Longshot231]

For those that don't think abortion is murder consider this. This remarkable lady survived an abortion. Let this sink in. The people in the clinic tried to end her life. In other words, they tried to KILL her.

Now, for the doubters, imagine how you would feel if someone tried to kill you. There are lots of people like this woman. Imagine how you would feel if someone tried to kill you because you are an inconvenience.

There will be some people that will refuse to watch this video because their minds are made up. I don't believe that their minds are made up. Quite the contrary, they are cowards in the worst way.

They aren't cowards because they are afraid of violent acts against them. They are cowards because they are afraid of the truth and what it could do to their conscience.

To those folks in favor of killing babies, I ask you if you could face Gianna and still tell her that you would wish she were dead? Oh yes, by favoring abortion, you wish the deaths on babies like her. Watch the video if you are not afraid of the truth.



Bonus videos:

 

[quietmike]

@doubloon

You just gonna pretend you didn't see this?

Lol
The black codes, Jim Crow and any of the other segregation laws said if you aren't just like us, we don't want to see or hear you, your excluded.
Take that same idea and rename it cancel culture and tell me what changed.

Nat Turner led a slave rebellion in 1831. By the end of that year all but three slave states passed laws making it illegal to teach a slave to read or write. Some states even made it illegal to teach free blacks.
If you send them to schools and give them diplomas while a sizable number can't read or do math at anything approaching a 12th grade level, what changed?

The last republican mayor of Chicago left office in 1931. With over 90 years of uninterrupted control, Chicago should be the shining example of successful democrat policy. It is. A trapped dependent underclass so focused on poverty, crime, drugs and day to day survival they never realize they're slaves on the new plantation.


Nothing at all has changed, modern democrats just have much better publicists.

 

[Longshot231]

 

[quietmike]

 

[quietmike]

@doubloon

You just gonna pretend you didn't see this?

@doubloon
Which killing of an unarmed African-American happened in a city run by Republicans?

Pretend you didn't see this post either.

 

[Maxduty]

knowing what is right and wrong is what sets us apart from animals. The problem is that you lack any sense of morality because you want to live your life without any moral repercussions. Murder is wrong across all cultures. You just want to justify your actions by removing any sense of conscience for those actions. Slavery use to be legal too and in some cultures is still used today. But to you that’s morally ok because it’s morally accepted by those cultures. It’s still wrong.

The only thing that separates humans from animals is what we are willing to do for money. Animals kill without remorse for food and spite and sometimes just because the other one pissed them off.

 

[Fig]

From a legal standpoint everything.

From a religious standpoint fuck all apparently.

When does the thing in development become a "person" by U.S. legal standards that can be identified and represented in court?

People who believe "it" is a "person" at the moment of conception can't even identify the moment of conception. It's ludicrous to say rights begin at conception when nobody can even identify the event.

You can't get a SSN without a birth certificate. With very few exceptions people don't even name their "babies" until after they're born (live or dead). People often delay news of pregnancy until after a specific date because even the pregnant woman knows it might not become a baby.

The cognitive dissonance in people who "claim" it's a person at conception is thick like molasses.



The seed is alive. The egg is alive. It's not about what's "live", it's about what is a person.

Religious zealots can punish people in their church by kicking them out for breaking their rules ... divorce, eating meat on Friday, working on the Sabbath. None of these are punishable by law but the church can "punish" you for not following the rules.

Not everything the church believes is punishable should be punishable by law.

Define personhood, because according to you being a human being isn’t enough. At differentiation I can prove it’s a complete human being. Why do leftists hate science?

 

[doubloon]

sorry if my reply being right after your comment seemed like i was pointing at you. that wasn't my intention at the time.

No offense taken, no worries.

will we allow babies to be "aborted" after live birth?

I'd really start to have problems with something like this and, actually, after a certain period of development in the womb unless there are clear and actionable threats to the life of the mother. But even in such circumstances, not clearly defined here, I *think* I would support legal options for the appropriate proxy to terminate one or the other or let it ride.

I have no idea what China did under the two baby policy or what they do under the current policy. I think it changed a while back.

 

[doubloon]

Define personhood, because according to you being a human being isn’t enough. At differentiation I can prove it’s a complete human being. Why do leftists hate science?

Not a leftist but thanks for playing and the uninformed judgement.

My personal definition of personhood is meaningless from a legal standpoint. I think most legal definitions are attempts to define viability outside the womb.

 

[doubloon]

@doubloon
Which killing of an unarmed African-American happened in a city run by Republicans?

Pretend you didn't see this post either.

Hello anythingbutquietmike.

Good to see you still have the hots for me and injecting random pointless ramblings.

 

[doubloon]

@doubloon

You just gonna pretend you didn't see this?

I saw it. Didn't merit a response.

Laws have changed a lot over the years and those people probably thought they were doing to right thing.

Even today some people, black people, are pushing for renewed segregation efforts.

 

[rtB]

Everyone knows what is right and what is wrong. Everyone knows.

The only question is how you try to excuse the wrong. No one ever questions what is right. Do they? Do I need an excuse for doing what is right? Or do I only need to explain to you why I did what is wrong?

 

[LuckyDuck]

I've been avoiding weighing in on this discussion given how polarized it becomes- but I will say though that one thing on this topic that always alludes me is for the life of me I can't comprehend why the 'alphabet' people so unanimously rally on the 'pro-choice' bandwagon when they're quite literally the only group that doesn't need to be concerned about accidental pregnancies... I just can't wrap my head around that. Maybe the liberals have just perfected blind allegiance? After all- if they can get the same-sex folks 'knocking uglies' to agree abortion is necessary- whelp anyone that disagrees has already lost at that point.

-LD

 

[quietmike]

I saw it. Didn't merit a response.

Laws have changed a lot over the years and those people probably thought they were doing to right thing.

Even today some people, black people, are pushing for renewed segregation efforts.

Yet you responded. Just not to the post. If leftys like you ever actually knew what they were talking about you wouldn't have to be a lefty.

 

[quietmike]

Hello anythingbutquietmike.

Good to see you still have the hots for me and injecting random pointless ramblings.

Good to see you're too stupid to answer direct questions.

 

[theLBC]

I've been avoiding weighing in on this discussion given how polarized it becomes- but I will say though that one thing on this topic that always alludes me is for the life of me I can't comprehend why the 'alphabet' people so unanimously rally on the 'pro-choice' bandwagon when they're quite literally the only group that doesn't need to be concerned about accidental pregnancies... I just can't wrap my head around that. Maybe the liberals have just perfected blind allegiance? After all- if they can get the same-sex folks 'knocking uglies' to agree abortion is necessary- whelp anyone that disagrees has already lost at that point.

-LD

i think a lot of the Ls are actually Bs but haven't told their girlfriends that they like to take the D once in a while.
if the D results in pregnancy, they need to kill the baby, because Ls are some of the most violent types (more domestic abuse than regular couples).

 

[jakelly]

I've been avoiding weighing in on this discussion given how polarized it becomes- but I will say though that one thing on this topic that always alludes me is for the life of me I can't comprehend why the 'alphabet' people so unanimously rally on the 'pro-choice' bandwagon when they're quite literally the only group that doesn't need to be concerned about accidental pregnancies... I just can't wrap my head around that. Maybe the liberals have just perfected blind allegiance? After all- if they can get the same-sex folks 'knocking uglies' to agree abortion is necessary- whelp anyone that disagrees has already lost at that point.

-LD

My enemy’s enemy is my friend.

 

[doubloon]

Good to see you're too stupid to answer direct questions.

Plenty of questions from other people answered.

Your questions are just fucking stupid.

 

[quietmike]

Plenty of questions from other people answered.

Your questions are just fucking stupid.

Like where you said modern dems are completely different than from antebellum times, I showed how completely wrong you were, and you refuse to respond.

If you believe an ideology so deeply, why can't you defend it?

 

[doubloon]

quite literally the only group that doesn't need to be concerned about accidental pregnancies

We've had a few accidental pregnancies among immediate and extended family members (hard not to expect it in the deep south), a couple in teenage/highschool years. All were carried to term and born healthy with family support. Had they chosen legal abortion they would still be family, we would still love and accept them and I wouldn't have wanted to see them imprisoned or prosecuted for the choice.

We don't encourage the choice but we still support the person in spite of it. We don't believe in either of the extremist positions on abortion but people who blindly support one or the other seem to be incapable of comprehending a third possibility so to libtards we are "pro-lifers" and to bible thumping Re-thug-licans we are "pro-choice".

I tend to find that people who blindly support some totalitarian (for lack of a better word) position are often people who believe it could never happen to them and when it does they often play a different fiddle.

Alabama is currently (last I checked) the poster child for a pro-lifers wet dream but I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut there will or already have been abortions within families who supported 'no choice" who will not be turning their precious daughter into the authorities for "murder".

 

[doubloon]

Like where you said modern dems are completely different than from antebellum times, I showed how completely wrong you were, and you refuse to respond.

If you believe an ideology so deeply, why can't you defend it?

I'll pose a question for you in the style you seem to like.

Have you stopped raping your daughter?

 

[Triple BB]

Simple answer, no...

 

[quietmike]

I'll pose a question for you in the style you seem to like.

Have you stopped raping your daughter?

Dodging a response for the third time.

 

[LRRPF52]

I would argue that slowly murdering a growing human being in the womb is as bad or worse than doing it to one outside the womb, just from a medical perspective. They’re in an insulated, nurturing environment being fed nutrients by their mother, close to her heart and circulatory system, feeling her biorhythms every moment, then an invasive instrument at the hands of one who is determined to destroy them is inserted and used to crush and separate their body parts.

What a hell on earth that must be for the unborn and what few moments they had at this life.

If a woman wants a choice, she can stay off her back and keep her legs closed. Less than 1.5% are rape or incest, so that’s not what we are talking about. Over 98% of abortions are clearly cases of wanting to avoid consequences for actions taken.

We should not support those kinds of decisions with law, especially given the mass consequences for the rest of society looking at collapsing birth rates.

 

[quietmike]

Less than 1.5% are rape or incest, so that’s not what we are talking about.

Even with those, in Coker v Georgia and Kennedy v Louisiana SCOTUS ruled killing someone over rape or incest violated the 8th.

 

[LRRPF52]

Another problem we have in the US is that the court and welfare systems reward serial "non-producer reproducers", while penalizing the fruitful and productive members of society.

In the inner cities, you see generational perpetuation of very young baby mammas who will bring more welfare checks into the projects, none of whom are literate or likely will ever be literate.

The judge Joe Brown episode on PBD was astonishing. Skip to 7:30 and go from there:

Judge Joe Brown | PBD Podcast | Ep. 328

Joseph Blakeney Brown Jr., known professionally as Judge Joe Brown, is an American former lawyer and television personality. He is a former Shelby County, Te...

www.youtube.com

 

[LuckyDuck]

We've had a few accidental pregnancies among immediate and extended family members (hard not to expect it in the deep south), a couple in teenage/highschool years. All were carried to term and born healthy with family support. Had they chosen legal abortion they would still be family, we would still love and accept them and I wouldn't have wanted to see them imprisoned or prosecuted for the choice.

We don't encourage the choice but we still support the person in spite of it. We don't believe in either of the extremist positions on abortion but people who blindly support one or the other seem to be incapable of comprehending a third possibility so to libtards we are "pro-lifers" and to bible thumping Re-thug-licans we are "pro-choice".

I tend to find that people who blindly support some totalitarian (for lack of a better word) position are often people who believe it could never happen to them and when it does they often play a different fiddle.

Alabama is currently (last I checked) the poster child for a pro-lifers wet dream but I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut there will or already have been abortions within families who supported 'no choice" who will not be turning their precious daughter into the authorities for "murder".

While I do appreciate you sharing your familial stories with me/us, I respectfully fail to understand how your response is related to my previous post of being baffled why two biological females having a 'clam bake' session or two biological males having a 'sausage party' (trying to keep things PG-13) results in either parties being concerned about accidental pregnancies yet as a whole/community they strike me as being adamant supporters of the pro-choice position. I'm not taking any sides here btw- just pointing out how baffling this datapoint is to me given their lack of... shall I say "skin in the game" of unplanned pregnancies?

Not casting stones at you sir, or at least that isn't my intention- I'm sincerely happy to hear that all of those babies you mentioned were born into loving families and all came out healthy with 10 fingers and 10 toes and no other issues. As happy as I am to hear your stories of how things worked out for you, I'm struggling to comprehend how that relates to same-sex couples having vehement positions on abortions when (regardless of anyone's opinion of their bedroom behaviors) is understood to never result in an unplanned pregnancy.

-LD

 

[doubloon]

Not casting stones at you sir,

Didn't take it that way and, with a few exceptions for people who resort to personal attacks rather than dialogue, my comments are aimed at the argument not the person.

My post was more a comment, that was incomplete and rambled a little, on the diversity (horrible word these days) of people who don't make it a personal crusade to dictate how other people deal with "accidental" pregnancies. Responding to your comment along the lines of queers don't have any skin in the game.

I tend to believe a couple of lesbo's or a couple of homo's are not entirely immune from the impact of an "accidental" pregnancy.

Somewhere out there is the possibility of a cute lesbian who might become impregnated by an act of rape. Granted, many may not cute but ugly is not guaranteed protection from rape.

Both lesbo and homo couples have immediate/extended families and, under most current laws AFAIK, are able to adopt or be granted custody of young fertile females. Just like me and my family, these people have the potential for their lives to be directly impacted by "accidental" pregnancies.

Also under current laws, mostly everywhere U.S. AFAIK, lesbo and homo couples can pursue parenthood via IVF using their own DNA as either a donor with a surrogate or a carrier with donor. Alabama is currently set, again unless something has changed I don't know about, to declare the culling or disposal of extra embryos as "murder". Again, a dollar to a donut, I believe there are many (some) "good Christian" couples who vote and support "pro-life" legislation and have turned to traditional IVF procedures that result in either discarding unused embryos or aborted embryos in the instances where more than a desired number of embryos attach and grow.

There is a lot more to it than that, of course, and I do not claim to have the answer.

ETA: But most ot this particular sidebar is more about who gets to decide what other people's rights wrt to abortion more than the ambiguous question "is abortion "ok"?".

 

[quietmike]

Because of your mom and the obviously poor way she raised you. You love abortion b/c you wish the welfare whore would have killed you vs raising you with no father around .

@Haney just gonna pretend you didn't get this notification?

 

[quietmike]

ETA: But most ot this particular sidebar is more about who gets to decide what other people's rights wrt to abortion more than the ambiguous question "is abortion "ok"?".

Who got to decide what southerners did with their property aka slaves?

Before you go off on another tangent saying it's not analogous, they're both segments of the population legally deemed "not actual people".