(01-27-2017, 02:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Thank you for reinforcing my point, that there is common ground if we look at being proactive about the issue of unwanted pregnancies rather than focusing on the divisive, surface level issue of abortion access and the ideological position that is going to be hard to move anyone from. That instead of focusing on that debate, we should instead focus our efforts on reducing the number of people that feel the desire to seek an abortion to begin with because all of us can agree to that being a good thing.
Free tubal ligation with your first abortion of convenience. That should help reduce the numbers and save money on providing free contraception.
(01-27-2017, 02:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Free tubal ligation with your first abortion of convenience. That should help reduce the numbers and save money on providing free contraception.
See I'm a solution person.
How about we hunt them down, in the street ?
Yep... like a tag and release system.
We tranq them, implant the 5 year birth control, tag (not that way,bfine), and release.
(01-27-2017, 10:45 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: How about we hunt them down, in the street ?
Yep... like a tag and release system.
We tranq them, implant the 5 year birth control, tag (not that way,bfine), and release.
Really don't think hunting them down in the street makes much sense
(01-27-2017, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and not everyone that is Pro life is against reproductive health care and education; it's just some folks like to generalize. Many think that if someone with an interest in the child wants it, can provide it a safe stable environment, the child was not a result of a crime or act of immorality, and carrying the child to term causes no medical threat to the biological mother then the kid should be given a chance to life; regardless of the temporary inconvenience of the person that freely participated in the process.
My wife's pregnancy wasn't life threatening until delivery. Every pregnancy has the potential to be life threatening to the mother as well as increase risk for chronic disease and permanent physical disability which can't be predicted. Pregnancy is more than a temporary inconvenience.
(01-27-2017, 02:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and then watch the 180 that advoactes for State's rights does on both sides. I just hope we remember on what side of state's rights we've been on in the past if this occurs.
I hope we remember who is on the side of individual rights and who isn't.
Quote:Trump administration figures Mike Pence and Kellyanne Conway are scheduled to speak at this year's edition of the annual March for Life pro-life rally in Washington on Friday. Trump, meanwhile, has said that his Supreme Court nominees will be chosen with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. (Though here's why that might not happen even if Trump gets to appoint multiple justices.)
This pro-life president, though, was famously pro-choice before deciding that he wanted to be the Republican nominee. In 2016, he refused to answerTimescolumnist Maureen Dowd's question about whether he'd ever paid for or been otherwise involved in the procurement of an abortion. And above is an MSNBC clip of a 2003 Trump appearance on Howard Stern's radio show in which he laughs about being talked into not aborting a surprise pregnancy. (It'd seem, given the timing of Trump's children's births, that he's talking about Marla Maples, who's said the conception of their daughter, Tiffany, was a surprise, and MSNBC asserts as much. But no one says Maples' name in the clip.)
Also of note: The context of the discussion above is that Trump is talking about how pleased he is that his then-girlfriend Melania has been consistently taking birth control pills. The organization that runs the March for Life successfully sued the Obama administration to be exempted from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirements.
(01-28-2017, 12:25 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: My wife's pregnancy wasn't life threatening until delivery. Every pregnancy has the potential to be life threatening to the mother as well as increase risk for chronic disease and permanent physical disability which can't be predicted. Pregnancy is more than a temporary inconvenience.
Lots of things have the potential to be life threatening. I've heard abortion is potentially life threatening for the child. Pregnancy is a temporary inconvenience; of course like every other thing in the world: shit can happen.
(01-28-2017, 11:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Lots of things have the potential to be life threatening. I've heard abortion is potentially life threatening for the child. Pregnancy is a temporary inconvenience; of course like every other thing in the world: shit can happen.
Imprisonment is a temporary inconvenience, but we don't allow our government to do that without jumping through hoops. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is a stripping of liberties by the government, trivializing it by calling it a temporary inconvenience doesn't change that.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(01-28-2017, 11:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Imprisonment is a temporary inconvenience, but we don't allow our government to do that without jumping through hoops. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is a stripping of liberties by the government, trivializing it by calling it a temporary inconvenience doesn't change that.
And trivializing the crushing of the head of a perfectly healthy child by throwing out her body her choice doesn't change that.
We may want to be careful who we accuse of trivialization.
(01-28-2017, 11:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Lots of things have the potential to be life threatening. I've heard abortion is potentially life threatening for the child. Pregnancy is a temporary inconvenience; of course like every other thing in the world: shit can happen.
Temporary inconvenience vs. potentially life threatening.
Even the kids down on Sesame Street understand one of these things is not like the other.
(01-29-2017, 01:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And trivializing the crushing of the head of a perfectly healthy child by throwing out her body her choice doesn't change that.
We may want to be careful who we accuse of trivialization.
Except I don't trivialize abortion, but whatever helps you feel right letting the government strip people of their liberties without due process. I've discussed numerous times how my opinion is that because it is such a difficult and personal question based on individual circumstances that it is not a place for the government to give a blanket answer that can result in the stripping of liberties from someone that has committed no crime.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(01-29-2017, 08:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except I don't trivialize abortion, but whatever helps you feel right letting the government strip people of their liberties without due process. I've discussed numerous times how my opinion is that because it is such a difficult and personal question based on individual circumstances that it is not a place for the government to give a blanket answer that can result in the stripping of liberties from someone that has committed no crime.
Of course you trivialize the destroying of a child that has committed no crime , you just like to look in the mirror and say you don't, while the pro-lifer does. You trivialize it by trying to throw in phrases like stripping of liberties and due process; while only considering the rights of one person in the situation. The VAST majority of the time pregnancy is nothing but a temporary inconvenience; however, every time an abortion is a permanent one.
I get the emotion that goes into the subject; however, anyone that comes to the conclusion that abortion is justified when the child is wanted by one parent that can nurture it, is trivializing the process. As I've said a truly enlightened future generation will look back ar us and judge us on our propensity to kill our unborn.
(01-29-2017, 08:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except I don't trivialize abortion, but whatever helps you feel right letting the government strip people of their liberties without due process. I've discussed numerous times how my opinion is that because it is such a difficult and personal question based on individual circumstances that it is not a place for the government to give a blanket answer that can result in the stripping of liberties from someone that has committed no crime.
And that is where I'm at with that. Not all circumstances are the same and is a decision that should be made between the person and the doctor.
(01-29-2017, 12:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you trivialize the destroying of a child that has committed no crime , you just like to look in the mirror and say you don't, while the pro-lifer does. You trivialize it by trying to throw in phrases like stripping of liberties and due process; while only considering the rights of one person in the situation. The VAST majority of the time pregnancy is nothing but a temporary inconvenience; however, every time an abortion is a permanent one.
I get the emotion that goes into the subject; however, anyone that comes to the conclusion that abortion is justified when the child is wanted by one parent that can nurture it, is trivializing the process. As I've said a truly enlightened future generation will look back ar us and judge us on our propensity to kill our unborn.
Who says I only consider the rights of one person? I have said numerous times the it is a quandry with regards to rights that cannot truly be solved by government intervention. This is why I say the government should not make that call. If you think trying to logically discuss the legal implications of the subject with the actual terms is trivializing abortion then I don't think a rational discussion can be had on the issue with you. This isn't an emotional subject for me because I am able to view this from a policy standpoint, not injecting my personal morality into it.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(01-29-2017, 12:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell they probably even know you need a minimum of 3 things to engage in the "one of these things is not like the other" process.
Definitely life ending vs. potentially life threatening.
I wonder which one the kids on Sesame Street would choose.
If I compare and contrast an apple and an orange, would it be true if I stated, "One of these things is not like the other"? Yes, it would be true.
(01-29-2017, 12:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you trivialize the destroying of a child that has committed no crime , you just like to look in the mirror and say you don't, while the pro-lifer does. You trivialize it by trying to throw in phrases like stripping of liberties and due process; while only considering the rights of one person in the situation. The VAST majority of the time pregnancy is nothing but a temporary inconvenience; however, every time an abortion is a permanent one.
I get the emotion that goes into the subject; however, anyone that comes to the conclusion that abortion is justified when the child is wanted by one parent that can nurture it, is trivializing the process. As I've said a truly enlightened future generation will look back ar us and judge us on our propensity to kill our unborn.
That's funny coming from someone who trivialized life because you're former job description included killing people.
(01-29-2017, 02:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If I compare and contrast an apple and an orange, would it be true if I stated, "One of these things is not like the other"? Yes, it would be true.
Using a condom is 99% life ending
No, both things are not like the other when you only compare two things. It's OK, I don't expect you to grasp the concept and/or admit it was a terribly failed attempt at condescension. Fortunately, the vast majority of the world does understand the concept.
As to the condom, it does help prevent the conception of a child but does absolutely nothing to kill one.
(01-29-2017, 02:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Who says I only consider the rights of one person? I have said numerous times the it is a quandry with regards to rights that cannot truly be solved by government intervention. This is why I say the government should not make that call. If you think trying to logically discuss the legal implications of the subject with the actual terms is trivializing abortion then I don't think a rational discussion can be had on the issue with you. This isn't an emotional subject for me because I am able to view this from a policy standpoint, not injecting my personal morality into it.
Outlawing abortion is not intervention. Legalizing it was.
(01-29-2017, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, both things are not like the other when you only compare two things. It's OK, I don't expect you to grasp the concept and/or admit it was a terribly failed attempt at condescension. Fortunately, the vast majority of the world does understand the concept.
As to the condom, it does help prevent the conception of a child but does absolutely nothing to kill one.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: abcountry2013.jpg]](https://s23.postimg.org/568ugpqcr/abcountry2013.jpg)
