Zguy28 Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Please elaborate on the bolded section above. I wish these same people that are anti-choice and scream about defunding PP cared as much about those that are born as they do about the unborn. Elaboration: Babies in the womb are treated as subhuman. Ask yourself, are you more upset by a lion being poached or 330,000 unborn babies being torn apart annually? On the second part, I wish that as well. Many do not, and not caring for the fatherless and needy is a sin as well. But, if you do a search on "orphan care" on Google, you may be surprised by the number of organizations with pro-life stances that come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Elaboration: Babies in the womb are treated as subhuman. Ask yourself, are you more upset by a lion being poached or 330,000 unborn babies being torn apart annually? On the second part, I wish that as well. Many do not, and not caring for the fatherless and needy is a sin as well. But, if you do a search on "orphan care" on Google, you may be surprised by the number of organizations with pro-life stances that come up. I'm not going to engage further in over the top rhetoric. For your own argument POV, bringing up Jews in Germany in the 1930s doesn't help your cause. On the second part, that doesn't surprise me. I know a lot of pro-life/anti-choice people that are very compassionate. However, the candidates they continually vote into office don't run on nor enact that kind of compassionate agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Elaboration: Babies in the womb are treated as subhuman. Ask yourself, are you more upset by a lion being poached or 330,000 unborn babies being torn apart annually? I was under the impression that the vast majority of abortions were chemical abortions, of "babies" that were too small to even see. But feel free to pretend that every single one of them was "an unborn baby torn apart". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I've seen these numbers in different charts online a bunch the past few days. I'm wondering, is this accurate? Then it should be no problem if PP stop performing abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Then it should be no problem if PP stop performing abortions. Give us what we demand, and we'll stop demanding that you give it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I'm not going to engage further in over the top rhetoric. For your own argument POV, bringing up Jews in Germany in the 1930s doesn't help your cause. On the second part, that doesn't surprise me. I know a lot of pro-life/anti-choice people that are very compassionate. However, the candidates they continually vote into office don't run on nor enact that kind of compassionate agenda. They're compassionate until you're born. After that, **** you, you're on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 I'm not going to engage further in over the top rhetoric. For your own argument POV, bringing up Jews in Germany in the 1930s doesn't help your cause. So be it. I invoked Godwin's Law intentionally, because that is the magnitude of the evil that is abortion on demand. On the second part, that doesn't surprise me. I know a lot of pro-life/anti-choice people that are very compassionate. However, the candidates they continually vote into office don't run on nor enact that kind of compassionate agenda. You'll get no argument from me on this. Its why I began voting third party several years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 I was under the impression that the vast majority of abortions were chemical abortions, of "babies" that were too small to even see. But feel free to pretend that every single one of them was "an unborn baby torn apart". One is too many Larry. If your conscience is eased by statistics, here you go: In 2011, 79.6% of reported abortions were accomplished by curettage (which includes dilatation and evacuation). Most curettage abortions are suction procedures (CDC). Medical abortions made up approximately 20.0% of all abortions reported (CDC). Ninety-six per cent of the more than 140,000 second-trimester abortions that occur annually in the USA are accomplished by dilation and evacuation (D&E) (NAF). Medication abortion accounted for 23% of all nonhospital abortions in 2011 (AGI). Source: http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/ They're compassionate until you're born. After that, **** you, you're on your own. This is a pretty ignorant statement. There are some conservatives who are like that. But there are also liberals who would give trees more rights than people. Painting all conservatives and liberals with the same brush doesn't do anybody any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 This is a pretty ignorant statement. There are some conservatives who are like that. But there are also liberals who would give trees more rights than people. Painting all conservatives and liberals with the same brush doesn't do anybody any good. Dunno, it certainly seems to me like most conservatives candidates and lawmakers are like that. They'll rant and rave and vote against many programs that directly or tangentially help underprivileged or poor children because they believe in "small/limited government" yet when it comes to a woman's body and reproductive rights they are ALL about the government being big and invasive. So yeah, they seem to care a whole hell of a lot more about people before they're born than they do once they are. Its hypocritical at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (removed per instructions) I've seen these numbers in different charts online a bunch the past few days. I'm wondering, is this accurate? One thing to keep in mind is that these numbers can be taken many different ways. If one person comes in and asks about getting condoms, that is one in the contraception area. Ask about the pill, another number. In this manner, a chart like this is always going to be skewed to show smaller items will look bigger than others. Dunno, it certainly seems to me like most conservatives candidates and lawmakers are like that. They'll rant and rave and vote against many programs that directly or tangentially help underprivileged or poor children because they believe in "small/limited government" yet when it comes to a woman's body and reproductive rights they are ALL about the government being big and invasive. So yeah, they seem to care a whole hell of a lot more about people before they're born than they do once they are. Its hypocritical at best. Sure, from a liberal POV, that would be true. From a conservative side, liberals everywhere are trying to push any PC issue down America's throats, using very sketchy to no real evidence. Seems there are many of them who care more about abortion (which affects a relatively small amount of people) than actual real issues that affect a large number of people. POV is really a key in these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 Dunno, it certainly seems to me like most conservatives candidates and lawmakers are like that. They'll rant and rave and vote against many programs that directly or tangentially help underprivileged or poor children because they believe in "small/limited government" yet when it comes to a woman's body and reproductive rights they are ALL about the government being big and invasive. So yeah, they seem to care a whole hell of a lot more about people before they're born than they do once they are. Its hypocritical at best. Ok, so now we are talking candidates? That's not what I took from your first post. I don't disagree about those guys, but to set the record straight, for Joe conservative, the issue isn't with reproductive rights, its for the right to live for the unborn baby. Isn't that why some places give a double murder charge for murdering a pregnant woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 According to google, average cost to raise a child is now ~$245,000. I think money is already a huge consideration regarding abortions. Read an article a couple of years back that quadruples that number. http://business.time.com/2009/09/18/1-1-million-cost-to-raise-a-child-from-birth-through-college/ That price hasn't come down. I would post the link to the original story from WSJ, but this one sums it up concisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 1- abortion is legal 2- right now, govt money is used for abortions (if not directly, then indirectly 3- selling tissue will LOWER the govt amount Still not seeing the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Ok, so now we are talking candidates? That's not what I took from your first post. I don't disagree about those guys, but to set the record straight, for Joe conservative, the issue isn't with reproductive rights, its for the right to live for the unborn baby. Isn't that why some places give a double murder charge for murdering a pregnant woman? Are you for charging people who cause miscarriages (which is a spontaneous aborted pregnancy) through their own actions (drinking/smoking while pregnant, other unhealthy lifestyle choices, not going to the doctor, etc..)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 Are you for charging people who cause miscarriages (which is a spontaneous aborted pregnancy) through their own actions (drinking/smoking while pregnant, other unhealthy lifestyle choices, not going to the doctor, etc..)? Do you want to charge people who teach their kids bad eating habits which eventually lead to a heart attack when they are 40? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket442Olds Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 From a conservative side, liberals everywhere are trying to push any PC issue down America's throats, using very sketchy to no real evidence. Seems there are many of them who care more about abortion (which affects a relatively small amount of people) than actual real issues that affect a large number of people. POV is really a key in these issues. To get this straight in my head, You're saying: The Liberals are discussing things that aren't "real issues", like abortion and they're doing this to distract from real issues? Odd, considering the people that seem to be most upset about abortion being legal, and available are mainly religious conservatives. Conservative groups are the ones secretly recording and releasing edited tapes, about things that aren't "real issues". I just find it odd, that you're saying liberals are the ones making this a big issue, when it's conservatives who are constantly on TV, News, and other outlets complaining about it. I agree that both sides love to find relatively small but polarizing issues and making those huge talking points because it gets people on their sides, but I find it insane you're suggesting in this case its liberals, when all of the evidence is pointing the other way. I can't even touch your comment on "no real evidence". I know many conservatives who cover their ears when someone shows real evidence about all sorts of things. I'm not even liberal, I'm somewhere in the middle, but that paragraph is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 1- abortion is legal 2- right now, govt money is used for abortions (if not directly, then indirectly 3- selling tissue will LOWER the govt amount Still not seeing the problem. How about we start with limiting non-profit status to companies who have an individual salary cap of $100,000/yr? I wonder how many of these PP executives would "care" so much about reproductive rights then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket442Olds Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 How about we start with limiting non-profit status to companies who have an individual salary cap of $100,000/yr? Yes please, as long as that includes churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 Yes please, as long as that includes churches. No church staff member should make more than that anyway. But churches aren't non-profit businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why would that matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Do you want to charge people who teach their kids bad eating habits which eventually lead to a heart attack when they are 40? So your argument isn't against abortions per se. It's against people who choose to go through a currently legalized procedure to abort a baby after knowing they are pregnant? If they knowingly (or unknowingly) engage in actions that lead to a miscarriage of said baby, you are okay with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 So your argument isn't against abortions per se. It's against people who choose to go through a currenty legalized procedure to abort a baby after knowing they are pregnant? If they knowingly (or unknowingly) engage in actions that lead to a miscarriage of said baby, you are okay with that? My main issue is with babies being murdered directly. This is accomplished directly through medical & chemical means. This is something that is enforceable if outlawed, both for the mother (obviously every single case is unique and always must be tempered with compassion) and especially for the provider. What you ask about is not enforceable IMO. And I am not "ok" with it. Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 One is too many Larry. If your conscience is eased by statistics, here you go: I notice you picked an anti-abortion web site, to cite for your statistics. But I went to the more neutral site which they got their stats from. And, while I'm not seeing the exact stat I'm looking for, it does look like the stats I'm seeing sure make me think I'm remembering wrong. I was under the impression that something like 90% of abortions were of the form of "take this pill and go home. And come back in two weeks for a follow up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 1- abortion is legal 2- right now, govt money is used for abortions (if not directly, then indirectly 3- selling tissue will LOWER the govt amount Still not seeing the problem. 1) True. (Although, in some places, it's only barely so, now days.) 2) Actually, I was going to argue with this claim. But while looking up those abortion statistics, I discovered that apparently, there are several states where the state will actually pay some or all of the costs of abortion, for poor women. I was really surprised to read that. 3) I really, really, doubt it. At least as I understand it, the rule is that they aren't allowed to profit from selling any medical product that was freely donated. And, while I'm certain that there are lots of clever ways that people use, to profit from things that they aren't supposed to profit from, I doubt that they then take the profit which they illegally made, and then hand it out to other customers in the form of reduced prices. I strongly suspect that the greedy corporations pocket it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 I notice you picked an anti-abortion web site, to cite for your statistics. But I went to the more neutral site which they got their stats from. And, while I'm not seeing the exact stat I'm looking for, it does look like the stats I'm seeing sure make me think I'm remembering wrong. I was under the impression that something like 90% of abortions were of the form of "take this pill and go home. And come back in two weeks for a follow up." To be honest, I didn't look at the site too carefully, but assumed the opposite actually with a name like "Abortion73". That's what I get for assuming... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.