Pregnant Woman Perfectly Tells Off Anti-Abortion Protestors

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite
The link I provided in the post your responding to has the stats for then pregnant so we could figure out a ball park estimate for what the increase would be. I would do it, but I'm on my phone. Maybe later.

But "if it saves one child" isn't it worth it?

Are you willing to take the brunt of saving that child's life through taxes? After all many women who get abortions do it out of inability to afford to care for the child. Therefore it reasons that they will end up on government assistance. I hope you aren't for the cutting of welfare benefits, SNAP benefits, and other social programs, while being pro-life at the same time. That would be pretty hypocritical...

So I can't be for cutting social programs and against murdering children? I don't see the correlation. You do know that those of us who oppose government run social programs don't oppose charity itself, right? We oppose government run charity. We don't oppose feeding the hungry, we oppose using federal (and in some cases state) tax dollars to do it. Cutting government social programs != cutting aid to those in need.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite
The link I provided in the post your responding to has the stats for then pregnant so we could figure out a ball park estimate for what the increase would be. I would do it, but I'm on my phone. Maybe later.

But "if it saves one child" isn't it worth it?

Are you willing to take the brunt of saving that child's life through taxes? After all many women who get abortions do it out of inability to afford to care for the child. Therefore it reasons that they will end up on government assistance. I hope you aren't for the cutting of welfare benefits, SNAP benefits, and other social programs, while being pro-life at the same time. That would be pretty hypocritical...

So I can't be for cutting social programs and against murdering children? I don't see the correlation. You do know that those of us who oppose government run social programs don't oppose charity itself, right? We oppose government run charity.

You can be, but then you are a hypocrite. You are saying that you want to save the child (fetus) from a quick death so it can be born into a life of hardship then want to cut funding for social programs so that the child can no longer eat or have shelter and then dies. Trading a fast death for a slow, tortuous death.

We don't oppose feeding the hungry, we oppose using federal (and in some cases state) tax dollars to do it. Cutting government social programs != cutting aid to those in need.

How are these people going to take advantage of this assistance if it isn't government run? Do you honestly think that private charities can handle the brunt of that? The money has to come from somewhere. Actually, I'm just going to go ahead and answer that for you. No they won't be able to afford it. Heck, our taxes can't even afford the social programs on the books, even WITH private charities helping them. So your solution is insane. It will create FAR more problems than solve.

This shows the crux of your position. You only think far enough ahead with the abortion issue that the mother HAS the child, then you don't care about what happens afterwards. Heck you go so far as to vote to NOT help her with handouts after having the child. I know why you do it. By decoupling the two issues, you can pretend they aren't related, but you are wrong. They are VERY related and to get your way in one of those issues will dramatically affect the other issue in a way that you won't like.

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
Too bad that most hospitals will not allow you to get sterilized unless it will benefit your health, or you're in your later years.

My mom was sterilized at 27 because both my youngest brother and my sister were born prematurely and almost died.
My mom getting pregnant again would cause problems to not only her health, but the would be childs health.


My cousin is 31 and wants to get sterilized but they won't let her because she's had 5 healthy kids, and it poses no threat to her or a child if she got pregnant again.


... I would go and get sterilized tomorrow if I could. Hormonal birth control whacks out the body. But I'd rather whack out my body than have a child at 22.

I would support this wholeheartedly. I wish I could change it. You should be sterilized if that is what you want.

these arguments will never get anywhere until we focus on the root causes.

The truth of the matter is that nobody wants or likes abortions. The question then becomes, then why would anyone ever get an abortion? That's a question that we could ask, brainstorm together and come up with solutions. Yeah?

a reply to: amazing

We've already discussed many reasons for why people get abortions in this thread. But it's really irrelevant no? All pro-choicers want is to let the future mother choose to abort or not. Let her deal with the mental anguish of getting an abortion. It's her problem.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite
The link I provided in the post your responding to has the stats for then pregnant so we could figure out a ball park estimate for what the increase would be. I would do it, but I'm on my phone. Maybe later.

But "if it saves one child" isn't it worth it?

Are you willing to take the brunt of saving that child's life through taxes? After all many women who get abortions do it out of inability to afford to care for the child. Therefore it reasons that they will end up on government assistance. I hope you aren't for the cutting of welfare benefits, SNAP benefits, and other social programs, while being pro-life at the same time. That would be pretty hypocritical...

So I can't be for cutting social programs and against murdering children? I don't see the correlation. You do know that those of us who oppose government run social programs don't oppose charity itself, right? We oppose government run charity.

You can be, but you are a hypocrite. You are saying that you want to save the child (fetus) from a quick death so it can be born into a life of hardship then want to cut funding for social programs so that the child can no longer eat or have shelter and then dies. Trading a fast death for a slow, tortuous death.

We don't oppose feeding the hungry, we oppose using federal (and in some cases state) tax dollars to do it. Cutting government social programs != cutting aid to those in need.

How are these people going to take advantage of this assistance if it isn't government run? Do you honestly think that private charities can handle the brunt of that? The money has to come from somewhere. Actually, I'm just going to go ahead and answer that for you. No they won't be able to afford it. Heck, our taxes can't even afford the social programs on the books, even WITH private charities helping them. So your solution is insane. It will create FAR more problems than solve.

Obviously it would have to be a slow transition off of the government programs to private charities. Private charities function on much less money than government "charity". So you can't really say that they wouldn't be able to do it, anymore than I can say that they would. It would be something we'd really have to research and implement properly.

But let's try a different route, that which I suggested earlier. 100% taxpayer funded sterilization for anyone who wants it. Then there is no excuse whatsoever. Abortion can then be outlawed for the heinous crime against humanity that it is.

I'm going to repost this since a few new people have joined the discussion.

How sure are you that abortion is not murder?

If we eliminate the 85% of abortions that have nothing to do with health reasons, that's 850,000 abortions a year in the U.S. The year before abortions were federally legalized in the US, I think there were like 37 deaths from botched illegal abortions. I'm gonna estimate that the reported number is much lower, so let's call it 500 a year at the high end. Now, there are more abortions taking place today, so let's double this to 1000 and double again because if the mother dies that kills the fetus too.

So we have an estimated 2,000 lives lost per year if we outlaw abortion for reasons that don't include health issues and rape.

Why did I estimate this? Well, if there's even a 1% chance that abortion is murder, you're looking at a weighted 8,500 deaths per year due to abortions that we're eliminated. Since this is higher than the estimated deaths that would occur with abortion illegal, someone who believes that there's a 1% chance abortion is murder should be against abortion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: amazing

We've already discussed many reasons for why people get abortions in this thread. But it's really irrelevant no? All pro-choicers want is to let the future mother choose to abort or not. Let her deal with the mental anguish of getting an abortion. It's her problem.

Yeah, I just think it's the wrong argument. If I say pro choice and you say pro life and we argue and fight and threaten and kill and protest and yell. We both just dig in...nothing ever gets solved. We haven't moved on to the underlying issues. There will still be abortions and those that protest as there have been for decades.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Obviously it would have to be a slow transition off of the government programs to private charities. Private charities function on much less money than government "charity". So you can't really say that they wouldn't be able to do it, anymore than I can say that they would. It would be something we'd really have to research and implement properly.

You could let the free market handle it, but good luck getting enough donations to cover all the needed assistance. Private charities already exist and they aren't slowing down the growth of people getting on government assistance much at all. At the end of the day, many of your non-aborted babies will end up starving.

But let's try a different route, that which I suggested earlier. 100% taxpayer funded sterilization for anyone who wants it. Then there is no excuse whatsoever. Abortion can then be outlawed for the heinous crime against humanity that it is.

What about the people who don't opt for sterilization but also want to leave the option open for children at a later date, but when they get pregnant they aren't in a position to care for the child yet? Your scenario may reduce the number of abortions, but it certainly won't eliminate it. It's not like selfishness will disappear.

a reply to: sdubya

You need to source your claims. I don't believe any of the numbers you posted, especially when you use words like "estimate".

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: amazing

We've already discussed many reasons for why people get abortions in this thread. But it's really irrelevant no? All pro-choicers want is to let the future mother choose to abort or not. Let her deal with the mental anguish of getting an abortion. It's her problem.

Yeah, I just think it's the wrong argument. If I say pro choice and you say pro life and we argue and fight and threaten and kill and protest and yell. We both just dig in...nothing ever gets solved. We haven't moved on to the underlying issues. There will still be abortions and those that protest as there have been for decades.

It doesn't matter what we talk about or implement. There will still be abortions regardless, because women will get them for whatever reason. That is why discussing the reasons is pointless. The reasons range from good reasons to the most selfish and petty of reasons (I knew a girl who got several abortions because she was a gold digger who didn't want to commit to her boyfriend, that she was sleeping around on, who wanted to have a family and settle down). But at the end of the day, the choice STILL lies with the future mother regardless of the reasons.

The best way to combat abortion, is education. Education for safe sex, education against sexual assault, yes, even education for abstinence (though I wouldn't promote that as the only option like many sex ed classes do). Knowledge is the best weapon against immorality. Not stupid, legislative reactions fueled through emotions that cause more problems than solve.

One more thing, all discussing reasons for abortions does is rile up people's emotions which fuels the debate even further.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Obviously it would have to be a slow transition off of the government programs to private charities. Private charities function on much less money than government "charity". So you can't really say that they wouldn't be able to do it, anymore than I can say that they would. It would be something we'd really have to research and implement properly.

You could let the free market handle it, but good luck getting enough donations to cover all the needed assistance. Private charities already exist and they aren't slowing down the growth of people getting on government assistance much at all. At the end of the day, many of your non-aborted babies will end up starving.

But let's try a different route, that which I suggested earlier. 100% taxpayer funded sterilization for anyone who wants it. Then there is no excuse whatsoever. Abortion can then be outlawed for the heinous crime against humanity that it is.

What about the people who don't opt for sterilization but also want to leave the option open for children at a later date, but when they get pregnant they aren't in a position to care for the child yet? Your scenario may reduce the number of abortions, but it certainly won't eliminate it. It's not like selfishness will disappear.

They have no excuse for abortion. They better head on over to their local charitable foundations for help raising that baby or put it up for adoption. And lots of education (first hand experience) on why sterilization is right for them!

originally posted by: Dfairlite

"Sex is a choice that the mother made. Just like getting an abortion is a choice."
It's not about choices your murdering a child.

The law of the land states *murder* is a crime ...

The law of the land says *abortion* is legal ....

So as the law stands *abortion* is not *murder*


Those against abortion and an woman's free choice use the word

*murder* to gain more emotional impact on their stance.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Give that lady 5 stars...excellent diatribe I hope it goes viral.

a reply to: eletheia

It was legal to kill Mormons in missouri. Was that not murder?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Let me make my position clear: I would rather be a foster child than dead.

You have to first exist to know if you would rather not be dead.

If I was pregnant now with no means of bringing up a child I would

have an abortion rather than let my child be adopted or go into

a foster home.

I have seen too many documentaries and read too much about

these places to wish them on any child least of all one who would

have been mine. You will need to have been deaf and blind not to

know they are breeding grounds for abuse and peadophiles.


# Disclaimer /Not to knock the very few good homes there may be.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Care to answer my questions on page one?.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: eletheia
It was legal to kill Mormons in missouri. Was that not murder?

Its not really anything I know about ... However bottom line seems

it was within the law That would make it LEGAL same as abortion

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
Too bad that most hospitals will not allow you to get sterilized unless it will benefit your health, or you're in your later years.

My mom was sterilized at 27 because both my youngest brother and my sister were born prematurely and almost died.
My mom getting pregnant again would cause problems to not only her health, but the would be childs health.


My cousin is 31 and wants to get sterilized but they won't let her because she's had 5 healthy kids, and it poses no threat to her or a child if she got pregnant again.


... I would go and get sterilized tomorrow if I could. Hormonal birth control whacks out the body. But I'd rather whack out my body than have a child at 22.

I would support this wholeheartedly. I wish I could change it. You should be sterilized if that is what you want.

I understand why it's like that though, young minds change as they get older. People change, people want different things as they get older. And sterilization is not easily reversed.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Let me make my position clear: I would rather be a foster child than dead.

You have to first exist to know if you would rather not be dead.

If I was pregnant now with no means of bringing up a child I would

have an abortion rather than let my child be adopted or go into

a foster home.

I have seen too many documentaries and read too much about

these places to wish them on any child least of all one who would

have been mine. You will need to have been deaf and blind not to

know they are breeding grounds for abuse and peadophiles.


# Disclaimer /Not to knock the very few good homes there may be.

Mhm. What people don't understand is that foster families get extra money from the government to house these children. And believe it or not, some of these people don't want more kids. They want the money. They clean up real nice for home visits and then destroy these kids.


Not saying all foster families are like this. But a lot are.