Abortion and Responsibilties That Follow

originally posted by: beezzer

Embrace the label.

I don't quite understand why you are resorting to ad hominem attacks and labeling.

My OP was merely asking the Pro-life group that strongly support their cause what they are willing to do for children that are born with no parents.

I worked in law enforcement for a number of years in the Detroit area, and saw countless children that were discarded, abused, and lost in a system that didn't seem to give a crap about them, but when it came down to money people would take them in just for that. (Foster care)

I never saw the pro-life groups that protested, in front of abortion clinics, take that precious time they spent making signs, picking, ranting and volunteer at the local orphanage, or foster care center.

Many times we are so blinded by agenda's the little people suffer.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: EternalSolace

and yet, no man will ever risk losing their eyesight, or life, because of a sexual act...

I would think that'd be incentive enough for a woman to take it that much more seriously. And any man that's worth anything would take into consideration if they weren't out for just a little fun.

a reply to: introvert
personally I agree with you, but well you have to admit, my idea would decrease the number of abortions considerably, probably much more than any conservative idea out there. since even if they ban them there will still be an awful number of abortions going on, only the only evidence we will see probably are the dead women.

a reply to: beezzer

7 pages in as of this post and you still have not answered the question asked many times.
you really are reaching too.

someone is ok with abortion so they OBVIOUSLY are cool with murdering people(that have actually bee born) and with keeping slaves.

for that i give you another
bwuahahahahah

a reply to: Realtruth
actual, I've met some that would fit you bill, although they were usually too busy to stand around protesting anywhere. instead they would kind of adopt a women who was considering abortion and well, help them all they could, give them rides to the doctors, help with finances when they needed it, heck they are probably still in these women's lives.

but then you can't do all that and still be politically heard too well can you?

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: beezzer

Embrace the label.

I don't quite understand why you are resorting to ad hominem attacks and labeling.

My OP was merely asking the Pro-life group that strongly support their cause what they are willing to do for children that are born with no parents.

I worked in law enforcement for a number of years in the Detroit area, and saw countless children that were discarded, abused, and lost in a system that didn't seem to give a crap about them, but when it came down to money people would take them in just for that. (Foster care)

I never saw the pro-life groups that protested, in front of abortion clinics, take that precious time they spent making signs, picking, ranting and volunteer at the local orphanage, or foster care center.

Many times we are so blinded by agenda's the little people suffer.

It's not about the children, it never was.

It's about power, and the assertion of it.

It's about the ability to get up on the moral soapbox and point the finger at people and degrade them and curse them.

It's about feeling like you're morally (and by proxy empirically) superior to someone else.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

If two adults aren't prepared to take on the responsibility of raising a child, then they shouldn't be having sex.

Source

Seattle public high schools and middle schools are now providing an invasive form of birth control to girls, starting at age 11.

Thirteen schools are participating in the state-administered program, which allows sixth-graders access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) without parental consent. Girls can have an intrauterine device (IUD) implanted while they're at school at no cost.

A spokeswoman for Washington's "Take Charge" program said, "...a young person does not need parental consent to obtain a LARC or any other contraceptive method. ... If the young person is not choosing abstinence, she would be able to select a LARC and have it inserted without parental consent."

Critics point out that public school students in Seattle are not allowed to buy a soda or a candy bar at school, but are now allowed access to contraceptives.

Apparently we are not just talking adults here. This news makes it clear that children are having sex at a much younger age. Can these children make the decisions required to be responsible for their actions?

Personally, I am appalled at this being necessary, much less without the parents consent. When in God's name did it become acceptable for children as young as 11 to not choose abstinence? What of those not using any type of protection? Should they be having children at this age?

Would an abortion be appropriate in this instance?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: EternalSolace

and yet, no man will ever risk losing their eyesight, or life, because of a sexual act...

Not true I was whipped with a bullwhip once and let it happen because one thought of getting ones end away.

a reply to: beezzer

dude you are seriously malfunctioning or something.

you seem to be the only one getting uptight.
everyone else has answered questions asked of them....not you though.

you keep accusing people of being ok with murder and slavery and # when its not true.

youre acting like a big ass cry baby dude.
let me guess....."sooooooo...you love murder and hate emancipation"

right?

a reply to: EternalSolace
well the women who lost her eyesight the problem wasn't detected until after she became pregnant...and well, although she will never actually see here children grow up or her grandchildren, I believe she won a million or so in a lawsuit in the european courts as a result of being denied an abortion by the polish legal system.

and well, we just won't discuss the young girls that occasionally pop up in latin america some as young as nine years old who ended up pregant through incest. right?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Realtruth
actual, I've met some that would fit you bill, although they were usually too busy to stand around protesting anywhere. instead they would kind of adopt a women who was considering abortion and well, help them all they could, give them rides to the doctors, help with finances when they needed it, heck they are probably still in these women's lives.

but then you can't do all that and still be politically heard too well can you?

Dawnstar I have met some of those people too, but they are a rare breed, and we the world needs more of them.

a reply to: EternalSolace

first, for like the billionth time, abortion is not murder. so, there is that.

second, why should i(or anyone else) be forced to take care of anyone

a reply to: Mugly

That's another thing I fail to understand the contradiction in: Pro-life through abortion. Pro-death through penal system.

They're not even in the same ballpark. Can an innocent baby (fetus) be compared with a violent offender.


*Disclaimer* I'm open minded enough to listen to the possibility of a contradiction...

originally posted by: retiredTxn

Personally, I am appalled at this being necessary, much less without the parents consent. When in God's name did it become acceptable for children as young as 11 to not choose abstinence? What of those not using any type of protection? Should they be having children at this age?

Would an abortion be appropriate in this instance?

Wow you just opened up another huge can of worms I was going to include in my OP, but decide not to. I personally don't have an answer for this one, but you are correct many young children are having sex, and babies at a young age.

a reply to: Realtruth

What's your solution, other than murder?

It seems that anyone who thinks aborting unborn babies is evil according to so many here.

Fine. I'll wear that label. I'm not ashamed to be against abortion.

But all I'm seeing as solutions on the pro-death side is killing.

Whenever this issue comes up I always compare it to other issues.

Currently there are thousands of illegal immigrant children crossing the border each month and I read constantly on these threads that the US can't take care of them without destroying our society.

Now I don't know if that is true or not, but I am not trying to argue with the premise. It is just that if a few thousand of unwanted children can destroy this country according to some how do they think a few million extra unwanted children from unwanted pregnancies would be different?

Is it too much to ask for some consistency?

a reply to: retiredTxn

it is not acceptable for 11 year olds to be having sex.
but, they do.
this is nothing new.

also, i was clear on this issue of kids/teens having sex long before this article...
you just figured this out now?

a reply to: Mugly

The only way to say that it's not murder is to deny that a fetus is a life.

That's what this whole argument boils down to. Does a fetus constitute life? If not, when does a fetus transition into life?


If one isn't responsible enough to accept the potential consequences of having sex, then one should be required to support a potential child. And since a mother or father can be hit up for child support for eighteen years, I'm sure the state can do the same thing if the child is given up.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Realtruth

What's your solution, other than murder?

my solution?
safe, legal abortions performed by qualified doctors.

now, what is your solution other than abortion?
*chirping*

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Mugly

The only way to say that it's not murder is to deny that a fetus is a life.

That's what this whole argument boils down to. Does a fetus constitute life? If not, when does a fetus transition into life?

i can only answer that for myself.
i dont have it pinned down to the day that i can actually call it a life.

i know damn sure i dont consider it life on day 1.