STUNNING and DISGUSTING - 44 Democrats Vote to Support POST BIRTH Abortion-Murders.

a reply to: dawnstar

I'm commenting on the fact that they voted against a law, most of them actually support, for pure political reasons and the nature of what they voted against.

Even though laws exist, why exactly would a person vote against this one? I can only think of two reasons. Politics or they actually are for euthanizing less than perfect or unwanted infants. It's pure politics. Had someone from the Left put the same law up for a vote, they would have voted the other way.

Human life being a wedge issue used by both parties should piss us all off. We are easily controlled and used though.

I'll leave this to those who drank the Kool-Aid to bicker over. Divide to control has been the tool of control since the first medicine man said we have to kill that tribe over the hill or they will eat all our food.

I fail to understand the controversy. If it is acceptable to kill a baby, does it truly matter when it happens? In the womb by a doctor or smacked with a hammer between they eyes while breast feeding? There is no difference.

a reply to: Blaine91555

it a law that does not treat ALL infants equally, I don't believe.
the same actions done by a doctor will lead to the possibility of different consequences depending on how the infant came into the world.
I really think that this would go against the 2002 law.

This is such a contrived "debate" anyhow. I haven't even looked into it but I'm sure this entire issue was artificially forced. Probably by ignorant pro-lifers.

And I'm not even really a left winger. Just someone who lives in the real world. According to pro-lifers you're a murderer if you flush a tissue after you jack off. These are not reasonable or sane people and they'll resort to any kind of underhanded nonsense to try and make their case.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

So murder is okay. Good to know. By that reasoning you better not complain if someone murders one of your family. Geesh the low functioning level of some people just doesnt surprise me anymore. Its a rampant problem and you just hope they Darwin themselves sooner rather than later.

originally posted by: BoscoMoney
a reply to: BrianFlanders

So murder is okay. Good to know. By that reasoning you better not complain if someone murders one of your family. Geesh the low functioning level of some people just doesnt surprise me anymore. Its a rampant problem and you just hope they Darwin themselves sooner rather than later.

Have you actually read what was being proposed? It is just republicans using stupid catch phrases and words to manipulate the gullible. Infanticide is already illegal and this bill is just republicans trying to dictate what women can or can not do with their bodies.

Answer me this, if your side truly cares about the life of the child then why do you guys stop caring once the child is born? Are you guys willing to take in the unwanted child?

The procedure they are talking about is so rare that it does not deserve a bill of it's own.

originally posted by: BoscoMoney
a reply to: BrianFlanders

So murder is okay. Good to know.

Strawman much? Again, that's this whole thread in a nutshell. Strawman. The actual argument is really about abortion. Not just the most problematic abortions. They're really just trying to get the whole abortion argument going again because they think they're going to reverse RVW. Won't happen. But if it does, all it's going to do is pollute the gene pool even further with all the genetic garbage that should have been aborted and wasn't. It's not like the world really needs more of that now is it?

But hey. Maybe if they reverse legal abortion that will up the incentive to criminalize irresponsible breeding behavior in other ways. I'm all for that. If we could so much as get a huge birth tax I'd be all for that. Maybe force stupid people who have kids to go to parenting school and grade them on the results of their parenting and punish them if they screw it up. I'd be all for that too. If you're going to force a moron to give birth, you can't be too surprised when the results are garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. If their mental state is such that they're considering an abortion in the first place, it's probably a really bad idea to intervene and second guess it.

You know? I mean if someone who doesn't have a job has 3 kids it would probably be a good idea to give them an IQ test. Not that it wasn't obvious in the first place. But you know. Just to put some framework in place to get stuff done and establish the fact that what they're doing is wrong.

EDIT - And BTW - I don't care what you think of me. But FWIW, I actually do care about people. I just care about them when they grow up and actually become sentient instead of some squealing little slug that isn't even as intelligent as the family dog. You know? It bothers me when people are born to parents who suck and they end up freezing to death on a sidewalk because Republicans blame them for their own miserable existence.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
This is such a contrived "debate" anyhow. I haven't even looked into it but I'm sure this entire issue was artificially forced.

It is.

The number of babies alive after abortion seems to be almost zero. The only doctor to cause the death of a baby born alive was prosecuted (this was years ago before any of these bills) and jailed for murder.

Here's an article on this with links to public data sites It's from 2013, but I'm certain it hasn't changed in the past 6 years.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
But hey. Maybe if they reverse legal abortion that will up the incentive to criminalize irresponsible breeding behavior in other ways. I'm all for that. If we could so much as get a huge birth tax I'd be all for that.

It's an interesting idea, but given the resistance to wearing condoms and getting vasectomies, I don't see this happening... and a birth tax would victimize women who didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
But hey. Maybe if they reverse legal abortion that will up the incentive to criminalize irresponsible breeding behavior in other ways. I'm all for that. If we could so much as get a huge birth tax I'd be all for that.

It's an interesting idea, but given the resistance to wearing condoms and getting vasectomies, I don't see this happening... and a birth tax would victimize women who didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

Wha!!! You lost me there. Are you serious? Please expand on this response because it takes 2 to tango as you know and a 'woman' can always say no or 'use protection' if they don't want to get pregnant. Or perhaps the woman might employ protection even to the extent of buying condoms herself. It is also a woman's descision.

Crikey

Bally

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
But hey. Maybe if they reverse legal abortion that will up the incentive to criminalize irresponsible breeding behavior in other ways. I'm all for that. If we could so much as get a huge birth tax I'd be all for that.

It's an interesting idea, but given the resistance to wearing condoms and getting vasectomies, I don't see this happening...

The way I see it, the real resistance is to anal sex.

(Colons don't get pregnant)

and a birth tax would victimize women who didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

But seriously. I'm all for mandatory spaying and neutering too. Just sterilize everybody and then you'll really save the damn planet from humans.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

The way I see it, the real resistance is to anal sex.

Ya, the way I see that is that the guys can do that with their buddies and just leave the women in the kitchen baking them cookies!!!

Reading crap like this makes my want to say...
I really wish that all women, especially the wives of men holding high office would just go a year or so saying no to any sex, unless of course, they want to have a child. Give the men what they seem to think they want!! women, not having sex, unless it's for reproduction purposes.

originally posted by: bally001

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
But hey. Maybe if they reverse legal abortion that will up the incentive to criminalize irresponsible breeding behavior in other ways. I'm all for that. If we could so much as get a huge birth tax I'd be all for that.

It's an interesting idea, but given the resistance to wearing condoms and getting vasectomies, I don't see this happening... and a birth tax would victimize women who didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

Wha!!! You lost me there. Are you serious? Please expand on this response because it takes 2 to tango as you know and a 'woman' can always say no or 'use protection' if they don't want to get pregnant. Or perhaps the woman might employ protection even to the extent of buying condoms herself. It is also a woman's descision.

Crikey

Bally

Okay... bear with me and I'll show you the woman's view of this (speaking as a woman):

* birth control pills are expensive and if you don't need them, there's no reason to be constantly taking the medication. She might not be able to afford birth control on top of her other expenses.
* birth control pills aren't instant. You have to be taking them 7 to 14 days before they're effective
* birth control pills may have side effects that range from mild to OMG!HeartAttack!
* the "morning after" pill is hard to get and has unpleasant effects (oh yay... here comes the period again)
* IUD ...again, somewhat expensive and a doctor has to insert. They're suitable for monogamous situations --but again, the woman has to be planning on having sex.
* the sponge - Less effective if the woman has given birth. You have to interrupt the flow of lovemaking to wait while the sponge is correctly positioned and spermicide cream applied. Now... this may not be a real problem but it does take longer than rolling on a condom. More info on sponge birth control
* getting your tubes tied (I had this one)... requires abdominal surgery, several weeks of recovery (it wasn't fun.)
* shot/patch/ring - same sort of thing as with the pill... works BUT it's not instant, so she has to be planning on having sex.

Concise summary of birth control options

Now -- culturally, women are trained to not be actively on the prowl for one night stands -- there's a lot of negativity towards women who have frequent sex and many sex partners. So we don't get on birth control once we become fertile and we don't continue it or use it unless we're in a long-term relationship.

The problem is that sex... well, it feels good and it happens. And a lot of times sex happens and everyone regrets it later (hook up at a bar or a party or otherwise and later go "oh nope.") Women don't start out a month saying "I think I'm going to find someone and have sex this month" and start doing birth control.

As to the woman buying a condom... it's not something we typically carry. Men seem to find it weird if we show up with a condom and a lot of them react negatively if we tell them we want them to wear a condom. (it's different if the guy shows up with it.)

So ... I hope this gives you some insight on the gender differences in the approach to birth control.

originally posted by: bally001

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
But hey. Maybe if they reverse legal abortion that will up the incentive to criminalize irresponsible breeding behavior in other ways. I'm all for that. If we could so much as get a huge birth tax I'd be all for that.

It's an interesting idea, but given the resistance to wearing condoms and getting vasectomies, I don't see this happening... and a birth tax would victimize women who didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

Wha!!! You lost me there. Are you serious? Please expand on this response because it takes 2 to tango as you know and a 'woman' can always say no or 'use protection' if they don't want to get pregnant. Or perhaps the woman might employ protection even to the extent of buying condoms herself. It is also a woman's descision.

Crikey

Bally

Also, you seem to be assuming that all sex is consensual. It isn't, sadly.

No woman wakes up one month and says to herself "I think I'd like to get raped this month" and starts herself on birth control.

Besides men should have just as much concern over weather or not their actions results in a pregnancy. If they don't want to be a daddy, they should be doing what they can to prevent it and not trusting the women to... Especially if they are of the type that think that the women are lying about using birth control or looking to trap someone in the child support help.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: BrianFlanders

The way I see it, the real resistance is to anal sex.

Ya, the way I see that is that the guys can do that with their buddies and just leave the women in the kitchen baking them cookies!!!

And the way I see it, if women want to have sex with a piece of rubber, they can do that without a man. If they really want to have sex for fun and not get pregnant, there are many ways to do that. Condoms are one of them but honestly, having sex with a condom is having sex with a condom. You don't need a woman for that.

And I'm cool with that too. If every single man in existence would swear off actual sex and just masturbate for the rest of his life, I'd be totally fine with that. It's all the same to me because I'm really just all about population control. I don't particularly care how you go about making redundant babies not happen as long as they don't happen. I merely suggested an alternative for 100% pregnancy free sex without any guessing games or complicated scheduling, pills, latex. Whatever. Oral sex works too. Whatever. Humans have thinking brains and we're (supposed to be) intelligent and creative. We're not dogs. We can have sex and not make babies if we choose to. It ain't rocket science. Humans can have sex and not make babies to such an extent that abortion is never even necessary.

I mean, really. The entire argument would be entirely unnecessary if people weren't just utterly irresponsible and reckless and just plain thoughtless, sociopathic baby factories. Think about that. As a species, we have absolutely no mechanisms in place to discourage homeless people from having 5 kids. I mean, other than the fact that a homeless man is probably going to be utterly unattractive to any woman. If homeless people can get laid, they can have babies and nobody cares. Until the baby grows up and starts murdering people or crapping on the sidewalk and/or just generally becomes an unemployed two-legged pest. Do we really not have enough of those?

And in fact, we actually encourage this train wreck style recklessness as a society. Most people just plain don't care. Well, when I see people sleeping on park benches in the cold and I see anti-abortion activists protesting abortion 30 feet away, I wonder WTF is wrong with these people. Seriously. If you're pro-life, go find someone who is alive and needs your help and help them live. Stop making things worse. That's the most pro-life thing you can ever do.

That's what I have to say to people who are "pro-life". You're pro-life? Awesome! Go adopt a few homeless people and let me know of you still think reckless reproduction is a good idea in 20 years from now. You want to nurture? Awesome! Nurture people who are already here! You can find them in any big city in the world, most likely. If they haven't already frozen to death. If you live within a couple of hours of any major city you can drive down there and come back with your own drug addicted two-legged puppy to love and protect and feed and water. Most likely they won't argue with you on your pro-lifeness.

I really wish that all women, especially the wives of men holding high office would just go a year or so saying no to any sex, unless of course, they want to have a child.

I really wish that at least 50% of women who want a child would just buy a puppy. That's what they really want anyway. Just a piece of biological furniture to adorn their house with and occupy their time feeding and watering. Hell. Buy some houseplants. At least you can't screw that up any worse than if the plants die and you need to go buy more.

Give the men what they seem to think they want!! women, not having sex, unless it's for reproduction purposes.

Really, it's pretty messed up that you come to a thread like this just to complain about that. It isn't even the point. I agree that horny men who don't care about the consequences of sex obviously play their role in this mess. No one is arguing that. The point is that we'd all be better off if people were having sex just for the pure hell of it but doing it in a way that does not result in unnecessary (and in many cases, unwanted) people. It doesn't matter if you have a man and a woman who are married and have good jobs and do whatever they can to give their kids every benefit and advantage and chance. The odds are still 50% that something is going to go wrong with at least one of their kids (and no one wants just one) and it's going to end up being a disaster. On a planet with 7 billion and many who are actually starving. There are people who are eating dirt to live. Literally. And the infuriating thing about it is their parents are not stupid. Well, maybe they're kind of stupid but they're not that stupid. Cause and effect is something that any human capable of tying their shoes should be capable of understanding. Right?

"Let's see. Why are my kids doomed to this miserable existence? What did I do wrong? Oh. You know. I probably should have asked myself what I was going to feed them. That would have been a start! It's too bad I didn't take it up the butt instead. Maybe I'd have something to eat myself if my kids weren't eating everything I have. Give me government money to feed my kids! Just look at them! Poor them!"

I'm sure Alex Jones was on Joe Rogan saying they want to keep the baby's alive to sell body parts, amongst other crazy talk, not for the faint hearted

a reply to: BrianFlanders

my, aren't you the joyful sort!! what, you trying to win the most miserable man in the world award or something??

frankly, I wish those who want kids would journey down to the local foster care agency and take in a couple of those kids, but well... they ain't gonna do that and more than likely, a puppy wouldn't satisfy them either.

Humans can have sex and not make babies to such an extent that abortion is never even necessary.

even if we eliminated all the unwanted pregnancies in the world, there would still be a need for abortion!!

Really, it's pretty messed up that you come to a thread like this just to complain about that.

really?? it's messed up that I am saying women should just say no to having sex if they don't want kids for awhile, since well.. that is what the right wing, pro-life folks are saying they should do..
but you saying that they should submit to what quite honestly IS PAINFUL sex, for their man's enjoyment isn't mess up???


no birth control method is 100%.
far too many seem to think what you expressed in your post... that if only we could eliminate the unwanted pregnancies we'd never see another abortion, we could ban them for good!! only, there are real medical justifications for abortions, you eliminate them, you will be sentencing women to death!!
so, since there is only one way you can be 100% sure that you will not get pregnant--abstinence-- and those pro-lfe people are working so hard to make it more and more difficult to obtain an abortion, even griping about those exemptions that are there to protect the women's health and life...
well, maybe it's time to take their advice, and JUST SAY NO!! if they have to have their sex that bad, let them buy it at the local whorehouse I guess. of course, it would be nice if the sex workers went along with this also though, but that is probably asking too much... heck it's asking too much anyways, since many women wouldn't want to go without either.
but it is probably the fastest way to get them to stop pitching that line of "well if you don't want to have a baby, don't have the sex" bit.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: BrianFlanders
really?? it's messed up that I am saying women should just say no to having sex if they don't want kids for awhile, since well.. that is what the right wing, pro-life folks are saying they should do..
but you saying that they should submit to what quite honestly IS PAINFUL sex, for their man's enjoyment isn't mess up???

No. I am not saying that. You're not listening. I'm saying I don't really care how you make responsible breeding behavior your policy as long as you do.

Also, I am a bi male so I know exactly what anal sex feels like and it's not bad. Couldn't be as painful as giving birth. But I wouldn't know for sure because (like I said) I'm a male. But women say giving birth is analogous to "pooping a watermelon". I've never pooped a watermelon and I've never given birth but I've done anal sex on the receiving end and I did not feel like I was pooping a watermelon so as far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied that anal sex is safe and effective in preventing pregnancy pretty much entirely. Now if you don't enjoy anal sex, there's still an entire world of alternatives out there that don't involve ending up pregnant (or greatly reducing the likelihood of such).

But anyway, yeah. Back to abortion. Just keep abortion legal and it bypasses this whole silly argument. But it's not hard to not get pregnant either. By the same token, it's not hard to not get someone pregnant. I'm not really taking the male POV 100% here. I'm saying that if a man and a woman have sex and neither or them take any action to prevent a pregnancy, I don't even really care which one is to blame. They're both to blame if they both knew there was no protection and it was fully consensual. It just plain doesn't matter. Playing the gender game just obscures the fact that ONE person can change the outcome of a maneuver that takes TWO people in full cooperation to complete. If either one of them puts on the brakes, it doesn't happen. So all this "Should have worn a condom or should have been on the pill" is an irritating sabotage of the real point from BOTH parties.

far too many seem to think what you expressed in your post... that if only we could eliminate the unwanted pregnancies we'd never see another abortion, we could ban them for good!!

But that's not really what I said. I don't want abortion to be banned at all. I think there should be MORE abortions and that they should be 100% free and even encouraged in any case where there's the slightest bit of doubt.

What I said was that if people even bothered to try to be responsible, it wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is. Yes. Of course abortion would still happen. The point is that everyone seems to be making excuses for everything. It's pretty damn hard for pregnancy to be a complete accident or surprise when really you think about it. This is not from a conservative viewpoint. This is from a common sense viewpoint. People who accidentally make pregnancy happen are not the brightest people in the world. But I'm OK with that as long as abortion is legal and not discouraged or frowned upon or whatever. I say let people make their mistakes. But if someone wants to ban abortion, they need to have a plan about what we're going to do instead. They need to be doing more than just trying to ban abortion if they're telling me they're "pro-life". To that, I say "Oh yeah? You're pro-life? You see that guy on the corner begging for change? He's alive but he needs help. Make yourself useful and help him and keep doing that until there aren't anymore people who need help. Then you can tell me abortion is murder".

only, there are real medical justifications for abortions, you eliminate them, you will be sentencing women to death!!

I think you must have misinterpreted my posts. Like I keep saying. I'm not against abortion. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am just taking the all-encompassing view that "Whatever happens, someone is going to be upset about it". And also, I think that whatever happens, I have no control over it. If they decide to ban abortion I will have to go from there. From there, I say that the "pro-life" people are going to have to be a lot more pro-life than they have been or we're going to have a big problem.

Really, TBH I think the anti-abortion people are nuts but my having a low opinion of them won't stop them from being what they are and trying to get what they want. The problem is that some of them also have nonsensical views on birth control as well. So they don't believe in abortion but they also don't believe in birth control. They're just taking an absurd position that sex shouldn't even happen at all. I agree with you on that. It is absurd to expect complete abstinence. I never liked religion to start with and I strongly disagree with them on this.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
I'm sure Alex Jones was on Joe Rogan saying they want to keep the baby's alive to sell body parts, amongst other crazy talk, not for the faint hearted

Well, Alex Jones is Alex Jones but there might actually be a grain of truth to that. The people who run the world do have a vested interest in having as many people under their control as they can get. To them, you're just another tax cow. If you never existed they wouldn't be able to use you in any fashion and that is demonstrably contrary to their needs and wishes. This is why the battle for raising taxes never ends. You don't need to raise taxes unless you're not getting enough loot with the current tax rate. A way to get more tax loot without raising taxes is to have more people. If you don't care about them or what kind of living circumstances they have to endure, you accomplished your goal if they exist and they're putting resources (and money) into your scheme.