BF2S Forums Wave of anti-abortion Bills sweeps US

you anti abortion nuts sound like the fucking taliban

There's a damn surplus population happening. I could be driving a car right now if we could get it down a billion or so and fuel prices fell. Not to mention decreasing, nay! Ending world hunger...

Pro lifers make me sick.

DrunkFace wrote:

jord wrote:

There's a damn surplus population happening. I could be driving a car right now if we could get it down a billion or so and fuel prices fell. Not to mention decreasing, nay! Ending world hunger...

Pro lifers make me sick.

Or you could try to use technological advances instead.

The environmental impact of our rising population would still be there.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio … popu12.htm

Macbeth wrote:

That's a nice story and all but we both know the amount of crack babies who don't end up in stable households far outweigh the ones that do. I don't see the point in a story of how less than 1% of crack babies got lucky.

Exactly the point.  Good foster parents lead to good children.  Therefore...why not support the system that provides good foster parents? Seems like that if you are dead set in that most adoptions are a failure, did you ever stop and figure out why most adoptions are a failure and then take the next logical leap on addressing THAT problem?

Macbeth wrote:

I once was asked for money by a homeless lady who was obviously a drug addict. I talked to her for a little while after I gave her two dollars. She claimed she was pregnant and had HIV. What possible good would it do the child or the world for it to be born? She wasn't raped, she claimed she had gotten pregnant by being a prostitute, so she couldn't get an abortion if we drew the line at "only in cases of rape and incest". Would you deny her abortion knowing the child would come out with HIV and addicted to drugs?

I'm not against OTHER people getting abortions.  I'm saying they ought to understand the situation.  Second, you DON'T give money to the beggar.  You bring them somewhere for help or donate money to an organization which is actively involved in improving their situation...assuming their overhead expenses don't take a large chunk of what you donate.

Macbeth wrote:

I'm okay with a woman getting counseling if she needs it but it's obvious the bills up for debate aren't about getting woman help, they are about stopping abortion no matter the cost.

I never argued that point. In fact, I said it's not worth pissing off half the population, despite how I feel about the issue.

Macbeth wrote:

I'm assuming you mean no abortion, but we (the government) makes sure that she is comfortable, etc. No. Once the woman see's the child after it's born or goes through the bonding process of pregnancy and all that jazz to separate her from the child would cause unneeded psychological harm.

The plan also fails when it comes to the monetary side of the issue...

I never said that OTHER people can't get an abortion.  I'm saying the alternatives suck and should be better.  And if you read closely...I didn't say there wasn't challenges to the so-to-be mother.  I said that IF the mother could be provided enough support to make it worthwhile, why not support the effort?

Macbeth wrote:

I'm sorry to cut up the post like that, could you just respond to everything in one post? I hate quote trees and arguing 20 different things at once because of them.

Tough shit.  lol

no we don't.  we also don't need more crack whores and less hiv as well.

members of society.  lol

ghettoperson wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

You still have all of those other cost that come from unwanted children that make a one time abortion cheaper than the alt.

Why do you automatically assume that the only options are abortion or a lifetime of welfare?

Your analysis is flawed.

Reform of the adoption laws (particularly post-adoption) of this nation and foster-to-adopt would greatly reduce the number of kids in the foster system (our version of orphanages) and match them to waiting families, many of whom are hesitant to adopt due to adoption laws here that allow the birth family to "change their mind" at nearly any point after the adoption, as well as a court system that forces contact with birth families that are not in the best interest of the child or their new families. (run-on sentence ftw)

Fix that and you have a VERY good option to abortion and a lifetime of welfare. Slightly more expensive than the former, much less expensive than the latter, but doesn't involve the possibility of killing a growing fetus for convenience's sake.

That doesn't mean abortion as a medical option should be outlawed. That's just insane.

The number of horror stories I've heard about the families adopted children go to live with suggest to me that giving a child up for adoption is not as perfect as a solution as pro-life activists would have you believe.

1. Not a pro-life activist. By any stretch.

2. I've heard far more horror stories about the foster programs than about adoption. There are far more checks in the system there than there are in the foster system--which many people use as a way to get money from the state, rather than a way to help take care of kids who need a home. Having been through the adoption system as an adoptive parent, I've got first-hand experience.

Stingray24 wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

you anti abortion nuts sound like the fucking taliban

The taliban are anti-abortion?  Who knew?  Least we're not on the side of dismembering the most helpless members of our society for profit.

Take a clever pill.

Jay wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Why do you automatically assume that the only options are abortion or a lifetime of welfare?

Your analysis is flawed.

Reform of the adoption laws (particularly post-adoption) of this nation and foster-to-adopt would greatly reduce the number of kids in the foster system (our version of orphanages) and match them to waiting families, many of whom are hesitant to adopt due to adoption laws here that allow the birth family to "change their mind" at nearly any point after the adoption, as well as a court system that forces contact with birth families that are not in the best interest of the child or their new families. (run-on sentence ftw)

Fix that and you have a VERY good option to abortion and a lifetime of welfare. Slightly more expensive than the former, much less expensive than the latter, but doesn't involve the possibility of killing a growing fetus for convenience's sake.

That doesn't mean abortion as a medical option should be outlawed. That's just insane.

The number of horror stories I've heard about the families adopted children go to live with suggest to me that giving a child up for adoption is not as perfect as a solution as pro-life activists would have you believe.

They're a bunch of hypocrites. Almost none of them would ever adopt a child yet they magically assume that millions of kids would find homes every year. Next time a right to life turd starts going on and on about adoption being a viable solution just ask him how many kids he's adopted.

You absolutely make sense here. For me, I am not pro life. I am neutral leaning toward pro- abortion, not for morality reasons, but for intrusion by the govt. reasons. the govt. should have no right to decide what a woman should do. Having said that, I also do not agree that abortion should be used as a form of birth control. Trust me, there should be counseling offered and a time for pause before the procedure. Counseling and pause mandatory with the decision for the procedure ultimately left  up to the woman.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 18:13:31)

I am pro-life not entirely because of moral reasons, but because I am happy to be alive. The fact that aborting a child means she/he doesn't have a chance at life is wrong. Every human, fetus or not, deserves at least 1 chance at life.

ghettoperson wrote:

I think calling a fetus a member of society is pushing it a little far.

More like you are too uncomfortable to admit a fetus is a life form.

War Man wrote:

I am pro-life not entirely because of moral reasons, but because I am happy to be alive. The fact that aborting a child means she/he doesn't have a chance at life is wrong. Every human, fetus or not, deserves at least 1 chance at life.

ghettoperson wrote:

I think calling a fetus a member of society is pushing it a little far.

More like you are too uncomfortable to admit a fetus is a life form.

Would you opinion hold true on pregnancies due to rape, or pregnancies whee the fetus has been diagnosed with a life crippling disease?

In other words, is your opinion absolute?

Let me say I am not trying to corner you or anything,  I was just curious how far your opinion went?

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 19:11:52)

Yes, not the child's fault his dad was/is a sick fuck.

War Man wrote:

Yes, not the child's fault his dad was/is a sick fuck.

wow, didn't really expect that. So you can honestly say if your wife were raped and became pregnant from the rapist you would have her keep the baby and raise it as your own? Or if you were told your baby was going to be born deformed or mentally incapacitated, you would still keep him or her? These are standards you would keep for yourself as well?