Stop abortion. Overturn Roe v. Wade.

[tsalagi1]

I'm pretty torn on this issue. Call me undecided.

Do you think each state should decide?

Yes.

And allow me to introduce this term into the conversation among progressives who talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the abortion issue.


Marriage.

Marriage is the best method to reduce the number of abortions down to as low a number as possible.

It can't work that way Philly...due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution we both hold so dearly. What is allowed in one State must be allowed in another, otherwise Jim Crow Laws against blacks marrying whites would still be on the books.

Why would you assume marriage reduces abortions? This is news to me.

Because your progressive methods increases abortions .. while you give statistics and explain how abortion is so necessary on account of them while you claim you're personally opposed to it.

Of course marriage decreases abortions while shacking up and single mothers increase abortions. this is only common sense.

And marriage is never a solution for your progressives when it comes to abortion because of the religious implications involved with marriage.

I thought abortion which progressives like you covet was supposed to solve the country's social problems?

It's made them a lot worse.

I'm personally opposed to it Philly, because I'd never do it, but on the same token, you and I don't get to have be up on that ob/gyn table, nor will you ever get pregnant.

Just how does marriage decrease abortions?...They didn't in the old days,but I do know women that were forced to have child after child as a result of the Catholic Church saying that only the Rhythm method was approved by God.

Actually (1) I'm very religious, (2) in a long term monogamous relationship, and (3) Getting married would not prevent my wife from getting an abortion.

Just how does "marriage" reduce abortions...I'd be tickled to death to see how this would occur

Oh stop it ..how does marriage decrease abortion.

This is one of the more idiotic arguments you've ever tried making here.

What are you argunig for?

Screwing around?

Shacking up?

Having babies out of wedlock?

Yes .. that's exactly what you're arguing for while I point out your inability on purpose to mention the marriage option.

It's you progressives that created this mess in the first place and the fact that you can all discuss this subject so matter of factly only confirms it.

How does marriage decrease abortions...YOU made the statement...so go ahead, please tell me if I get my wife pregnant, she won't get an abortion.

Do married women with husbands tend to have fewer abortions than single women without husbands?

There's on averge, 3500 abortions taking place in America every single day.

Of this number, are the married women with husbands getting at least as many abortions as the single women?

And I don't know why I'm arguing this with you because this is one of .. if not THE most idiotic arguments you've ever attempted here.

How many women do you know of who get married to have abortions?

Let's see....at least 2 cousins, 1 sister-in-law for one? Are you under the assumption that just because a woman is married, it implies she'll never get an abortion?This has got to be your most idiotic argument to date.

[thoughtless]

So, once again, we see the dishonesty of the crowd that claims it's about "protecting the unborn", but in reality just wants to prevent women from having sex outside of marriage.

For the first few years after Roe v. Wade, in 1973, evangelicals didn't have a unified opinion on abortion, and most considered it a "Catholic" issue. It wasn't until the TV preachers (Falwell, Robertson, etc.) discovered that playing politics increased contributions, that abortion became an issue.

In fact, following the court ruling, W. Barry Garrett wrote in the the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court Decision."

Tell me thoughtless how I'm going to stop women from having sex outside of marriage?

Did you mention marriage as a means of severely curtailing the number of abortions occurring? No you didn't mention it and how does suggesting marriage as an anti abortion measure mean that women must give up their sex lives?



Please make the connection.

I've got no idea what you would do to stop women form having sex outside of marriage. I doubt that many women would appreciate your involvement in the matter.

I didn't mention marriage as a way of curtailing the number of abortions occurring, because it's none of my business whether a woman gets married or not.

Let me sum it up for you:

1) Whether a women has sex or not is for her to decide.
2) Whether a women gets married or not is for her to decide.
3) Whether a women practices birth control or not, is for her to decide.
4) Whether a woman gets an abortion or not, is for her to decide.

You're just going to have to learn to live with the fact that what a woman does with her body is none of your business.

No you're going to have to live with the fact that progressive liberals like you are responsible for this whole abortion debacle and pointing out that marriage isn't on the radar screen when a group of you gather together to discuss how to decrease abortion which it obviously is, only demonstrates that all of you lie at the root of the problem.

The thread is about the number of abortions taking place and why they are taking place by your response, Bond's response, and Tsal dude's response.

I identified a workable solution to the problem while pointing out who's at fault.

The same progressive liberals pretending they're searching for the solution while cheer leading the gruesome procedure and it's results at the same time.

You haven't identified a workable solution to anything.

You've stated that if women quit having sex out of wedlock, the abortion rate will go down.

OK, so lets assume that's true. How are you going to make women quit having sex out of wedlock, and how many amendments to the constitution will it require?

[tsalagi1]

yeah, just how would you stop women from having sex out of wedlock, and how would you force them to get married if it is your assertion that married women don't get abortions?

[philly rabbit]

So, once again, we see the dishonesty of the crowd that claims it's about "protecting the unborn", but in reality just wants to prevent women from having sex outside of marriage.

For the first few years after Roe v. Wade, in 1973, evangelicals didn't have a unified opinion on abortion, and most considered it a "Catholic" issue. It wasn't until the TV preachers (Falwell, Robertson, etc.) discovered that playing politics increased contributions, that abortion became an issue.

In fact, following the court ruling, W. Barry Garrett wrote in the the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court Decision."

Tell me thoughtless how I'm going to stop women from having sex outside of marriage?

Did you mention marriage as a means of severely curtailing the number of abortions occurring? No you didn't mention it and how does suggesting marriage as an anti abortion measure mean that women must give up their sex lives?



Please make the connection.

I've got no idea what you would do to stop women form having sex outside of marriage. I doubt that many women would appreciate your involvement in the matter.

I didn't mention marriage as a way of curtailing the number of abortions occurring, because it's none of my business whether a woman gets married or not.

Let me sum it up for you:

1) Whether a women has sex or not is for her to decide.
2) Whether a women gets married or not is for her to decide.
3) Whether a women practices birth control or not, is for her to decide.
4) Whether a woman gets an abortion or not, is for her to decide.

You're just going to have to learn to live with the fact that what a woman does with her body is none of your business.

No you're going to have to live with the fact that progressive liberals like you are responsible for this whole abortion debacle and pointing out that marriage isn't on the radar screen when a group of you gather together to discuss how to decrease abortion which it obviously is, only demonstrates that all of you lie at the root of the problem.

The thread is about the number of abortions taking place and why they are taking place by your response, Bond's response, and Tsal dude's response.

I identified a workable solution to the problem while pointing out who's at fault.

The same progressive liberals pretending they're searching for the solution while cheer leading the gruesome procedure and it's results at the same time.

You haven't identified a workable solution to anything.

You've stated that if women quit having sex out of wedlock, the abortion rate will go down.

OK, so lets assume that's true. How are you going to make women quit having sex out of wedlock, and how many amendments to the constitution will it require?

Is this thread supposed to be about reducing the number of abortions occurring regularly?


Now we had input from progressives like you. Input from progressives like Tsal dude with his stat chart demonstrating why it's necessary. And input from a generation xr featuring James Bond, the ultimate narcissist.

Then we had me including marriage which was the best common sense solution to the problem then we had you accusing me of wanting to make sex out of wedlock illegal for all women because I mentioned the religious vows of marriage.

I had the best response on the thread because my suggestion works but it also is getting the most scrutiny from progressive types like you.

Now everybody else try and figure out why.

[philly rabbit]

The white man makes up about 25% of the total population of the country. If you discount white male children, the figure drops to about 18-20%.


BUT ....and this is a big but, the white man also had this system throughout his western history that was designed to hold women down by suppressing her sexual impulses called marriage which included a lot of fairy tale male designed religion to justify it.

Now you don't have to go to college to try and figure out what progressive liberals are up to over abortion, now do you?

Everything white, everything western, and everything male has to go and that is why we must keep the abortion mills operating full tilt 24 / 7.

[tsalagi1]

So, once again, we see the dishonesty of the crowd that claims it's about "protecting the unborn", but in reality just wants to prevent women from having sex outside of marriage.

For the first few years after Roe v. Wade, in 1973, evangelicals didn't have a unified opinion on abortion, and most considered it a "Catholic" issue. It wasn't until the TV preachers (Falwell, Robertson, etc.) discovered that playing politics increased contributions, that abortion became an issue.

In fact, following the court ruling, W. Barry Garrett wrote in the the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court Decision."

Tell me thoughtless how I'm going to stop women from having sex outside of marriage?

Did you mention marriage as a means of severely curtailing the number of abortions occurring? No you didn't mention it and how does suggesting marriage as an anti abortion measure mean that women must give up their sex lives?



Please make the connection.

I've got no idea what you would do to stop women form having sex outside of marriage. I doubt that many women would appreciate your involvement in the matter.

I didn't mention marriage as a way of curtailing the number of abortions occurring, because it's none of my business whether a woman gets married or not.

Let me sum it up for you:

1) Whether a women has sex or not is for her to decide.
2) Whether a women gets married or not is for her to decide.
3) Whether a women practices birth control or not, is for her to decide.
4) Whether a woman gets an abortion or not, is for her to decide.

You're just going to have to learn to live with the fact that what a woman does with her body is none of your business.

No you're going to have to live with the fact that progressive liberals like you are responsible for this whole abortion debacle and pointing out that marriage isn't on the radar screen when a group of you gather together to discuss how to decrease abortion which it obviously is, only demonstrates that all of you lie at the root of the problem.

The thread is about the number of abortions taking place and why they are taking place by your response, Bond's response, and Tsal dude's response.

I identified a workable solution to the problem while pointing out who's at fault.

The same progressive liberals pretending they're searching for the solution while cheer leading the gruesome procedure and it's results at the same time.

You haven't identified a workable solution to anything.

You've stated that if women quit having sex out of wedlock, the abortion rate will go down.

OK, so lets assume that's true. How are you going to make women quit having sex out of wedlock, and how many amendments to the constitution will it require?

Is this thread supposed to be about reducing the number of abortions occurring regularly?


Now we had input from progressives like you. Input from progressives like Tsal dude with his stat chart demonstrating why it's necessary. And input from a generation xr featuring James Bond, the ultimate narcissist.

Then we had me including marriage which was the best common sense solution to the problem then we had you accusing me of wanting to make sex out of wedlock illegal for all women because I mentioned the religious vows of marriage.

I had the best response on the thread because my suggestion works but it also is getting the most scrutiny from progressive types like you.

Now everybody else try and figure out why.

How does marrying someone prevent a woman from getting an abortion, or are you under the assumption that married women won't get abortions if they get pregnant and discover they don't want to be?

Second, how would you force a woman to get married in order to prevent all these abortions you say would be prevented?

[tsalagi1]

The white man makes up about 25% of the total population of the country. If you discount white male children, the figure drops to about 18-20%.


BUT ....and this is a big but, the white man also had this system throughout his western history that was designed to hold women down by suppressing her sexual impulses called marriage which included a lot of fairy tale male designed religion to justify it.

Now you don't have to go to college to try and figure out what progressive liberals are up to over abortion, now do you?

Everything white, everything western, and everything male has to go and that is why we must keep the abortion mills operating full tilt 24 / 7.

marriage suppresses a woman's sexual impulses???

[patruth]

The white man makes up about 25% of the total population of the country. If you discount white male children, the figure drops to about 18-20%.


BUT ....and this is a big but, the white man also had this system throughout his western history that was designed to hold women down by suppressing her sexual impulses called marriage which included a lot of fairy tale male designed religion to justify it.

Now you don't have to go to college to try and figure out what progressive liberals are up to over abortion, now do you?

Everything white, everything western, and everything male has to go and that is why we must keep the abortion mills operating full tilt 24 / 7.

marriage suppresses a woman's sexual impulses???

Of course it does, any married man will tell you that.

[tsalagi1]

The white man makes up about 25% of the total population of the country. If you discount white male children, the figure drops to about 18-20%.


BUT ....and this is a big but, the white man also had this system throughout his western history that was designed to hold women down by suppressing her sexual impulses called marriage which included a lot of fairy tale male designed religion to justify it.

Now you don't have to go to college to try and figure out what progressive liberals are up to over abortion, now do you?

Everything white, everything western, and everything male has to go and that is why we must keep the abortion mills operating full tilt 24 / 7.

marriage suppresses a woman's sexual impulses???

Of course it does, any married man will tell you that.

Maybe in your marriage, my wife of over 25 years has made a point of finding every nook and cranny in the house we can get it on in. Maybe it has more to do with the man not keeping himself in the same shape he was when he married the woman? Rather hard to want to get it on with a man who gained 50lbs, no longer attends a gym, and sits on a couch watching WWE smackdown when he gets home.

[red state]

Let THEM kill their own babies and let those among us who are nothing but liberals on the conservative board pay for the murders....DO NOT TAX ME AND FORCE ME TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT IS SO WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS and then try to bring up ridiculous scenarios about strapping women down until they've been forced to have an unwanted baby. The left are so predictable in their misguided thinking!!!

[tsalagi1]

Let THEM kill their own babies and let those among us who are nothing but liberals on the conservative board pay for the murders....DO NOT TAX ME AND FORCE ME TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT IS SO WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS and then try to bring up ridiculous scenarios about strapping women down until they've been forced to have an unwanted baby. The left are so predictable in their misguided thinking!!!

Granted the strapping down was a exaggeration. But the question is valid, if the far religous right gets abortion outlawed again. Just how would they force a woman to give birth?

But I take from your initial statement that if no public money were used, you'd be ok with abortion, is that what I'm reading?

[red state]

Your "take" on thing is as wrong as your take on many issues. I don't agree with murder of any kind (especially the most fragile among us) but to take my money and pay for murders that are usually nothing more than a way for someone to continue having their little fun or continue an illegal trade is WRONG and it should be outlawed (at least the public funding of it). But then, you and most everyone know how I feel because we've all discussed this and other topics OVER and Over and over. I have not changed in my position and it frustrates me in how this topic, the 2nd Amendment and the FAIR tax code is over the heads of most folks here at P.com. Common sense does go a long way but there definitely seems to be a shorted of that among THEM.

[tsalagi1]

Your "take" on thing is as wrong as your take on many issues. I don't agree with murder of any kind (especially the most fragile among us) but to take my money and pay for murders that are usually nothing more than a way for someone to continue having their little fun or continue an illegal trade is WRONG and it should be outlawed (at least the public funding of it). But then, you and most everyone know how I feel because we've all discussed this and other topics OVER and Over and over. I have not changed in my position and it frustrates me in how this topic, the 2nd Amendment and the FAIR tax code is over the heads of most folks here at P.com. Common sense does go a long way but there definitely seems to be a shorted of that among THEM.

My "take" is based on logic, rationality, and reality. Let's assume for argument's sake, that you've managed to outlaw abortion, exactly how would force the woman to bring the fetus to term? You've still not answered that basic question.

[tsalagi1]

Your "take" on thing is as wrong as your take on many issues. I don't agree with murder of any kind (especially the most fragile among us) but to take my money and pay for murders that are usually nothing more than a way for someone to continue having their little fun or continue an illegal trade is WRONG and it should be outlawed (at least the public funding of it). But then, you and most everyone know how I feel because we've all discussed this and other topics OVER and Over and over. I have not changed in my position and it frustrates me in how this topic, the 2nd Amendment and the FAIR tax code is over the heads of most folks here at P.com. Common sense does go a long way but there definitely seems to be a shorted of that among THEM.

My "take" is based on logic, rationality, and reality. Let's assume for argument's sake, that you've managed to outlaw abortion, exactly how would force the woman to bring the fetus to term? You've still not answered that basic question.

bump, still not answered the basic question. I figure it must be because you're probably at work, fair enough I'll sit tight to after 7pm...hopefully by then you can answer the question.

[internet.unknown]

The Declaration is pretty clear: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Our government is supposed to protect those rights. All American citizens should therefore strive to preserve those rights, not make arguments about how difficult or impractical they are to uphold.

[tsalagi1]

The Declaration is pretty clear: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Our government is supposed to protect those rights. All American citizens should therefore strive to preserve those rights, not make arguments about how difficult or impractical they are to uphold.

(1) We are not governed by the DOI, but the Constitution.

(2) The main question still has not been answered

(a) How do you force a woman to not have sex out of wedlock (that's for Philly)

(b) How does simply being married imply that a married woman would never have an abortion (also for Philly, but anyone can answer)

(3) How do you force a woman to give birth against her will

[internet.unknown]

(1) The Constitution was established to guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(2) You're still making arguments against protecting rights. I'm sorry our inalienable rights are so difficult for you to support.
(a) You don't. Anyone who tries will fail.
(b) While I don't have statistics, I think most rational people would suppose that married women have fewer abortions than single women. There is undeniably more motivation for a single woman to abort in most cases.
(3) You're all for the federal government forcing bigots to serve those they despise in private establishments, but you can't think of a way to "force" women to uphold life?

[tsalagi1]

(1) The Constitution was established to guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(2) You're still making arguments against protecting rights. I'm sorry our inalienable rights are so difficult for you to support.
(a) You don't. Anyone who tries will fail.
(b) While I don't have statistics, I think most rational people would suppose that married women have fewer abortions than single women. There is undeniably more motivation for a single woman to abort in most cases.
(3) You're all for the federal government forcing bigots to serve those they despise in private establishments, but you can't think of a way to "force" women to uphold life?

Not making any arguments, I've asked valid questions, and to date, none of you have actually answered them.

(3) In case you're wondering, you didn't answer the question, you answered it with a question.

One of the groups that partook of abortions when they came out were married women who had too many children and just couldn't go thru another pregnancy.

So, you've just outlawed abortion, in all cases I'm assuming...how do you plan on making women give birth. The most basic question I've ever asked in this whole debate.

[philly rabbit]

The progressive Nazis continue with their discussion about how to kill more human beings in the name of their agenda and their campaign to rid the west of the white male hegemony civilization once and for all. They remind you of a group of SS officers sitting around a conference table offering different opinions on the best methods that should be tried to speed up the killing process and notice how polite and intellectual sounding they all are.

This is where we've landed in America .. at the lowest common denominator completely stripped of morality and decency with an ongoing polite conversation that would have never taken place not that long ago because the topic itself would have been unthinkable for Americans to even begin to discuss.

I certainly hope that no one out there still thinks that this "discussion" ever had anything to do with reducing abortion in the first place by progressives as I sarcastically mentioned.. I'll point out again that the mere mention of marriage was quickly barred for consideration by the progressive Nazis because marriage itself is counter productive to the actual intent of more killing and doing it more efficiently without any opposition.

Marriage gives the man a say so about the abortion before it occurs, it gives him an opinion about HIS FUTURE CHILD. That's something the progressive Nazis wont tolerate in the first place.

[tsalagi1]

The progressive Nazis continue with their discussion about how to kill more human beings in the name of their agenda and their campaign to rid the west of the white male hegemony civilization once and for all. They remind you of a group of SS officers sitting around a conference table offering different opinions on the best methods that should be tried to speed up the killing process and notice how polite and intellectual sounding they all are.

This is where we've landed in America .. at the lowest common denominator completely stripped of morality and decency with an ongoing polite conversation that would have never taken place not that long ago because the topic itself would have been unthinkable for Americans to even begin to discuss.

I certainly hope that no one out there still thinks that this "discussion" ever had anything to do with reducing abortion in the first place by progressives as I sarcastically mentioned.. I'll point out again that the mere mention of marriage was quickly barred for consideration by the progressive Nazis because marriage itself is counter productive to the actual intent of more killing and doing it more efficiently without any opposition.

Marriage gives the man a say so about the abortion before it occurs, it gives him an opinion about HIS FUTURE CHILD. That's something the progressive Nazis wont tolerate in the first place.

Why would you assume?

(1) That a woman would take her husband's wishes into consideration in place of her own?

(2) How do you force the now pregnant woman to marry the father? What, bring back shotgun weddings?

Marriage itself is irrevelent to the question. We didn't bar it, it simply isn't an overriding factor.

I'll ask the question again...because Philly as usual didn't answer the question either, just a rant...."How will you force a woman to give birth", pure and simple....

[thoughtless]

The progressive Nazis continue with their discussion about how to kill more human beings in the name of their agenda and their campaign to rid the west of the white male hegemony civilization once and for all. They remind you of a group of SS officers sitting around a conference table offering different opinions on the best methods that should be tried to speed up the killing process and notice how polite and intellectual sounding they all are.

This is where we've landed in America .. at the lowest common denominator completely stripped of morality and decency with an ongoing polite conversation that would have never taken place not that long ago because the topic itself would have been unthinkable for Americans to even begin to discuss.

I certainly hope that no one out there still thinks that this "discussion" ever had anything to do with reducing abortion in the first place by progressives as I sarcastically mentioned.. I'll point out again that the mere mention of marriage was quickly barred for consideration by the progressive Nazis because marriage itself is counter productive to the actual intent of more killing and doing it more efficiently without any opposition.

Marriage gives the man a say so about the abortion before it occurs, it gives him an opinion about HIS FUTURE CHILD. That's something the progressive Nazis wont tolerate in the first place.

What, if anything, should the government do, to prevent women from having out of wedlock sex?

Should the government do something that would cause more women to be married, or to make unmarried women more celibate?

I'm not interested in your current opinion of the current moral climate in America or any of that, but what actions should be taken to solve the problem.

[great white]

I'll point out again that the mere mention of marriage was quickly barred for consideration by the progressive Nazis because marriage itself is counter productive to the actual intent of more killing and doing it more efficiently without any opposition.

Marriage gives the man a say so about the abortion before it occurs, it gives him an opinion about HIS FUTURE CHILD. That's something the progressive Nazis wont tolerate in the first place.

It wasn't barred from consideration you maroon. They simply asked you to address the excessive flaws in your suppoosed solution. How do we force bpeople not to have sex until they are married ? How do we force people that are pregnant top get married ? How about the FACT that married people have abortyins too ?

Unless you can address those issues your BS, it is NOT a solution at all.

[patruth]

I was raised a Catholic. We were taught people will burn in hell for murder. If God believes abortion is murder they will burn in hell for all of eternity. I'm good that punishment. I have no idea what would happen if we suddenly had an extra 5 to 10 million ghetto babies a year? We don't want to pay for welfare, we don't want to give them contraceptives but we want to force poor people to have babies?

That math doesn't work

[tsalagi1]

Philly fled the Thread over 10 days ago, and it's easy enough to see why...embarassed, unable to answer even one of our direct questions, he ran off. He'll hide, then maybe start up another thread where he blames America's problems on the social progressives...yada..yada.

[thoughtless]

I was raised a Catholic. We were taught people will burn in hell for murder. If God believes abortion is murder they will burn in hell for all of eternity. I'm good that punishment. I have no idea what would happen if we suddenly had an extra 5 to 10 million ghetto babies a year? We don't want to pay for welfare, we don't want to give them contraceptives but we want to force poor people to have babies?

That math doesn't work

OK, so somebody believes that abortion is wrong. Fine. But abortion is the solution to a problem (I'm not saying it a good one). If you're going to simply outlaw it then you have to either:

1) Live with the problem with unwanted children (figure out how to get more adopted, build more jails, expand welfare)
2) Do something else to solve the problem (make contraception readily available, teach sex education)
3) Pretend there isn't a problem.