Who said we weren't pro-choice? We are anti-abortion! We want the choice to be made nine months prior. We want these girls AND boys to think before! When that is put into action, then the abortion rate will go down.Originally Posted by Spexvet
Who said we weren't pro-choice? We are anti-abortion! We want the choice to be made nine months prior. We want these girls AND boys to think before! When that is put into action, then the abortion rate will go down.
Listen, the bottom line, for you folks who are anti-abortion, is:
Will my plan reduce the number of abotions performed?
As I said before, that's not much of a choice.
It's a better choice that deciding to put your body through a surgical procedure, it's better than killing another human being. There are more choices before getting pg, than there are afterwards
Don't you think the person who is pregnant is better at making a decision about what is better for them?
If you fall and break your leg, do you want to be told "well you should have been more careful, and not fallen"? or do you want to have the choice to have your leg treated as YOU see fit (after considering Dr. reccomendations)?
Yes, but why can't she be expected to make the choice before she has sex. There are several ways not to get pregnant! You can't even check out at the drugstore without stuff staring you in the face. It's up there with the gum! If she AND he are mature enough to have sex they should be mature enough to make a the choice of birth control. Their main thought is how it is going to feel right now, not later. And if there is a baby, no big deal, abort it! Let's support them in making the correct choice the first time.
My plan does that. Do you think my plan will reduce the number of abortions? Is it a good plan? Would you like to add a program that encourages abstinence? Were you a virgin when you got married?
No, I was not, and here is a shocker, I was one of those that made the wrong choice many years ago. my heart aches, i count the years that my child should be right now. When I look at ones that would be my childs age now I wonder. It was degrating, self destructed and a money maker for the doctor. I wish to God that I never did it. I just thank God now that this is one of the promises that he forgives and forgets. I wish i could forgive, I never want to forget!
But you had a choice.
Do you think my plan will reduce the number of abortions?
Is it a good plan?
Would you like me to add a program that encourages abstinence?
Watching how the youngs girls acted with little shame about what they were going to do, listening to them about this being their 2nd and 3rd abortions, no.
They have things available to them now that they do not use.
I was dating a man that told me that he could not have children. Why did I trust him I do not know. I would have had the protection if I had known the truth. Stupid me, I should have done the smart thing. This is what we need to encourge the young people about. Decision before the deed.
Let me tell you it does not do any good for them to watch these movies stars doing what they are doing either. they watch Tom Cruse leave his wife, date someone else and brag about being pg before marriage. The same thing about Brad Pitt and the rest of them. They are watching their idols live a life that they cannot comprehend.
Why do we put people on a pesital just because of their line of work in the movies? Our pesitals belong to our parents, teachers, law enforcments officers and fire departments.
It looks like we are not going to agree on this. Again I will say that I do not hate the abortionist, but the abortion and be done.
thanks for the conversation!
Hey sister, if you don't know about these folks check them out. It helps alot to get involved with others in the same boat. Us Karens gotta stick together.
www.silentnomoreawareness.org
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
I have listened to my potential subjects, called my scribe, and do utter:
8. Expose teens to the concept that abstinence is desirable.
So it shall be written, so it shall be done! (if I am elected King of the World)
My secretary has just come up with an answer to discourage multiple births at the expense of the state, and abortions that are at the expense of the state.
No anesthesia for any of these proceedures!
And people say there are no more good ideas.
A suggestion: once your secretary has dealt with the serious moral issues of our time--say on her lunchbreak, ask her to show you how to spell-check! (One small step for a "redneck"; one giant leap for "redneck-kind".;))
perhaps they should come with a manditory sterilisation at the same time?
[QUOTE=rinselberg]That might need a little more work. It sounds like an indirect call for National Health Insurance. I don't know if there are countries that go quite that far, but I see trouble ahead if birthing children were to become "free".
I don't know how things have changed since I had my twins in England in 1976, but at that time all ante-natal, post-natal and delivery care was "free", with free vitamins etc. As Brits we pay/paid a big chunk of money out of our wages for the NHS, but the coverage was very good. Now if its something elective, like, oh, piles that need surgery, you may wait a year or more - altho you can elect to go to the exact same surgery on his "Private Service" and pay out of pocket for the next week...... That happened to my brother in law.
Since I emigrated I know things have changed, so don't know the current status, except that maternity leave is up to one year now!
(Oh, and abortions were free too - but not on demand, had to be "good cause". And yes, I have heard of women having 5 or 6 abortions here in the US, using them as birth control. That is wrong, wrong, wrong! I remember the Duke of Edinburgh getting into all kinds of trouble 'cos he said that after one child on welfare, or one abortion on welfare, the mother should be sterilized - I agree!!)
Prevention is always better, then adoption as second choice, and only abortion if the health of the mother is SEVERELY compromised. So, King of the World, yes, give contraception to all!
I assume your plan assumes that one learns the first time what actually causes an "unwanted" child, or pregnancy, as
you call it and therefore learns from thier "mistake"
Oh, KOTW, how does your plan deal with those who not only have multiple children by multiple fathers, collect more money from the current government "plan" than they could make with respectful employment and still expect other people to raise thier "unwanted" children. If children can be "unwanted" why can't irresponsible "adults" be unwanted .
This statement applies to the male and female population. Choice is a responsibility.Every choice has a result. Bad choices have consequences. We aren't allowed to kill our spouse because we didn't realize marriage was work. Make your actions informed decisions, not sex in the heat of passion or in a drunken or drugged stupor
While these issues are different than the topic of this thread, as KOTW I would institute workfare. I believe workfare would have some all-around benefits:
- develop disciplined habits in the recipients
- give taxpayers a return on their investment
- provide an incentive to get into the private workforce
A corollary of this would be government provided daycare for children of these new "workers", which can be provided by workfare employees.
And a cost. It will be interesting to see if conservatives are willing to pay the cost of reducing abortion. Historically, they want to impose their will on everyone to stop abortions, but then abandon the women who keep their kids because they don't want to fund the results (increased cost of prenatal healthcare, neo-natal healthcare (assuming pregnant women don't get proper care), cost of raising a child, increase cost of welfare). If you are anti-choice, the KOTW says it is time to pony up.
BTW, isn't it the folks who are against abortion who are also against sex education?
Sadly, there is some truth to your first statement I quoted. It is a bit of a conundrum. But I think if it were presented to us "anti-choice" (again I object to that term) folks as a way of saving babies we would very likely ante upHistorically, they want to impose their will on everyone to stop abortions, but then abandon the women who keep their kids because they don't want to fund the results (increased cost of prenatal healthcare, neo-natal healthcare (assuming pregnant women don't get proper care), cost of raising a child, increase cost of welfare). If you are anti-choice, the KOTW says it is time to pony up.
BTW, isn't it the folks who are against abortion who are also against sex education?
No we are not against sex education-we just don't want the schools educating our kids about it.
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
What makes you think Republicans or anyone else other than the child's father owe anything to the woman that has an illegitamite child. Possibly they have some social obligation to the child, but momma need to take kauh hurr self.
That's fine, then momma gonna take "kauh hurr self" by having an abortion.
perhaps they should vasectomise the fella at the same time - just to make things even!
How wonderfully perverse! After all, it's these deadbeat men who are running off, leaving the woman to take care of the kid. What should the criteria be? Hmm...you'd have to give them a fighting chance, of course...
First thing to do would be to require the father's name on the birth certificate--DNA paternity tests would be a relatively foolproof way to do it. I know, I know, you're thinking, "DNA tests for every baby? That'd be expensive!" What you'd end up saving in the drop in unwanted pregnancies would more than cover it. Now, since we've now established legal paternity for these kids, verifying the responsible couple for that child's welfare would be pretty easy. Don't want in the kid's life? That's okay, as long as you pay a nominal (realistic) amount in child support, if the mother requires you to. However, what about the serial offenders? The seven-children-by-five-different-women guys? Well, let's say you turn up as the father of more than three women's children and fail to materially support them, then it's mandatory sterilization. With aspirin and a rubber hose to bite down on.
I'm thinking there would be a serious drop in unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and probably a couple social diseases once you started enforcing it. ;)
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY KOTW
"While these issues are different than the topic of this thread, as KOTW I would institute workfare. I believe workfare would have some all-around benefits:
- develop disciplined habits in the recipients
- give taxpayers a return on their investment
- provide an incentive to get into the private workforce
A corollary of this would be government provided daycare for children of these new "workers", which can be provided by workfare employees. "
-Seems to me if people had diciplined habits, they wouldn't have to be recipients!!
-A return on thier investment? Isn't "investment" an active choice? You would force us to invest for what kind of return? The creation of more children that the general public can support with more programs?
-An incentive to get into the private workplace? I personally know of a very nice woman who after having her 5th child with no husband (or boyfriend) quit because she made more money staying at home!
I love it when I have the last post in a thread, and the thread dies for 4 or 5 days and when someone else posts, they ignore what I had to say completely. Me, I just figure that no one can find any disagreement with it.
Glad to see you're all on board. ;)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks