What Side of The Fence Are You On?

[Larry Gude]

I do find it amusing that so many men are against abortion and constantly argue their point. It's like they also have the plumbing to actually become pregnant. .

Here's the reality of our society; we have groups of people who argue AGAINST the right to choose and yet 15 seconds after Viagra came on the market it was covered by insurance AND then they'd bytch about the chick who Limbaugh picked on who wanted her birth control covered was just some ho who ought to pay for it herself or, better yet, keep her legs closed in a society filled with males running around eating insurance covered Viagra all day. AND, not only do they not want abortions, DO want subsidized Viagra, no subsidy for women's health care but also don't wanna be held financially responsible for the babies.

We've come a LONG way but reminders of what it used to be are everywhere.

 

[Larry Gude]

What is objected to is the taxpayers footing the bill for this. Otherwise abort away on your own dime.

And what about those who'd say the same for war? They don't wanna pay for it?

 

[Toxick]

I do find it amusing that so many men are against abortion and constantly argue their point. It's like they also have the plumbing to actually become pregnant.

I wasn't aware you needed a uterus to be against killing people.

Conservative men can be some of the worst bigots about all the Freedoms they insist they receive as a citizen here but yet they want to impose laws governing what a female can do with their own medical decisions.

Again.... it's not about 'medical decisions' - it's about not wanting to turn a blind-eye to what they consider to be murder.






Also, insisting on your freedoms as a citizen, is not bigoted. That clause is horrible and misleading.

Conservative lawmakers would do well letting the entire topic of abortion just wither away and let sleeping dogs sleep.

Amen to that.

 

[SamSpade]

there sure are better options. However, the numbers dont work out to all of those 'unwanted' babies getting placed in adoption. I too am reluctently prochoice. It is what it is.

From someone who has adopted three times - and as a consequence, many of my friends are also adopting couples - I can totally tell you, there's a much higher demand for *babies* than there is supply.

There are two large areas that aren't addressed well --

1. Children born with special needs - and some of those needs would break your heart. Would you adopt a child knowing it had but a few years to live, for example? and..
2. Children who are without parents or a home usually by intervention of the state - such as a couple friend of ours who were once in the process of adopting children where the father killed their mother and is now in prison.

Kids with needs - and kids taken from homes. Other than that, *babies* usually go the route of birth mother PICKING the parents - before the child is even born.
Waits can take years - and some never get fulfilled. Even with our last adoption, we chose to go special needs, because the wait was already too long.
The number of children aborted in this country yearly would almost exactly meet that need.

 

[GURPS]

but liberals intent is always to protect when they try to ban guns.

but they are all for Murdering their own children

 

[SamSpade]

Here's the reality of our society; we have groups of people who argue AGAINST the right to choose and yet 15 seconds after Viagra came on the market it was covered by insurance AND then they'd bytch about the chick who Limbaugh picked on who wanted her birth control covered was just some ho who ought to pay for it herself or, better yet, keep her legs closed in a society filled with males running around eating insurance covered Viagra all day. AND, not only do they not want abortions, DO want subsidized Viagra, no subsidy for women's health care but also don't wanna be held financially responsible for the babies.

We've come a LONG way but reminders of what it used to be are everywhere.

Not sure where to go with this but -

Viagra is not comparable to abortion and right to choose arguments. It IS comparable to the discussion on contraception (even though technically, it does the opposite of contraception, its purpose is to achieve an outcome in sex).
It is also not comparable to the morning after pill, which is effectively an abortion by pill. One issue is terminating a pregnancy and thereby possibly a human life - the other is helping men and women get it on.

If you want to bring up contraception - to my knowledge, it's covered by insurance. Not sure when the pill came on board, but even when it is NOT covered, it can be purchased fairly cheaply.
Most of the arguments of "it cost THIS much HERE" are debunked by "it costs only THIS much HERE". If I tell you a car costs 30K BUT you can always buy the same one down the street for 15k - it costs 15k.

Limbaugh's argument IIRC was - in typical blow- hard fashion - just how much sex can you be having if you can't afford to purchase enough contraception? Fluke insisted that her insurance should cover something her school's religion disagreed with. The argument against her was like someone arguing that the school should buy her shampoo or toothpaste - it's cheap, dammit. You just want to jerk around with someone's religion. You don't need it unless you're boinking guys 24/7.

I did use Viagra about 15 years ago. I remember that while "covered" - they were NOT cheap, and I had to be very careful on when I used those expensive ONE SHOT pills. I did actually learn that getting my cholesterol and weight down did a hell of a lot more than any pill could. I sure don't think I could have ever afforded to have all that many pills on hand, back then. I'm not defending whether or not they should be subsidized - I just know that paying a few bucks for birth control pills that are good for the whole month was WAY cheaper than a month supply of insurance covered Viagra.

 

[Larry Gude]

...but liberals intent is always to protect when they try to ban guns. ..

You can't say that. They can't say that. Their intent is to disarm people, to make them more vulnerable. If protection was the goal they'd argue FOR women and gays and the elderly to be able to conceal carry. OR they'd argue for a LOT more cops. Or both. Now, we could say they HOPE there is less violence if their are less guns but that presumes a non starter; that criminals A, care about gun laws or, B, won't use another weapon or C, won't simply rely on over powering a victim. In any and all cases, the gun control view says the victim does NOT deserve more protection. Does not have the right to self defense.

 

[Midnightrider]

From someone who has adopted three times - and as a consequence, many of my friends are also adopting couples - I can totally tell you, there's a much higher demand for *babies* than there is supply.

There are two large areas that aren't addressed well --

1. Children born with special needs - and some of those needs would break your heart. Would you adopt a child knowing it had but a few years to live, for example? and..
2. Children who are without parents or a home usually by intervention of the state - such as a couple friend of ours who were once in the process of adopting children where the father killed their mother and is now in prison.

Kids with needs - and kids taken from homes. Other than that, *babies* usually go the route of birth mother PICKING the parents - before the child is even born.
Waits can take years - and some never get fulfilled. Even with our last adoption, we chose to go special needs, because the wait was already too long.
The number of children aborted in this country yearly would almost exactly meet that need.

yep, i know all about it through family who have choosen to adopt several special needs kids. They have taken in some children with very heartbreaking stories. They recently put their eldest adopted son into hospice.

I am just guessing, but i really dont think that the numbers would support 1.3M additional babies going into the system every year in the US alone. I would imagine a lot of those special needs kids would end up staying in foster care or being permanent wards of the state. But that is just a guess. I haven't found a source that says anywhere near that many adoptions happen.

 

[Midnightrider]

You can't say that. They can't say that. Their intent is to disarm people, to make them more vulnerable. If protection was the goal they'd argue FOR women and gays and the elderly to be able to conceal carry. OR they'd argue for a LOT more cops. Or both. Now, we could say they HOPE there is less violence if their are less guns but that presumes a non starter; that criminals A, care about gun laws or, B, won't use another weapon or C, won't simply rely on over powering a victim. In any and all cases, the gun control view says the victim does NOT deserve more protection. Does not have the right to self defense.

try stepping out of your 'gun nut bias' and look at it from their point of view. They think are protecting you by limiting the number of guns.

you cant apply your logic to someone else's deeply held belief.

 

[bilbur]

What is objected to is the taxpayers footing the bill for this. Otherwise abort away on your own dime.

Would you rather foot the bill for a 3 minute vacuuming or 18 + years of raising the unwanted kid by a single parent with no job and on the taxpayer dime? Also the whole thing seems backwards if you ask me. Republicans do realize that low income people that will have 4 + kids that they can't afford will just spawn more low income people that will more then likely grow up to be Democrats. Basically Republican policies are breeding themselves out of existence. Just an observation from an independent on the outside looking in.

 

[Larry Gude]

I am just guessing, but i really dont think that the numbers would support 1.3M additional babies going into the system every year .

I'm pro choice but THAT, a million dead babies a year, man, how far is that from genocide, a holocaust? Mathematically, all our cheap labor, jobs taken by immigrants, our workers all get tossed in a dumpster every year.

 

[SamSpade]

liberals have issues where their intent is to save lives. I am no guncontrol fan, but liberals intent is always to protect when they try to ban guns.....

Usually - yes. Except that it doesn't seem to work. It has the ring of "we've got to do SOMETHING" to it.
Let's make it a law - and we have Chicago, with strict hand gun laws but nothing gets any better.

It's kind of odd that while the idea to ban guns is the rationale, the incidents cited almost always are ended by someone showing up with a gun - such as a police officer.
Or that incidents are STOPPED because an armed person was present, and got the perp to stand down.
Or that these places occur at places where there AREN'T any guns - because if you're stupid enough to hold up, say - a gun shop - you're gonna get your ass blown off.

So I GET why they want it - but when shown that it doesn't work and in many cases, CLEARLY makes it worse - they don't budge and even try other arguments claiming you don't NEED one - and so forth.

Thus - while it may start out as a means to save lives - it becomes an entrenched position where the issue is the guns themselves.

 

[Larry Gude]

try stepping out of your 'gun nut bias' and look at it from their point of view. They think are protecting you by limiting the number of guns.

you cant apply your logic to someone else's deeply held belief.

No, I GET that and I'm happy to hear you say 'deeply held belief'. That's why I always use the view from women and gays and the elderly because THEY are the vulnerable ones.

 

[SamSpade]

yep, i know all about it through family who have choosen to adopt several special needs kids. They have taken in some children with very heartbreaking stories. They recently put their eldest adopted son into hospice.

I am just guessing, but i really dont think that the numbers would support 1.3M additional babies going into the system every year in the US alone. I would imagine a lot of those special needs kids would end up staying in foster care or being permanent wards of the state. But that is just a guess. I haven't found a source that says anywhere near that many adoptions happen.

Which is why I brought up THOSE kids first -

Babies born to mothers - who might otherwise have been aborted - aren't going to all come out special needs.
Additionally - where are you getting 1.3M abortions? CDC numbers are a LOT less.

 

[Larry Gude]

Which is why I brought up THOSE kids first -

Babies born to mothers - who might otherwise have been aborted - aren't going to all come out special needs.
Additionally - where are you getting 1.3M abortions? CDC numbers are a LOT less.

Last I say was 6-700,000

 

[SamSpade]

i would imagine a lot of those special needs kids would end up staying in foster care or being permanent wards of the state. But that is just a guess. I haven't found a source that says anywhere near that many adoptions happen.

I *am* saying that those kids with special needs etc don't usually get adopted. I have a very real fear for one of my children that that future may face him if I die.

 

[Midnightrider]

Which is why I brought up THOSE kids first -

Babies born to mothers - who might otherwise have been aborted - aren't going to all come out special needs.
Additionally - where are you getting 1.3M abortions? CDC numbers are a LOT less.

i must have been looking at an old report. But still, the current numbers as reported to the CDC are still considerably higher than the adoption rates.

 

[GURPS]

- it becomes an entrenched position where the issue is the guns themselves.

progressives blame the tool, not the wielder

 

[This_person]

Maybe if we let gay couples adopt.

"We" do. And, the point you quoted is inaccurate, to say the least. There are long (years long) waiting lists to adopt babies.

7 year olds? 12 year olds? No, the numbers for those are such that those kids sit and wait to be adopted. But, under 1 year old children have numerous couples just waiting to be able to adopt them. So many that we're going overseas, illegally selling kids, etc., etc. The argument MR made is 100% inaccurate, and he knows it.

 

[GURPS]

I'm pro choice but THAT, a million dead babies a year, man, how far is that from genocide, a holocaust?

The data on abortions displayed on the Worldometers' counter is based on the latest statistics on worldwide abortions published by the World Health Organization (WHO). According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.

http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/