IGX

Curious - How many of you have seen and held an aborted fetus?
I have, and I'll never forget it.

Of coarse not, because anyone that was not of a clinical mind would never be for that shit again after something like that.

No one gives a fuck about us who's ex cunts killed their kids.

Almost 5 months in, the kid would be 21 now.

Fuck her rights!
And Fuck the "Pro-Choicer" advocacy of a 15 year old girl being able to go behind her parent's back, after 3 months she's a murdering cunt if it's not a damn good medical reason.

If I can't be pro-choice about killing useless scumfucks, because that's murder, what's the difference really after the1st trimester?

johno wrote:Curious - How many of you have seen and held an aborted fetus?
I have, and I'll never forget it.

I have held several fetus' (fetii?), from all time stamps of the various gestation period, although I believe only one or two were from abortions. A few were from car wreck victims that were pregnant.

In my medical genetics class we had to go down to the pathology lab and see a 20 week old fetus aborted due to a pretty awful genetic mutation. The baby would have probably died in its first year, still awful to see it lying there. A perfect beautiful baby girl.

I'm still pro-choice.

Also: people who put contraception into the same category as abortion have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the human body works, particularly reproduction, wall lining, etc.

People who rail against abortion and also push for abstinence-only sex education (or no sex-ed, at all) or against available contraceptives (even if it's just condoms) are, well, fundamentally retarded.

I also think people approach the abortion debate from the wrong end:

They start with the question, "When does life begin?"

That's a really odd question -technically, life began a few billion years ago and has been rolling on -non-stop, mind you, ever since. It never really "ended" so how does it "start?"

The thing is, the sides will never agree on when life begins, albeit from a physiological perspective or from a philosophical perspective, so framing the debate within this context is a recipe for, well, stagnation and constant fighting without a lot of advancements of either front line.

So, the best way to approach it is from the opposite end: "When does life end?"

In most states, as soon as brain waves are either flatlined or display an irregular pattern (instead of the normal wave patterns) on diagnostic electroencephalography scans, the spouse/guardian/PoA/etc. can then petition the US Judicial system to remove the patient from life support. This is a legal precedent that, while differing from state to state, is largely similar across all of the US, so the laws are in place for any kind of legal differentiation in either direction.

If we use the presence of regular brain wave patterns being visible on electroencephalography scans, and apply that requirement to the fetus' development, those are usually found around 25 weeks or so.

Let's give ourselves over a month to be safe, and we arrive at the 20 week mark.

At least, that's how I see it.

Personally, I don't buy any of the "sanctity of life" arguments because, as mentioned, most people who support the Pro"Life" movement don't think the kid deserves a decent school, affordable food or medical care when it's born, so they're really more of a Pro"Fetus" crowd.

And second, this country doesn't value innocent life, as it makes no attempt to protect it either here or abroad. We can't have it both ways.

And, for kicks:

Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R-TX) introduced an anti-abortion bill and mentioned that it has "strong protections of their pre-born life", which is odd because in 2007 she introduced an amendment into an appropriations bill that made expecting mothers wait for at least 3 months before qualifying for pre-natal and peri-natal healthcare though state services. Of course, when asked why she supported keeping fetus' from receiving healthcare she responded only as a true retarded conservative would:

"But they're not born yet"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 ... 70588.html

You started off good and it went to the Libbyist Lib that ever Libbed.

DARTH wrote:You started off good and it went to the Libbyist Lib that ever Libbed.

Well, in all fairness, I am the most Libbyist Lib that ever Libbed.

Takes all kinds to make this site fun! Happy Friday to you!

Testiclaw wrote:Also: people who put contraception into the same category as abortion have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the human body works, particularly reproduction, wall lining, etc.

Lying about the price of birth control (you don't have to get the $100 a month version, the $15 a month version has the same basic effectiveness) will not help women who have limited funds. The chick who wrote the article is doing poor women no favors by spouting that crap.

Testiclaw wrote:People who rail against abortion and also push for abstinence-only sex education (or no sex-ed, at all) or against available contraceptives (even if it's just condoms) are, well, fundamentally retarded.

Not really. It reduces the incidence of people who are unprepared to have children having sex, and reduces the pressure for girls to put out when they're not ready for the consequences. There is evidence that it works overseas. Will that work in the US? Probably not, but it's not a stupid argument.

What's fundamentally retarded is that abortion and birth control advocates refuse to acknowledge the income factor in birth rates, despite significant evidence. Am I suggesting they should acknowledge the traditionalist position? No. But when your argument doesn't work, you need to adjust it and the programs you advocate.

The number of 'late-term abortion' of choice - rather than medical necessity or genetic defect - is small enough that it shouldn't be an issue for public consideration. All that any of that nonsense is is pro-lifers (effectively) framing the issue outside of reality, counting on the stupidity and ignorance of the average American to help do their bidding.

Lying about the price of birth control (you don't have to get the $100 a month version, the $15 a month version has the same basic effectiveness)

This is absurd. She doesn't "lie about the price of birth control" - she doesn't even mention the price of birth control, she points to evidence that free and readily available birth control is the surest way to eliminate abortions.

In any case, birth control isn't a one size fits all proposition for women - 'the pill,' while cheap, is not as effective as other forms of birth control and will not be tolerated by some women. NuvaRing, Depo Provera, etc. are not as cheap - and in any case, for a struggling young woman $15/month isn't a joke.
My girlfriend has Implanon, courtesy of those baby-killing bastards at Planned Parenthood. As her mother got knocked up at 16, she decided that a long-term solution was best to ensure that no accidents happened, eliminating the potential need for an abortion. Implanon would not have been affordable without Planned Parenthood's subsidized cost.

My ex had an IUD and it failed (apparently, Mirena IUDs can in rare cases literally 'fall out') - thankfully realized what had happened at 10 weeks and she had an abortion that I paid for. I harbor no guilt or remorse - she didn't need or want a child, I didn't need or want a child.The abortion was the right choice for her, me and the mass of cells that went to the hazardous waste bin in the sky.

Turdacious wrote:herpaderp

Remember when you insinuated that I was "ashamed to be here" because I browsed without appearing as an online user, ignoring the fact that people can still, you know, see my posts and stuff?

Good times, good times.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:I have never understood why birth control and sex education was lumped into the things pro-lifers hate.

I understand being fiercely anti-abortion. Reducing the number of abortions in a country should be a KPI for any national-level public health program. However, wanting to do so simply by banning the procedure is akin to banning large sodas to reduce obesity.

When Pope John Paul died, I remember reading an article in the American press that said despite his international popularity, Americans never felt he was consistent in his policies or teachings being that he was against both the death penalty and abortion, a disagreement that could only be understood in the modern-day American political "left vs right" context.

DARTH wrote:
But back to the main issue. Yes to birth control and yes to kicking abortion back to the individual states.

+1

milosz wrote:The number of 'late-term abortion' of choice - rather than medical necessity or genetic defect - is small enough that it shouldn't be an issue for public consideration. All that any of that nonsense is is pro-lifers (effectively) framing the issue outside of reality, counting on the stupidity and ignorance of the average American to help do their bidding.

Lying about the price of birth control (you don't have to get the $100 a month version, the $15 a month version has the same basic effectiveness)

This is absurd. She doesn't "lie about the price of birth control" - she doesn't even mention the price of birth control, she points to evidence that free and readily available birth control is the surest way to eliminate abortions.

In any case, birth control isn't a one size fits all proposition for women - 'the pill,' while cheap, is not as effective as other forms of birth control and will not be tolerated by some women. NuvaRing, Depo Provera, etc. are not as cheap - and in any case, for a struggling young woman $15/month isn't a joke.
My girlfriend has Implanon, courtesy of those baby-killing bastards at Planned Parenthood. As her mother got knocked up at 16, she decided that a long-term solution was best to ensure that no accidents happened, eliminating the potential need for an abortion. Implanon would not have been affordable without Planned Parenthood's subsidized cost.

'Free and readily available birth control' is an old lazy feminist canard. When you adjust for the income of the woman, or the income of her family, the stats don't lead to that conclusion. Pro-choice advocates are doing no one a favor by refusing to acknowledge that fact in the policies they advocate. The elasticity of birth control is ridiculously low. And none of the birth control methods you mentioned cost more than about $25 a month (Implanon works out to that over time, but the cost is up front, which changes calculations). These facts are true whether you are pro choice or pro life, and I have no problem with private organizations subsidizing birth control like Implanon for poorer women FWIW.

And the author's idea that the Obamacare contraception mandate will help poor women isincredibly ignorant.

Want to reduce unwanted children-- subsidize/reduce the cost of adoption. A good solution whether abortion is legal or not.

milosz wrote:My ex had an IUD and it failed (apparently, Mirena IUDs can in rare cases literally 'fall out') - thankfully realized what had happened at 10 weeks and she had an abortion that I paid for. I harbor no guilt or remorse - she didn't need or want a child, I didn't need or want a child.The abortion was the right choice for her, me and the mass of cells that went to the hazardous waste bin in the sky.

Cheaper than child support-- glad you understand some economics.

Turdacious wrote:When you adjust for the income of the woman, or the income of her family, the stats don't lead to that conclusion. Pro-choice advocates are doing no one a favor by refusing to acknowledge that fact in the policies they advocate. The elasticity of birth control is ridiculously low. And none of the birth control methods you mentioned cost more than about $25 a month (Implanon works out to that over time, but the cost is up front, which changes calculations).

Cite 'em both.

I have no problem with private organizations subsidizing birth control like Implanon for poorer women FWIW.

The lols never stop.

Cheaper than child support-- glad you understand some economics.

Just like you, I took Macro 101 and 102 - unlike you, I'm not the breed of right-winger that thinks hand-waving of economic terms amounts to an argument.

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote:When you adjust for the income of the woman, or the income of her family, the stats don't lead to that conclusion. Pro-choice advocates are doing no one a favor by refusing to acknowledge that fact in the policies they advocate. The elasticity of birth control is ridiculously low. And none of the birth control methods you mentioned cost more than about $25 a month (Implanon works out to that over time, but the cost is up front, which changes calculations).

Cite 'em both.

http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr11-737.pdf

If you can't find the prices for birth control with a quick google search, there's no hope for you.

And if you're not willing to take responsibility for a child, stop fucking.

Seriously, the single report that comes up first in Google? The study that does show a decline in birth control usage with an increase in price (in a relatively privileged group - women attending a four-year university), particularly for the uninsured - and doesn't study free birth control at all?
You sure talk a big game, but like I said, it's just hand-waving and thinking no one will argue with pseudo-economic bullshit.

And if you're not willing to take responsibility for a child, stop fucking.

Ah, there we go - don't pretend you actually give a shit about policy and consequences.

milosz wrote:Seriously, the single report that comes up first in Google? The study that does show a decline in birth control usage with an increase in price (in a relatively privileged group - women attending a four-year university), particularly for the uninsured - and doesn't study free birth control at all?
You sure talk a big game, but like I said, it's just hand-waving and thinking no one will argue with pseudo-economic bullshit.

Yes, 'pseudo-economic' bullshit from the conservative stronghold at UofM.

One of the primary reasons that we don't make more progress as a country on important issues like reducing teen pregnancies-- empty headed pro-choice advocates like yourself.

Income is a key determinant. Rising income (in international studes at least) has shown the effect of reducing pregnancy rates. Income matters in the US too:

And despite the bias of the source, the author of this makes some excellent points that undermine the validity of the study.

milosz wrote:

And if you're not willing to take responsibility for a child, stop fucking.

Ah, there we go - don't pretend you actually give a shit about policy and consequences.

I'm saying you're unwilling to take the responsibility for consequences of something that affects someone else. You could get yourself fixed FWIW.

Turdacious wrote:Yes, 'pseudo-economic' bullshit from the conservative stronghold at UofM.

Nah, your pseudo-economic hand-waving, brah.

Income is a key determinant. Rising income (in international studes at least) has shown the effect of reducing pregnancy rates. Income matters in the US too

It's hilarious that you can say this while also arguing that birth control prices (and insurance, as well) are irrelevant.

I'm saying you're unwilling to take the responsibility for consequences of something that affects someone else. You could get yourself fixed FWIW.

No need. Thanks to the abortionists of Planned Parenthood, my girlfriend has long-term birth control with an almost non-existent rate of pregnancy.
Of course, when we strip clinics of funding, programs like that disappear... which leads to abortions.

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote:I'm saying you're unwilling to take the responsibility for consequences of something that affects someone else. You could get yourself fixed FWIW.

No need. Thanks to the abortionists of Planned Parenthood, my girlfriend has long-term birth control with an almost non-existent rate of pregnancy.
Of course, when we strip clinics of funding, programs like that disappear... which leads to abortions.

You want the fun with limited risk of responsibility-- and you want taxpayers to pay for it. Got it. I think Kaz has posted about 35 volumes about guys like you...