There is Everything Wrong with Abortion

It's not beyond reason, and it would be great if all were educated enough not to get pregnant, and that there were a birth control with 100% effective rate (that doesn't include abstinence.) In a perfect world..........

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is it beyond reason that they don't get pregnant in the first place?

The exception? Both of my children came to be when I was on a form of birth control. Not an "exception". A fact. One out of ten women on a form of birth control (at least) will become pregnant. ONE IN TEN. And those are the GOOD numbers. Now, add in the less effective forms, and then those who are just ill educated about how you become pregnant....you have a very large volume of unplanned pregnancies. I would be interested to know the true number of births that were by accidental pregnancies or planned ones. Can you find that information in your trust dictionary? LOL

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you're picking out the exception and acting as it's the rule.

One out of 100. Sorry. It's late. I knew what I meant. I simply stated it wrong. My mistake. 99% effective rate is 1 in 100. OOps. I'll admit when I make a stupid mistake. That was one. Still, not an exception.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you're picking out the exception and acting as it's the rule.

We don't live in a perfect world Grunt. And if you want an unwanted child to be taken care of, and the woman who gave birth to it is not responsible enough, why don't you step up and help out? You're the one wanting to force a birth, then you should have some impact of the consequences. You should be held responsible for your decisions in FORCING someone to give live birth. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even need abortion as an option. But we don't live in a perfect world. Unworthy women give birth to children and then abuse them. If they survive, you state they should be put into a foster care system until they can make a life of their own. What about that in between time? Why can't you help them out since you wanted to force them to be born to begin with, even though there was even a SLIGHT possibility that they would be abused or neglected and ended up in foster care? Why not take responsibility for YOUR decisions and opinions...the fact that you want to FORCE a woman to give birth when she doesn't want to and will make a horrible mother. That responsibility works both ways.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, why are you trying to force someone's responsibility onto me? Why do you have such a problem with personal responsibility?

Here, let's make it simple for the simpleton:

Did you have sex for procreation only? Or did you have sex for enjoyment and OOPS get pregnant by mistake? Do you believe one should only have sex if they want to procreate? Procreate is when you become pregnant during the act of sex and have a live birth, producing a newborn baby in your likeness and that of your partner with whom you had sex with.
Is that easier to understand? Or were the words I used too big?

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't even know what you're asking here.

No, it won't. It will be too detrimental to society to criminalize abortion again. We already learned our less. Criminalizing it will not stop it. It will just make it more dangerous.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Probably not. It will be criminalized one day, though.

That is a TERRIBLE comparison to an accidental pregnancy and abortion. No one here is against personal responsibility. If a woman knows she is not responsible enough, or has the resources to have a child, she is making the RESPONSIBLE CHOICE to end the pregnancy early on. That is taking personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is a lot more than your tiny myopic definition of it.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you so against personal responsibility? If I get behind the wheel of a car and hit another car, it is an accident. It wasn't intentional. Accidents happen. I'm still responsible for that accident, though. I can't just say "whoops, now I have to pay to fix your car. I can't afford that, nor do I want to be inconvenienced by that, so I'll just kill you instead and go about my business."

So sorry you can't comprehend them when they are there in black and white. You don't seem to have the education you claim to have. How sad. Home schooled? Or did the public school system fail you? They obviously failed you in the sexual education department. How sad.
And on the subject of personal responsibility, how is it you're being a responsible parent to your twins by being online all day long? That's not responsibly parenting, in my opinion.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
I know. I'm hoping you folks will start using complete sentences and make coherent statements.

That trend is for politicians to say whatever they can to try to get your vote. Happens all the time. You're simply being fooled into some "trend" that will disappear once the votes are tallied, untill the next election time, when they'll just tell you what you want to hear again. You're nothing but a sheeple.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. I'm intelligent enough to follow the trend, though. I have faith that you'll get there.

Irresponsible people DO PAY for their irresponsibility. Who do you think are getting a free pass for being irresponsible?

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's unrealistic to expect people to be responsible? Well then, they'll just have to start paying for their irresponsibility.

You didn't make that claim, Grunt. You called her a dirt bag because she didn't want the or love the child. No talk of abuse in that case. It's funny how the definitions change just to suit your opinions.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
So you think women who abuse children aren't dirt bags? The more I learn about you, the more I see your true nature.

Hell, even women who are incarcerated while in the early stages of pregnancy are allowed to give live birth. Some prisons will even allow her to raise her infant in the prison, in a special cell, with daycare help so she can do other prison "duties".

STILL OCB wrote:

<quoted text>Please cite at least one instance where ANY woman in this country has been LEGALLY forced to abort or be sterilized.
And never mind AT LEAST one instance; JUST one instance will do.

And then she makes the decision to remain pregnant or not.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Nobody is forcing her to do anything. She makes the decision to engage in behavior that makes babies.

Pro-lifers tend to do less for the children born than the advocacy they promote for the unborn. You state yourself that you'll do nothing for the born, because they aren't your responsibility.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. Pro-Lifers care less about babies than the people that want to kill them. That makes total sense.
Oh wait. No it doesn't.

I find FORCING a woman to do or not do with her reproductive system offensive. She has a right over what happens to and within her body.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Amazing that you find forcing people not to kill unborn babies so offensive.

Kudos. Now, show us where people who had enough IQ points to make legal choices for themselves were forced to have an abortion or be sterilized. These were mildly good examples of where it happened, but these women were not in the position to make logical legal and reproductive choices themselves. They could barely care for themselves with day to day tasks. Good attempt however.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Here are 3. Again, I'm amazed at how little you people know about the positions you've chosen to support.
Here's a suggestion: Go educate yourself, then come back so you don't keep putting your foot in your mouth.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_pub...

FACT: Most abortion opponents do nothing about the babies that are already born and have no home or family.
FACT: Most abortion opponents do nothing to help educate about proper sexual education.
FACT: Most abortion opponents are only pro-life for the z/e/f, not the born human.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
FACT: Abortion opponents support not killing babies.
FACT: Not killing babies is allowing babies to live.
FACT: Abortion opponents support allowing babies to live.
FACT: Abortion opponents are pro-life

They still had to consent. Their arms may have been twisted to do so, but they still had the option to say no.

LightForce wrote:

<quoted text>
If you can't find it by the time I get back, I will find it for you. It took me just 2 seconds to find this example though:
http://mississippiappendectomy.wordpress.com/...

Instead of simply stating their false, why don't you PROVE they're false. Just because you claim it, doesn't make it so. Start backing up your assertions of falsehood with proof. You'll be taken more seriously. Maybe. Though I think most of your credibility is already shot. Especially when you go against logical, true, medical PROOF of things you claim are false. I've already done that dance with you, and I no longer feel you have any credibility in any of your statements or opinions.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
No you don't. We've established that time and time again.
The vast majority of your posts are simply false.

Life does not come form death or lack of life, therefor life is transfered from God to man to woman. To say that BC blocks that birth is un true. BC kills the life of the sperm which fights (proof of life)to reach the egg. To simply black that transfer would mean that the spem would remain alive and be used at a latter time if desired. We know that is nonsense.