A thought experiment, re: Abortion

[homersapien 11,367]

Some of these responses beg the question of what is really more important - one's sense of authoritarian righteousness or actual results.   (I am not all that surprised.)

Perhaps a little more "rationalizing" would serve the cause of good in this case?

But it's a good exercise Titan.  IMO, it reflects the reality of reducing abortions, which focus on helping women prevent unwanted pregnancies and offering realistic solutions to her if they do happen.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

On 8/10/2019 at 9:32 AM, homersapien said:

Some of these responses beg the question of what is really more important - one's sense of authoritarian righteousness or actual results.   (I am not all that surprised.)

Perhaps a little more "rationalizing" would serve the cause of good in this case?

But it's a good exercise Titan.  IMO, it reflects the reality of reducing abortions, which focus on helping women prevent unwanted pregnancies and offering realistic solutions to her if they do happen.

Reducing abortions by making them legal, and forcing others to pay for them, is not "reality". You are delusional if you think safety nets and easy abortions are going to reduce them. Here is "reality". You are murdering a baby.  

[DKW 86 7,419]

5 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Reducing abortions by making them legal, and forcing others to pay for them, is not "reality". You are delusional if you think safety nets and easy abortions are going to reduce them. Here is "reality". You are murdering a baby.  

No one here is more Pro-Life than me. You may be AS PRO-LIFE, but not more. I tend to think of Titan as very Pro-Life as well.

Listen up: 

There are a lot of things that pols tell us that simply are not true. 

1) The number of Abortions per year is dropping significantly. So, do you want the Number of Abortions to drop (THEY ALREADY ARE) or are you really arguing for control of female rights?

2) Violent Crime is dropping and has sctually never been lower.

 

3) Death by guns are actually lower then in recent past.
 

The media doesnt get us to click or watch telling us how good we are getting.

 

[jj3jordan 2,051]

24 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

No one here is more Pro-Life than me. You may be AS PRO-LIFE, but not more. I tend to think of Titan as very Pro-Life as well.

Listen up: 

There are a lot of things that pols tell us that simply are not true. 

1) The number of Abortions per year is dropping significantly. So, do you want the Number of Abortions to drop (THEY ALREADY ARE) or are you really arguing for control of female rights?

2) Violent Crime is dropping and has sctually never been lower.

 

3) Death by guns are actually lower then in recent past.
 

The media doesnt get us to click or watch telling us how good we are getting.

 

I am advocating for the life of a helpless infant. The vast majority of them I believe would say “don’t kill me” if asked. If this infringes on the “control of female rights” then so be it.  Just saying female rights does not cover all of the issues involved.  Pro choice is given twice to the mother. Once when her legs are apart, then she wants another choice after she gets pregnant. Score: Mother - 2, Infant- 0. Result: Murdered child.

Not sure of the relevance of the other charts. 60 dead babies per 1000 is not a glowing achievement.

[DKW 86 7,419]

9 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I am advocating for the life of a helpless infant. The vast majority of them I believe would say “don’t kill me” if asked. If this infringes on the “control of female rights” then so be it.  Just saying female rights does not cover all of the issues involved.  Pro choice is given twice to the mother. Once when her legs are apart, then she wants another choice after she gets pregnant. Score: Mother - 2, Infant- 0. Result: Murdered child.

Not sure of the relevance of the other charts. 60 dead babies per 1000 is not a glowing achievement.

It is an improvement, that was my assertion.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 8/16/2019 at 11:37 PM, jj3jordan said:

I am advocating for the life of a helpless infant. The vast majority of them I believe would say “don’t kill me” if asked. If this infringes on the “control of female rights” then so be it.  Just saying female rights does not cover all of the issues involved.  Pro choice is given twice to the mother. Once when her legs are apart, then she wants another choice after she gets pregnant. Score: Mother - 2, Infant- 0. Result: Murdered child.

Not sure of the relevance of the other charts. 60 dead babies per 1000 is not a glowing achievement.

At least your honest.  You care more about controlling women than actually reducing abortions.

And your position is ultimately futile.  A national, absolute ban on abortions won't happen.  It would be theocratic.  And even if by some reason it did happen, the political backlash would be so severe it wouldn't last.

[homersapien 11,367]

19 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Reducing abortions by making them legal, and forcing others to pay for them, is not "reality". You are delusional if you think safety nets and easy abortions are going to reduce them. Here is "reality". You are murdering a baby.  

I'm sorry, could you quote where I said that?

And you are simply wrong in your assertions about how to reduce abortions.  The data say otherwise.

And it's simply illogical to think that removing what is most likely the major reason women have abortions - by providing financial aid and assistance to avoid the abortion -  won't result in a decrease in abortions. 

You are simply more interested in exerting authoritarian control of women than you are in reducing abortions.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

I'm sorry, could you quote where I said that?

And you are simply wrong in your assertions about how to reduce abortions.  The data say otherwise.

And it's simply illogical to think that removing what is most likely the major reason women have abortions - by providing financial aid and assistance to avoid the abortion -  won't result in a decrease in abortions. 

You are simply more interested in exerting authoritarian control of women than you are in reducing abortions.

That is the original statement regarding reducing abortions with a social safety net.  You referenced it post 1 page 2 aug 10.  For some reason you think Pro life people are about control.  I’m not interested in control of anyone, but I would expect that attack from a liberal. I am only concerned with giving the baby a chance.  Nobody in the womb would vote for abortion. Even you should be able to see that.  I know you are old; sorry,  but you might be forgetting some things.

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

That is the original statement regarding reducing abortions with a social safety net.  You referenced it post 1 page 2 aug 10.  For some reason you think Pro life people are about control.  I’m not interested in control of anyone, but I would expect that attack from a liberal. I am only concerned with giving the baby a chance.  Nobody in the womb would vote for abortion. Even you should be able to see that.  I know you are old; sorry,  but you might be forgetting some things.

In other words, I didn't say it. 

[jj3jordan 2,051]

On 8/10/2019 at 9:32 AM, homersapien said:

Some of these responses beg the question of what is really more important - one's sense of authoritarian righteousness or actual results.   (I am not all that surprised.)

Perhaps a little more "rationalizing" would serve the cause of good in this case?

But it's a good exercise Titan.  IMO, it reflects the reality of reducing abortions, which focus on helping women prevent unwanted pregnancies and offering realistic solutions to her if they do happen.

Even you can figure out where the realistic solutions are and where they come from.

[homersapien 11,367]

14 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Even you can figure out where the realistic solutions are and where they come from.

And obviously, you can't.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

And obviously, you can't.

Thanks for admitting I quoted you properly.

[Gowebb11 9,314]

It’s a great question, and my answer is that I would have to go for neither candidate. It is a conundrum for me, in that I believe we have too many abortions in this nation, and also have too many social safety nets in this country. As big as the abortion issue is, the vast majority of them could be prevented with people being responsible humans and using birth control. Once they decided they did want kids, be prepared and capable of caring for them properly. It’s not the governments job to raise or pay for your kids. 

[homersapien 11,367]

On 8/18/2019 at 6:20 PM, jj3jordan said:

Thanks for admitting I quoted you properly.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, Gowebb11 said:

It’s a great question, and my answer is that I would have to go for neither candidate. It is a conundrum for me, in that I believe we have too many abortions in this nation, and also have too many social safety nets in this country. As big as the abortion issue is, the vast majority of them could be prevented with people being responsible humans and using birth control. Once they decided they did want kids, be prepared and capable of caring for them properly. It’s not the governments job to raise or pay for your kids. 

Nor to compel you to have them.

But this thread is about how to best minimize them.  Wishful thinking is not really an option in the real world.