MSNBC Laments Pro-Life Laws Could Close 75% of Abortion Clinics in Some States

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

Article here (http://www.lifenews.com/2014/05/01/msnbc-laments-pro-life-laws-could-close-75-of-abortion-clinics-in-some-states/).

http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/msnbc6.jpg


MSNBC's Irin Carmon is worried sick about women in the South. They may soon find it harder to kill their unborn babies in poorly-regulated abortion clinics!

On Monday morning, Carmon penned an article on MSNBC.com apocalyptically titled "The End of Abortion Access in the South?"

The award-winning "champion of choice" essentially pleaded for the federal courts to step in and strike down laws in many southern states that would regulate abortion. A new Mississippi law, which was the main focus of her article, would require that abortions be performed by doctors who are board-certified OB/GYNs who enjoy admitting privileges at a local hospital. That particular law, Carmon fretted, would lead to the closure of the last remaining abortion clinic in the state.

When it comes to constitutional rights, the Left love to remind us that no right or liberty is absolute and may be subject to "common sense" restrictions. How quickly that changes when the right in question — invented by an activist Supreme Court and not enshrined in the text of the Constitution — is the one to take the life of the unborn.

[Keith and stuff]

What about the women raped by their family members?

[nobody's_hero]

What about the women raped by their family members?

Hang the bastard who did it.

[Brett85]

Praise the Lord.

[eduardo89]

What about the women raped by their family members?

What fault does the child have in that?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

About the only time Democrats seem to oppose government regulation is when it pertains to the abortion industry.

[oyarde]

What about the women raped by their family members?

Last I checked there were over 580 clinics in the US , so if the percentage they claim went away , that would leave , on avg , several per state .

[Ronin Truth]

I guess 50+ million fetal murders since Roe V. Wade just aren't enough for some of the MSNBC folks. :(

[Keith and stuff]

Last I checked there were over 580 clinics in the US , so if the percentage they claim went away , that would leave , on avg , several per state .
There is 1 in MS. Some claim this will close it. MS is the poorest state in the nation and many adults don't have a car.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

There is 1 in MS. Some claim this will close it. MS is the poorest state in the nation and many adults don't have a car.

Makes ya think why the hell they don"t move along. :rolleyes:

[Ronin Truth]

There is 1 in MS. Some claim this will close it. MS is the poorest state in the nation and many adults don't have a car.

Kinda makes preventing unwanted pregnancies in Mississippi a smarter option soon.

[Nirvikalpa]

Kinda makes preventing unwanted pregnancies in Mississippi a smarter option soon.

Guess that means more peppermint patties (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/03/mississippi-sex-education-program-compares-teen-girls-to-dirty-peppermint-patties/). That'll surely help.


The recently-adopted sex education curriculum in Mississippi includes a lesson comparing sexually-active teenagers to dirty chocolate, the Los Angeles Times reported on Thursday.

“They’re using [a] Peppermint Pattie to show that a girl is no longer clean or valuable after she’s had sex — that she’s been used,” one parent, Marie Barnard, was quoted as saying. “That shouldn’t be the lesson we send kids about sex.”

Barnard told the Times that the lesson, part of the curriculum at her daughter’s school in Tunica, involved students unwrapping the chocolate, then seeing how “dirty” it would get as it was passed around between students.

According to the Times, the state requires individual districts to choose between programs only teaching abstinence or a hybrid method, “abstinence-plus,” which includes some lessons on contraceptive methods. Barnard told the Times she and a group of other parents lobbied their children’s district to include contraception in their lesson plans, which prompted some residents to call them the “sex moms.”

[PRB]

why is that a bad thing?

[Nirvikalpa]

why is that a bad thing?

Do you enjoy paying welfare? 60% of teenage mothers end up on welfare, and the same percentage tend to live below the poverty level (some studies show as high as 80% going on welfare). Only 1% give up their children to adoption services. $40 billion annually to help families with a teenage birth.

Less than 1/3rd of teenage mothers complete HS, and 1/4th of teenage moms have ANOTHER child within 24mos of the 1st child.

[Ronin Truth]

Guess that means more peppermint patties (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/03/mississippi-sex-education-program-compares-teen-girls-to-dirty-peppermint-patties/). That'll surely help. Mississippi has been kinda backward for a long, long time.:(

[juleswin]

What fault does the child have in that?

That's what I said to the woman with ectopic pregnancy. And the bitch slapped me in the face

[Ender]

Do you enjoy paying welfare? 60% of teenage mothers end up on welfare, and the same percentage tend to live below the poverty level (some studies show as high as 80% going on welfare). Only 1% give up their children to adoption services. $40 billion annually to help families with a teenage birth.

Less than 1/3rd of teenage mothers complete HS, and 1/4th of teenage moms have ANOTHER child within 24mos of the 1st child.

99.9% of these problems are caused by government intervention/programs/federal reserve/ etc. Get the gov OUT and most of this diminishes.

And, I'd rather take care of a child than see it aborted.

[Nirvikalpa]

99.9% of these problems are caused by government intervention/programs/federal reserve/ etc. Get the gov OUT and most of this diminishes.

And, I'd rather take care of a child than see it aborted.

Explain "most." While I do agree government causes 99.99999% of the problems in our society and makes nearly everything worse, the issue of women getting pregnant and not wanting a baby will never end; especially teenage women. It happened throughout history; the Egyptians used many plant abortifacients, Lysias defended a woman in Greece accused of having one, China and ancient concubines, and Aristophanes wrote about it. Abortions won't ever stop, the only thing that will change is the quality of care given to those women.

If pro-lifers get their wish and abortions are made illegal - I only hope some Doctors with the training would go underground as and rival the many who will risk women's life & fertility and attempt it without proper training (or care, besides for the dollar).

[Brett85]

Abortions won't ever stop, the only thing that will change is the quality of care given to those women.

You can use that logic to oppose every single law that we have. Murder isn't ever going to stop despite the laws that we have against murder. We have laws against rape, but yet 97% of rapists get away with serving no jail time at all. Is that a justification for legalizing murder and rape? Of course not, because as a civilized society we have to have laws that are designed to protect the rights of others. Laws banning abortion in almost all cases won't solve the problem entirely and stop all abortions from occurring, but as a civilized society we still have to have laws that protect the unborn. Our society's laws are supposed to reflect the principle that you aren't allowed to aggress against others.

[eduardo89]

If pro-lifers get their wish and abortions are made illegal - I only hope some Doctors with the training would go underground as and rival the many who will risk women's life & fertility and attempt it without proper training (or care, besides for the dollar).

That is sick. You actually hope 'doctors' will continue murdering innocent unborn children?

[oyarde]

There is 1 in MS. Some claim this will close it. MS is the poorest state in the nation and many adults don't have a car.

Well if I did not have any automobiles and I was poor , that still leaves money for birth control , I reckon ......how many death stations should Mississippi have ? I imagine private charity from the evil liberals can easily cover several.....

[PRB]

Do you enjoy paying welfare?


False choice, why do i have to pay for welfare just because I don't want to murder a baby?



60% of teenage mothers end up on welfare, and the same percentage tend to live below the poverty level (some studies show as high as 80% going on welfare).


Only because we allow it. This is the same argument as people saying death penalty costs too much, when in fact the costs are on the auto appeal, not the execution itself. Are you accusing pro-birthers of being socialist? Do you not realize that it's not a contradiction or hypocrisy to be pro-birth, but not pro-comfortable life? Meaning, we want children to be born because the child has a right to be born, but we don't want to subsidize the child because it's unlibertarian and socialist to do so unless it's voluntary charity?



Only 1% give up their children to adoption services. $40 billion annually to help families with a teenage birth.

Less than 1/3rd of teenage mothers complete HS, and 1/4th of teenage moms have ANOTHER child within 24mos of the 1st child.

and somehow welfaring them is going to discourage it from happening, right?

[PRB]

That is sick. You actually hope 'doctors' will continue murdering innocent unborn children?

Obviously, because either we murder innocent babies, or we pay for them in welfare, there's no third option such as force the child to be born, and then leave it to the mother to feed the child, and if she's unable, let the child starve to death because it's none of our business, we didn't impregnate the mother, we only stopped her from aborting. Why don't people who oppose abortion either step up to adopt the child, or admit they are willing to let the child starve and suffer if charity isn't sufficient, what's the next option? SOCIALIZED WELFARE BY GOVERNMENT AND TAXES.

[PRB]

You can use that logic to oppose every single law that we have. Murder isn't ever going to stop despite the laws that we have against murder. We have laws against rape, but yet 97% of rapists get away with serving no jail time at all. Is that a justification for legalizing murder and rape? Of course not, because as a civilized society we have to have laws that are designed to protect the rights of others. Laws banning abortion in almost all cases won't solve the problem entirely and stop all abortions from occurring, but as a civilized society we still have to have laws that protect the unborn. Our society's laws are supposed to reflect the principle that you aren't allowed to aggress against others.

Exactly! Why not legalize everything if you can't eliminate it 100%? The libertarian or anarchist argument for everything. This is when legalizing literally becomes enabling and encouraging.

[PRB]

What fault does the child have in that?

The same fault a child in a poor family has when he's not well fed, the same fault a child has when born in third world countries, the same fault children had before socialized medicine, the simple answer is that life is not fair, fault is determined by process of elimination. If it's not society's fault, it's not the mother's fault, who else does it leave? The rapist and the child. Rapist is either gone or in prison, there's a limit to how much you can recover from him, the child is left.

[juleswin]

False choice, why do i have to pay for welfare just because I don't want to murder a baby?

I wont say that, if you restrict a woman from performing abortion then its a very fair question to ask if you enjoy paying welfare cos that is what usually happens to women who end up having children they cannot pay for. Also minding your business and allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy is not the same as wanting murder. I know full well that some kids will die in some 3rd world country of starvation or disease because I ate out instead of donating money to some charity but that doesn't make me a supporter of children dying.

Also on the list of question that needs to be asked to those people who support restricting abortions, How many children have you adopted from the foster homes? If the answer is none, then its very unfair that complain about allowing the market to provide access to abortions.



Only because we allow it. This is the same argument as people saying death penalty costs too much, when in fact the costs are on the auto appeal, not the execution itself. Are you accusing pro-birthers of being socialist? Do you not realize that it's not a contradiction or hypocrisy to be pro-birth, but not pro-comfortable life? Meaning, we want children to be born because the child has a right to be born, but we don't want to subsidize the child because it's unlibertarian and socialist to do so unless it's voluntary charity?

You know what else is a contradiction? being pro liberty while advocating for the abortion police. I can understand not wanting to pay for abortions or associate with abortionist but when you do not want to help(welfare, charity or adoption) those people whom you have forced by govt law to deliver a child they do not want, you more than anyone lose your right to have any say in their affairs.



and somehow welfaring them is going to discourage it from happening, right?

I agree with you, welfare should stop because it encourages some women to engage in risky sexual behaviour which leads to them having babies they cannot take care off

[PRB]

I wont say that, if you restrict a woman from performing abortion then its a very fair question to ask if you enjoy paying welfare cos that is what usually happens to women who end up having children they cannot pay for.


Because you fail to consider a 3rd option, either because you're a socialist or lack the imagination of a heartless sociopath. Which is, let the child starve and let the mother suffer.



Also minding your business and allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy is not the same as wanting murder.


It is if abortion is murder. Allowing a person the freedom to murder is the same as wanting murder.



I know full well that some kids will die in some 3rd world country of starvation or disease because I ate out instead of donating money to some charity but that doesn't make me a supporter of children dying.


Yes it does, I'm not saying you have to care, but it's a choice you made and the result of what you did and didn't do.



Also on the list of question that needs to be asked to those people who support restricting abortions, How many children have you adopted from the foster homes?


Agreed.



If the answer is none, then its very unfair that complain about allowing the market to provide access to abortions.


Again, unless the person advocates the 3rd option, leave them alone and let them suffer, the same way we allow people in foreign countries to suffer.



You know what else is a contradiction? being pro liberty while advocating for the abortion police.


it's not a contradiction if your definition of liberty is to be pro-birth. Just like it's not a contradiction if you believe murder is an absolute crime and you'd advocate using police to stop it.



I can understand not wanting to pay for abortions or associate with abortionist but when you do not want to help(welfare, charity or adoption) those people whom you have forced by govt law to deliver a child they do not want, you more than anyone lose your right to have any say in their affairs.


My only right I want a say in is I don't want any of it.



I agree with you, welfare should stop because it encourages some women to engage in risky sexual behaviour which leads to them having babies they cannot take care off

Now I can't tell if you're sarcastic.

[juleswin]

Because you fail to consider a 3rd option, either because you're a socialist or lack the imagination of a heartless sociopath. Which is, let the child starve and let the mother suffer.

So you think the 3rd option is a combination of option 1 and 2? You prevent the woman from having an abortion and when the hunger and suffering starts, you step away. Sorry but I never considered it to be a valid option. My guess is the 4th option will be to lock up the woman and put the child to work? Just kidding that time


It is if abortion is murder. Allowing a person the freedom to murder is the same as wanting murder.


Yup, the exact excuse the US govt uses to intervene in world crisis. I mean
2418

[/QUOTE]Now I can't tell if you're sarcastic.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. If you remove the support(welfare and PP funding), you will automatically reduce the number of abortions and children born out of wedlock. The policing will go back to family and the girls themselves who will be facing very hard times for being careless with their vaginas.

[PRB]

So you think the 3rd option is a combination of option 1 and 2? You prevent the woman from having an abortion and when the hunger and suffering starts, you step away. Sorry but I never considered it to be a valid option. My guess is the 4th option will be to lock up the woman and put the child to work? Just kidding that time


You can say it's the combination of first 2. Having our cake of birth and eating it too by not subsidizing the welfare. It's not a valid option because you're either a brainwashed socialist or lack the imagination of a heartless sociopath. This is only a dilemma in countries where people both want to be capitalist but also religiously moral.



Yup, the exact excuse the US govt uses to intervene in world crisis. I mean


It is, except at some point I am willing to say I can sleep knowing people are suffering and dying, can you? I'm willing to say I don't care, and recognize that my actions/inactions can lead to varying results, I sometimes choose not to. I don't feel bad about things I can't do or can't do enough.


2418


Now I can't tell if you're sarcastic.



Not at all. If you remove the support(welfare and PP funding), you will automatically reduce the number of abortions and children born out of wedlock. The policing will go back to family and the girls themselves who will be facing very hard times for being careless with their vaginas.

Having visited in Asian countries, I can say that's partially true, but at the same time, they also don't have religious objections to abortion, which means in the US, even if there's no formal government subsidy, there may still be social "voluntary" pressure to prevent abortions, leading to disasters of mothers forced to give birth by family, social or peer pressure, while having no support from anybody. The "policing" by families will vary, and that's sadly the hard part for Americans, in countires which abortion is not a moral issue, families can and will either encourage abortion or support the mother and child, Americans are the country which want it both ways, we don't care if you have (difficulty with raising a) child, we just care that you have the child.

Do you not see or expect that if in the US, welfare for unmarried mothers were reduced, the immediate result is option 3? Even with all the best intentions of family? Just to put it more bluntly, do you think families don't care because they think the government will take care of the child prior to the mother being pregnant (as such, fail to warn their children about the disaster of having children)? Or is it more likely they intend to care, but don't know how to, and their idea of "caring" is just to ensure the child is born, nothing else even with all the best intentions?

[osan]

Hang the bastard who did it.

That's it? Is this to imply she is obliged to carry a child to term under such circumstances? Under any circumstance?

You will never stop women from aborting. An iodine-soaked rag inserted into the vagina and left there for a short time will induce miscarriage.

This abortion issue is idiotic. We truly do have bigger fish to fry.

America needs to grow the hell up, get over it, and get on to the abundant adult business at hand.

[PRB]

That's it? Is this to imply she is obliged to carry a child to term under such circumstances? Under any circumstance?


Yes. What in the world would it take to get this pro-birth ideology to stick in your head? We want the child to be born, because the child has a right to be born, but nothing else. We want the mother to carry the child unless it's to save her life, but we don't want her to be helped once the child is born. The child is protected by the state because it's an innocent life, but as soon as the child is born, it's the responsibility of the mother to feed, clothe, shelter, the responsibility of the state to protect the child from being abused, starved, killed, sold.



You will never stop women from aborting. An iodine-soaked rag inserted into the vagina and left there for a short time will induce miscarriage.


Sounds easy, so I guess women wouldn't mind a little DIY.



This abortion issue is idiotic. We truly do have bigger fish to fry.

America needs to grow the hell up, get over it, and get on to the abundant adult business at hand.

what's that?

[Paulbot99]

The false dichotomy between welfare or nothing belongs in a marxist forum.

[PRB]

The false dichotomy between welfare or nothing belongs in a marxist forum.

let's hear your other options

[Tywysog Cymru]

If you check out Thinkprogress, they seem to be freaking out over the new regulations put on their beloved abortion industry. Of course, criticizing regulation on anything else is nothing but fearmongering.

[Nirvikalpa]

Yes. What in the world would it take to get this pro-birth ideology to stick in your head? We want the child to be born, because the child has a right to be born, but nothing else. We want the mother to carry the child unless it's to save her life, but we don't want her to be helped once the child is born. The child is protected by the state because it's an innocent life, but as soon as the child is born, it's the responsibility of the mother to feed, clothe, shelter, the responsibility of the state to protect the child from being abused, starved, killed, sold.



Sounds easy, so I guess women wouldn't mind a little DIY.



what's that?

Vile.


but as soon as the child is born, it's the responsibility of the mother to feed, clothe, shelter, the responsibility of the state to protect the child from being abused, starved, killed, sold.

Where are all the men's rights activists at on the forum?

When did the state begin giving a shit about life, especially child protective services? Must have missed the memo. More babies in garbage cans, then. That's really all that will end up happening. Babies in garbage cans or thrown into rivers, or left in churches and turned in to the state where they'll be abused and mistreated in that system. Sounds almost humane...

[The Rebel Poet]

The same fault a child in a poor family has when he's not well fed, the same fault a child has when born in third world countries, the same fault children had before socialized medicine, the simple answer is that life is not fair, fault is determined by process of elimination. If it's not society's fault, it's not the mother's fault, who else does it leave? The rapist and the child. Rapist is either gone or in prison, there's a limit to how much you can recover from him, the child is left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOUFHTN1G4

[The Rebel Poet]

Do you enjoy paying welfare? 60% of teenage mothers end up on welfare, and the same percentage tend to live below the poverty level (some studies show as high as 80% going on welfare). Only 1% give up their children to adoption services. $40 billion annually to help families with a teenage birth.

Less than 1/3rd of teenage mothers complete HS, and 1/4th of teenage moms have ANOTHER child within 24mos of the 1st child.
http://www.claviscryptica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/redherring.jpg

[angelatc]

Do you enjoy paying welfare? 60% of teenage mothers end up on welfare, and the same percentage tend to live below the poverty level (some studies show as high as 80% going on welfare). Only 1% give up their children to adoption services. $40 billion annually to help families with a teenage birth.

Less than 1/3rd of teenage mothers complete HS, and 1/4th of teenage moms have ANOTHER child within 24mos of the 1st child.

Yeah, you're right. Best just to kill them.

[angelatc]

America needs to grow the hell up, get over it, and get on to the abundant adult business at hand.

Let the South be the South. State's rights and all that.

[angelatc]

Abortions won't ever stop, the only thing that will change is the quality of care given to those women.

.

Abortion rates in America went up after Roe v Wade though. (http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/01/Roe-v-wade-full.pdf) Perhaps abortion won't ever be stopped, but it stands to reason that if it were illegal again the rate would decline again.

And we also have a "morning after" pill now, as well as an FDA drug to terminate early pregnancies.

And honestly, I don't care if the women are getting substandard medical care when terminating their pregnancies. IMHO, it's a filthy, horrible procedure undertaken by selfish vain women, and it belongs in the back ally where it came from

[PRB]

Vile.



Where are all the men's rights activists at on the forum?

When did the state begin giving a shit about life, especially child protective services? Must have missed the memo. More babies in garbage cans, then. That's really all that will end up happening. Babies in garbage cans or thrown into rivers, or left in churches and turned in to the state where they'll be abused and mistreated in that system. Sounds almost humane...

the state doesn't per se give a shit about life, the state is often run by religious zealots who think the PR of pro-birth is enough to excuse them of all other anti-equality, anti-life actions and beliefs they have. More babies in trash cans is no problem to pro-birthers, because they didn't say it was ok, even if they didn't want the police to stop them. Being in a trash can or being legally aborted is the same for the baby, isn't it?

[PRB]

Abortion rates in America went up after Roe v Wade though. (http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/01/Roe-v-wade-full.pdf)

No shit, who thinks/says legalizing something would decrease it???

[PRB]

Yeah, you're right. Best just to kill them.

What happens when you don't? you either end up welfaring them or watching them starve, see? I actually gave you 2 options when you don't abort. Most people are willing to only admit one of them.

[PRB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOUFHTN1G4

exactly, it's his fault that he was born of a terrorist who renounced his citizenship, not to mention he could've ran away and think for himself.

[angelatc]

No shit, who thinks/says legalizing something would decrease it???

Yeah. But my point was that is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It is sort of like debating income tax reform. Some people will settle for nothing less than a repeal of the 16th Amendment, while others are willing to at least try something that might not be perfect but would at least be better.

Agree that we can never entirely end abortion. But we could reduce it by ending legal abortion.

[Paulbot99]

let's hear your other options

There's this radical notion of private charity, volunteerism, and self-responsibility that has been floating around.

[angelatc]

What happens when you don't? you either end up welfaring them or watching them starve, see? I actually gave you 2 options when you don't abort. Most people are willing to only admit one of them.

I have seen lots of pictures of America in the pre-New Deal era. I have never seen pictures of skeletal children with flies circling their lips. Apparently there are 3rd and 4th options, too.

Are there more people on welfare now than there were in the '70's and '80's?

[PRB]

There's this radical notion of private charity, volunteerism, and self-responsibility that has been floating around.

Not so fast, you have to address "What if it's not sufficient". There's literally NOTHING stopping private charity from making government charity unnecessary and irrelevant today, it's just not sufficient.

So, start from here, "What if private charity, which is not illegal today, and in tomorrow's world where there's no government charity, is still not sufficient?" Do we let people starve and suffer? or do we force people to help? I can't think of a 3rd option from there. Prayer? Miracle?

[PRB]

I have seen lots of pictures of America in the pre-New Deal era. I have never seen pictures of skeletal children with flies circling their lips. Apparently there are 3rd and 4th options, too.

Are there more people on welfare now than there were in the '70's and '80's?

because obviously skeletal with flies is the only unacceptable way to starve, which by that definition, everybody in America isn't starving today.

Yes, there's more people on welfare now today, because we allow it, regardless of what would happen if they were forced off.

[angelatc]

Do we let people starve and suffer? or do we force people to help? I can't think of a 3rd option from there. Prayer? Miracle?

I know it's hard to fathom, because its being systemically bred out of us, but amazingly enough people are actually pretty much capable of taking care of themselves when they absolutely have to.

[angelatc]

because obviously skeletal with flies is the only unacceptable way to starve, which by that definition, everybody in America isn't starving today.

Yes, there's more people on welfare now today, because we allow it, regardless of what would happen if they were forced off.

So we are doing more abortions *and* more people are also on welfare. Hmmmm - seems that correlation / causation fallacy may be in play, and the two things aren't necessarily linked after all.


If we can expect welfare to go up when abortion rates go up, why has the opposite happened? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-abortion-rate-at-lowest-point-since-1973/2014/02/02/8dea007c-8a9b-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html)

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[eduardo89]

Just a point of clarification: I realize human life begins at conception; but do the ramifications of original sin hold off until birth?

No, we are tainted by original sin from the moment of our conception. However, babies obviously are without personal sin.

[nobody's_hero]

That's it? Is this to imply she is obliged to carry a child to term under such circumstances? Under any circumstance?

You will never stop women from aborting. An iodine-soaked rag inserted into the vagina and left there for a short time will induce miscarriage.

This abortion issue is idiotic. We truly do have bigger fish to fry.

America needs to grow the hell up, get over it, and get on to the abundant adult business at hand.

I think if you hang the bastard who did it, it creates a stronger deterrent for others who attempt to commit rape, which reduces unwanted pregnancies in those situations. I thinks we should look for proactive solutions rather than reactive solutions. Dealing with a pregnancy induced by rape is reactive. Dealing with rape is proactive (over long term, I mean, obviously you can't stop a rape that has already happened, but you can publicize execution of rapists to the extent that other would-be rapists might be like, 'oh, um, maybe I'll just use my hands, have a nice day 'mam').

Actually, forget hangings. I think we should devise some form of punishment for rapists which is equivalent to the amount of pain one might feel if their limbs were ripped off with vacuums. Perhaps we could bring back drawing and quartering using horses and rope, which seems to best match the barbarism of the act of abortion, since I don't think any vacuum exists which could rip off a fully grown man's testicles, head, or arms.

[Ronin Truth]

:eek: You mean it's just possible that some more of those evil babies just might manage to escape the good doctor's vacuum? :rolleyes:

[PRB]

So we are doing more abortions *and* more people are also on welfare.


Because both are legalized, not that one caused the other.



Hmmmm - seems that correlation / causation fallacy may be in play, and the two things aren't necessarily linked after all.

If we can expect welfare to go up when abortion rates go up, why has the opposite happened? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-abortion-rate-at-lowest-point-since-1973/2014/02/02/8dea007c-8a9b-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html)

How about, because welfare can't be stopped and hasn't been increased, so as much as we both want welfare to decrease, perhaps neither abortions nor Democrats will help it?

[PRB]

No, we are tainted by original sin from the moment of our conception. However, babies obviously are without personal sin.

which one gets you into hell?

[PRB]

I know it's hard to fathom, because its being systemically bred out of us, but amazingly enough people are actually pretty much capable of taking care of themselves when they absolutely have to.

Let's tell that to starvers in third world countries, I'm sure they can take care of themselves just fine, why are they so greedy that they still beg, still starve and still want to come to our country to mooch?

[robert9712000]

Do you enjoy paying welfare? 60% of teenage mothers end up on welfare, and the same percentage tend to live below the poverty level (some studies show as high as 80% going on welfare). Only 1% give up their children to adoption services. $40 billion annually to help families with a teenage birth.

Less than 1/3rd of teenage mothers complete HS, and 1/4th of teenage moms have ANOTHER child within 24mos of the 1st child.

Accountability for your actions can be a hard lesson learned, but it will encourage people to not be so irresponsible and take more thought before they jump in the sack since there get out of jail free card isn't there.

[PaulConventionWV]

Do you enjoy paying welfare? 60% of teenage mothers end up on welfare, and the same percentage tend to live below the poverty level (some studies show as high as 80% going on welfare). Only 1% give up their children to adoption services. $40 billion annually to help families with a teenage birth.

Less than 1/3rd of teenage mothers complete HS, and 1/4th of teenage moms have ANOTHER child within 24mos of the 1st child.

Because when considering whether or not to kill babies, it helps to appeal to our wallets.

Regardless, though, I don't expect to be taxed any less in the near future.

[PaulConventionWV]

You can use that logic to oppose every single law that we have. Murder isn't ever going to stop despite the laws that we have against murder. We have laws against rape, but yet 97% of rapists get away with serving no jail time at all. Is that a justification for legalizing murder and rape? Of course not, because as a civilized society we have to have laws that are designed to protect the rights of others. Laws banning abortion in almost all cases won't solve the problem entirely and stop all abortions from occurring, but as a civilized society we still have to have laws that protect the unborn. Our society's laws are supposed to reflect the principle that you aren't allowed to aggress against others.

Ninety-seven percent of rapists get off scott-free? Where in the hell did you pull that statistic from?

[PaulConventionWV]

That's it? Is this to imply she is obliged to carry a child to term under such circumstances? Under any circumstance?

You will never stop women from aborting. An iodine-soaked rag inserted into the vagina and left there for a short time will induce miscarriage.

This abortion issue is idiotic. We truly do have bigger fish to fry.

America needs to grow the hell up, get over it, and get on to the abundant adult business at hand.

That's a bit inconsiderate of you. Telling people to "grow up" and "get over [the death of innocent children]" shows a complete lack of consideration for what many feel is an extremely important topic. You can't just pick a topic that isn't important to you and say it's not important to anybody. That's incredibly narrow-minded.

[Peace&Freedom]

That's a bit inconsiderate of you. Telling people to "grow up" and "get over [the death of innocent children]" shows a complete lack of consideration for what many feel is an extremely important topic. You can't just pick a topic that isn't important to you and say it's not important to anybody. That's incredibly narrow-minded.

Yes, this is exactly the point as far as certain aggressive pro-legal abortion people are concerned. They actually expect everybody to adopt their narrow-minded view, and think people are supposed to get used to accepting legalized child-killing as a norm. The fact that their position was enshrined in case law only a generation ago, against a world history and international consensus overwhelmingly holding an opposite view, means nothing to them.

[Brett85]

Ninety-seven percent of rapists get off scott-free? Where in the hell did you pull that statistic from?

http://www.rainn.org/news-room/97-of-every-100-rapists-receive-no-punishment

[Origanalist]

http://www.rainn.org/news-room/97-of-every-100-rapists-receive-no-punishment

That's a joke, right?

[Brett85]

That's a joke, right?

No, not at all.

[angelatc]

Let's tell that to starvers in third world countries, I'm sure they can take care of themselves just fine, why are they so greedy that they still beg, still starve and still want to come to our country to mooch?

Most of the poverty in developing nations is the result of corrupt governments redistributing wealth, not a systemic breakdown of the most basic instinctual survival skills.

But if you want to play that card, maybe if we stopped telling women that it was socially acceptable to kill their offspring, maybe we wouldn't need to import so much labor.

[angelatc]

Because both are legalized, not that one caused the other.



How about, because welfare can't be stopped and hasn't been increased, so as much as we both want welfare to decrease, perhaps neither abortions nor Democrats will help it?

But this tread is about abortion, not welfare. I was just disproving the link between the two.

[Origanalist]

No, not at all.

Please tell me you don't believe that. (I want to believe)

[Brett85]

Please tell me you don't believe that. (I want to believe)

What evidence do you have that those aren't legitimate statistics?

[PRB]

But this tread is about abortion, not welfare. I was just disproving the link between the two.

Agreed. There isn't a link between them, however, based on the fact that the country has very loose standards for what qualifies as welfare (and only loosens, not tightens), is it not reasonable to assume if more poor people were born (let's be honest, people who, for lacking a better word, "need" abortions, are usually poor), they'd create more welfare qualifying people?

The only way welfare will decrease is if we actually decrease it, or God forbid, we ultimately can't afford it.

[PRB]

Most of the poverty in developing nations is the result of corrupt governments redistributing wealth, not a systemic breakdown of the most basic instinctual survival skills.

But if you want to play that card, maybe if we stopped telling women that it was socially acceptable to kill their offspring, maybe we wouldn't need to import so much labor.

I don't accept the premise that we need to import labor to begin with. We only import labor because we also welfare the lazy Americans who think they're too good to work the imported (or exported) jobs.

But it IS more socially acceptable to kill her offspring than to take another person's tax dollars to feed her child...oh wait, I meant, our society would gladly pay to keep the child alive because they can't stand the PR of killing a baby to save money. My idea of what's socially acceptable is totally off.

[PRB]

Accountability for your actions can be a hard lesson learned, but it will encourage people to not be so irresponsible and take more thought before they jump in the sack since there get out of jail free card isn't there.

Which country can you point to that teaches birth control by means other than abortion, and also doesn't have a welfare abuse problem?

All the countries which don't have a welfare abuse problem, as far as I know, also don't have an abortion morality problem.

[PRB]

Because when considering whether or not to kill babies, it helps to appeal to our wallets.

Regardless, though, I don't expect to be taxed any less in the near future.

Duh, I thought the whole point of the liberty movement is to vote fiscal responsibility, economic efficiency and let the market decide everything.

[Origanalist]

What evidence do you have that those aren't legitimate statistics?

It's a graph made up by a focus group with no basis in fact. There is nothing to support this.

[PRB]

Please tell me you don't believe that. (I want to believe)

If we are to go by what they say, it's not entirely surprising.
Of 100
46 are reported
12 are arrested

if you are using the definition of rape to include anything that's not consensual, AND the legal definitions (statutory). It's not surprising that 54 are not reported, or 54 are not real cases which wouldn't be taken seriously anyway.

So looking at the 46 reported, 12 arrested is not a bad number, considering the evidence typically available. Compare this to theft, robbery, assault, and I expect similar numbers. The strength in this 97% statistic is the under reporting.

After the arrest, the rest is up to jury, and it's a mess in every crime. The point of this statistic is probably to encourage reporting even if it's not going to lead to a conviction. This whole group of 100 represents any and all claimed rapes, so to say 97% walk away scott free is an outrageous accusation that all of them are guilty without trial.

[angelatc]

Duh, I thought the whole point of the liberty movement is to vote fiscal responsibility, economic efficiency and let the market decide everything.

Now you are being silly.

[Origanalist]

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS is a self-report survey in which interviewed persons are asked about the number and characteristics of victimizations experienced during the prior 6 months. The NCVS collects information on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and personal larceny) and household property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft) both reported and not reported to police. In addition to providing annual level and change estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is the primary source of information on the nature of criminal victimization incidents.

Survey respondents provide information about themselves (e.g., age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, marital status, education level, and income) and whether they experienced a victimization. Information is collected for each victimization incident, about the offender (e.g., age, race and Hispanic origin, sex, and victim-offender relationship), characteristics of the crime (including time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic consequences), whether the crime was reported to police, reasons the crime was or was not reported, and experiences with the criminal justice system.

The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of households in the United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of members who all reside at a sampled address. Persons are considered household members when the sampled address is their usual place of residence at the time of the interview and when they have no usual place of residence elsewhere. Once selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and eligible persons in these households are interviewed every 6 months either in person or over the phone for a total of seven interviews.

Generally, all first interviews are conducted in-person. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have been in sample for the 3-year period. The sample includes persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings, and excludes persons living in military barracks and institutional settings, such as correctional or hospital facilities, and the homeless.


Puleeze, tell me you don't take this as gospel.

[angelatc]

I don't accept the premise that we need to import labor to begin with. We only import labor because we also welfare the lazy Americans who think they're too good to work the imported (or exported) jobs.

But it IS more socially acceptable to kill her offspring than to take another person's tax dollars to feed her child...oh wait, I meant, our society would gladly pay to keep the child alive because they can't stand the PR of killing a baby to save money. My idea of what's socially acceptable is totally off.

I understand your point, but again - I believe that there are far more alternatives than the only two you provide, which seem to both involve killing children.

[PRB]

Now you are being silly.

Again I will ask, even if I didn't ask you directly.

Which abortionless country or country which has a moral problem with abortion, also doesn't have a welfare abuse problem?

Better yet, which first world country has a less available abortion rate to begin with?

[angelatc]

Puleeze, tell me you don't take this as gospel.



The NCVS is a self-report survey

I hear ya.

[PRB]

I understand your point, but again - I believe that there are far more alternatives than the only two you provide, which seem to both involve killing children.

which of them alternatives have been tested in real life, never mind actually working, tested in real life we can see?

[angelatc]

Again I will ask, even if I didn't ask you directly.

Which abortionless country or country which has a moral problem with abortion, also doesn't have a welfare abuse problem?

Better yet, which first world country has a less available abortion rate to begin with?

I am done talking about the non-existent link between abortion and welfare. You can carry on if you like.

[angelatc]

which of them alternatives have been tested in real life, never mind actually working, tested in real life we can see?

I am not sure how old you are, but some of us really did live in a world where welfare didn't exist and abortion was illegal.

[PRB]

I am done talking about the non-existent link between abortion and welfare. You can carry on if you like.

I apologize if you still think that the fact I mention them together means there's a link, causal or otherwise. I don't.

I DO however, mention them together to point out that unless welfare is actively (or proactively) reduced, we will either have a greater abuse problem or a greater poverty if abortion was reduced and population of the poor was increased. I make a distinction between welfare use and welfare abuse.

So I'll ask the more basic question again : Better yet, which first world country has a less available abortion rate to begin with?

[PRB]

I am not sure how old you are, but some of us really did live in a world where welfare didn't exist and abortion was illegal.

What year was that? when there was one car per family?

[angelatc]

What year was that? when there was one car per family?

Yes, and one income per family. And 10 kids per family was not uncommon.

As for what year, pretty much any time before the '70's.

[Origanalist]

What year was that? when there was one car per family?

Do you find that hard to believe?

[PaulConventionWV]

//

[osan]

Let the South be the South. State's rights and all that.

No such thing. There are only individual rights. If you disagree, onus shall rest with you to demonstrate that a state exists prior to establishing that it has rights.

Good luck with that.

[Origanalist]

No such thing. There are only individual rights. If you disagree, onus shall rest with you to demonstrate that a state exists prior to establishing that it has rights.

Good luck with that.

That is a statement that is hard to refute with logic. However our world is not operating by logic but by force. States rights bring power down to a smaller more local level.

[osan]

Abortion rates in America went up after Roe v Wade though. (http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/01/Roe-v-wade-full.pdf)


More unsupported assertions. Nobody knows what the abortion rates were prior to Roe because nobody was reporting them. The "numbers" prior were mere guesses.


Perhaps abortion won't ever be stopped, but it stands to reason that if it were illegal again the rate would decline again.

You mean the way drug usage has dropped since the war on drugs commenced? This line of reasoning is very weak and your conclusions are not supported with fact because there are no facts prior to Roe.

Abortion will indeed never be stopped. All a woman needs to do is stop eating for several days and she will almost certainly miscarry. I suppose you would have such people force-fed?



And honestly, I don't care if the women are getting substandard medical care when terminating their pregnancies.

Your compassion is overwhelming. Keep that up and you will rival Frankrep for his comment about how Kelly Thomas "did it to himself"


IMHO, it's a filthy, horrible procedure undertaken by selfish vain women, and it belongs in the back ally where it came from

You are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is the application of force to prevent those who believe otherwise from exercising their rights.

This is what I mean when I refer to the fact that most people want NOTHING to do with actual freedom. They want pretty slavery where they get what they want and everyone else gets to go screw themselves. It is precisely this brand of thinking that has put humanity in the toilet.

Last I checked, neither selfishness nor vanity were crimes, yet you so magnanimously adjudge such women as being deserving of death and maiming? Way to go.

I would also point out that you presume too much by assessing all women who have abortions as being selfish and vain. Let us hope you never end up with a bun in the oven as the result of having been brutally raped. You might find your views suddenly changed.

[osan]

That is a statement that is hard to refute with logic. However our world is not operating by logic but by force. States rights bring power down to a smaller more local level.

Agreed, yet is tyranny not still tyranny even at that level?

Satistically speaking, humanity's basis of thought on such matters is hopelessly screwed up. The number of people on the planet who do not have their heads driven deeply into their colons on such issues is vanishingly small, the realization of which leaves one with equally scant reason for optimism for the future of the race. We have come to a truly horrific pass.

[Origanalist]

Your compassion is overwhelming. Keep that up and you will rival Frankrep for his comment about how Kelly Thomas "did it to himself"

So the baby brought it on itself?


I would also point out that you presume too much by assessing all women who have abortions as being selfish and vain. Let us hope you never end up with a bun in the oven as the result of having been brutally raped. You might find your views suddenly changed.

The percentage of women who get a abortion resulting from rape is so small that the argument is moot. And offering a anecdotal example, I will again state that I am a product of the same.

[Origanalist]

his is what I mean when I refer to the fact that most people want NOTHING to do with actual freedom. They want pretty slavery where they get what they want and everyone else gets to go screw themselves. It is precisely this brand of thinking that has put humanity in the toilet.


That sounds like somebody willing to kill their offspring for convenience.

[Origanalist]

Agreed, yet is tyranny not still tyranny even at that level?

Satistically speaking, humanity's basis of thought on such matters is hopelessly screwed up. The number of people on the planet who do not have their heads driven deeply into their colons on such issues is vanishingly small, the realization of which leaves one with equally scant reason for optimism for the future of the race. We have come to a truly horrific pass.

Yes, it is still tyranny. But it's a start. The smaller it get's the less powerful it becomes and the less likely it will be tempted to wage war.

And those who wish to annihilate their offspring can do so without the support of those of us who believe it is an abomination to do so.

[PRB]

Do you find that hard to believe?

I find it hard to believe 1 car per family was a better life than 5 smartphones per family.

[PRB]

That sounds like somebody willing to kill their offspring for convenience.

a lifetime (ok, maybe just 18 years) of convenience, you betcha. I bet you'd do a lot to avoid being handicapped too, the story is the same, you do what you need to avoid unnecessary trouble for yourself, it's a "convenience".

[PRB]

So the baby brought it on itself?

The percentage of women who get a abortion resulting from rape is so small that the argument is moot. And offering a anecdotal example, I will again state that I am a product of the same.

The baby no more brought it on himself as the baby born to an abusive parent or poor parent who can't feed him/her.

I agree, rape is so small it's not an excuse to blanket allow abortion, there are much better arguments for abortion that using rape is a dishonest generalization. You are product of what? Rape?

[PRB]

More unsupported assertions. Nobody knows what the abortion rates were prior to Roe because nobody was reporting them. The "numbers" prior were mere guesses.


people who failed at it were reported as deaths. people who were caught performing them illegally were reported as criminals.



You mean the way drug usage has dropped since the war on drugs commenced?


Yes. The way murder is expected to increase if there was no law against it.



This line of reasoning is very weak and your conclusions are not supported with fact because there are no facts prior to Roe.


there are limited facts, but not none at all.



Abortion will indeed never be stopped. All a woman needs to do is stop eating for several days and she will almost certainly miscarry. I suppose you would have such people force-fed?


No, it's actually good to know it's that easy, I'd be all for it, at least it wouldn't be me paying to abort the baby.



Your compassion is overwhelming. Keep that up and you will rival Frankrep for his comment about how Kelly Thomas "did it to himself"

You are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is the application of force to prevent those who believe otherwise from exercising their rights.


I suppose we differ on what rights are.



This is what I mean when I refer to the fact that most people want NOTHING to do with actual freedom. They want pretty slavery where they get what they want and everyone else gets to go screw themselves. It is precisely this brand of thinking that has put humanity in the toilet.

Last I checked, neither selfishness nor vanity were crimes, yet you so magnanimously adjudge such women as being deserving of death and maiming? Way to go.

I would also point out that you presume too much by assessing all women who have abortions as being selfish and vain. Let us hope you never end up with a bun in the oven as the result of having been brutally raped. You might find your views suddenly changed.

What other reason would there be if not selfish and vain?

[PRB]

No such thing. There are only individual rights. If you disagree, onus shall rest with you to demonstrate that a state exists prior to establishing that it has rights.

Good luck with that.

looks like we have an anarchist here who has no respect for the Constitution.

[Origanalist]

a lifetime (ok, maybe just 18 years) of convenience, you betcha. I bet you'd do a lot to avoid being handicapped too, the story is the same, you do what you need to avoid unnecessary trouble for yourself, it's a "convenience".

I'm not sure why you include me in your example. I have already not "avoided" this. The story really is not the same.

[angelatc]

No such thing. There are only individual rights. If you disagree, onus shall rest with you to demonstrate that a state exists prior to establishing that it has rights.

Good luck with that.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[angelatc]

More unsupported assertions. Nobody knows what the abortion rates were prior to Roe because nobody was reporting them. The "numbers" prior were mere guesses..

That's not exactly true. For starts, some states already allowed abortion.

[angelatc]

I find it hard to believe 1 car per family was a better life than 5 smartphones per family.

My family only has 1 car. I do not have a cell phone, much less a smart phone. My kids do not have cell phones. My family eats dinner together at a table every night, and when we vacation we all pile into our one car and go.

We do not text each other, our kids are not in the bathroom snapping underwear selfies and when we go out to dinner nobody ever gets annoyed when someone's cell phone rings in the middle of a story someone is telling.

I do indeed think that in the list of things that matter to me, my life is much better than that of most people who have 2 cars and 5 cellphones.

My husband and I both have women in our families that never bothered to get a driver's license. They still walk to the store and back to get groceries. (They never walk to McDonald's.)

[Origanalist]

I find it hard to believe 1 car per family was a better life than 5 smartphones per family.

I guess you had to be there. I'm not really sure why anyone would think having 5 smartphones would be a good thing. 5 heads buried in their phones, no thanks.

[tod evans]

I guess you had to be there. I'm not really sure why anyone would think having 5 smartphones would be a good thing. 5 heads buried in their phones, no thanks.

It's a different world...

And what exactly are todays inhabitants making?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[angelatc]

a lifetime (ok, maybe just 18 years) of convenience, you betcha. I bet you'd do a lot to avoid being handicapped too, the story is the same, you do what you need to avoid unnecessary trouble for yourself, it's a "convenience".

The fact that you see baby humans as a handicap and unnecessary trouble is probably what most clearly defines the deep philosophical divide over this issue.

We do indeed do what we need to do in order to avoid unnecessary trouble for ourselves, but we do not advocate simply killing the people who threaten to make trouble for us.

[angelatc]

All any state has is power

I am not an anarchist, I am a constitutionalist. I am not interested in debating philosophy beyond that.

[PRB]

I guess you had to be there. I'm not really sure why anyone would think having 5 smartphones would be a good thing. 5 heads buried in their phones, no thanks.

Having a smartphone doesn't obligate you to bury your head, it just provides the option to. You can be buried at your computer screen too.

[PRB]

The fact that you see baby humans as a handicap and unnecessary trouble is probably what most clearly defines the deep philosophical divide over this issue.

We do indeed do what we need to do in order to avoid unnecessary trouble for ourselves, but we do not advocate simply killing the people who threaten to make trouble for us.

If a child isn't an unnecessary trouble, it would either be a necessary trouble or an advantage, what else could it be?

[PRB]

It's a different world...

And what exactly are todays inhabitants making?

Internet posts, bitcoins, demands for non-GMO food.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx