Roe v Wade is on deck

[Lion IRC]

Do you publicly support, and push your governments to attain, and argue whenever the topic of reducing abortions come up, that the best way to reduce abortions right now is to provide free-to-user, easily accessible, long acting reversible birth control?

Yes.

So can we ban abortion now?

And that this is more important and more effective and more immediate than any argument over whether abortion is wrong?

If I agree to that can we ban abortions?

Would you like to reduce abortions by 88% by August Fifteenth?

Yes.

So can we ban abortion now?

Are you doing everything you can to increase support for it?

Yes.

So can we ban abortion now?

Or are you spending your time letting abortions happen because you are busy arguing about abortions instead of pregnancies?

No.
So can we ban abortion now?

Do you also publicly support and push your government to enact laws that remove the danger, difficulty and stigma of unplanned parenthood by providing for free prenatal care, free post partum care, subsidized daycare, and publicly delivered food assistance?

Yes.
So can we ban abortion now?

...reducing the reasons people choose to terminate pregnancies...would reduce abortions, again, by August Fifteenth. Would you like to have more pregnancies result in full term and still be continuing after August Fifteenth?

Yes.

So can we ban abortion now?

Because if women were less terrified of the outcome, they would be less likely to choose abortion. So…. Do you walk the walk?

Yes.

So can we ban abortion now?

You could advocate to reduce abortions by 88% in 12 weeks by promoting protected sex and support for mothers.
Be honest. Do you do that?

Yes.

So can we ban abortion now?

Do you support the measures that would do that?

Yes.

So can we ban abortion now?

...or does your 'whataboutism' have nothing to with the central argument for abortion-on-demand - my body my choice - no matter what Lion IRC says and does about contraception, adoption, welfare for single moms, sex education, monogamy...

Because I dont think youre entitled/authorized to trade away other women's bodily autonomy in return for pro-lifers "walking the walk".

 

[Lion IRC]

Show me something I've written in this forum that 'indicates' I dont want to reduce abortions.

Have you supported the various ways folks like Rhea have described to reduce abortion...

Yes.

So can we ban abortion now?

without resorting to government overreach?
If so, I don't remember that.
Tom

We need government overreach either way.

 

[Toni]

If men want the law to support them in this fashion, then I believe the law should also hold them responsible in all pregnancy situations.

That doesn't make sense.

If women can choose fertile sex, then decide that they don't want the responsibility, why is it wrong when men do it?

Why is a male parent held responsible for the outcome of his decision, but female parents are not?

Looks like a serious double standard to me.
If the father is responsible for more than the cost of an abortion, regardless of his willingness, why aren't women?
Tom

Really?

Regardless of the outcome of a conception, a woman—and far too often, a girl— is the only parent whose life is endangered. It is only she who risks her life, her health, her future fertility. Her future educational or career aspirations are most likely to be curtailed. Quite frequently he simply ignores the situation, trashes her reputation or feels throwing a package of diapers on the porch suffices in satisfying his parental duty.

Men have at their disposal at least three quite reliable, risk free options for birth ci trip, two of which are completely reversible and the third is sometimes reversible. Yet men so seldom are willing to endure the slightest inconvenience or tiniest impediment to their own pleasure.

Please spare me your overwrought sympathies for poor poor poor men who unwillingly are forced to ejaculate inside women’s vaginas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, yeah, if you want to ban abortions, government is gonna need some serious over-reach to ensure they aren't happening.

It is too bad the "pro-life" movement in America isn't as liberal as you when it comes to pushing initiatives to help reduce unwanted pregnancies. In America, the "pro-life" movement wants to greatly limit sex education, access to birth control, and we even have NFL kickers who tell women to just trust in god when fucking, and not to use "Catholic Birth Control".

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, yeah, if you want to ban abortions, government is gonna need some serious over-reach to ensure they aren't happening.

It is too bad the "pro-life" movement in America isn't as liberal as you when it comes to pushing initiatives to help reduce unwanted pregnancies. In America, the "pro-life" movement wants to greatly limit sex education, access to birth control, and we even have NFL kickers who tell women to just trust in god when fucking, and not to use "Catholic Birth Control".

Well, that's because at its core, where decisions and priorities are originated, it's not about preventing abortions, but about preventing people from planning families in ways that lead to preservation of wealth and continuity of opportunities.

It's more about "accept that you will give birth early and be poor and that this is your lot in life" without having to say those words or put the lie to "the land of opportunities".

They WANT people to be young parents because young parents will be far less likely to produce wealthy children.

That's what they really want: to keep the poors poor.

 

[TomC]

Yes.

So can we ban abortion now?

Typing "yes" on an Internet discussion forum is not doing or supporting anything. Looks very dishonest to me.

We need government overreach either way.

No, anti-abortion people need government overreach. I oppose the government getting involved to the point of forcing people to do things in this case.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is funny. They label the classrooms of schools on the outside now in the off, but inevitable somewhere, chance an armed person gets into the school and the officers have a better idea to know where the dead children's bodies are laying by their school desks. The second one suggests managing that threat to the lives of the innocent children, Pro-Lifers are likely to get angry about Government over-reach and their Constitutional right to firearm ownership. But if a woman gets pregnant, we must stop at nothing to ensure that zygote makes it to term and can be born so it can be executed by some asshole's last hurrah before turning the gun on themselves.

All life is sacred... unless it means our access to guns is threatened and we don't know the pregnant woman (she's not like those others).

 

[Toni]

More often than not, men can simply walk away from any pregnancy they help create with very little if any legal repercussions.

I understand that.
Do you agree that both parents are responsible for the outcome of the choice to have fertile sex and taking care of the human they sometimes create?

Or do you think it's okay for the female parent to decide and the male parent is just on the hook paying for the female parents decision?

That's the double standard I'm talking about. They both choose the sex, but then one can choose anything they want afterwards, but one is responsible for 18 years of child support should the other decide that they want it.

Why is a father of a six weeks old fetus responsible for more than the cost of an abortion?
Tom

Decency.

You realize that whether that six week old embryo

Why did he not assume responsibility for birth control? Why have not men, who have controlled most of medical science and research not perfected male hormonal birth control? I know why: they consider the risks to their health and the diminishment of their pleasure to be intolerable.

 

[Lion IRC]

No, Lion cannot come up with any data to support his wild claim that “men constitute a significant percentage of the “abortion on demand lobby.” It’s just fabricated out of thin air.

Do you really think that men do not constitute a significant percentage of the pro-choice people?

That's a pretty wild claim.
One I find ridiculous, but that's just me.
Tom

There are a number of issues. First is the illiterate 86% being used by Lion. 86% of men don't think abortion should be legal in all or some cases.

86% think it should be legal in most cases.

Lion decided to add numbers because, well, I think I'll let others decide.

Gallup decided to add the numbers.
See the corresponding chart for women.
You have to aggregate the partial and total support numbers to get a like-for-like comparison.

The percent of men labeled as 'pro-Choice" is 48%. Percent of men thinking abortion should be generally accessible floats above 50%, not at 86%.

Men who think abortion should be legal in most cases and men who think abortion should be legal in all cases should be collectively labelled pro-choice.

Secondly, Lion intentionally misrepresented the values for women, using a completely different question

Its not a "completely different question".

and not summating the all or some values, to falsely imply that the percent of men supporting abortion was near twice that of women.

Take it up with Gallup.
The fact that their pie chart provides a breakdown of support in most cases and support in all cases doesn't give anyone other than an imbecile a false impression of what the data plainly shows.

Third, *see Rhea's post* above. Lion is trying to create big baddies (on demand abortion lobby, pedophiles, rapists) to foil against because they can't morally justify forcing women to have babies.

I think rapists and pedophiles ARE baddies.

To Lion's claim, men and women support access to abortion, but more women support it than men.

Disagree.
The notion that the pro-life lobby is predominantly men trying to force pregnancy on women is fancuful.

Men and women support eliminating access to abortion, but more men support that then women.

Disagree.
I cited a very recent US opinion poll by a presumably unbiased polling company.
They reported the opposite of what you claim.

Lion's claim was false and the evidence Lion presented to support it was misunderstood by Lion (at best).

The data is the claim.
You're not contending with me. You're contending with opinion poll statistics.

 

[Lion IRC]

Typing "yes" on an Internet discussion forum is not doing or supporting anything. Looks very dishonest to me.

If you're asking questions of someone you don't believe is answering honestly then you're wasting your time and theirs.

I'm going to bear that in mind from now on if you ever feign interest in getting me to answer a question.

 

[laughing dog]

Nobody likes abortion, Lion. NOBODY.

Pretty, sure the 1 child policy in China would beg to differ.

Policy has no feeling. And the gov’t of China is regretting that policy now that the population demographics is a groeing proporyion of retirees.

 

[Elixir]

So can we ban abortion now?

No. Why are you insisting on interfering with other people’s health care?

Let’s say that your particular imaginary friend wrote The Bible. What did He say about abortion?

Hint:

Show

NOTHING

So who appointed YOU surgeon general?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, Lion cannot come up with any data to support his wild claim that “men constitute a significant percentage of the “abortion on demand lobby.” It’s just fabricated out of thin air.

Do you really think that men do not constitute a significant percentage of the pro-choice people?

That's a pretty wild claim.
One I find ridiculous, but that's just me.
Tom

There are a number of issues. First is the illiterate 86% being used by Lion. 86% of men don't think abortion should be legal in all or some cases.

86% think it should be legal in most cases.

I'm going to need to recant my statements as I seemed to have completely fucked up on interpreting the polling.

I think the source of that is based on the confusion of how 5 in 6 Americans think abortion should be legal is some cases (that is zoo levy passage rates), while about only 3.5 in 6 Americans are actually voting for abortion being legal. I can't reconcile that substantial gulf.

 

[TomC]

Typing "yes" on an Internet discussion forum is not doing or supporting anything. Looks very dishonest to me.

If you're asking questions of someone you don't believe is answering honestly then you're wasting your time and theirs.

I'm going to bear that in mind from now on if you ever feign interest in getting me to answer a question.

I don't think that particular argument/post was honest.
I don't think you do, or ever have, supported those things. That's why I didn't find you posting yes several times particularly honest.
It's more Christian and political than anything else. That's how it looks to me.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

We need government overreach either way.

So in your bizarro Jesus world, guaranteeing freedom of bodily autonomy and access to healthcare is government fucking OVERREACH??!

No, Lion, that’s its JOB.

 

[laughing dog]

No, Lion cannot come up with any data to support his wild claim that “men constitute a significant percentage of the “abortion on demand lobby.” It’s just fabricated out of thin air.

Do you really think that men do not constitute a significant percentage of the pro-choice people?

That's a pretty wild claim.
One I find ridiculous, but that's just me.
Tom

There are a number of issues. First is the illiterate 86% being used by Lion. 86% of men don't think abortion should be legal in all or some cases.

86% think it should be legal in most cases.

I'm going to need to recant my statements as I seemed to have completely fucked up on interpreting the polling.

I think the source of that is based on the confusion of how 5 in 6 Americans think abortion should be legal is some cases (that is zoo levy passage rates), while about only 3.5 in 6 Americans are actually voting for abortion being legal. I can't reconcile that substantial gulf.

It is easier to reconcile when you recall less than 2/3 of adults bother to vote.

 

[ZiprHead]

So can we ban abortion now?

No. Why are you insisting on interfering with other people’s health care?

Let’s say that your particular imaginary friend wrote The Bible. What did He say about abortion?

Hint:

Show

NOTHING

So who appointed YOU surgeon general?

Actually god gave the priests instruction on performing an abortion in the test for the unfaithful wife in Numbers.

 

[Elixir]

Actually god gave the priests instruction on performing an abortion in the test for the unfaithful wife in Numbers.

Is that true, @Lion IRC ?
I’m SHOCKED!
What the hell was He thinking, murdering an unborn child? Right, Lion?

 

[TomC]

So can we ban abortion now?

Lemme get a little personal here and maybe you'll better understand why your wish for an abortion ban, enforced by the government, makes me rather angry.

My mom and dad put their lives on hold due to WWII. By the time that was over all they wanted was to find a spouse and get on with their lives.
They got married, both fully intending a big Irish Catholic family. They had fertility issues. First baby took awhile, and the pregnancy was difficult. But they got my older sister.

Second pregnancy was a disaster. Baby implanted in Mom's fallopian tube. Left untreated, the baby would have grown until the fallopian tube ruptured. That would have resulted in the baby dying. And my Mom having a decomposing corpse in her abdomen. It's a nasty way to die, takes weeks or months of agony.

Used to happen a lot.

Instead, she got a surgical, elective, abortion around 1955. Of course, this removal of her fallopian tube also was a problem for the big family that they wanted. It exacerbated the fertility issues that they already had.

It worked out for me because they started adopting.

But if you got your way "So, can we ban abortion now?", my real mom would have died. I'd have probably grown up the poor kid of a single mother in Detroit in the 60s.


Eff you and your "Crueler than Thou" political buddies in state legislatures across this country. With your, we must be in control by whatever means necessary for the Glory of God.
Tom

 

[Toni]

If 86% of men thought abortion should be legal, it'd be 100% legal everywhere, with drive thru abortion clinics.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a holy sacrament.

A majority of people do support abortion rights. This whole abortion up through nine months is an absolute lie.