Pregnant Woman Perfectly Tells Off Anti-Abortion Protestors

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"If we make abortion illegal, do you think that number will go down or up? Are you willing to take one of those children in if you make abortion illegal? "

What number? The number of foster children? IDK. My guess is that it would stay about the same. The number of children living in sub-standard circumstances would probably increase. But I'd rather be alive, in sub-standard circumstances than killed by my own mother.

And yes, I am currently in talks with my wife about adoption (we have 3 biological children) so we may very well take in one of those children were abortion illegal.

Adopting one child does not save the over 510,000 children in foster care. Try again.
www.fosterclub.com...

I was asked if I would take in one of those children. I posted my response. Nothing to "try again". Sorry.

Let me make my position clear: I would rather be a foster child than dead.

One child does not save the 510,000 children in foster care. Do you intend to support all of them?
Also, a clump of cells cannot make that decision.

As a clump of cells (albeit a large clump) I just made that decision. What is your obsession with foster care? You think it will increase if abortion is illegal, therefore I must take in 510,000 children in order to be consistent? If that's your standing for this digression then wow.... Does the current amount of human suffering have to get below a certain threshold for you to view murder as wrong?

It isn't murder. There isn't an obsession with foster care. In this situation, it has to be talked about. A person who does not want a child will either abort it, put it up for adoption or will keep it and abuse it. There are already 510,000 children in foster care, which means that there will be even more children in foster care if abortion is made illegal. That number is so high because NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO ADOPT. Not everyone wants to have their own kids and then adopt kids. Not everyone even wants kids. If you do not want people to have abortions than be part of the crowd that helps fix things, and yes, that means adopting more than one child. Because guess what? When you take away abortions, more kids become part of the system. Who knew, right? The only way to get rid of abortions is to either make a fool proof preventative, or not have sex. And I hope to God that if you say "Not have sex," You never once sexually touched a significant other without the intent of having a child.

a reply to: Dfairlite

If you click on your screen name in the "a reply to: Dfairlite" it will pop up a small window with the text to the post I am responding to.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Cool strawman bro

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

"Honestly, if you want to make abortion illegal, than let's make it so YOU have to take care of all the mothers that live through botched back alley abortions. Lets make it so YOU have to take care of all the unwanted children. Can you handle it? I hope so."

I also want it to be illegal to rob casino's after you lose a bet. Should I also take care of those people who lost their bets and tried to rob the casino anyway? Do you see how absurd your idea is?

Do you see how absurd your comparisons are? No seriously, they make no sense, and you've been told that numerous times.

So what you're saying is that you agree I shouldn't have to take care of those who try to rob casino's after losing a bet. but rather than admit that, you're pretending there's no equivalence when there is a direct equivalence.

One party took a risk, willingly, and lost. Then tried to undo the consequences of their loss. And because I think it should be illegal to take certain actions (murder or theft in my examples) to undo those consequences I should have to provide for them, according to you. The only thing ridiculous here, is your position.

No. I'm deciding to say nicely that you need to find better comparisons because as of right now, I wish you would abort your comparisons. Do not put words in my mouth.

I bet you wish I would abort my comparisons, and probably my explanation that you conveniently ignored. They make positions like yours look moronic.

If you think my comparison is lacking, feel free to fill in the gaps.

We've all told you to find better comparisons because you cannot compare robbing a casino, to aborting a parasitic clump of cells. You've been told numerous times you've been grasping at straws. We've reached for statistics to explain our positions, we've tried to explain this to you numerous different ways. You do not get it, and it's obvious you do not wish to get it. It's fine though, adopt your one child. There will still be abortions, and there will still be homeless children. Sad.

Why can't I compare two situations in which both parties willingly took a risk and took action to recuperate their losses? What is not equivalent about those things? The truth is, you know they're the same and you agree with one but not with the other. The discomfort caused by your cognitive dissonance has caused you to reject them as not equal yet you lack the ability to explain how they're not equal situations.

Uhm no. You get pregnant and abort it in the first two months, nothing changes. You get pregnant and abort it later, you gain weight, lose weight and have to rest longer. Both situations you're out of money.

You gamble, lose your money, and rob the casino to get it back and you go to jail.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

"A person who does not want a child will either abort it, put it up for adoption or will keep it and abuse it. "
Not true at all. They could keep it and provide as much as they can for it.

"The only way to get rid of abortions is to either make a fool proof preventative, or not have sex."

Yes, people unwilling to care for children should stop having sex. and there is a fool proof preventative. It's called sterilization and I am 100% for tax payer funded sterilization. Anyone who wants to be sterile should be sterile.

"And I hope to God that if you say "Not have sex," You never once sexually touched a significant other without the intent of having a child."
I have never once had sexual intercourse (because not all sexual touching result in pregnancy) a significant other without accepting the fact that it could result in a child whom I would be responsible for.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for the tip!

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Yes, people unwilling to care for children should stop having sex. and there is a fool proof preventative.

Too bad that most people who engage in sex are young people who haven't matured enough to rationally make that decision. The above only works if people properly use discernment for their actions. But we all know that humans aren't perfect and make mistakes. It happens. Hence pro-choice. Give them the option to abort. Let them suffer their own mental consequences and move on. It's not your problem.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic
No wonder my comparison didn't make sense to you! See, rather than telling people that they're not making sense, you should explain why you don't think it makes sense. Then we can move forwrd!
The risk is: having sex -and- betting in a casino
The action to recuperate loss is: Murder -and- Theft

You get pregnant and abort it in the first two months, you purposely deprived a human child of life, aka murder.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Teen babies are not a big portion of foster care.

" It is estimated that as many as 5% of foster-care placements would not be needed if teenage childbearing were eliminated."

www.adoption-education.com...

a reply to: Dfairlite

There were 1.21 million abortions in 2008 and 17% of all abortions are teenage abortions. That means that 205.7 thousand abortions of the previous statistic are teenage abortions. So what do you think the number of children given up for adoption by teenagers will be if abortion is made illegal?

Apparently, by combining your source with my source, we get the picture that it is more likely that a teenager will abort the baby than put it up for adoption.

By the way, I used the term "young people" not teenagers. 18-21 year olds (probably older) still act pretty immature despite the government calling them adults.

a reply to: Dfairlite

You get pregnant and abort it in the first two months, you purposely deprived a human child of life, aka murder.

By your logic, using birth control is depriving a human child of life.

Abortion isn't murder.

A 2 month old fetus isn't a child.

Too bad that most hospitals will not allow you to get sterilized unless it will benefit your health, or you're in your later years.

My mom was sterilized at 27 because both my youngest brother and my sister were born prematurely and almost died.
My mom getting pregnant again would cause problems to not only her health, but the would be childs health.


My cousin is 31 and wants to get sterilized but they won't let her because she's had 5 healthy kids, and it poses no threat to her or a child if she got pregnant again.


... I would go and get sterilized tomorrow if I could. Hormonal birth control whacks out the body. But I'd rather whack out my body than have a child at 22.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Lyxdeslic
No wonder my comparison didn't make sense to you! See, rather than telling people that they're not making sense, you should explain why you don't think it makes sense. Then we can move forwrd!
The risk is: having sex -and- betting in a casino
The action to recuperate loss is: Murder -and- Theft

You get pregnant and abort it in the first two months, you purposely deprived a human child of life, aka murder.

Also murder and theft are two very different crimes, with two very different outcomes.

Agreed. Murder is much more severe.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

You get pregnant and abort it in the first two months, you purposely deprived a human child of life, aka murder.

By your logic, using birth control is depriving a human child of life.

Abortion isn't murder.

A 2 month old fetus isn't a child.

In some technicality it may be. However, you can't deprive someone of something they never had. I can't steal $5 from you if you never had $5. Once you have $5 I can commit the crime of theft and steal it. If you never had life I could not derived you if it. However, once you have life I can commit a crime and take it from you.

A two month fetus isn't a child. A child isn't an a adolescent. An adolescent is not an adult. But they are all forms of human life.

a reply to: Dfairlite

A virus is a form of life. There is bacteria living inside your stomach in symbiosis with you that is a form of life too.

The link I provided in the post your responding to has the stats for then pregnant so we could figure out a ball park estimate for what the increase would be. I would do it, but I'm on my phone. Maybe later.

But "if it saves one child" isn't it worth it?

Human life. Did I leave off the human part? Its not murder to kill a virus, but it is to kill a person. Why?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
The link I provided in the post your responding to has the stats for then pregnant so we could figure out a ball park estimate for what the increase would be. I would do it, but I'm on my phone. Maybe later.

But "if it saves one child" isn't it worth it?

Are you willing to take the brunt of saving that child's life through taxes? After all many women who get abortions do it out of inability to afford to care for the child. Therefore it reasons that they will end up on government assistance. I hope you aren't for the cutting of welfare benefits, SNAP benefits, and other social programs, while being pro-life at the same time. That would be pretty hypocritical...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite
The link I provided in the post your responding to has the stats for then pregnant so we could figure out a ball park estimate for what the increase would be. I would do it, but I'm on my phone. Maybe later.

But "if it saves one child" isn't it worth it?

Are you willing to take the brunt of saving that child's life through taxes? After all many women who get abortions do it out of inability to afford to care for the child. Therefore it reasons that they will end up on government assistance. I hope you aren't for the cutting of welfare benefits, SNAP benefits, and other social programs, while being pro-life at the same time. That would be pretty hypocritical...

No way, none of the people who are against abortion want to help with raised taxes. It's their fault they had the child. Their fault they had it. >Sarcasm.