Trump call to punish women for abortions

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: UKTruth

I wonder if the medical/scientific community could research if removing the embryo from the womb of a woman and having it complete its gestation period either in a test tube or a human surrogate, for people (biological father? grandparents? potential adoptive parents?) wanting to take on the responsibility?

Sounds like a promising development.

There are enough unwanted, unloved, uncared for LIVING CHILDREN in this world.

We don't need to grow more.

Kids need to be taught the consequences of having sex when they are not prepared for the inevitable outcome. Unfortunately they live in a sex-saturated society.

If we can as a culture start treating pre-marital sex the same as the transition of cigarette smoking from 'hip and cool' in the 50's to the anethema it has become today, it might be possible.

a reply to: UKTruth

"The last numbers I read showed that there was a shortage of children for adoption."

Not because of abortion, dated today:

The drop in the number of newborn adoptions since the 1970s coincides with a decline in the percentage of single mothers placing children for adoption, down from nine percent in the 1970s to 1.4 percent in 2002 (the most recent year for which this statistic was reported), according to the National Survey of Family Growth. As the stigma against single parenthood has diminished over the last 35 years, so has the number of children placed for adoption.
www.adoptivefamilies.com...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm

None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.

Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.

If its not OK with you, don't do it.

Just stay out of my way.

You sound like Trump. Bravo.

I am woman, hear me roar.

In a real life decision I had to make the choice.

I don't hear much of a roar, just some strange stuff about the selfishness of people wanting babies and the unselfishness of those that abort babies (regardless of the circumstances) in the name of 'choice'. You don't represent all women.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

Do you remember the Dixie Chicks and how they tried to stand up to President Bush over the Iraq invasion? You don't remember people standing up against Citizens United? Maybe at the time, it just wasn't important to you but now it is.

I remember the DC telling some people in England they were ashamed of their President, and their listener base in the USA boycotted them and told radio stations to stop playing DC or they would stop listening to the radio station.

How was telling foreigners that they were ashamed of Bush considered 'standing up' to him?

I remember a bunch of leftists protesting the CU verdict selectively, not paying attention to the whole 'banning books' issue that convinced Justice Kennedy to agree with the majority decision.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

"The last numbers I read showed that there was a shortage of children for adoption."

Not because of abortion, dated today:

The drop in the number of newborn adoptions since the 1970s coincides with a decline in the percentage of single mothers placing children for adoption, down from nine percent in the 1970s to 1.4 percent in 2002 (the most recent year for which this statistic was reported), according to the National Survey of Family Growth. As the stigma against single parenthood has diminished over the last 35 years, so has the number of children placed for adoption.
www.adoptivefamilies.com...

Yes i saw that and it makes sense. Given this it makes sense that if less children were aborted then we could continue to meet the demand of parents desperate for children. The drivers are less important than the fact there is a shortage.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm

None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.

Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.

If its not OK with you, don't do it.

Just stay out of my way.

You sound like Trump. Bravo.

I am woman, hear me roar.

In a real life decision I had to make the choice.

The unborn women haven't been given the opportunity to roar, let alone cry for their mother.

Just sayin'

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: UKTruth

I wonder if the medical/scientific community could research if removing the embryo from the womb of a woman and having it complete its gestation period either in a test tube or a human surrogate, for people (biological father? grandparents? potential adoptive parents?) wanting to take on the responsibility?

Sounds like a promising development.

There are enough unwanted, unloved, uncared for LIVING CHILDREN in this world.

We don't need to grow more.

Kids need to be taught the consequences of having sex when they are not prepared for the inevitable outcome. Unfortunately they live in a sex-saturated society.

If we can as a culture start treating pre-marital sex the same as the transition of cigarette smoking from 'hip and cool' in the 50's to the anethema it has become today, it might be possible.

Right....

Social and cultural manipulation of Youth with raging testosterone, hormones, estrogen, and a myriad of other physical changes during puberty....


Good luck with that....!

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm

None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.

Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.

If its not OK with you, don't do it.

Just stay out of my way.

You sound like Trump. Bravo.

I am woman, hear me roar.

In a real life decision I had to make the choice.

The unborn women haven't been given the opportunity to roar, let alone cry for their mother.

Just sayin'

Your belief.

As long as your belief does not infringe on my legal right of choice, I don't care.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm

None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.

Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.

If its not OK with you, don't do it.

Just stay out of my way.

You sound like Trump. Bravo.

I am woman, hear me roar.

In a real life decision I had to make the choice.

I don't hear much of a roar, just some strange stuff about the selfishness of people wanting babies and the unselfishness of those that abort babies (regardless of the circumstances) in the name of 'choice'. You don't represent all women.

Give me one unselfish reason to bring a child into this world.

I represent Right of Choice, that does represent all women.

a reply to: kerrichin

I am not deciding the way I dont choose who goes on death row.

That is close to a value SHE is making for all of us.

A woman getting a late term abortion is alone when deciding with no oversight and with no bearing on reality beyond HER perception of it.

I am sorry. DONT HAVE SEX, THAT WAY YOU WONT HAVE TO KILL A FETUS.

have sex,but use a condom, birth control, the morning after, daily birth control, get an operation, what ever. There are choices to avoid getting pregnant. Once a PERSON exists it has rights like the mother....more.

Showing up months after you basically just had sex for fun with a healthy child you were not FORCED to have and that poses no health risk is MURDER for fun.

As a society it is wrong to many the way the death penalty is wrong to many.

Who are you to make that call alone? I cant kill my kids once I find a good reason because that is child abuse. And MURDER.

Late term is insane. A couple months is iffy. The morning after is fine. Have an abortion. Take a pill every day if you have sex for fun. Its cool. Have 30 abortions a month.

Dont think you have rights like GODS and the rest of us have rights like dogs. Or that YOUR Kids are yours to kill like your slaves or your property.

Its our society too. We dont like the idea that you can kill kids just because they are YOUR kids.


At least with the death penalty many people decide in a court of law.

A single woman can decide the fate of A FELLOW HUMAN all by herself. As if one person has a right to that sort of power over ANYONE.

originally posted by: Annee

I am woman, hear me roar.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

The unborn women haven't been given the opportunity to roar, let alone cry for their mother.

Just sayin'

The unborn don't have functioning lungs. Just sayin'.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm

None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.

Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.

If its not OK with you, don't do it.

Just stay out of my way.

You sound like Trump. Bravo.

I am woman, hear me roar.

In a real life decision I had to make the choice.

I don't hear much of a roar, just some strange stuff about the selfishness of people wanting babies and the unselfishness of those that abort babies (regardless of the circumstances) in the name of 'choice'. You don't represent all women.

Give me one unselfish reason to bring a child into this world.

I represent Right of Choice, that does represent all women.

Believe me you don't represent all women.

What is selfish about creating a loving family unit? What is selfish about a couple who have an unplanned child and despite not really wanting children at that time still give everything they have to make that child's life as good as it can be.

I am sorry if you experienced a bad life, but your views simply are not representative of loving families.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

"The last numbers I read showed that there was a shortage of children for adoption."

Not because of abortion, dated today:

The drop in the number of newborn adoptions since the 1970s coincides with a decline in the percentage of single mothers placing children for adoption, down from nine percent in the 1970s to 1.4 percent in 2002 (the most recent year for which this statistic was reported), according to the National Survey of Family Growth. As the stigma against single parenthood has diminished over the last 35 years, so has the number of children placed for adoption.
www.adoptivefamilies.com...

Yes i saw that and it makes sense. Given this it makes sense that if less children were aborted then we could continue to meet the demand of parents desperate for children. The drivers are less important than the fact there is a shortage.

Most people want a baby. The perfect healthy (white) baby.

LIVING CHILDREN are not about age, race, ethnicity, physical ability, etc.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm

None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.

Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.

If its not OK with you, don't do it.

Just stay out of my way.

You sound like Trump. Bravo.

I am woman, hear me roar.

In a real life decision I had to make the choice.

I don't hear much of a roar, just some strange stuff about the selfishness of people wanting babies and the unselfishness of those that abort babies (regardless of the circumstances) in the name of 'choice'. You don't represent all women.

Give me one unselfish reason to bring a child into this world.

I represent Right of Choice, that does represent all women.

Believe me you don't represent all women.

What is selfish about creating a loving family unit? What is selfish about a couple who have an unplanned child and despite not really wanting children at that time still give everything they have to make that child's life as good as it can be.

I am sorry if you experienced a bad life, but your views simply are not representative of loving families.

Right of Choice represents all women. Whether they want to believe that or not.

I did not experience a bad life.

originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: Annee

I am woman, hear me roar.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

The unborn women haven't been given the opportunity to roar, let alone cry for their mother.

Just sayin'

The unborn don't have functioning lungs. Just sayin'.

Alveoli begin developing at about 24 weeks. Some premature babies are able to survive with help at as little as 24 weeks.
Just sayin'.

Also there are many adults who can't breathe without help - I guess we should kill those too?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

"The last numbers I read showed that there was a shortage of children for adoption."

Not because of abortion, dated today:

The drop in the number of newborn adoptions since the 1970s coincides with a decline in the percentage of single mothers placing children for adoption, down from nine percent in the 1970s to 1.4 percent in 2002 (the most recent year for which this statistic was reported), according to the National Survey of Family Growth. As the stigma against single parenthood has diminished over the last 35 years, so has the number of children placed for adoption.
www.adoptivefamilies.com...

Yes i saw that and it makes sense. Given this it makes sense that if less children were aborted then we could continue to meet the demand of parents desperate for children. The drivers are less important than the fact there is a shortage.

Most people want a baby. The perfect healthy (white) baby.

LIVING CHILDREN are not about age, race, ethnicity, physical ability, etc.

Ah - now onto race.
I'll pass on the race baiting thanks and stick tot he facts that there are a shortage of babies compared to loving families wanting them.

a reply to: UKTruth

Of course having children is selfish! Do you really think that the world NEEDS your offspring and their carbon footprint? It doesn't!

The only reason people choose have children is because they want a little model of themselves that they can project themselves into, take care of and pour their love, or in many cased their ego, into, and hopefully, receive love back and be taken taken care of later in life, so as not to be alone. Either that, or they are pressured into having children to satisfy their loved ones' and family pressure to make grandchildren.

...............or society and clergy's demands to toe the line, yada yada......As another posted said earlier, ECONOMICS and slavery....you have kids to support, so TOE THE LINE!

a reply to: UKTruth

another reason that there isn't so many children being put up for adoption is that there are better methods of birth control and that birth control is much easier to obtain.

why is the fact that there is a shortage of kids to adopt a problem? another has come on this thread posting about the drop in the birth rate, why is that a problem? what if you find that limiting abortions only to those more extreme cases alone doesn't solve those problems? I mean, it might just result in more women carrying the babies to term and opting to keep them or heck, it might actually cause more women to be much more careful about the birth control, or even possibly opting to just remain celibate most of their lives instead. are you going to then see that the low birth rate and the problems it creates as being important enough to address that you will chose to take action and begin limiting the access of birth control? and then if that doesn't work, well, yous can just force the women to has the sex?

To be honest, I highly expect that society would see any problems whatsoever if it wasn't for a few economic factors...
those being:
our economy is built so that it is necessary for there to be a bigger debt created tomorrow than is being created today. and well, less people will product less debt! growth is needed for it to survive, contraction will kill it.

less people in the workforce makes it necessary for companies to compete harder for the workers that there are, which leads to the need to pay a higher wage. the only solution to that is to outside the labor to a cheaper workforce or import the immigrants to compete with the natural born workforce. and well, it's beginning to dawn on society just what the drawbacks of this strategy is.

and well, less people in the future will mean less homes need to be built, hey, we might actually get to bulldoze some of those ghettos and place the poor in some decent housing for a change! but that would actually be a contraction, wouldn't it, less money borrowed, lets money spent, ect.

but there is one thing I am pretty sure of....
it's mainly those from the republican camp that are shouting the loudest about the abortions. they're also the ones who shout the loudest when it comes to providing help to the single moms, they are the ones who always seem to want to cut the food stamps, and they are usually the ones the most vocal when it comes to dropping bombs on innocent children halfway around the world....

if they were really true to their words, and really believed that life was as sacred as they said, well they would be a tad bit more compassionate towards the poor, they'd be not so willing to drop bombs on others, bit well, since they aren't I kind of think that they are more concerned about those economic factors.
and to be honest, I'd have to say, maybe if they practiced what they preached, actually treated those living breathing people who they pass on the streets everyday and at least acknowledge the contribution a mother makes to society by just being a mother, well, I kind of think maybe women would be more willing to have the children.

which is why I ask, if yous find out that restricting abortion doesn't do the trick, are you willing to take the next steps in order to bring the population into a balance that your economy can function with?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

"The last numbers I read showed that there was a shortage of children for adoption."

Not because of abortion, dated today:

The drop in the number of newborn adoptions since the 1970s coincides with a decline in the percentage of single mothers placing children for adoption, down from nine percent in the 1970s to 1.4 percent in 2002 (the most recent year for which this statistic was reported), according to the National Survey of Family Growth. As the stigma against single parenthood has diminished over the last 35 years, so has the number of children placed for adoption.
www.adoptivefamilies.com...

Yes i saw that and it makes sense. Given this it makes sense that if less children were aborted then we could continue to meet the demand of parents desperate for children. The drivers are less important than the fact there is a shortage.

Most people want a baby. The perfect healthy (white) baby.

LIVING CHILDREN are not about age, race, ethnicity, physical ability, etc.

Ah - now onto race.
I'll pass on the race baiting thanks and stick tot he facts that there are a shortage of babies compared to loving families wanting them.

You made that about race bating?

That's pathetic.

a reply to: UKTruth

Alveoli begin developing at about 24 weeks. Some premature babies are able to survive with help at as little as 24 weeks. Just sayin'.

Just sayin, 24 week elective abortions on demand DO NOT happen. An abortion at 24 weeks is only done if a woman's life depends on it.