SCOTUS Strikes Down Texas Abortion Ban

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Exactly, raised two children to adulthood and during the hard time of volatile teen years I always was afraid of the downside of unwanted pregnancies for both my son and daughter, the best thing was to inform them about sex and made sure that they were well prepare for their choices.

Now my daughter is 32, my son 29 neither of them had unwanted pregnancies, interestingly, neither have any children at all, I guess I did my job too well.

originally posted by: pheonix358

originally posted by: Annee

SCOTUS

Abortion isn't anyone else's business, except the one making that decision and her doctor.

You never seem to even consider, just for a split second, the right of the Father!

Not even a millisecond!

P

www.yahoo.com...
I hear they are attempting to transplant a uterus into men, I find men are much more tender spirited when it comes to abortion, maybe they can start having the children,


ALL life is sacred

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: thesaneone

Then people need to plan their lives better but then again personal responsibility is thing of the past.

Could use this very same sentence to justify an abortion.

Just because a person plans for a child does't mean they will be a good parent.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Research suggests that strategies that promote abstinence-only outside of marriage while withholding information about contraceptives do not stop or even delay sex.

doesn't actually help them much for after they get married either. oh, that's right, once the kids are married, thay want them to have lots of children, the more the better!!!

I was reading about this case yesterday, she should have just had it legally killed , she wouldn't be going to jail.

nymag.com...

repeatedly tried to kill the baby by drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, playing sports, and binging on labor-inducing pills. On April 22, 2015, she gave birth to a baby girl in the toilet of a half-bathroom at the stone sorority house.

Today's women seem to have made having an abortion some sort of spiritual experience.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: carewemust

3 years/sample size 670 women = 95% do NOT regret their decision
Time Article

Ugh...I'm sorry, I just can't continue this search. Try googling any of this and you're immediately transported to a pro-'life' cesspool of BS. Other than the above I couldn't find a LEGITIMATE unbiased study or article on the first page or two of any of my searches. It was all 'you're 10 times more likely to get cancer if you have an abortion' 'women who have abortions are 20 times more likely to need psychological help later' or 'women who get abortions are more likely to abuse drugs' and all the websites are gospel this and right-to-life that.

Just like any other medical procedure, there may be issues physically or psychologically both short term and long term. But for the vast majority women are confident in their decision and physically back to normal following an abortion.

Really? They're "confident in their decision" and "back to normal" right after the abortion?

So very strange..... it's as if the procedure were nothing more than a routine surgical operation. Of course, it's not like there was any potential for life. No human potential involved, no decision to summarily extinguish that potential. As if you actually had knowledge of the possible futures for that potential human being, other than "I wouldn't be able to take care of it, it would be too stressful". Nope, just a routine procedure.

There is something disgusting and unnatural about the Western world these days. What other animal voluntarily aborts its offspring? It goes against the very grain of life's ultimate purpose: propagation. Am I really supposed to believe this has no effect on people's health, mental or otherwise? Just tossing life's highest imperitive out the window and acting as though it's nothing? That it really would have no effect on people?

Have you seen how mammals of even the lowest order react to their offspring being killed? Hint: it really upsets them.

You people are truly sick in the head. You are animals of worst order. In fact, it's an insult to animals to call you such. You are an animal gifted with reason and a moral sense, and you shove it right back in the face of mother nature as if you've somehow transcended her. I won't take the time to insult you further because I don't think it's your fault, I think you're just symptomatic of a profoundly sick society. I wonder what our dear friends, the great philosophers of old, would think of all this.

Though I must just be a terrible bigot. Abortion is a triumph for women's rights and should be celebrated. It's an exercise in autonomy.

originally posted by: Talorc

Have you seen how mammals of even the lowest order react to their offspring being killed? Hint: it really upsets them.

Sometimes sure. Other times everything from Dogs to Primates have been known to kill and sometimes eat their young. So your argument sort of falls apart when you include them too.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Talorc

Have you seen how mammals of even the lowest order react to their offspring being killed? Hint: it really upsets them.

Sometimes sure. Other times everything from Dogs to Primates have been known to kill and sometimes eat their young. So your argument sort of falls apart when you include them too.

Do you know how rare that is? I'm no biologist, but I'd venture a guess that it's extremely rare and only takes place when a mammal is under extreme duress. No animal would kill it's offspring on a whim. Certainly no mammal kills it's young at the rate human women get abortions.

The best argument a lot of these cretins have is that they couldn't "financially or emotionally support" the child. An admission of utter weakness and incompetence. Any human has the capacity to step up and do what it takes to support a child unless they're retarded or morally bankrupt.

So I guess your argument sort of falls apart.

originally posted by: Talorc

The best argument a lot of these cretins have is that they couldn't "financially or emotionally support" the child. An admission of utter weakness and incompetence. Any human has the capacity to step up and do what it takes to support a child unless they're retarded of morally bankrupt.

So I guess your argument sort of falls apart.

So not being able to emotionally or financially support raising a child is just a BS excuse huh??? I'd say those are a couple of pretty valid reasons actually. Kids raised by parents who don't love or care for them don't usually make for very stable adults later on or haven't you noticed???

I'd also have to remind you that many of these would be parents are in fact Morally Bankrupt and have Mental Issues of some kind. Couple that with them not being emotionally prepared to correctly handle a child I'd say that's a solid case for not allowing them to raise a child.

People who are not ready to raise a kid sometimes throw them away in the garbage, leave them in the car, forget about them while they sit and cry for days in their own waste or put them in the microwave.

So I guess my argument is back on the table, huh???

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Talorc

The best argument a lot of these cretins have is that they couldn't "financially or emotionally support" the child. An admission of utter weakness and incompetence. Any human has the capacity to step up and do what it takes to support a child unless they're retarded of morally bankrupt.

So I guess your argument sort of falls apart.

So not being able to emotionally or financially support raising a child is just a BS excuse huh??? I'd say those are a couple of pretty valid reasons actually. Kids raised by parents who don't love or care for them don't usually make for very stable adults later on or haven't you noticed???

I'd also have to remind you that many of these would be parents are in fact Morally Bankrupt and have Mental Issues of some kind. Couple that with them not being emotionally prepared to correctly handle a child I'd say that's a solid case for not allowing them to raise a child.

Financial situations can be changed, as can emotions and emotional maturity. If you are decent human being who screwed up and got pregnant/got someone pregnant, you will do what it takes. I changed some of my emotions permanently by reading and meditating on a Greek manual from the 1st century A.D. It's a human capacity, one which is being downplayed in modern times for some terrible purpose that I don't yet understand.

The fact is, abortions make infanticide more palatable to the average person. The average mother couldn't bring herself to murder a screaming infant in a microwave or toss it in the trash, but it's far easier for her to palate getting rid of a fetus she will never see except on an ultrasound screen. It doesn't change the fact that in both cases, human potential has been snuffed out.

Basically, abortions are an admission of being human trash. Scum. That's the bottom line. I'm glad we agree on that at least.

Your argument boils down to eugenics, essentially. "Well, these people weren't fit to reproduce anyway."

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Talorc

Have you seen how mammals of even the lowest order react to their offspring being killed? Hint: it really upsets them.

Sometimes sure. Other times everything from Dogs to Primates have been known to kill and sometimes eat their young. So your argument sort of falls apart when you include them too.

Actually, in animal social experiments - - - they've found if the animal is not socialized - - - often they don't even understand having an offspring.

In other words, science says the instinct to nurture is not innate, but learned.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Talorc

Have you seen how mammals of even the lowest order react to their offspring being killed? Hint: it really upsets them.

Sometimes sure. Other times everything from Dogs to Primates have been known to kill and sometimes eat their young. So your argument sort of falls apart when you include them too.

Actually, in animal social experiments - - - they've found if the animal is not socialized - - - often they don't even understand having an offspring.

In other words, science says the instinct to nurture is not innate, but learned.

"Science" says a lot of different things, according to different people with different agendas to push. So you're going full-on nurture and denying nature, then? Good luck with that position, it's completely untenable.

Personally, I've seen puppy mill dogs taken from their mothers after just a few weeks, and they were able to raise their offspring just fine without having witnessed the behavior themselves.

Child rearing is hugely instinctual, believing otherwise is preposterous.

And of course no study is quoted in Anne's post. Just hearsay and "science says this."

This about is the best these people have.

a reply to: Talorc

The fact is, abortions make infanticide more palatable to the average person

Really? That's a fact, eh? You got studies to back that up?

a reply to: Talorc

Scum would be allowing women to be slaves of their own bodies.
Why not come up with ways to reduce abortion instead if just hating on women's rights?.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Talorc

The fact is, abortions make infanticide more palatable to the average person

Really? That's a fact, eh? You got studies to back that up?

Nope, just common sense enough to know that getting an abortion is emotionally easier to do than actually killing a baby yourself. The justifications and rationalizations naturally flow easier.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: Talorc

Scum would be allowing women to be slaves of their own bodies.
Why not come up with ways to reduce abortion instead if just hating on women's rights?.

Food is making me a slave to my own body. I don't want to have to eat.

Why is food denying me my right to autonomy?

a reply to: Talorc

can you get any more judgemental?? have you ever looked at how unwanted, or poor children were cared for in history?
like in the english work houses. just how natural do you think it was for the children to be taken from their mothers and moved to totally different sections of the houses sometimes never to meet up again? one investigator put the death rate of workhouse children at around 90%.
ya, that's more humane..
and, it's not like there wasn't abortions when it was illegal. there were plenty! probably more than there is now because we at least have decent birth control. of which, at least a good portion of those who want abortion gone also want most of the more effective means of birth control also since if life begins at conception, like they want use to believe, then many of the birth control methods can at times prevent the implantation of the egg, and thus, cause abortion!!
so who are trying to condemn here, and for what reason? every women who has used birth control, or an iud, ect... for just wanting to be able to control the number of children that they can have! and it's not like the religious right is going to do much of anything to help those mothers who would have aborted but they prevented take care of their six or seven kids. heck no. they'd rather bring back the workhouse and such...
all the while saying that they have the power to change their economic conditions!
sure..

this coming in a time when teachers are leaving the classroom and the job market because they are finding that they can't pay for their student loans, and their childcare costs, without running into a deficit!

a reply to: dawnstar

Yes, it was completely unnatural and inhuman to take children from their mothers and force them to work in factories.

How does that justify abortion, again? Is this one of those "two wrongs make a right" arguments?

a reply to: Talorc

Nope, just common sense enough to know that getting an abortion is emotionally easier to do than actually killing a baby yourself.

What are you going on about? Abortion isn't the same as murdering a baby! An acorn isn't an oak tree and a embryo isn't a baby. You sound as out of touch as the 1st century literature that informs you on woman's issues! Ironic for you though, 1st century scholars didn't consider a fetus a person either.