March for Life - a pro-choice stance

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: CynConcepts

a gov't mandate for free birth control to all will be much, MUCH more effective in decreasing abortions than donations to free birth control.

Do you want to decrease abortions by a lot? or little.

As I stated, I understand personal choices should not be forced upon others. That is a two way street. That is why it should stay a private matter and not a government one. If you force a personal matter that you agree with onto others who don't, it is opening the door for another personal matter that you disagree with WILL be forced on you. Keep it private.

Instead of Marching on Washington to get them to foot the bill, instead you could have been Marching for donations / recognition to assist a private charity to actually directly assist women with their personal and private issues.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: ketsuko


whoa whoa, I never said abortion is murder.

I said I couldn't abort my baby...but I am still pro-choice.

It may take some time, but I have all hope that if you try, you will be able to wrap your head around that.

That you said it was a baby and wept when you saw the ultrasound.

Do you know look at other pregnant women and not see their babies?

You assigned personhood.

Did you walk around talking about that clump of cells? Did you refer to the baby as not alive?

Did you only think it was living until you saw it outside you?

originally posted by: ketsuko



You assigned personhood.

Potential personhood. When a child is wanted, it is that potential future child that they want, not the clump of cells in their body. You can't cuddle an embryo, no matter how hard you try.

If a woman knows she can't be an adequate parent to that future child, she may choose to end it at the embryo stage.

a reply to: ketsuko

How is that moral relativism?

a reply to: CynConcepts

there are thousands of adoptable kids across the country in foster care system, some of them have gone into that system younger than five years old and are reaching adulthood.. heck, in my state, it costs very little to adopt these kids and the services that are provided throughout the child's childhood can more than cover the costs. ever think that maybe if the prolife group wasn't so busy trying to con women into carrying the unborn to term and sending them to adoption agencies that are profiting by marketing these babies, that maybe we'd have a few less in our foster care system waiting their whole lives to be adopted??
could you see where some of us might just see this as seeing the unborn just a tad bit more sacred than the living and already here?

a reply to: CynConcepts

do you also have a problem with them forcing the insurance companies to cover immunizations, cancer screenings, and whatever else they insist that they cover... or just birth control??
after all isn't just as much a personal choice as to weather or not you want to know if there is a cancer growing in your body??

a reply to: CynConcepts

what part of free birth control for all is forcing...anything?

a reply to: veracity

I think that they have a problem with the idea of paying for it themselves through their taxes...

I could be wrong

a reply to: wheresthebody

oh i see, they do not want abortions, but a proven fact that free birth control significantly lessons abortions is not worth a percentage of their taxes.

I cannot argue with someone with such contradicting beliefs, its like the twilight zone.

Do you just just want to argue for the sake of arguing, are you only at ease where there is Drama?

a reply to: veracity

not to mention that it just might result in much more of their money being used to take care of children till they reach adulthood..

a reply to: veracity

are you asking me personally about drama?

a reply to: wheresthebody

lol, no, that question goes out to the idiocracy

a reply to: veracity

phew, i was worried


hah

a reply to: dawnstar

1st level thinkers do not think that far ahead.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DBCowboy


If people would just take responsibility for their actions, perhaps there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

This is true, and the numbers of abortions are in a continuous downward trend, thanks to education and plenty of access to birth control, but sometimes mistakes happen. That is inevitable. And isn't someone who has an abortion taking responsibility when they know they can't be a good parent? Aren't they taking responsibility not to hand that responsibility to someone else to take care of (like the state)?

Why hand the responsibility onto the state? There are many families that would love to adopt domestically in America. Oftentimes, the adoptive families assist the mothers with healthcare and other sustenance to ensure the child's well being and in so doing, is a win/win for all. American Adoptions -one source

You hand the baby over to the state adoption agency and while sometimes there is a pre-birth match, you are still doing this through the state. I was adopted. At birth I was put in foster care through the state.

a reply to: veracity

to provide birth control to women gives the women far more control over just how many pregnancies they will go through throughout their lives.. and to space them apart. this serves as a preventative measure and allows women to be healthier as their years go by, which saves in future healthcare costs...
but, they don't want to consider that fact either...
just keep your legs crossed...
unless of course, it's their women who is choosing to take that advice, then I imagine they think it should have to pertain to them..