Originally posted by 27jd
Originally posted by Clearskies
Birth control is good. Maybe a shot AND a pill?
Totally agree with you there. Birth control should be of the utmost importance and more importantly, made readily available to anybody who is
sexually active but is not able to or does not want to raise a child. Abortion should really be much more of a rarity, and hopefully a time will come
where another option is available, and there will be no need for it.
Yes this is the nail on the head and the crux of the matter you hit on to a tee. Unfortunately it seems some here argue for the right to do this
(abortion) and refuse to face what it is they are doing. We see this entire thing as an industry that has actually PROMOTED it when I think it ought
to be discouraged at all costs if possible.
The personal attacks I think are what is making some back down from their arguments NOT for the people in the discussion making them but the alerts to
mods resulting in post bans, points lost etc.
The thing is, I don't think people are getting this.
Those who are against abortion see it as someone killing a baby and NOT someone trying to take away anyones rights. To them, I think a persons rights
come second and saving a life ought to come first. That is just how they see it and that ain't ever going to change.
When they see someone actually arguing to keep those rights, it looks like they are arguing for the right to kill someone. That is how it looks to me
and is why I get infuriated with those who do it.
It is evident of this when most can't stomach watching a video of a typical abortion much less a born alive baby now born deserving all the rights of
any other American even beating the odds fighting to survive someones intention to kill them but left in a brrom closet to die alone and hungry
sometimes to 11 hours later.
Knowing many children do not get adopted and end up foster children doesn't justify the act of abortion. I have never met a foster child that
wasn't happy to be alive no matter what his station in life was no matter how they were brought up, they fight to stay alive like anyone else in
spite of their humble beginnings.
Why must someone have to be "qualified" to voice an opinion on this by agreeing to take on personal burdens of raising other peoples babies that
made their bed and are now expected to lay in it like everyone else that makes choices with life and death ramifications attached to them such as sex.
Sexual needs can be met without the act of intercourse if one uses their imagination but once an unwanted circumstance lke this happens, I think it
is too late. I would post evidence of infants born extremely pre mature that you would not think at that point would register pain or even look human
but the are.
I have been warned not to as it might be offending some here whose only means to oppose this argument seem to be having a double standard for acts
that are TRULY offensive so much so they can't watch a video but they sure can argue to have the right to cast players in what can only be seen as a
snuff film when it gets down to it.
The comparisons I have seen going on here where proponents of abortion use ad-hoc policy of their own design in some teflon double standard where we
must submit to askiing church's to an audit just to "qualify" as having a right to voice an opinion. The reason you don't find church's listing
the amounts they give to orphaned children unless they make that a mission of the church, is because many church's simply are not required to do it
but that doesn't mean they don't and it doesn't matter anyway because it is NOT for those who pull this arbitrary rule out of the air to say who
can or can't qualify to call an abortion what it is.
Invariably those that ask or insist on such religious criteria are the same ones that complain about religion being shoved down their throats the
moment the word "church" is brought up so they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
The excuse used where someone brings up how many other animals are killed for research and sport where if we want to argue the rights of children we
must argue the rights of these other living creatures too is yet another double standard where proponents of abortion don't have to meet the same
alleged requrements of same, hell they don't even have to be pregnant or facing the actual decision of having to get an abortion or not to argue
their position on it so why should we?
I was, I guess lucky in that regard because I actually HAVE supported such efforts outside the abortion issue. I have had posts removed that exploit
the absloute ridiculous notion that this logic is some sort of defense disqualifying us against abortion from judging it by re-illustrating it in the
context of a defense for murder where the murder cannot be judged guilty of killing his victim if the judge doesn't also convict all those who kill
animals for research or slaughter cattle for meat on our tables etc.
This of course would be laughed at by a judge for the same reasons it is nonsense when it is used against those judging the abortion proponents.
We have seen counter arguments where the religious are portrayed as hypocrites and war mongering right wing whack jobs who would send all our young
people to wars to die so how dare we tell those woman they don't have a right to send their own children to there deaths.
The only difference is, it isn't true.
Men and woman joining the armed forces CHOOSE to go and have to meet age requirments many of them are forster kids who make careers of the military
and live decent lives and do not become a statistic Rap can use to justify her stance on abortion. When I see the attitude where woman lke this can
talk so easily as if this is not unlike having a wart removed, 27jd, I got to tell you,, honestly, it disturbs me.
I have seen posts by skeptic who has taken pains using compassionate arguments without justifying it but emotional arguments to the "Predicament"
facng woman which I can UNDERSTAND that I can feel myself as I am not a woman but have sufferd the loss of a child and not once have I ever felt like
"Whew" I was lucky there.
Not once would I have argued that consequence of my inability to protect that child without expressing a deep emotional component to my argument yet
am expected to understand the "logic" for those defending their right to have this same consequence their inability to protect a child of their own
as if they have already thought it out, experienced the unbelievable excruciating grief, loss etc,. vicariously through others and have decided to
argue the rights to take that life before they are even facing such a predicament themselves in most cases. I find that incomprehensible and having
been through it myself, find those actually arguing to put themselves through this grief of their own volition using the kind of arguments I have seen
here completely void of any emotional component is the kind of rationale we see used by sociopaths such as jeffery dahmer and just saying that might
have some of them already to jump on me using the same double standard in yet another ad-hoc argument comparison where they would ask, "Oh so you're
saying all people that are pro-life are serial killers like jeffery dahmer blah blah blah" etc. No I am saying that jeffery dahmer was able to BE a
serial killer logically in his own mind because he lacked the empathy the emotional component that makes such an act, out of the question for any of
us to perpetrate on another much less our own flesh and blood.
I have seen a glimmer of it here and there, I know skeptic1 knows what I mean and you do too If I am not correct.
Then I have seen those here that incite rage among those against this act because some pro life people want to treat us as people only wanting to take
rights from them.