SCOTUS Strikes Down Texas Abortion Ban

a reply to: JinMI
oh, they're responsible for accepting abstinence when their wife comes up with a statement similar to the one I posted above!!

a reply to: thesaneone

Unless you're a rape victim...



What are your thoughts if it is determined the child has severe birth defects (ex. Zika) or will has little to no chance of survival?

Or, if the life of the mother is endangered by continuing with the pregnancy?

Do you really think it's right for the government to force a woman to carry a child against their will?

a reply to: thesaneone

maybe dear hubby doesn't have the $1,500 to $6,000 or doesn't want to spend that much???

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Annee

Im not sure why you think I care enough to hear your sob story?

I'd bet it's because people who lack empathy are a small enough minority that you rarely meet them.

a reply to: maria_stardust

I have no issues when the mothers life is in danger I'm talking about the ones who get one because they just want it, like I said I'm not religious.

a reply to: thesaneone

because why???
because they already went through one problem pregnancy that interfered with their ability to perform their daily tasks and don't want to be put in a position where they can't take care of their living children?

because they know how dependent their families are on their income and that they won't be able to continue in the job while pregnant?

because they are in the middle of a miscarriage and the baby doesn't have a chance of surviving, or the baby is badly deformed?

or the mother is just a child herself, a victim of incest?

why do you just assume or wish to portray that they are all just being irresponsible?

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Annee

Im not sure why you think I care enough to hear your sob story?

You think I care?

Your response only reflects on you.

Me? I was just stating facts.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Annee

LOTS OF LIVING CHILDREN are in desperate need of, care, food, education, etc.

We DO NOT need any more neglected children.

So what? Do we kill all of the currently neglected children... it is just a small step in the same direction.

P

That's your response?

Lame.

If it's a parasitic fetus, IT MUST BE PROTECTED! LIFE IS SACRED!

If it's an autonomous two year old baby, WELFARE QUEEN MOTHER! STOP HAVING CHILDREN!

If it's a twenty year old homeless person, DRUG ADDICT! GET OFF OUR STREETS! WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU!

How much anti-abortion people seem to tend to care about another human is inversely proportional to the amount of time it's been since conception.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Yep, this sums it up nicely

a reply to: Gryphon66

What public school doesn't teach students about contraception?

originally posted by: blu0hex
a reply to: Gryphon66

What public school doesn't teach students about contraception?

2014 Mississippi

Sex education stumbles in Mississippi

TUNICA, Miss. — Marie Barnard was delighted when, after decades of silence on the topic, Mississippi passed a law requiring school districts to teach sex education. But the lesson involving the Peppermint Pattie wasn't what she had in mind for her sons.

The curricula adopted by the school district in Oxford called on students to unwrap a piece of chocolate, pass it around class and observe how dirty it became.

"They're using the Peppermint Pattie to show that a girl is no longer clean or valuable after she's had sex — that she's been used," said Barnard, who works in public health. "That shouldn't be the lesson we send kids about sex."

She and other parents lobbied the district to teach about contraception, not just abstinence. After all, as she and other parents noted, 76% of Mississippi teenagers report having sex before the end of high school. articles.latimes.com...

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Annee

Im not sure why you think I care enough to hear your sob story?

This is the reason nobody cares about your opinion either.

So it's a win win.

a reply to: Annee
That's dumb.
Everyone knows chocolate has nothing to do with sex.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Annee
That's dumb.
Everyone knows chocolate has nothing to do with sex.

Well, now - - that depends

The really disgusting thing to me in this, and there's a perfect example above, is for those that believe abortion is MURDER, and yet there are "certain circumstances" in which MURDER is acceptable.

There's an innate horror there that is stunning it it's scope.

a reply to: Gryphon66

A little clarification? I'm a little dense tonight.

ETA: Grats on 14000 !

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

A little clarification? I'm a little dense tonight.

ETA: Grats on 14000 !

Thanks.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth here is because fetuses are human beings. Therefore, aborting a fetus is MURDER.

But MURDER is "acceptable" if the fetus is the result of incest, rape or poses a threat to the mother.

Now to me, for example, a fetus is just that ... a fetus. No special status. We don't name them nor do we bury them if they are "lost to natural means." Removing one for whatever reason prior to viability is just a variation on that "natural means."

But for someone for whom abortion is MURDER ... there are terms that JUSTIFY MURDER for them.

That is what keeps me up at night, if I think about it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Gotcha, thanks.

I think it has something to do with the disconnect of it all. It's easy to point fingers and say "I would have lived this way."

I don't believe there are many women who have had abortions who are against it. Kind of how the "best" parents are childless.