A great first step to ending Abortion!

gfm7175 said:
Okay.


There is nothing more effective than abstinence. Nobody is shaming children into not having sex, but rather, teaching them (for starters) the responsibilities which come with it, such as child raising (by a solid nuclear family) and to wait until that solid family foundation is laid down. Sex is not something to do or take casually.


Me too. That's why I favor abstinence (until one is emotionally and fiscally ready for forming a family). It is the most effective approach one can possibly take. Also, it does not result in fetal murder...
Click to expand...

It's also the approach least likely to be effective at getting teens to avoid sex.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
rjhenn said:
Your comprehension ability is rudimentary, at best. That "judicial power", obviously and necessarily, includes interpreting the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Like I just said, SCOTUS is not above the Constitution... They are under it. -- See Article 3 Section 2...

There is no language giving SCOTUS power over the Constitution, power to interpret it...
 
gfm7175 said:
How are women being "punished"? They have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to have sex. You're just hearing people tell those women that they ought not murder the life that they FREELY CHOSE to create (since they freely chose to have sex).


Love/care/etc. cannot be forced through compulsion... It must be freely given and freely received.

Also, the "anti-abortion zealots" (as you call them) are NOT the ones who are slaughtering millions of fetuses into tiny pieces...
Click to expand...
But they are the ones opposing rational programs that would greatly reduce the abortion rate.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So all barren women, like you, need to get pregnant, is sperm!!

Stop spitting and swallow.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif

SPERM
Click to expand...

Even Christie is groaning over the stupidity of Desh's comments.

Good job, Christie. :good4u:
 
Oneuli said:
The evidence suggests you can't even promote it, much less enforce it. Abstinence-only education fails to result in abstinence, but what it does result in is more people being unprepared when they have sex, and thus higher unwanted pregnancy rates. Why not work with the liberals to address that? After all, a large share of those unwanted fetuses will end up dying, one way or the other, so if preventing fetal deaths is the goal (rather than just punishing women), preventing those unwanted pregnancies will do that.
Click to expand...
The pro-life position is that more babies is good. Apparently they think that we're still back in early biblical days, when a high birth rate was essential to the survival of a society. It doesn't matter to them if that also means more miscarriages and more infant mortality and more children on welfare.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
TOP said:
So...an unborn child doesn't have a right to life?
Click to expand...
Technically, it's not a child until it's born. Until then, it's just a fetus. Did the Bible count an "unborn child" in any census?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
TOP said:
Yes.. unborn children do. have rights, in many states, many circumstances......no goalposts moved.... '
(I've got to ask...do your friends have fetus showers these days?)
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Toxic and her "fetus showers". I recall you getting banned over that on Amazon, for following me around making nasty remarks about my soon-to-arrive g-daughter, referring to her as a "clump of cells," asking if my daughter was going to abort her, and so on. Oh, and sharing personal info, as well. Hasn't "teechur" learned anything from that?
 
Wolverine said:
You keep using the word Fetus as if it means something! It is a word you use to keep yourself from feeling shame, for your support of a barbaric practice!
Click to expand...
It's the scientific term, which explains why you don't like it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
evince said:
to all of you assholes who hated their mother so now they hate and distrust all women
Click to expand...

Yep. Oneuli is right -- it's a control thing, not a caring-about-precious-life thing. BTW, Toxic Top is allegedly a female. One of those "#PickMe" types who agrees with every single thing a man says so one might like her, someday. Maybe.
 
rjhenn said:
The pro-life position is that more babies is good. Apparently they think that we're still back in early biblical days, when a high birth rate was essential to the survival of a society. It doesn't matter to them if that also means more miscarriages and more infant mortality and more children on welfare.
Click to expand...

That's why I think of them and refer to them as "forced-birthers." There is nothing pro-life about the majority of them.
 
gfm7175 said:
Didn't say it was.


I'm not trying to stop people from having sex.


You're purposely phrasing those options in a way which makes one sound much better than the other. It's about whether or not purposely taking away the life of one's own child is wrong. It is also about the sanctity of life, and how big of a responsibility it is to bring life into the world.


Nope. Abstinence is much more effective.


Abstinence isn't a "no sex forever" type of deal... It simply encourages people to WAIT until they are married... until they have formed a solid nuclear family foundation first, and are ready emotionally and financially to take on such a huge responsibility.


Okay.


OR you teach both?


Yes, they do.
Click to expand...

Abstinence is, absolutely, the very worst policy to prevent pregnancy. It fails constantly. Even priests and nuns will sometimes have sex. Abstinence only works if practiced consistently. Teens don't.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
TOP said:
So the men should definitely have a say when it comes to the pregnancy....especially if the decision includes terminating the unborn child.... good point;)
Click to expand...
Not unless the man is willing to marry the woman and raise the baby.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
Humans are INHERENTLY religious, Oneuli... YOU even make use of religion... We ALL do... And no, I did not say Theism... I said religion...
Click to expand...
Which is why humans have invented thousands of different gods. None of which are real.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Wolverine said:
Takes two to tango honey! That is why a man should have a say, if he wants to raise it, she carries it he raises it. If not both sets of parents are on the hook to pay and raise it, you want to that is how you keep abortion from happening! After 18 make both parties responsible for raising it let it be adopted and garnish wages.
Click to expand...
That would quickly lead to abortion being even more legal and would give the parents the right to force an abortion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
Yup, that's her argument. She's being serious about it.

Apparently, an unborn child only counts as a child if the mother wants it, but it does not count as a child if the mother doesn't want it. "Desire" or "want", contrary to science, can supposedly change a child into a non-child... can supposedly change a life into a non-life... can supposedly change a life into a void.

An example is when someone murders a pregnant woman and gets charged with double homicide. Why does that unborn child count as another person in that case, but not count as a person in the case of abortion? The difference is "want"... In one case, the child is "wanted"... In the other case, the child is not wanted. What I want to know is how does "want" magickally change a life into a void?
Click to expand...
Again, life is irrelevant. Why doesn't the Bible say anything against abortion, but rather downplays it and even requires it in some cases.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Im so glad you shared the same concern about sending our young men and women to fight and die and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the immoral war in Iraq.

Oh wait...you were one of the lemmings who supported the immoral war in Iraq. Gosh that makes you a staggering hypocrite who only believes in the sanctity of life when it’s in the womb.
Click to expand...

They only like humans when it is impersonal.
 
rjhenn said:
Your comprehension ability is rudimentary, at best. That "judicial power", obviously and necessarily, includes interpreting the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I lmao when Trumpanzees and conservatards in general wax legalese, bemoaning lack of judicial restraint.
Being completely serious, one cannot have a principled objection to the results flowing from a lack of judicial restraint
or lawmaking from the bench if one is not a practicing attorney who experiences it in any niche. In fact, when that
occurs, it is usually due to horrible law drafting by the legislature that requires a judge to either fill in the gaps
or apply a poorly constructed law to new and inventive arguments made by counsel. But back to my point,
a Trumpanzee without a law practice involving appellate work has about as much conviction in their judicialphilosophy
as my grandmother has in the writing of computer code or the architecture of a computer chip.

They parrot the legalistic arguments the masters tell them to. They haven't a clue.

By they way, the actually have the ability to "EXPOUND" and interpret. Trumpturds must love that word,
that is, if they take out a dictionary. LMFAO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top