Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[JBJ 3830]

4 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

@JBJ

What is an abortion of convenience? If I got pregnant and didn't feel as though I were ready to be a mother and then went to PP for an abortion, would that be an abortion of convenience? What if I felt I didn't have the money to raise a child? If I were a single mother?

For convenience - the opposite of for cause.  And yes.  Anything not related to a health-risk.

[bad_teammate 13568]

Women die in childbirth even in good circumstances. And it hurts like hell. It's extremely deleterious to the body in many ways.

Pregnancy itself is a health risk.

anecdote time:

My daughter-in-law ate all organic food, exercised, took good supplements, and all that, but immediately after she gave birth to her last child, her liver temporarily stopped working for no apparent reason and she has had horrible seasonal allergies and lactose intolerance ever since. After our first, my wife had suicidal-thought levels of post-partum depression, which runs in her family and she knew was a likely thing before we even began trying.

The "for convenience" bullshit is like "cheeto-eating welfare queens" in the 80s, it's anti-woman misogyny and patriarchal chauvinism.

Edited April 27, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Chrispy 132]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Women die in childbirth even in good circumstances. And it hurts like hell. It's extremely deleterious to the body in many ways.

Pregnancy itself is a health risk.

anecdote time:

My daughter-in-law ate all organic food, exercised, took good supplements, and all that, but immediately after she gave birth to her last child, her liver temporarily stopped working for no apparent reason and she has had horrible seasonal allergies and lactose intolerance ever since. After our first, my wife had suicidal-thought levels of post-partum depression, which runs in her family and she knew was a likely thing before we even began trying.

The "for convenience" bullshit is like "cheeto-eating welfare queens" in the 80s, it's anti-woman misogyny and patriarchal chauvinism.

Before your edit, I actually thought you brought up a good point. Pregnancy related deaths have spiked in America, while decreasing in most other countries that collect such data. They attribute it to women having babies much older and more overweight, which lends the body to serious complications. Still, the number of deaths is anywhere from 700 to 1,200 a year, which still can’t explain the 800,000 abortions the CDC reports annually. Convenience is a loaded term, but I’m fairly certain these women don’t get abortions to avoid pre and post-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, or postpartum depression. 

As to your anecdote, my wife had similar issues with depression and serious hip pain that seems to be a lifelong ailment according to her doctors. The pain issue I’m still trying to figure out. Once my wife received her epidural, she was all smiles. I remained delirious and unnerved from lack of sleep, the copious amounts of coffee only seemed to worsen my condition. 

 

[bad_teammate 13568]

Just now, Chrispy said:

Convenience is a loaded term, but I’m fairly certain these women don’t get abortions to avoid pre and post-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, or postpartum depression. 

Based on what?

[Spankytoes 1748]

12 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

This is my entire point. The vast majority of people have fairly consistent views on abortion itself. Most people think it's a bad thing. Virtually everyone is opposed morally to 3rd trimester abortions.

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are political labels vaguely revolving around the topic of abortion writ large, but are primarily simple labels of politics and are tied to a host of other worldview disputes that are only tangentially related to abortion. Even those two labels, taken at face value, do not disagree, and they actually tell us very little about the individual beliefs of those with the title. It is literally useless to talk about it in terms of "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

 

Define “most people” when explaining their view on abortion. Most of those not opposed to abortion don’t view it as “bad”. They view it as an option, just like Plan B or birth control. If you take preventative measures to not get pregnant, but still do, abortion should be a legal option to terminate the unwanted pregnancy. Where I would agree is that there is a stigma against those that do not take any precautions. While supported, they are viewed as careless idiots.

Pro-Life/Pro-abortion are apt terms both politically and socially. There is a less than 1% grey area for the straw men arguments. (Rape, incest, mother’s life at stake, etc.) Not having an issue with gay marriage doesn’t kick you out of the Republican camp.

[DixonHur 11971]

11 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Not having an issue with gay marriage doesn’t kick you out of the Republican camp. 

Oh really? 😉

Texas GOP denies booth at state convention to conservative LGBT group

[bad_teammate 13568]

39 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Define “most people” when explaining their view on abortion. Most of those not opposed to abortion don’t view it as “bad”. They view it as an option, just like Plan B or birth control.

As a "pro-choice" liberal commie bastard who has friends and family of similar (though not nearly as far left) persuasion, I cannot think of any abortion discussion I have ever had with a fellow lib that was anything other than abortion being a "difficult choice" or an "unfortunate situation". It's sad. It's not a good thing.

The idea that most "pro-choice" people view having an abortion as morally and ethically equitable to taking birth control is a fucking joke.

Quote

Where I would agree is that there is a stigma against those that do not take any precautions. While supported, they are viewed as careless idiots.

This is only true among "pro-life" conservatives and, well, men.

Libs aren't nearly as hateful and judgemental towards women in that situation.

 

[Chrispy 132]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Based on what?

Mainly based on empirical evidence from personal experience and a lifetime of interactions with mothers and aspiring mothers. 

I also lend myself to the belief that if pregnancy were as perilous as you’re suggesting, the rates of IVF would be considerably less, especially since many of the beneficiaries of such treatments are in the high risk category. 

[bad_teammate 13568]

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Mainly based on empirical evidence from personal experience and a lifetime of interactions with mothers and aspiring mothers.

Personal experience with women who have gotten abortions?

Quote

I also lend myself to the belief that if pregnancy were as perilous as you’re suggesting, the rates of IVF would be considerably less, especially since many of the beneficiaries of such treatments are in the high risk category. 

People take risks to get things they want. I'm not sure what IVF, specifically, has to do with anything.

[Longhornmaniac8 255]

19 hours ago, Mole said:

With the proper motivation, safe legal and rare wouldn't look all that different than prolife. 

This sums up my view, and I'm pro-choice. I don't know anybody who loves abortion. There are people who get them repeatedly not because they wake up and think, "today is a good day for an abortion," but because they grew up in an environment that didn't value/afford safe sex education and contraception.

I'm all for the amount of abortions being reduced, but it will only be accomplished through education and the provision of contraception, not the banning of abortion, which will only make them less safe while not acting as a deterrent. Abortion is an act of desperation for many ("I'm too young for a child," "I can't afford this baby," etc.)  and desperate people don't follow the law.

The problem is, the most vocal people outspoken against the ease of access to contraception and a comprehensive sex education policy are also the same pro-life religious fundamentalists. This, above all else, is why I have a major problem with the pro-life movement. 

If they were consistent in their principles, and really cared about reducing abortion, this would be the first thing they would do. But it isn't. I have my own beliefs why that is, but that's for another thread.

[Chrispy 132]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Personal experience with women who have gotten abortions?

People take risks to get things they want. I'm not sure what IVF, specifically, has to do with anything.

Yes, personal experience with women who have had abortions. 

You stated that pregnancy is deleterious and a health risk, which I absolutely agree with you on. My example of IVF was merely to illustrate that it’s on the rise and these health risks are not a sufficient deterrent from pursuing pregnancy. The last survey I read on this issue states that around 4% of women named health concerns as a reason for their abortion. So the issue is there, but it’s decidedly behind financial concerns and relationship status. 

[Longhornmaniac8 255]

18 hours ago, JBJ said:

 

I'd say 20%.  It's probably slightly more than the portion of pro-choicers who consider birth to be the end-all for personhood.

But I'll answer your questions personally:

(1) I hold personhood to be inherent.  That is that a zygote should be viewed as a person with the same considerations as an adult. There's some caveats to that, but once someone starts in with with "it's not even a person," I can just about dismiss anything else they say.  If you could force an adult back into the womb, a fetus should be treated the same.

(2) I hold that it's unethical to terminate a pregnancy for convenience.

(3) I hold that the reasons for terminating are an important part of the moral/ethical dilemma.

If you agree me with on those points, we can probably have a productive conversation.

 

Policy-wise, it's best for the state to intervene in the more black-and-white situations.  Protecting the mother's life is black-and-white to me.  Aborting a viable fetus for convenience is black-and-white to me.  I think there's an undeniable greater harm done in both situations.  The government needs to allow or enforce protection against both.

Policy-wise, passing perception and sensory developmental milestones increases the harm done to the fetus.  That being said, I'll admit that this area is grey and there might not be a policy solution that's agreeable.

-------------

The above are ethical or policy aspects.  It's hard for me to post that stuff stoically.  Morally, I think it's degenerate to consider anything but the life of the mother.  It's a life for a life, everything else is philosophical gumbo.  Further, if I were the mother and there's a good chance I'd die but the baby could survive, I'd be out looking for adoptive parents.

I respect that you hold those views. The problem is, you're requiring that anyone else believe them before you have a dialogue with them. I think guns are a disposable entity in today's civilian society, and on a personal level I would be perfectly happy if we got rid of them, but I also respect that others disagree. I'm not going to expect anyone else to believe what I believe in order to discuss the inherent nuance in that debate.

I will never agree with you that a zygote should be viewed as a person. I think that's rooted in a fantasy, just as you think my "laissez-faire" approach to 1st and 2nd trimester abortions is morally reprehensible. But we don't need to agree on that to take meaningful strides towards a common goal.

Every "abortion of convenience" (which is an astoundingly offensive way of putting it) you speak of starts with an unwanted pregnancy. Get rid of the unwanted pregnancies, and you get rid of those abortions. So why are so many pro-lifers against that? Shuttering Planned Parenthood will do more harm to your overall goal than outlawing abortions will do good.

There is a reason why we have an ever decreasing amount of teenage pregnancies and overall abortions, and it's not because abstinence-only sex education is prevalent and abortions are illegal. It's because more and more people have access to contraception, counseling, and good sex education than ever before. The problem is largely rectifying itself naturally. Just get the pro-lifers out of the way and let the logical conclusions follow.

I'd argue that making abortion illegal is about the biggest red herring in the entire abortion debate. This Fact Sheet paints a pretty damning view on the Pro-Life agenda in term of actual hard data.

While I won't agree with you, and won't support legislating a woman's control over her body, I will stand beside you and work with you to reduce the number of abortions. They aren't remotely mutually exclusive.

[bad_teammate 13568]

9 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

My example of IVF was merely to illustrate that it’s on the rise and these health risks are not a sufficient deterrent from pursuing pregnancy. The last survey I read on this issue states that around 4% of women named health concerns as a reason for their abortion. So the issue is there, but it’s decidedly behind financial concerns and relationship status. 

Yes; health impacts are, without a doubt, not at the very top of the list. As you say, financial concerns, relationship issues, and others are higher up on the stated list of reasons.

However, health issues not being the primary stated reason does not mean that health issues are not involved in the decision-making process. It's not top of the list, but it's in the mix. Decisions of this magnitude are rarely based on one factor.

Regardless, "convenience" is not a word that fits essentially any of these reasons, and I think you agree with that.

Edited April 27, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Chrispy 132]

26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes; health impacts are, without a doubt, not at the very top of the list. As you say, financial concerns, relationship issues, and others are higher up on the stated list of reasons.

However, health issues not being the primary stated reason does not mean that health issues are not involved in the decision-making process. It's not top of the list, but it's in the mix. Decisions of this magnitude are rarely based on one factor.

Regardless, "convenience" is not a word that fits essentially any of these reasons, and I think you agree with that.

Well, convenience is definitely open to interpretation. There’s situations where the family simply can’t afford a new mouth to feed and conversely, situations in which a baby would silmply be a hindrance in one’s pursuit of college or career. However, anyone using the term convenient and insinuating that any part of the abortion process is easy, should be written off as a fool. 

[hpslugga 4097]

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

Mainly based on empirical evidence from personal experience and a lifetime of interactions with mothers and aspiring mothers. 

Excuse me, but what is your occupation?

Edited April 27, 2018 by hpslugga

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Excuse me, but what is your occupation?

He's a wetnurse.

[Chrispy 132]

31 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Excuse me, but what is your occupation?

The empirical evidence and my occupation are unrelated. Most of my experience was derived from charitable work during my summers off. 

[Chrispy 132]

42 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

He's a wetnurse.

Bless your heart. 

[hpslugga 4097]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

The empirical evidence and my occupation are unrelated. Most of my experience was derived from charitable work during my summers off. 

So then you'd do well to learn the difference between "empirical" and "anecdotal."

[Chrispy 132]

4 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

So then you'd do well to learn the difference between "empirical" and "anecdotal."

I don’t believe so. I acquired sensory information, mostly by observervation and documented it. I didn’t personally analyze the data, but the resulting conclusions were far from anecdotal. 

[hpslugga 4097]

17 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t believe so. I acquired sensory information, mostly by observervation and documented it. I didn’t personally analyze the data, but the resulting conclusions were far from anecdotal. 

A fucking 5-year old "acquires sensory information" when he watches a nuclear bomb explode. That doesn't mean he knows jack about the research that was necessary to construct and to detonate said bomb. You haven't explained what it is that you did or saw to expose yourself to such "resulting conclusions." You made that comment in response to someone who challenged an assertion you made when you said "I’m fairly certain these women don’t get abortions to avoid pre and post-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, or postpartum depression."

So again, what exactly is your experience dealing with women who did get abortions that makes you so certain in your position that you use such lofty phrases as "empirical evidence?"

Edited April 27, 2018 by hpslugga

[David Dennison 19571]

21 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by David Dennison
Derp.

[Mole 4345]

1. Data isn't the plural of anecdote.

2. Despite that, I think the assumption that health concerns aren't the primary driver of abortions is correct.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Address the primary drivers and you can make huge progress. What are these lives worth? Is it worth the moral high ground? Is it worth other core principles?

3. Obama caught some heat years ago when he used the phrase "punished with a baby." Something similar has been used on this thread. There's a deep cultural problem revealed in this phrase. The overwhelming majority of abortions are driven by "punished with a baby" vs. rape/incest/health. I can recognize that a pregnant teen might see no other way out. That's reasonable thinking considering the broader culture.  As a culture though, we are electing to have these abortions.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Mole

[hpslugga 4097]

20 minutes ago, Mole said:

Address the primary drivers and you can make huge progress. 

I would generally agree though I think that a more careful approach to deciphering "primary drivers" is in order, and it's not because medical reasons, rape/incest/et al are the primary drivers. They're obviously not. 

The problem I have with studies like the one you posted is they have purposefully obtuse and vague answer choices like "not ready for a baby now." Ok...why isn't she ready? Could it be for economic reasons and everything that traces back to that? It's hard to tell because that's counted like a separate category (and an unimportant one, judging by the numbers). Nonetheless, answers like the one you posted inspire serious people to discuss this kind of issue and not some pointless bickering about whether or not a fetus is a live human being when most of those who answer in the affirmative couldn't be bothered to give two shits about the mother and/or the child after it's born.

Edited April 27, 2018 by hpslugga

[Chrispy 132]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

A fucking 5-year old "acquires sensory information" when he watches a nuclear bomb explode. That doesn't mean he knows jack about the research that was necessary to construct and to detonate said bomb. You haven't explained what it is that you did or saw to expose yourself to such "resulting conclusions." You made that comment in response to someone who challenged an assertion you made when you said "I’m fairly certain these women don’t get abortions to avoid pre and post-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, or postpartum depression."

So again, what exactly is your experience dealing with women who did get abortions that makes you so certain in your position that you use such lofty phrases as "empirical evidence?"

My, you’re angry. It’s friday my man, life is good. Empirical evidence derives from the Greek word experience. Your comparison of understanding abortion to the complexities of nuclear fusion seems rather strange, so I’ll leave that one alone. My church partnered with several outreach programs that counciled and aided women that sought help for unwanted pregnancies. I took in several of these sessions and compiled these notes, along with questionnaires, as to why many felt abortion was their only option. I can not recall a single case that a woman mentioned health reasons. The feedback I received from those in the organization was that it was fairly rare. 

Let me reiterate that I’m not particualry against abortion, I only meant to enhance my college resume. But I still found it interesting nonetheless. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Chrispy
Friday

[hpslugga 4097]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

My church partnered with several outreach programs that counciled and aided women that sought help for unwanted pregnancies. I took in several of these sessions and compiled these notes, along with questionnaires, as to why many felt abortion was their only option. I can not recall a single case that a woman mentioned health reasons. The feedback I received from those in the organization was that it was fairly rare. 

Let me reiterate that I’m not particualry against against abortion, I only meant to enhance my college resume. But I still found it interesting nonetheless. 

In case you didn't see what I said to Mole, I agreed with the general assertion that health concerns weren't the primary reason. What I objected to was your use of the word "empirical," when your experience definitely would not qualify, and you even admitted that you didn't do any data analysis. I'm sorry, but anyone who did charity work during a few summers at a church working with an outreach program and "took in several sessions" is in no position whatsoever to refer to anything they'd seen as "empirical evidence." Given that, any person with a functioning grey cell who sees someone doing that would immediately assume "he's trying to pull wool over people's eyes by using loftier terminology than what he's really referring to," and most of them would then assume you're just bullshitting with everything else you say. 

You're undermining your own point, which again is a point I agreed with, hence my objection to your careless reference to your anecdotal evidence as anything even remotely approaching "empirical." 

[Chrispy 132]

3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

In case you didn't see what I said to Mole, I agreed with the general assertion that health concerns weren't the primary reason. What I objected to was your use of the word "empirical," when your experience definitely would not qualify, and you even admitted that you didn't do any data analysis. I'm sorry, but anyone who did charity work during a few summers at a church working with an outreach program and "took in several sessions" is in no position whatsoever to refer to anything they'd seen as "empirical evidence." Given that, any person with a functioning grey cell who sees someone doing that would immediately assume "he's trying to pull wool over people's eyes by using loftier terminology than what he's really referring to," and most of them would then assume you're just bullshitting with everything else you say. 

You're undermining your own point, which again is a point I agreed with, hence my objection to your careless reference to your anecdotal evidence as anything even remotely approaching "empirical." 

I’m sure we could quibble all day long as to whether my experience meets your personal criterion, but that’s awfully tedious. I claim it to be empirical evidence, as do the organizations that I’ve compiled it for, which is all that really matters. 

[Spankytoes 1748]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

As a "pro-choice" liberal commie bastard who has friends and family of similar (though not nearly as far left) persuasion, I cannot think of any abortion discussion I have ever had with a fellow lib that was anything other than abortion being a "difficult choice" or an "unfortunate situation". It's sad. It's not a good thing.

The idea that most "pro-choice" people view having an abortion as morally and ethically equitable to taking birth control is a fucking joke.

This is only true among "pro-life" conservatives and, well, men.

Libs aren't nearly as hateful and judgemental towards women in that situation.

 

Putting your dog down is a difficult choice. It’s not viewed as “bad” or “evil” or “murder” other than empathizing with the emotions associated with the attachment to one’s pet/friend. It’s something that needs to be done sometimes.

Of course Pro-lifers don’t equate abortion to birth control. That keeps in line with the whole “Pro-life” thing. Not sure who has this idea that you are arguing against. I stated the exact opposite of that.

I’m socially Liberal. Yet somehow our viewpoints don’t meet. Is such a thing possible? 

[JBJ 3830]

Don't change what I wrote if you don't like the new meaning.

"For convenience" is what I wrote and it's what I meant.  It's not an adjective: "convenient" and it's not constitutive: "of convenience."

It doesn't imply those, and you guys know it doesn't imply those.  You rewrite it specifically to attack a strawman.

Edited April 27, 2018 by JBJ

[bad_teammate 13568]

2 hours ago, Spankytoes said:

Putting your dog down is a difficult choice. It’s not viewed as “bad” or “evil” or “murder” other than empathizing with the emotions associated with the attachment to one’s pet/friend. It’s something that needs to be done sometimes.

This is not equivalent to how the pro-choice think of abortion, even very early term ones.

[Longhornmaniac8 255]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

Don't change what I wrote if you don't like the new meaning.

"For convenience" is what I wrote and it's what I meant.  It's not an adjective: "convenient" and it's not constitutive: "of convenience."

It doesn't imply those, and you guys know it doesn't imply those.  You rewrite it specifically to attack a strawman.

If you're addressing me, no, I didn't do that at all. I was just too lazy to expand the box to see exactly what you wrote. It wouldn't have changed a single word of my reply had I correctly quoted you. Your next-level pedantry notwithstanding, most people would hold the phrases "for convenience" and "of convenience" to be more or less equivalent. If you'd like to explain how your distinction between the two is meaningful, I'll shut up and listen.

[DixonHur 11971]

What the fuck are you guys dickering about?  Who cares if Crispy used the word "empirical" correctly or not?  It's just semantics.  You know what he meant, and you know he's right...arguing about his choice of words gets us nowhere.

The fact is women have abortions for all sort of reasons, but that has fuck-all to do with the debate over whether or not abortions should be legal. 

So whether the woman wants an abortion because of fear of health problems, because she doesn't want to be "punished with a baby", or it's just an abortion for "convenience"...whatever that means....it doesn't matter.  As someone pointed out earlier, no one is Pro-Abortion in the sense that they get thrill from abortions...ok, there may be a few wack-job, serial killers who do, but from a practical standpoint I think we can agree the number is next to zero.

The only thing that matters is whether you consider an abortion to be murder, or you think it's a woman's right to choose.  The former is a moral argument, and the latter is a legal / constitutional one.  I'm fact driven, so looking at the constitution and the legal definitions surrounding the constitution, there is only one "right" answer...it is a woman's right to choose. 

Why?  Because a woman, in the US, has a constitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  So if a baby doesn't fit into that last part, she can terminate the pregnancy.  

I know what you're thinking..."hold on there Dixon, what about the unborn baby's rights?"  It has none.  And no, I'm not basing that on the fact that they are not citizens yet...the 14th Amendment covers non-citizens as well...but you do have to be a PERSON.  And that's where the unborn-baby craps out.  Under US Code, a "person" is defined as:

Quote

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

The moral argument is based on religion which completely goes against the establishment clause, IMO.  Why should your religious views trump mine?

 

[formermav43 4631]

nm

Edited April 28, 2018 by formermav43
nm

[blackmarketbaby 118]

This thread is well past the third trimester. Will you abort?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

On 4/27/2018 at 2:44 PM, Chrispy said:

My, you’re angry. It’s friday my man, life is good. Empirical evidence derives from the Greek word experience. Your comparison of understanding abortion to the complexities of nuclear fusion seems rather strange, so I’ll leave that one alone. My church partnered with several outreach programs that counciled and aided women that sought help for unwanted pregnancies. I took in several of these sessions and compiled these notes, along with questionnaires, as to why many felt abortion was their only option. I can not recall a single case that a woman mentioned health reasons. The feedback I received from those in the organization was that it was fairly rare. 

Let me reiterate that I’m not particualry against abortion, I only meant to enhance my college resume. But I still found it interesting nonetheless. 

You took in the observations.  Did ya take in the kids?  How about we start piling those kids on your doorstep, Swam?  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

On 4/27/2018 at 7:06 PM, bad_teammate said:

This is not equivalent to how the pro-choice think of abortion, even very early term ones.

Not everyone “thinks” as you do or don’t.  The minute you start attributing your thoughts to someone else is the minute you need to fuck right off, mister.  

[Chrispy 132]

40 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

You took in the observations.  Did ya take in the kids?  How about we start piling those kids on your doorstep, Swam?  

These women were offered assistance in one form or another, none of it mandatory. In my post that you quoted, I explained my stance on abortion. You’re swinging at shadows champ.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

These women were offered assistance in one form or another, none of it mandatory. In my post that you quoted, I explained my stance on abortion. You’re swinging at shadows champ.

You advocating welfare then, champ?  Or are you going to answer the question?  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

Irresponsible people are gonna fuck because, well they are irresponsible. What exactly are you going to do that mitigates that irresponsible fuckery?  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

Hello, Chrispy?  You are a loud mouthed son of a bitch who can’t wipe the Big Macs off his own ass, let alone develop some sort of policy.   You wait until shit happens and then take credit for it.   

[Chrispy 132]

34 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

You advocating welfare then, champ?  Or are you going to answer the question?  

I’m trying to decipher your broken English. To clarify your question, are you asking if I want the aborted fetuses piled on my door? Since, as I’m sure you’re acutely aware, I’m not against early term abortions. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

I think my English was fairly clear, you just distorted it because that’s what you do.  What are you going to do with those piled up babies, swam for Baylor?  

[DixonHur 11971]

Crispy, when do you consider the point at which abortion should be illegal?  Why?

[Chrispy 132]

7 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I think my English was fairly clear, you just distorted it because that’s what you do.  What are you going to do with those piled up babies, swam for Baylor?  

What babies? 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

The ones you are taking responsibility for, ya dumb fuck.  

[Chrispy 132]

7 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Crispy, when do you consider the point at which abortion should be illegal?  Why?

Good question. To me, since I’m not guided by any religious doctrine, it becomes a matter of fetus viability. I believe around 24 weeks the viability is anywhere from 50% to 70%, so that seems reasonable to me. The entire topic disgusts me and even more so after having children of my own, however; I understand the reasoning of those who feel abortion is their only choice. 

[Chrispy 132]

16 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

The ones you are taking responsibility for, ya dumb fuck.  

I’m still not following my man. 

[DixonHur 11971]

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

Good question. To me, since I’m not guided by any religious doctrine, it becomes a matter of fetus viability. I believe around 24 weeks the viability is anywhere from 50% to 70%, so that seems reasonable to me. The entire topic disgusts me and even more so after having children of my own, however; I understand the reasoning of those who feel abortion is their only choice. 

Seems reasonable.  I guess a starting point could be to require "abortions" past 22 weeks to be done via c-section and have the medical team do it's best to save the baby.  

[bad motherfucker 315]

I'm all in abortion .  Should happen 99% of the time.

[futureman 22721]

7 minutes ago, bad motherfucker said:

I'm all in abortion .  Should happen 99% of the time.

how’s the moderating going over at scattytexas?  that site is quite the abortion, am I right?