U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oklahoma
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2017, 01:06 PM
 
Location: OKIE-Ville
5,451 posts, read 7,972,603 times
Reputation: 3109

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
You are the one who is thinking emotionally rather than rationally.


Just because a fetus resembles an infant does not change the fact that it just a mere shell when most abortions are performed. Quite frankly, it takes a lot of imagination to see an eight-ten week fetus as anything but something resembling a tadpole.


And, you seem to forget, pregnancy is hardly a benign condition, it can and does cause irreversible health problems for some women, up to and including death.....without any advanced warning.


No woman should be forced to risk her health or her life against her will. A woman is more than a mere vessel to be used against her will, a fetus does not get to own our bodies as if we are slaves.


A fetus does not have rights that trump those of a woman.


It is also quite obvious that you do not think poor minority women deserve to have access to the same medical care wealthier women enjoy.....or that they can be trusted to make their own healthcare decisions.


I never heard of a woman who decided to have an abortion just because there was an abortion clinic close by. Do you realize how ignorant that is? .... how insulting that is to women of color?


I have a question for you. If you see a prostitute standing on the corner.....do you partake of her services just because she is there?


What? You don't? You can think for yourself? You are capable of making your own decisions?


Yet.....here you are......claiming minority women will decide to abort just because they see a clinic on the corner.


Yea, we get it, you think women are simple minded, especially minority women.
Whoa. I guess I put a burr under your saddle, ease up there Lil Lady. You need to work at hiding your offense just a bit more in civil dialogue.

If the fetus is a human being, and with our medical technological advances it is extremely difficult to argue otherwise, then the mother's rights do not trump the rights of the child. In other words, one human being's rights do not usurp the rights of another---regardless of age, size, ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, background, etc.

A human is a human; one human being does not have more rights than another human being. In fact, it has been a canon of humanity throughout our history that the most defenseless humans receive the most protection. There is not a more helpless human being than a baby in the womb of his/her mother. I believe we should protect babies, not put them to death.

As for the simple-minded bit that you keep referencing, this is something that you have introduced to the conversation and fixated on it. I have not once said that I think any one individual from a high or low economic strata does not have the capacity to make an informed decision because of simple-mindedness. That is something you inserted into the dialogue because you felt like it is a forceful point of contention. It is not. I disagree with abortion whether the person has an IQ of 200 or an IQ of 90. I disagree with abortion whether the person is considered a common-sense reasoned individual or the person has no common sense.

I believe abortion is wrong. It has nothing to do with the mental capacity of the individual. I do not believe wealthy or poor individuals of any ethnicity should have access to abortion because I believe it is murder. Clear enough for you?

Again, your bolded query/scenario that you put forth is ludicrous so it does not justify a response.

I have dealt with your assertions virtually point by point. All you have provided by way of rejoinder to my points is read implications into my thinking as well as allege that a fetus is a "tadpole." Excellent argument. Ascribing pejorative terms towards the fetus such as "tadpole" or the classic "mass of tissue" nomenclature does nothing to advance the dialogue but simply allows you to feel better about your position without any real rationale for holding said position.

Finally, as to your point about the dangers of pregnancy for women, now you're getting somewhere. That, in actuality, is a legitimately debatable position to defend. So bravo for finally bringing that up. However, as we well know, the vast (vast, vast) majority of abortions are performed not as a result of physical danger to the woman's body, but because it is not convenient for her and her partner to bring a baby into the world. That is shameful; and, I believe it's murder. These latter type of abortions are the ones that Pro Lifers are working so hard to eradicate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2017, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Jenks, Ok
874 posts, read 1,430,406 times
Reputation: 865
Do you hold funerals for the 20% of pregnancies that end naturally with Spontaneous Abortions? It's about the same number that end in Induced Abortions yet I don't see protests or even any focus on research about ending them. No one ever mentions them really. What gives?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 01:22 PM
 
Location: OKIE-Ville
5,451 posts, read 7,972,603 times
Reputation: 3109
Quote:
Originally Posted by swake View Post
Do you hold funerals for the 20% of pregnancies that end naturally with Spontaneous Abortions? It's about the same number that end in Induced Abortions yet I don't see protests or even any focus on research about ending them. No one ever mentions them really. What gives?
Not a good argument.

Spontaneous abortion is natural. It's Mother Nature's way of saying this is not a viable pregnancy; and, if the baby cannot be saved then the mother's health becomes top priority. Anyone who has been through a miscarriage understands this.

Induced abortion is unnatural. It is humanity's way of perpetuating infanticide.

Big difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
18,018 posts, read 14,340,547 times
Reputation: 5450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post

Induced abortion is unnatural. It is humanity's way of perpetuating infanticide.

Big difference.
Then how do you force a pregnant woman who wants an abortion from getting one? Do you propose all pregnant women be required to be put on 24 hour a day electronic monitoring, until birth? If monitoring indicates she is using the Internet to look up what you're supposed to do with a wire hanger to induce an abortion, would she be subject to arrest and confined as soon as possible?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 06:36 PM
 
14,617 posts, read 397,370 times
Reputation: 22974
Folks - can we get back to the thread?

Women have gotten abortions since women got pregnant. Legal in their societies or not it happened and happens. Some walk unscathed, some wear scars. Nobody mentioned the other side of this three-sided square - the father. Please no man bashing! Women have been known to be ...

There are who knows how many opinions about this. Some based on personal experience, some on riding a topic, some on believe (not only Christian), some just to howl. Because one's opinion is what everyone else shares does not mean it does not hold merrit. Every divorce has three sides - her's , his and the truth.

Have a pleasant evening and let's hope that everyone will be ok should the weather hit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Ohio
15,671 posts, read 14,145,491 times
Reputation: 21827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post
Whoa. I guess I put a burr under your saddle, ease up there Lil Lady. You need to work at hiding your offense just a bit more in civil dialogue.

If the fetus is a human being, and with our medical technological advances it is extremely difficult to argue otherwise, then the mother's rights do not trump the rights of the child. In other words, one human being's rights do not usurp the rights of another---regardless of age, size, ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, background, etc.

A human is a human; one human being does not have more rights than another human being. In fact, it has been a canon of humanity throughout our history that the most defenseless humans receive the most protection. There is not a more helpless human being than a baby in the womb of his/her mother. I believe we should protect babies, not put them to death.

As for the simple-minded bit that you keep referencing, this is something that you have introduced to the conversation and fixated on it. I have not once said that I think any one individual from a high or low economic strata does not have the capacity to make an informed decision because of simple-mindedness. That is something you inserted into the dialogue because you felt like it is a forceful point of contention. It is not. I disagree with abortion whether the person has an IQ of 200 or an IQ of 90. I disagree with abortion whether the person is considered a common-sense reasoned individual or the person has no common sense.

I believe abortion is wrong. It has nothing to do with the mental capacity of the individual. I do not believe wealthy or poor individuals of any ethnicity should have access to abortion because I believe it is murder. Clear enough for you?

Again, your bolded query/scenario that you put forth is ludicrous so it does not justify a response.

I have dealt with your assertions virtually point by point. All you have provided by way of rejoinder to my points is read implications into my thinking as well as allege that a fetus is a "tadpole." Excellent argument. Ascribing pejorative terms towards the fetus such as "tadpole" or the classic "mass of tissue" nomenclature does nothing to advance the dialogue but simply allows you to feel better about your position without any real rationale for holding said position.

Finally, as to your point about the dangers of pregnancy for women, now you're getting somewhere. That, in actuality, is a legitimately debatable position to defend. So bravo for finally bringing that up. However, as we well know, the vast (vast, vast) majority of abortions are performed not as a result of physical danger to the woman's body, but because it is not convenient for her and her partner to bring a baby into the world. That is shameful; and, I believe it's murder. These latter type of abortions are the ones that Pro Lifers are working so hard to eradicate.

Technology does not change the fact that a fetus is not a child or the fact that a fetus does not have the right to endanger the life of the mother without her consent.


YOU are the one who introduced PP into the abortion argument, contending that PP in minority neighborhoods promotes eugenics. Why would giving minorities equal access to abortion promote eugenics unless you perceived that group as being less capable of making their own decisions?


YOU are contending that easy access to abortion makes minority women more likely to abort.


So, I will ask you again, would easy access to prostitution make YOU more likely to hire a prostitute?


Same thing.....my question to you is valid.


Finally, carrying a pregnancy is not an "inconvenience". An inconvenience is forgetting to pick up a loaf of bread on your way home from work.


Only a man would describe pregnancy as a mere inconvenience.


Putting your health, your very life, on the line is hardly an "inconvenience" and thinking that is very degrading to women and what they go through carrying a pregnancy and giving birth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Ohio
15,671 posts, read 14,145,491 times
Reputation: 21827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post
Not a good argument.

Spontaneous abortion is natural. It's Mother Nature's way of saying this is not a viable pregnancy; and, if the baby cannot be saved then the mother's health becomes top priority. Anyone who has been through a miscarriage understands this.

Induced abortion is unnatural. It is humanity's way of perpetuating infanticide.

Big difference.

Birth control is unnatural too.......should that be banned?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 08:47 PM
 
Location: OKIE-Ville
5,451 posts, read 7,972,603 times
Reputation: 3109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
Technology does not change the fact that a fetus is not a child or the fact that a fetus does not have the right to endanger the life of the mother without her consent.


YOU are the one who introduced PP into the abortion argument, contending that PP in minority neighborhoods promotes eugenics. Why would giving minorities equal access to abortion promote eugenics unless you perceived that group as being less capable of making their own decisions?


YOU are contending that easy access to abortion makes minority women more likely to abort.


So, I will ask you again, would easy access to prostitution make YOU more likely to hire a prostitute?


Same thing.....my question to you is valid.


Finally, carrying a pregnancy is not an "inconvenience". An inconvenience is forgetting to pick up a loaf of bread on your way home from work.


Only a man would describe pregnancy as a mere inconvenience.


Putting your health, your very life, on the line is hardly an "inconvenience" and thinking that is very degrading to women and what they go through carrying a pregnancy and giving birth.
Allow me to connect the dots for you again.

Race was brought up by another poster in post #33, essentially pointing to the obvious fact that the vast majority of abortions (per capita of overall population) occur in neighborhoods where the majority of the occupants are minorities---most notably African Americans and Latinos. This shouldn't be such new information to you.

I stated the obvious by pointing to the high preponderance of Planned Parenthoods in minority communities because, just as alluded to precisely in post #33, minorities are much more likely to get an abortion. Planned Parenthood is a business. It's good for business for Planned Parenthood to be in minority communities because that's where a huge chunk of the market share resides. By the way, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Planned Parenthood executives referred to our minority brothers/sisters as "market share" given how callously they talked about selling baby parts. Also, Planned Parenthood is channeling its founder, Margaret Sanger, by terminating the lives of countless minority babies. Try to talk around it any way that you want, but the fact still stands that Sanger's Eugenics strategy is still very much in effect. Sanger was a racist and Planned Parenthood executes minorities at a very high percentage statistically. The correlation is not hard to decipher unless you would rather not deal with the truth.

As for your weak response regarding technology, I won't bother you with all the facts which point to a fetus being a human, even very early on in a pregnancy. I suspect you know that a baby has a discernible heart beat within five weeks after conception as well as the formation of arms and legs, et al. Continue to explain it away, but nothing negates that the indicators are there very early that a human being is formed.

I agree that a pregnancy is not a mere "inconvenience." Unfortunately, that's what most who do get an abortion view it as, an inconvenience. Unconscionable. Good effort at trying to twist my words though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Ohio
15,671 posts, read 14,145,491 times
Reputation: 21827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post
Allow me to connect the dots for you again.

Race was brought up by another poster in post #33, essentially pointing to the obvious fact that the vast majority of abortions (per capita of overall population) occur in neighborhoods where the majority of the occupants are minorities---most notably African Americans and Latinos. This shouldn't be such new information to you.

I stated the obvious by pointing to the high preponderance of Planned Parenthoods in minority communities because, just as alluded to precisely in post #33, minorities are much more likely to get an abortion. Planned Parenthood is a business. It's good for business for Planned Parenthood to be in minority communities because that's where a huge chunk of the market share resides. By the way, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Planned Parenthood executives referred to our minority brothers/sisters as "market share" given how callously they talked about selling baby parts. Also, Planned Parenthood is channeling its founder, Margaret Sanger, by terminating the lives of countless minority babies. Try to talk around it any way that you want, but the fact still stands that Sanger's Eugenics strategy is still very much in effect. Sanger was a racist and Planned Parenthood executes minorities at a very high percentage statistically. The correlation is not hard to decipher unless you would rather not deal with the truth.

As for your weak response regarding technology, I won't bother you with all the facts which point to a fetus being a human, even very early on in a pregnancy. I suspect you know that a baby has a discernible heart beat within five weeks after conception as well as the formation of arms and legs, et al. Continue to explain it away, but nothing negates that the indicators are there very early that a human being is formed.

I agree that a pregnancy is not a mere "inconvenience." Unfortunately, that's what most who do get an abortion view it as, an inconvenience. Unconscionable. Good effort at trying to twist my words though.

We get it, by removing PP from poor minority neighborhoods be can improve the health of poor minority women. It is always better to make it harder for poor minority women to obtain birth control, cancer screenings and abortion services. That way, we can be assured they will never get out of poverty or out of their neighborhoods and into ours.


It is always best that poor minority women have more children than they can care for, we need to keep them on public assistance and out of our neighborhoods and their children out of our schools.


The worst thing we can do is to offer poor minority women the tools they need to plan the size of their families, we must not allow them to break the cycle of poverty, we need to keep them in their place.


Only white women of means deserve easy access to family planning, that way, we can be assured their children can live in the best neighborhoods and go to the best schools, we must preserve the status quo.


And yes, we need to make sure only wealthy white women have access to safe abortions, you know, the way it was in the "good old days" before Roe v Wade. Poor women, and especially poor minority women, are just not worthy of modern medical care if they choose to abort.


Yes, we hear what you are saying........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2017, 01:51 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
18,018 posts, read 14,340,547 times
Reputation: 5450
Good response Annie. In my opinion, this desire by some men to deny women the right to abortion is related to them wanting to treat women badly. In a recent town hall meeting, I was startled to hear Rep. Cory Williams say that Oklahoma treats its women even worse than minorities. It's reflected in how Oklahoma incarcerates women at a higher rate than any other state. I think it helps explain why attempts to ban abortion in Oklahoma get brought up every year in the Legislature.

I'll be pro-choice for as long as it's easy to prove that banning abortion only makes for a more deadly and immoral situation. Even though most, if not all, abortion is banned in Latin America, the abortion rate is higher than it is in the United States. Also more women are hospitalized, due to poorly done, illegal abortions. Sometimes it leads to death of the woman. In Saudi Arabia, abortion is banned, but women don't enjoy the same public rights as men. Nobody is allowed in that country as an immigrant, if you're a Christian, or otherwise not a follower of Islam. It's highly unfortunate as in Latin America how the religious desire to ban abortion too often also comes with it the desire to make access to birth control difficult or discouraged.

Even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, it probably won't result in much more restrictive abortion than now. Or in total bans. Several years ago the highly Christian conservative state of Mississippi in a vote turned down a Personhood Amendment. It would have banned abortion by giving human rights to a fetus beginning at the moment of conception. Anyway, my guess is conservative states in the future will at the most restrict abortions to none after the first trimester, unless the life of the mother is threatened.

Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 01-15-2017 at 02:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oklahoma
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top