Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 05-28-2021, 09:27 AM
 
11,337 posts, read 10,977,478 times
Reputation: 14993

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That works both ways. If you have ovaries and a uterus, are of childbearing age, and are not surgically sterilized, you should know that if you take part in creating a fetus, you have accepted the responsibility of having a child.

Either both are responsible, or neither are responsible. If women don't have to accept responsibility for a child that results from their deliberate sexual activity, neither do the men who fathered a child.
No. There is no equality. Women have the biology of fetus production and maintenance. They decide if the factory is open or closed. Men have no autonomy here. Reality. If they make a sperm deposit, they risk lifelong obligation if a child, their child, gets born. But the getting born part is up to the woman, and only the woman. And if the fertilized egg is not something which she wants to allow time and development to transform into a future child, then she can make the decision to remove. All by herself. Unequally. The man can only attempt some rational persuasion but the decision is the woman’s.

And since a fertilized egg is not much of anything yet, it’s really not that important a decision. You don’t want to be a mom? You rectify the fertilized egg by removal. Not a big deal. A small mistake. Expensive though, so a superior option would be better “morning after” pill technology or better pre-fertilization birth control methodology.

Creating a fetus is not accepting the responsibility to have a child. Because having a child is not a decision that is made by getting pregnant. It is made by getting pregnant and deciding to grow and transform the fertilized egg to a future person. And that decision can be decided affirmatively or negatively by the woman based on her needs and wants. Not those of busy-body mystics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2021, 09:29 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,602 posts, read 44,302,488 times
Reputation: 13526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
I think you have a moral obligation to show us all why the obvious possible non-racist explanation for that we're all probably wondering about doesn't apply. One explanation I'm wondering about...which I think you should look up and refute, or verify, not me, is the possibility that minority groups, being minority groups, tend to congregate in areas with high populations of people in general, to meet fellow members of their minority group more easily. Naturally, people will want abortion clinics in areas with high populations for easiest possible convenience.
That ignores the fact that numerically, White women have more abortions than either Black or Hispanic women. It therefore would make more sense for PP to locate abortion facilities in White neighborhoods where most of their clients/patients are instead of in minority neighborhoods. Locating abortion facilities in minority neighborhoods targets minority women for abortions. Consequently, Black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates than White women even though they have far greater access to taxpayer-funded contraception services via Medicaid, etc., as they have higher enrollment rates in such programs.

Why can't people see what's going on? Black and Hispanic women have greater access to taxpayer-funded free or very low-cost contraception, and are also specifically targeted by PP for higher rates of abortion. It's quite clearly a manifestation of a white supremacy intent to limit minority populations. Not surprising since PP's founder Margaret Sanger was a white supremacist who had the exact same intent.

Some have noticed the heavy emphasis on targeting minority women for abortions, including Rev Jesse Jackson who said, "Abortion is black genocide...What happens to the mind of a person and the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2021, 09:33 AM
 
11,337 posts, read 10,977,478 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why can't you see that legislatures and courts have legally defined a fetus as a human and the killing of such as homicide?

The only legally permissible homicide is one committed in self-defense when one's own life is at stake. The vast majority of abortions do not meet that criteria. The vast majority of abortions are sought and performed for only the sake of "convenience." It's "inconvenient" for the woman to have to deal with the known possible outcome of deliberately choosing to have sex with a male partner - a pregnancy.
Ireland voted otherwise. So should we.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2021, 09:36 AM
 
11,337 posts, read 10,977,478 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That ignores the fact that numerically, White women have more abortions than either Black or Hispanic women. It therefore would make more sense for PP to locate abortion facilities in White neighborhoods where most of their clients/patients are instead of in minority neighborhoods. Locating abortion facilities in minority neighborhoods targets minority women for abortions. Consequently, Black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates than White women even though they have far greater access to taxpayer-funded contraception services via Medicaid, etc., as they have higher enrollment rates in such programs.

Why can't people see what's going on? Black and Hispanic women have greater access to taxpayer-funded free or very low-cost contraception, and are also specifically targeted by PP for higher rates of abortion. It's quite clearly a manifestation of a white supremacy intent to limit minority populations. Not surprising since PP's founder Margaret Sanger was a white supremacist who had the exact same intent.

Some have noticed the heavy emphasis on targeting minority women for abortions, including Rev Jesse Jackson who said, "Abortion is black genocide...What happens to the mind of a person and the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?"
White supremacy is a myth. No one is targeting anyone. People are freely making their own decisions, and clinics operate on simple supply and demand. Which is efficient and good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2021, 09:38 AM
 
11,337 posts, read 10,977,478 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That ignores the fact that numerically, White women have more abortions than either Black or Hispanic women. It therefore would make more sense for PP to locate abortion facilities in White neighborhoods where most of their clients/patients are instead of in minority neighborhoods. Locating abortion facilities in minority neighborhoods targets minority women for abortions. Consequently, Black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates than White women even though they have far greater access to taxpayer-funded contraception services via Medicaid, etc., as they have higher enrollment rates in such programs.

Why can't people see what's going on? Black and Hispanic women have greater access to taxpayer-funded free or very low-cost contraception, and are also specifically targeted by PP for higher rates of abortion. It's quite clearly a manifestation of a white supremacy intent to limit minority populations. Not surprising since PP's founder Margaret Sanger was a white supremacist who had the exact same intent.

Some have noticed the heavy emphasis on targeting minority women for abortions, including Rev Jesse Jackson who said, "Abortion is black genocide...What happens to the mind of a person and the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?"
Jesse Jackson is a mystic collectivist charlatan. Stop quoting him. He is anti-American and anti-human. He would turn America into a tyrannical third-world socialist Purgatory. If you want to quote a mystic who is anti-abortion, at least make it someone like Candace Owens or Larry Elder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2021, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,700 posts, read 21,818,155 times
Reputation: 13618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
The Supreme Court has announced it will hear a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade in the first abortion case taken by the court since Amy Coney Barrett joined the court last year.

It is time to overturn this decision, which will for those who do not know, would not make abortion illegal. It would return the authority for the matter to the state legislatures, each which would be responsible for passing its own law to govern abortion policy in their respective state.

Get your seatbelts on. Here we go....
Why is the court involved in the social issues of society like this anyway? Let the people of the states vote on it for their own state laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2021, 10:36 AM
 
19,573 posts, read 8,451,514 times
Reputation: 10096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Why is the court involved in the social issues of society like this anyway? Let the people of the states vote on it for their own state laws.
If the SCOTUS overturns this terrible ruling, then that is what will effectively happen through the state legislative processes. I hope it happens, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2021, 02:26 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 2,585,719 times
Reputation: 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
The truth of a proposition is not determined by how many people believe it, or how fervently the belief is held.
You're absolutely right
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
And going by the law of the land, abortion is legal in almost every civilized country In the world.
Going by the law of the land in the US, it most certainly views the unborn as a person, via homicides that occur in the womb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
If you look at where it is illegal, you are mostly in backward mystic countries where irrational theocrats have been able to degrade and debauch their people into tyrannical submission.
Well then, you're living in one of those 'backward mystic countries', because abortion was never made legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
A few neanderthal states in our own great country would like to return us to the Dark Ages, not only by outlawing abortion but in many other ways, including teaching absurd and vulgar creationism and other nonsense in our schools.
Since morality is subjective, according to you, theres nothing 'wrong', with any of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Now, abortion is not a moral quandary, because a fetal cell cluster is not a person, and is therefore ethically inert.
Says you and your subjective morality. Billions of people rightfully think it is a moral quandary. You saying it isn't, doesn't mystically make it so, Marc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
However the rights that are in jeopardy are those of the women of this country. And the assault is primarily a function of mystics trying to tyrannically impose control over those that reject their silly belief systems.
Again, doing any of that isn't wrong, evil or 'tyrannical' according to your morally relativist worldview. After reading a lot of your comments, would you say that there is no god?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2021, 03:22 PM
 
18,325 posts, read 18,913,187 times
Reputation: 15631
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That works both ways. If you have ovaries and a uterus, are of childbearing age, and are not surgically sterilized, you should know that if you take part in creating a fetus, you have accepted the responsibility of having a child.

Either both are responsible, or neither are responsible. If women don't have to accept responsibility for a child that results from their deliberate sexual activity, neither do the men who fathered a child.
Saying yes to sex isn’t saying yes to pregnancy, 9 months gestation, labor and delivery, 18 years of parenting or adoption. Both are responsible. Men do reject responsibility, they leave, no support either financially or emotionally to their child. Thinking either sex would stop having sex is fantasy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2021, 04:13 PM
 
1,905 posts, read 538,884 times
Reputation: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
Saying yes to sex isn’t saying yes to pregnancy, 9 months gestation, labor and delivery, 18 years of parenting or adoption. Both are responsible. Men do reject responsibility, they leave, no support either financially or emotionally to their child. Thinking either sex would stop having sex is fantasy.
Both men and women reject responsibility. No one is suggesting people stop having sex, but giving some forethought to the results of unprotected sex and guarding against such can eliminate many panic decisions.

"The single biggest reason for unplanned pregnancy isn’t ineffective birth control -- it’s from a couple not using any contraception. “Some women may not use birth control regularly, and others not at all,” says Maureen Phipps, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island. “They may not like it, might not have access to it, or may even have a partner who doesn't want them to use it.”

So who is accepting the most risk in unprotected sex, the man or woman? Whoever endures the greater liability, physically and emotionally of an unintended pregnancy need take the lead in greater precaution. Yes it "takes two", but only one of those two become pregnant. I hear abortion is not cheap, nor a walk in the park. It's better not to face that emotional roller coaster in the first place when it can be avoided.
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:


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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top