Science Is Giving the Pro-Life Movement a Boost

[Smallcock]

Adoptions? We can't even find homes for the kids today awaiting adoption.

Using American Statistics

There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care.Dec 8, 2015

Link

I know a lawyer and his private detective wife in the US that wanted to adopt. They went through a rigorous process and were declined. Fix the system. Also, improve foster homes and encourage community out-reach via volunteers as well as traditional church programs.

These things improve society rather than sweep problems under the rug.

The US imports a million immigrants a year (not counting illegals), so it's not like the US doesn't need more bodies. It does.

 

[Smallcock]

So you propose adding millions of unwanted children to an already overwhelmed system? That's your solution.

You tend to think in a very simplistic way and spout cliches about how in your opinion all this should work.

I tend to think in terms of right and wrong, and accountability and responsibility. It may be cliche and simplistic but that's ok.

Millions of unwanted children would need to be taken care of and raised. The system we currently have simply could not handle it. We would need to put in place a huge infrastructure network to support and raise millions of unwanted children. This would require very large tax payer funding. It's funny because usually the "right to life" crowd are usually the ones who scream the loudest about welfare moms and welfare bums and eliminating social assistance etc. etc.

I agree. Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate our current system. Even without the issue of abortion, some parts of the system are due for an overhaul, don't you think?

How did it work before our current system?

The "Right to Life" crowd should more aptly be named, "Right to birth" because once the kid is born, they, like you, just figure that it's "mission accomplished" (yes, that's a George W Bush analogy because we all know how well that worked out) and it's now someone else's problem (like your post when I asked you who is going to raise all of these unwanted children, and your simplistic (even child like) response was, "their parents". I don't know what planet you are on on this one frankly.) When I pressed you to come up with a realistic solution, your next solution was, "adoption and foster care" and harping on about the good ole days it wasn't a problem (like you would know.)

Well the adoption and foster care system can't handle the kids we do have right now.

The only mission accomplished in a birth is that the child was not killed. I know of no Pro Life individual that believes it's someone else's problem after the fact. I think that is a cliche perspective. As a society we must ensure the safety and well-being of said children for their entire life.

So again, I ask you, "what's your plan for dealing with millions of unwanted children"

I await your well thought out response. And waxing poetic with anecdotes about the good ole days is not a solution.

So lets here about how you plan to house, feed, educate, socialize well adjusted children whose parents did not want them.

I think folks like yourself are afraid to go down the rabbit hole of change because you fear the responsibility that moral choices may impose on you. But when you choose to live in a society, you cannot absolve yourself of them. There are many fundamentally flawed assumptions in your post from the numbers of unwanted children that would be born to the inability to make changes to the current system that would allow it to adsorb and raise foster kids. You shouldn't shrugs your shoulders and accept the status quo, just because it's convenient, in the face of the killing of human life. Be creative. And when it comes to that unborn child, choose life.

Ask oldjones about his well adjusted friends who were former foster children to see that it can and does happen.

 

[bigbangupper]

Hard to believe I just read this on a message board that is literally devoted to recreational, non-reproductive sex.

 

[JunoxGrey]

I love the irony about this being posted on an escort review board, so saying if a condom broke and you knocked a girl up you’re totally cool with paying the child support right? Or are you just happy to remain anonymous as long as she has the kid and struggled financially etc instead of getting the abortion. Oh also the fact that women have to pump their selves FULL of daily hormones to avoid getting pregnant which effect us physically and mentally, oh and because someone decided not to pull out we’re supposed to literally RUIN our bodies and careers to carry a child we never wanted. No, you have no say.

 

[basketcase]

There are millions of women that are pro-life. ....

And that is their choice.

Thankfully in Canada they don't have the right to tell other women what to think.

 

[basketcase]

The law puts limits on what we do with our bodies. I cannot use my arms to wield a knife and stab someone to death. Likewise, a woman should not be able to kill a human life just because that human life happens to be inside her body rather than outside of it.

The Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you.

 

[basketcase]

If science tells us that humans develop in the body faster than we thought, would you concede that the window for an abortion should also be reduced?

If late term abortions were a common occurrence and performed against medical advice then you might have a realistic question.

 

[basketcase]

...
That's what foster homes and adoptions are for. And unwanted can easily change to wanted once the child is born. Happens all the time, and throughout all of human history.

Yep, because foster homes consistently provide an excellent experience and there are millions more people wanting to foster children.

 

[sempel]

Welp, another thread where men try to dictate what women do with their bodies. HERE WE GO. Keep in mind it takes two to tango

This seems contradictory - it takes TWO to tango, but the man gets no say? I think you might be incorrect in the point you are trying to make.

IMO, women have the right to do whatever they want with their fetus. If they want to abort, abort. If they don't want to, then don't.

Amazing how people try to force others what to do with their bodies. It's like religion.... Jesus rules.... no Mohammed rules.... blah blah blah. As someone who isn't religious at all, go ahead to do what you want. Just don't bother me with it.

I'm a man, so there's no baby growing in me, but I can dictate something similar to anyone else..... "for all you morons out there with lousy education, lousy jobs, and who rely on a government dole to keep afloat or whine about wages, smarten up, be your own man and be responsible for your own life and livelihood".

I don't think too many people would like that said to their face.

To me, yes a woman has the right to decide. However, I personally would like to see abortion only used in certain circumstances versus how some ladies use it - as birth control. I remember hearing one girl had 9 abortions and I'm thinking WTF?

If the pregnancy resulted from rape or the mother's life is in jeopardy, abort. No debate. If birth control was used but somehow pregnancy resulted, NP.

Too much of a moral gray area to legislate I think. When in doubt you have to leave it to the individual to decide.

That said, I think 99+% of abortion’s are the result of callous and irresponsible behavior by women. In the US it’s at epidemic levels in the African American community, sad that life has so little value. For black women 40%ish (stats are inconsistent) of pregnancies end in abortion.

I don't think it's that high and let's be clear. In this case, it takes two to tango.

What the OP and other anti-abortionists don't realize is that there is no legislative solution to "end abortion". All any anti-abortion legislation will do is drive it underground, again. The weird thing is, I always get the feeling that they know this, they just want to wipe their hands of it. In other words, they're not really "pro-life" because they couldn't give a shit if a young, scared girl dies due to an illegal abortion done in a back alley.

That is the dumbest fucking thing I've read in a LONG time. (Thanks BTW for my laugh of the day.)

Does the term "unwanted child" mean anything to you? (Rhetorical question since obviously you don't get it.)

Women who have abortions do not want their children. They are not prepared for them, they do not want the responsibility of raising them, they are not in a position to raise them. That's why they are UNWANTED. And I would wager than in 99% of the cases, the sperm donors don't want the child either and have long since flown the coop leaving all of the responsibility of raising a child to the woman.

I remember reading somewhere that they asked women who recently had abortions what emotion they felt after having abortion. The number 1 response was relief.

So I ask you again, what do you propose to do with the huge number of UNWANTED children that would result in any kind of abortion ban.

Yes in many cases the guy does not want the child. But I'm sure in a few cases the guy is delighted but the girl says no. Of course, since the actual pregnancy takes no physical toll on the man, it's difficult justifying why he should be a factor in the decision.

I love the irony about this being posted on an escort review board, so saying if a condom broke and you knocked a girl up you’re totally cool with paying the child support right? Or are you just happy to remain anonymous as long as she has the kid and struggled financially etc instead of getting the abortion. Oh also the fact that women have to pump their selves FULL of daily hormones to avoid getting pregnant which effect us physically and mentally, oh and because someone decided not to pull out we’re supposed to literally RUIN our bodies and careers to carry a child we never wanted. No, you have no say.

Clearly this is a case where abortion is a viable and fair option.

My question is what happens when two people are in a loving relationship and decide to have a kid. Lady gets pregnant and at some point, decides to abort. Yes, in theory she doesn't require permission from her partner but if he doesn't sign off, does she expect the relationship to survive? I don't know if this ever happens in real life but I imagine it's possible that two people get together with the expectation of having kids. Lady gets pregnant and aborts. Suddenly, she's no longer able to get pregnant. Obviously other options are available but haven't the conditions of the relationship changed? I imagine there will be a ton of regret by both people if this were to happen.

The other thing I'm personally not a fan of is abortions funded by taxpayers. I'm guessing it fits into harm reduction - forcing a person to have a kid they don't want to have creates a lot more problems than it solves. But should it be funded by taxpayers in cases where no precautions were taken? I believe in availability i.e. access to abortion should be readily available in most areas where people reside.

 

[JunoxGrey]

No, it’s the woman’s body, she has final say. Also it’s a pro life rumour that abortions cause infertility in the future. And by two to tango I meant that we aren’t out here getting ourselves pregnant.

 

[sempel]

No, it’s the woman’s body, she has final say. Also it’s a pro life rumour that abortions cause infertility in the future. And by two to tango I meant that we aren’t out here getting ourselves pregnant.

Fair enough...lol

 

[oldjones]

There are consequences to actions, my friend. It's like telling a would-be criminal: "Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time". There is no get-out-of-jail card for them.

"Unwed Mother Homes" is not a term or institution with any stigma today. Single motherhood is celebrated, and even considered an ideal among some extremists. I think women would welcome "Unwed Mother Homes" with open arms today.

You're a smart guy so your friends are smart too. They did ok in life despite the trials in early childhood. The process wasn't good? Make the institutions better.

I'm arguing against abortion so what do back street abortions have to do with my argument? Nothing.

Society has come along very well. It's up to you to put forth evidence of your unsubstantiated claims to the gruesome brutality that not using abortion as a form of birth control had on society.

Every single person on this board, male and female, knows someone that got an abortion. That's how normalized and common it's become.

Whatever you think you are arguing for, or against, you are still the guy who spouted: "Overall things worked pretty good for centuries before abortions became the norm". You introduced the distorted, sanitized, fairy-tale history and it got shot down.

It was utter BS, and still not backed by a shred of supporting evidence. If 'things worked' even moderately well it's highly likely there would have been little or no support for legal, safe abortion among women. But they have always known "… someone that got an abortion", one that was neither legal, nor safe, from untrained crooks who left many of their victims sterile or with other injuries, if they survived. Women didn't put themselves into hands like those on a whim. It was desperation.

If, as you say "society has come along very well" since legal abortions have been available, then there's no reason to go back to the bad old days is there? And if your argument carries and once again there is no legal abortion, then back-street abortions will be all there is. Going back to the bad old days, that's what you are arguing for. Even if you don't want to face it.

You asked how bad? Not easy to find stats of secret criminal acts at any time, never mind fifty-odd years back. And 'how bad' is more than a total or two.

Go to any of the first couple of Google hits on 'deaths due to illegal abortion' The first is how bad things are now: "Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications" That's worldwide, but there's no reason to think Canadian criminal surgeons wouldn't be just as clumsy and incompetent proportionately. The second is a standard work on women's health by American women and does outline that awful history: "While there is very little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety. Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year." Lots more, 19,700,000 hits. You might also narrow it to Canada and find the reference to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Abortion Squad's list of “a number of items which have been used by lay abortionists,” including “knitting needles, coat hangers, home-made sounds, spoons, rubber catheters, plastic tubes, hairdressing combs and slippery elm.”

What's wrong with leaving this issue for the people who have to carry those unwanted babies to term and deliver them? What makes it your business at all?
-----------------
PS: Your personal speculation that you "…think women would welcome "Unwed Mother Homes" with open arms today." gave me the best laugh of the day so far. Even funnier than your irrational statement that people of whom you know nothing, must be intelligent and well-balanced because I mentioned them. Thanks for the backhand compliment, but … No, not well balanced.

 

[huckfinn]

A friend of mine is a Medical Lab Technologist.

Part of their duties is to ensure abortions are done correctly, so they get little pails with the sliced up fetus in it.

She told me it was a horrible job to inspect these fetuses, as the body parts were already formed and recognizable like hands, feet, eyes, etc.

She also mentioned there was a noticeable uptick in abortion activity just before Christmas and end of school year as the college and university students couldn't bear the thought of going home to visit Mom and Dad pregnant. So abortion has become a birth control method.

To me, the choice should be made when the person had sex. There are lots of options for birth control, including abstinence. If you happen to get pregnant, that's the risk you took.

If we taught how horrific abortion was on the fetus, and the fact you can tell a lot are late enough in the pregnancy that you can tell they are human, a lot would think twice about abortion.

 

[huckfinn]

My two cents: I grew up with a single mother who drilled it home to me don't have a kid too young when you're not ready. She swears having a child in her early 20's was her choice and what she wanted, but she probably would have been better off waiting - if she had I wouldn't be here. She did take care of me, but she was a single mom for most of my life and at times we did struggle and had to live without. I have thought about it a lot, and I wouldn't fault her if she decided against having me. She did, but I did spend some time imagining what life would have been like if she said she never wanted to have me.

I believe in pro choice. I think it's incredibly cruel for anyone to say that abortion should be illegal or not even allowed. I don't care what their argument is - it is far crueler for a child to be born into a family or to just a mother who cannot take care of it, does not want to take care of it, or barely has the means to take care of it. You can't even argue that terminating a pregnancy is crueler than giving birth to a neglected child. Neglected children are an epidemic and often can't turn their life around on their own without some serious luck or help. When unwanted birth rates rise so does poverty levels, homelessness and crime.

We are dealing with overpopulation of our planet, an epidemic of uncared for young children, incredibly unhappy and depressed youth, many of whom are turning to crime and substance abuse out of despair. There just simply isn't enough social welfare to take care of every single unwanted child should the government force every impregnated woman to give birth.

What drives me crazy about the religious right wing pro lifers is that as soon as the child is born they couldn't really give a crap if they are a minority, poor, disabled, or non Christian. It's suddenly not their problem and they're just happy they prevented "murder". We don't need more unhappy neglected children in this world.

What we do need is more stable and competent partners having children that they care about that will be a positive to society and this planet.

I only see increased suffering for a mother and fetus forced to go to term against their will without any real means to take care of a child and barely supported by society or the government.

We've come such a long way from backyard abortions and becoming accidentally pregnant ruining a young women's life simply because the guy she was with didn't pull out and made promises to her. When you take away someone's choice over their body and basically force them to deal with caring for a child they don't want or can't take care of you are sentencing that child to a life of suffering - whether it be financial, emotional, or physical.

We live in a world where people are actively having sex for pleasure and not for starting families, but devout religious sects are trying to bring us back to the dark ages, shaming women for getting pregnant, claiming they are solely responsible for the life of their fetus and a criminal if they choose not to go through with a pregnancy.

We have to draw the line somewhere, we are forcing animals to become artificially inseminated and pregnant for our own means and improving production or species longevity, we can kill almost any animal we want to eat, but we outlaw medically assisted suicide for the terminally ill, and shame those who want to get safe medically assisted abortions due to a lack of ability or desire to care for a child.

I don't understand how right wingers figure their pro life agenda will work in their favour. Most poor Christian white folk are having kids, keeping their babies and are accessing social services to survive. If these same right wingers are so against immigrants, people of other faiths and non white poor people using government provided social services why would they want them to be forced to keep their babies and continue to grow the numbers of people on assisted programs birthing more children doing the same. It just doesn't make sense. Yes they want to produce more voters for their cause, but non whites in north america are having kids at a far greater rate due to desire AND lack of birth control/abortion options.

We allow innocent beings to suffer and be killed in all kinds of instances around the planet, but some draw the line at a fetus only months old maybe feeling some pain or seeming life like? Sure it is cruel to kill anything, but when was the last time the entire world cared about killing an animal or a grown person versus a growing fetus. Why do we care less about animals and birthed babies and grown ups? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

We are also running into a world crises with the number of people on the planet doubling since 1950. We have never experienced a world running out of resources before, and now the middle class are struggling to make it. What are we going to do if the numbers swing closer and closer to a nation of people living on poverty who can't afford birth control methods having every child they fall pregnant with and not being able to afford to take care of it.

Why aren't we interviewing neglected and unwanted children and asking them about their life experiencing and suffering and what we could have done as a society or with the government to better provide for them and take care of them before washing our hands of it saying - welp at least we stopped another abortion?

There is always going to be life and death and kindness and cruelty in the world, I'm of the opinion it is far crueler to force a woman to give birth to a child that she doesn't want and can't take care of, thus further causing more pain and suffering for said child.

Don't even get me started on victims of rape, you have no leg to stand on forcing a woman to give birth to her rapist's child and forcing her to care for it. That's the ultimate nightmare for a woman.

So why not exercise your right to decide what's in your body by rejecting a penis?

To me its like anything else. You accept the risk with the activity.

If you don't want to get pregnant, abstain or get birth control.

 

[Smallcock]

I love the irony about this being posted on an escort review board, so saying if a condom broke and you knocked a girl up you’re totally cool with paying the child support right? Or are you just happy to remain anonymous as long as she has the kid and struggled financially etc instead of getting the abortion. Oh also the fact that women have to pump their selves FULL of daily hormones to avoid getting pregnant which effect us physically and mentally, oh and because someone decided not to pull out we’re supposed to literally RUIN our bodies and careers to carry a child we never wanted. No, you have no say.

I don't think there is any irony in it. Not all relationships are created equal. You becoming pregnant from a John whose real name you don't even know is different from getting pregnant in a monogamous relationship. Each have their own risks. Just as you expose yourself to higher risk of STI transmission by having sex with countless strangers, you also have an increased risk of pregnancy. You can use a number of various birth control methods such as condoms, spermicides, and so on, to reduce the risks.

 

[Smallcock]

No, it’s the woman’s body, she has final say. Also it’s a pro life rumour that abortions cause infertility in the future. And by two to tango I meant that we aren’t out here getting ourselves pregnant.

The point is that it's not just your body. It's potentially the little girl growing inside you, too.

 

[huckfinn]

Fuck off. Nowhere did I say women are free to go around having sex with whoever they wanted unprotected and get pregnant constantly and just keep having abortions.

I re-read my post and I said nothing remotely like that.

Thanks for the f-o......intelligently forwarding the conversation.

 

[Smallcock]

Whatever you think you are arguing for, or against, you are still the guy who spouted: "Overall things worked pretty good for centuries before abortions became the norm". You introduced the distorted, sanitized, fairy-tale history and it got shot down.

It was utter BS, and still not backed by a shred of supporting evidence. If 'things worked' even moderately well it's highly likely there would have been little or no support for legal, safe abortion among women. But they have always known "… someone that got an abortion", one that was neither legal, nor safe, from untrained crooks who left many of their victims sterile or with other injuries, if they survived. Women didn't put themselves into hands like those on a whim. It was desperation.

If, as you say "society has come along very well" since legal abortions have been available, then there's no reason to go back to the bad old days is there? And if your argument carries and once again there is no legal abortion, then back-street abortions will be all there is. Going back to the bad old days, that's what you are arguing for. Even if you don't want to face it.

You asked how bad? Not easy to find stats of secret criminal acts at any time, never mind fifty-odd years back. And 'how bad' is more than a total or two.

Go to any of the first couple of Google hits on 'deaths due to illegal abortion' The first is how bad things are now: "Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications" That's worldwide, but there's no reason to think Canadian criminal surgeons wouldn't be just as clumsy and incompetent proportionately. The second is a standard work on women's health by American women and does outline that awful history: "While there is very little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety. Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year." Lots more, 19,700,000 hits. You might also narrow it to Canada and find the reference to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Abortion Squad's list of “a number of items which have been used by lay abortionists,” including “knitting needles, coat hangers, home-made sounds, spoons, rubber catheters, plastic tubes, hairdressing combs and slippery elm.”

What's wrong with leaving this issue for the people who have to carry those unwanted babies to term and deliver them? What makes it your business at all?
-----------------
PS: Your personal speculation that you "…think women would welcome "Unwed Mother Homes" with open arms today." gave me the best laugh of the day so far. Even funnier than your irrational statement that people of whom you know nothing, must be intelligent and well-balanced because I mentioned them. Thanks for the backhand compliment, but … No, not well balanced.

Most people were ok with slavery yet it was abolished on moral and political grounds, so it's not necessarily the sheer number of supporters in any given direction that decides the fate of history.

You keep mentioning the horrors of illegal abortions. I'm opposed to abortion including its illegal forms. Don't get an illegal abortion, because it's unsafe as well as immoral. It's sad that women would take such risks.

It's "my business" to try to protect human life whether that life resides inside another person's body or not. Is it not my business what happens to criminals and murderers, just because I'm not one?

Like attracts like. If your friends were foster kids, they're likely as intelligent and as damaged as you are.

 

[Smallcock]

A friend of mine is a Medical Lab Technologist.

Part of their duties is to ensure abortions are done correctly, so they get little pails with the sliced up fetus in it.

She told me it was a horrible job to inspect these fetuses, as the body parts were already formed and recognizable like hands, feet, eyes, etc.

She also mentioned there was a noticeable uptick in abortion activity just before Christmas and end of school year as the college and university students couldn't bear the thought of going home to visit Mom and Dad pregnant. So abortion has become a birth control method.

To me, the choice should be made when the person had sex. There are lots of options for birth control, including abstinence. If you happen to get pregnant, that's the risk you took.

If we taught how horrific abortion was on the fetus, and the fact you can tell a lot are late enough in the pregnancy that you can tell they are human, a lot would think twice about abortion.

This is the appalling reality that most "pro choice" advocates don't want to face. Hear no evil, see no evil. It's a terrible way to live.

They'd rather this continue than taking up the challenge of making society better and safer for all. If man always cowed from adversity, he never would have gone to the moon.

 

[huckfinn]

Your comment is incredibly condescending and ignorant. You didn't even remotely address ANYTHING I posted about. Especially when it comes to people not being able to afford birth control, or having a problem with birth control failing or being raped. There are only about 100,000 abortions in total going on in Canada, that means most people are having babies and the population is growing. We are not at some sort of abortion epidemic apocalypse and you don't have the right to dismissively blame the woman for falling pregnant. I can't count the number of times a civilian guy has told me he refuses to wear condoms and wants to pressure me into bare sex. Many men are taking no responsibility whatsoever, it's not just on us to prevent pregnancy.

Actually it is a simple question, and not ignorant or condescending. I wasn't looking to address your comments, only to ask a question.

Birth control failing is part of the risk. Rape is another story entirely and I don't disagree with ending the pregnancy very early.

I did not blame the woman for getting pregnant, I simply asked if the decision could be made earlier.

I also never suggested one person take the responsibility. Men are 50% are risk as well, and should step up.