• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iowa governor signs fetal 'heartbeat bill' into law

Grand Mal said:
What happened to it? What happened to keeping your pecker in your pants until you wanted a baby?
****sakes.What a stupid thing to say. Abstinance for birth control. Hasn't been anyone but idiots advocating that since about a couple hundred years ago in Bullpasture, Ohio. Some fearful fundamentalist preacher said it, and nobody on the right side of the bell curve has said it since.
Click to expand...
Given the commonsensical nature of it, I'd venture it's rarely said merely because most people are assumed to understand it subtly to begin with - much as one would rarely have to actually tell someone in words that not with fire is the best way to avoid burns.

I suppose the issue would rather be pitying those who actually need to have it said to them to begin with, as opposed to just intuiting it.

It could also be that, in practice, those sexually repressed enough to act out fantasies that actually lead to needing abortions purely as birth control tend to be a minority, and generally from more impoverished and uneducated areas of the countries to begin with.

More educated or disciplined individuals seem naturally better at controlling their iddish urges and never having to worry about elective abortion to begin with than many an archetypical trailer park resident from a part of the country known for rampant meth addiction, it seems.
 
Last edited:
gulfman said:
What happened to keeping your legs closed unless you wanted a baby?
Click to expand...
That is left for ignorant morons and religious zealots. Oddly enough those bastards get more unwanted pregnancies than average. Maybe they do it with candles.
 
prometeus said:
That is left for ignorant morons and religious zealots. Oddly enough those bastards get more unwanted pregnancies than average. Maybe they do it with candles.
Click to expand...
That would be fictitious, given that elective abortion is very strongly associated with poverty, low education, and single motherhood, the rule seems to be that people regardless of sex who tend to wind up in more successful avenues of life tend to be better about keeping their iddish urges 'in their pants' on the whole than those who don't.

Oddly enough those bastards get more unwanted pregnancies than average.
Click to expand...
Well, no, taking into account economic demographics - it seems it would be those who don't "keep it in" who are getting more unwanted pregnancies on average than those who have common sense enough to, ideally without having to be told to begin with.

At least, I'm pretty sure that successful men and women like Maria Sharapova didn't spend as much time playing hanky with every guy in the trailer park as, say, the Octomom.

Ideally, people wouldn't be stupid and libidinous enough to have to be told to "keep it in" anymore than they would to not play in traffic... but for some people, I suppose that's optimistic.
 
Last edited:
Rinzai said:
That would be fictitious, given that elective abortion is very strongly associated with poverty, low education, and single motherhood, the rule seems to be that people regardless of sex who tend to wind up in more successful avenues of life tend to be better about keeping their iddish urges 'in their pants' on the whole than those who don't.


Well, no, taking into account economic demographics - it seems it would be those who don't "keep it in" who are getting more unwanted pregnancies on average than those who have common sense enough to, ideally without having to be told to begin with.

At least, I'm pretty sure that successful men and women like Maria Sharapova didn't spend as much time playing hanky with every guy in the trailer park as, say, the Octomom.

Ideally, people wouldn't be stupid and libidinous enough to have to be told to "keep it in" anymore than they would to not play in traffic... but for some people, I suppose that's optimistic.
Click to expand...

Actually those in the middle and upper class families have more disposable income for more effective artifical birth control.

In fact in the US 65 percent of women of child bearing years ( age14 to age 44 ) use artifical birth control consistently.

And that’s not including the percent of women who cannot get pregnant due to a medical reason or a medical procedure to keep them from becoming pregnant.

And most women of means who have an unwanted pregnancy will go to a private doctor for an abortion instead of a clinic where questions on why the woman is have an abortion are asked.

That’s why it seems that lower income people are more likely to have premarital sex when in fact it’s not true.
 
minnie616 said:
Actually those in the middle and upper class families have more disposable income for more effective artifical birth control.

In fact in the US 65 percent of women of child bearing years ( age14 to age 44 ) use artifical birth control consistently.

And that’s not including the percent of women who cannot get pregnant due to a medical reason or a medical procedure to keep them from becoming pregnant.

And most women of means who have an unwanted pregnancy will go to a private doctor for an abortion instead of a clinic where questions on why the woman is have an abortion are asked.

That’s why it seems that lower income people are more likely to have premarital sex when in fact it’s not true.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about "premarital" sex specifically, since marriage is a formality, and not all societies even "formally" recognize marriage to begin with - in some societies for example, "formal" recognition of marriage is nonexistent:

6 Modern Societies Where Women Rule | Mental Floss

Marriage is not institutionalized. If a couple is seen together, sleeps together, and the man assists the woman in her garden, for all intents and purposes they are considered married.

Likewise, I'd venture that birth control is primarily used within the context of stable relationships, as opposed to sleeping around entirely indiscriminately with every lad or lass in the trailer park, something naturally associated with being a member of impoverished classes, along with being too irresponsible to bother to use birth control to begin with.

Birth control - male or female, isn't typically expensive to "afford" anyway, given the higher rates of drugs, smoking, alcohol abuse among the lower classes, compared to the cost of a condom at a gas station - it's comparatively cheap.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
Tick tock, tick tock...

A dozen other states have tried to pull a stunt like this. It’s a waste of taxpayers money. The corn shucking imbeciles in the Iowa Legislation need to be impeached for embezzlement of Taxpayers money.
Click to expand...

I know....their constituents should be pissed at the wasted time and $ on completely illegal legislation.

Irresponsible pandering.

It wont stand.
 
Rinzai said:
Likewise, I'd venture that birth control is primarily used within the context of stable relationships, as opposed to sleeping around entirely indiscriminately with every lad or lass in the trailer park, something naturally associated with being a member of impoverished classes, along with being too irresponsible to bother to use birth control to begin with.
Click to expand...


I disagree, do you have sources to support that?

In the US, people know very well the consequences of pregnancy and there is a high rate of birth control use. However it may not be consistent enough and if not surgical, not 100%. But millions have sex every day...in and outside of relationships...and dont generate pregnancies from most of those encounters.

OTOH, condom use especially is valued for birth control and prevention of STDs and can be gotten for free. It's not just about income.
 
Lursa said:
I know....their constituents should be pissed at the wasted time and $ on completely illegal legislation.

Irresponsible pandering.

It wont stand.
Click to expand...

It’s this type of irresponsibility that should be an impeachable offense and a prosecutable crime for extortion. Now that would be cleaning the swamp.
 
Lursa said:
I disagree, do you have sources to support that?
Click to expand...
Well yes, the sources above strongly corroborated elective abortion rates with poverty and single-motherhood - particularily in inner city areas - things which naturally occur more in the context of unstable relationships or indiscriminate sex, such as where the woman barely knows the man and he bails.

In the US, people know very well the consequences of pregnancy and there is a high rate of birth control use.
[/quote]
It's not a matter of "not knowing", it's a matter of not being bothered to care - I'm sure that low income demographics "know" that smoking cigarettes is bad for them, but that doesn't stop them.

However it may not be consistent enough and if not surgical, not 100%. But millions have sex every day...in and outside of relationships...and dont generate pregnancies from most of those encounters.
Click to expand...
The majority of individual acts of sex are is done in the context of stable relationships, with that done outside of relationships being a the anomaly, outside perhaps of fiction which is about as realistic a portrayal of things as a the GI Joe cartoon is of the military.

As an example, in this article couples on average seem to have sex at least 2 times a week or more - so over the course of 10 years, this would average to 1,040 sex acts.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/married-sex_n_5596185


Sex history calculator: Is your number of sexual partners low, average, or high?

As an example, on a population average might have 8 partners in their lifetime.

Meaning that a person would have to have 1,040 partners in 10 years just to get the same amount of sex as the average couple over the same time period - something out of reach to pretty much everyone other than maybe Gene Simmons.

And that's just the in comparison to the average couple who have sex twice a week - as opposed to the couples who have sex every day or multiple times a day.
 
Last edited:
Rinzai said:
Well yes, the sources above strongly corroborated elective abortion rates with poverty and single-motherhood - particularily in i
It's not a matter of "not knowing", it's a matter of not being bothered to care - I'm sure that low income demographics "know" that smoking cigarettes is bad for them, but that doesn't stop them.
Click to expand...

:confused: Wait...are you saying that people of lower income are dumber and care less about consequences like cancer and unwanted pregnancy? Is that an argument you are supporting?

And re: single motherhood..that occurs AFTER the pregnancy. It's not a cause or demographic that has more abortions to my knowledge.

Most women, something like 65%, that have abortions already have one child...these are often women IN stable relationships.

I'm not the one here with these stats tho. Minnie has them I believe.
 
Lursa said:
:confused: Wait...are you saying that people of lower income are dumber and care less about consequences like cancer and unwanted pregnancy? Is that an argument you are supporting?

And re: single motherhood..that occurs AFTER the pregnancy. It's not a cause or demographic that has more abortions to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Potential for single motherhood is a precursor to abortion, with it being strongly cooperated with less stable relationships or financial circumstances, such as being disproportionately represented among lower income, as well as metropolitan, inner city areas.

Poor women have more abortions, even though middle-class women abort more of their pregnancies.

They found that women have about the same amount of sex regardless of class, but poorer women are five times as likely to have unintended births than more affluent women.

How can it be true that middle-class single women abort nearly one-third of their pregnancies, but lower-income women, who abort a smaller percentage of their pregnancies, still make up most of patients sitting in abortion clinic waiting rooms on any given day? The answer is simple: Lower-income single women get pregnant way more often. Way more often. The Brookings Institution found that single women at or below the federal poverty line were three times as likely to get pregnant in a given year than middle-class single women. That's because lower-income women were twice as likely to have had unprotected sex.

Most women, something like 65%, that have abortions already have one child...these are often women IN stable relationships.

I'm not the one here with these stats tho. Minnie has them I believe.
Click to expand...

https://health.howstuffworks.com/pr...s/women-who-have-abortions-single-parents.htm

Almost half of the abortions in the U.S. are performed because the woman doesn't want to be a single parent.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
So is gun control. But you support that so you can stop pretending you care about Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

...and you can stop saying you're pro-life. I'm also incredibly glad to know that you're so smart you know exactly what' I support. WOW you psychic???
 
Fletch said:
Right. If you cared about taxpayers money you wouldnt support Robin Hood wealth transfer schemes, but you do. And you would express equal outrage at wasteful use of taxpayer dollars by states who oppose Trump at every turn from everything from gun control to immigration. But the truth is, you dont care how much is wasted in the pursuit of your agenda.
Click to expand...

Didn't you support giving tax money to the rich. Reverse Robinhood?? Rob the poor and give to the rich??
 
Rinzai said:
Potential for single motherhood is a precursor to abortion, with it being strongly cooperated with less stable relationships or financial circumstances, such as being disproportionately represented among lower income, as well as metropolitan, inner city areas.

Poor women have more abortions, even though middle-class women abort more of their pregnancies.

They found that women have about the same amount of sex regardless of class, but poorer women are five times as likely to have unintended births than more affluent women.

How can it be true that middle-class single women abort nearly one-third of their pregnancies, but lower-income women, who abort a smaller percentage of their pregnancies, still make up most of patients sitting in abortion clinic waiting rooms on any given day? The answer is simple: Lower-income single women get pregnant way more often. Way more often. The Brookings Institution found that single women at or below the federal poverty line were three times as likely to get pregnant in a given year than middle-class single women. That's because lower-income women were twice as likely to have had unprotected sex.



https://health.howstuffworks.com/pr...s/women-who-have-abortions-single-parents.htm

Almost half of the abortions in the U.S. are performed because the woman doesn't want to be a single parent.
Click to expand...

Well I cant dismiss the fact that poorer women choosing to not have a child they cant afford is the most responsible decision, nor making that same decision to not be a single mother.

These are happily, very rational and logical decisions, supported by data. They're not a reflection of some weakness of socio-economically challenged demographics. The data makes sense.
 
Rinzai said:
We're not talking about "premarital" sex specifically, since marriage is a formality, and not all societies even "formally" recognize marriage to begin with - in some societies for example, "formal" recognition of marriage is nonexistent:

....
Click to expand...

Actually , you were talking about lower income and single moms.

Rinzai said:
That would be fictitious, given that elective abortion is very strongly associated with poverty, low education, and single motherhood, the rule seems to be that people regardless of sex who tend to wind up in more successful avenues of life tend to be better about keeping their iddish urges 'in their pants' on the whole than those who don't.
....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
gulfman said:
What happened to keeping your legs closed unless you wanted a baby?
Click to expand...

Or at least be brave enough to take responsibility for your actions...
 
Lursa said:
Well I cant dismiss the fact that poorer women choosing to not have a child they cant afford is the most responsible decision, nor making that same decision to not be a single mother.

These are happily, very rational and logical decisions, supported by data. They're not a reflection of some weakness of socio-economically challenged demographics. The data makes sense.
Click to expand...
Well yes, making a pattern of behaviors which don't lead to having a child one can't afford to begin with, such as the pursuit of reckless sex and unstable relationships, being less responsible with birth control after the fact, etc - with purely elective abortion often being merely the end result of a pattern of libidinous, poverty, recklessness, and ignorance on the part of both sexes - not something that merely exists "in a vacuum".

This again isn't accounting for extra-ordinary circumstances such as rape, abuse of the underage forced marriage, but abortion in purely elective circumstances - which is thankfully something that people and behaviors not associated with underclass demographics have less need to worry about to begin with.
 
Rinzai said:
Well yes, making a pattern of behaviors which don't lead to having a child one can't afford to begin with, such as the pursuit of reckless sex and unstable relationships, being less responsible with birth control after the fact, etc - with purely elective abortion often being merely the end result of a pattern of libidinous, poverty, recklessness, and ignorance on the part of both sexes - not something that merely exists "in a vacuum".

This again isn't accounting for extra-ordinary circumstances such as rape, abuse of the underage forced marriage, but abortion in purely elective circumstances - which is thankfully something that people and behaviors not associated with underclass demographics have less need to worry about to begin with.
Click to expand...

So you are assigning more blame? Is that your point?

There's no *new* pattern of sexual behavior at all...except in the areas of birth control use and legal, safer abortion.

Otherwise, humans have been having sex despite all social, health, and legal consequences since time began. Men and women were ostracized, exiled, disowned, stoned, imprisoned...and still had sex. THey risked STDs that were incurable at the time, and women risked death during pregnancy/childbirth and a reduction in social status to zero with no ability to find employment. Humans have never not chosen to have sex based on consquences. It's a wonderful thing and also the strongest urge on earth.

So...what point are you trying to make by bringing sexual behavior into the abortion discussion? I'm afraid things have gotten a bit convoluted.
 
Rinzai said:
Well yes, making a pattern of behaviors which don't lead to having a child one can't afford to begin with, such as the pursuit of reckless sex and unstable relationships, being less responsible with birth control after the fact, etc - with purely elective abortion often being merely the end result of a pattern of libidinous, poverty, recklessness, and ignorance on the part of both sexes - not something that merely exists "in a vacuum".

This again isn't accounting for extra-ordinary circumstances such as rape, abuse of the underage forced marriage, but abortion in purely elective circumstances - which is thankfully something that people and behaviors not associated with underclass demographics have less need to worry about to begin with.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness women of economic means can afford better more effective birth control.

Speaking of birth control about 50 percent of abortions whether the woman is poor or rich was because her birth control failed.

Since wealthy US women tend to get abortions by a private doctor there are no stats as to why the woman had an abortion unlike the poor that use a clinic doctor.
 
prometeus said:
Actually it is not fictitious at all, but thanks for your opinion.
Click to expand...
Well yes, it is, abortion strongly correlates with poverty and low education, and irreligious or materialistically-inclined behaviors which coincide with not using self-restraint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom