over 45 million babies murdered in the name of "choice".

Lursa said:

Please list some of these 'devastating implications for society.' We've had legal elective abortion for more than 40 yrs now. What are the negative consequences so far? And what's going to 'get worse?'

There are no negative consequences of abortion on society. If there are, please list some. (I know we tried this once already, you didnt list any. But you are still repeating this crap, so...let's see some negative societal consequences.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting this information regarding abortion's impact on society?

I'm willing to bet the sources can all be traced back to a liberal "left wing" ideology

Night_Ranger said:

Where are you getting this information regarding abortion's impact on society?

I'm willing to bet the sources can all be traced back to a liberal "left wing" ideology

Click to expand...

LOL...I asked you.

You have made a clear, definite statement...now back it up with sources, facts, cause and effect. Does the conservative have no means to back up his declarations?

I would then be happy to provide you with facts about how abortion has has a positive effect on society.

Night_Ranger said:

Those statistics are BS and we all know it. You can cut the act. Might as well man up to the disgusting practices of late term abortion. Your credibility is already in the tank, and we are what, two posts in? Why not let the women behind Roe V Wade (Norma McCorvey) tell us how it is? And perhaps chew on these quotes for a while.

If you come back and tell me to list another reason why abortion is detrimental to our society, I will be forced to make the determination that you are unable or unwilling to appreciate the gravity of choosing life over death.

Or, you are brainwashed to a certain point where the terms "truth + sanctity" and "life + death" have lost all intrinsic value.

The third option is the worst and most likely terminal. If this is the case then you have your moral polarity completely reversed to the point where right has become wrong and wrong has become right. This is also an indicator that you fail to see the "intrinsic value" of an unborn child. And that you intentionally gloss over or fail to see the sanctity of life. It is highly probable that a person who fits into this category has a very cold and deceitful heart.

In either case, I think it will be very difficult for you to accept the rational of choosing life over death.









Ummmm... this is really awkward and reveals a huge void in your logic. Do you not understand the implications of genocide? And the impact that might have on society?

That question being asked, I have to wonder... Do you know how to tie your shoes?


People often say that abortion is a woman’s choice, and they’re right; they choose life the moment they have sex.
—Preston Wagner

Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.
–Alice Paul

Abortion on demand has, in my judgment, contributed significantly to an environment in our country in which life has become very cheap.
-Robert Casey



Abortion is an atrocity. Those who practice or praise it are either damn idiots, misguided fools, or treacherous devils.
—Christopher Titus

(continued)

Click to expand...

HOLY COW!!! the posted illogical dishonest failed meltdowns continue . . .


did you just suggest consent to having sex is consent to giving birth????? :lamo

Thank you for further proving your views see women as the lesser and that thier legal and human rights dont matter . . .wow thats awesome!!!

Night_Ranger said:

Abortion has devastating implications for society. It's time to stop towing the party line and stop killing our children, who are gifts from God.

Click to expand...

Did any of these copy and pasted insane meltdowns work on any other sites? Because they are completely failing here LMAO

DId you just repost and double down on thes lies about "party lines" and failed slavery comparisons and . . .dun dun dun . . murder?

Man this is great!!!
POST AGAIN!


opcorn2:

Night_Ranger said:

Where are you getting this information regarding abortion's impact on society?

I'm willing to bet the sources can all be traced back to a liberal "left wing" ideology

Click to expand...

buzz term!!!

DRINK!

Just looking for clues @ the scene

Night_Ranger said:

Those statistics are BS and we all know it. You can cut the act. Might as well man up to the disgusting practices of late term abortion. Your credibility is already in the tank, and we are what, two posts in? Why not let the women behind Roe V Wade (Norma McCorvey) tell us how it is? And perhaps chew on these quotes for a while.

…

…

…

…

Click to expand...

the damage my original case caused women (from 1st picture) Except, of course, that Roe v. Wade wasn't McCorvey's case - she didn't attend the trial. She allowed her name (under legal cover, as Jane Roe), to be attached to the holding. But that was the extent of her participation, as far as I know. She could have stayed anonymous - but she outed herself shortly after the holding was announced. So she identified with Planned Parenthood for a time, & then she changed her mind, & identified with the anti-abortion faction.

In the first place, abortion before Roe was legal in 20 US states (under state laws), illegal in 30 (see Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia - especially the map under History). So access to abortion meant you had to be in the right state. Roe put in place national law regulating abortion in the US.

my case was wrongfully decided (2nd picture) - Presumably this is McCorvey's opinion - but did she study the case & consult the precedents & the paperwork that Roe was based on? It seems unlikely.

stop this terrible holocaust (3rd picture) - This doesn't sound like McCorvey's upbringing speaking.

McCorvey's life seems to have been confused & sad. Truant, abandoned, pregnant too early, ambivalent in her sexuality. She signed on for Roe, had a change of heart, & then worked for Operation Rescue.

She was a fearfully weak reed to base an anti-abortion campaign on. @ best, I assume she was trying to gain some control over her own life. But that hardly makes her a poster girl for either side of the abortion question.

charliebrown said:

Abortion rates by race and ethnicity | Guttmacher Institute

I did not realize 90% of abortions were minorities. Maybe the pro-lifers should start discussing genocide. Maybe that would get their attention.

Click to expand...

This not genocide. What is the pregnancy rate of minorities? Are minorities more likely to be impoverished?

Night_Ranger said:

I notice you have nothing to say about Norma McCorvey… Her indictment of the abortion industry is nothing short of damning, right?

Click to expand...

I did not read the memes or quotes. McCorvey was an admitted liar, not exactly a pillar of society. She said she lied about being raped - if true, then she was part of the problem of men being falsely accused and imprisoned and having their lives ruined. She gave birth, how many times? but didn't parent any of her children.

Also, she was a lesbian, which many anti choicers are against. But they were perfectly okay with using her for their cause?

Night_Ranger said:

Abortion has devastating implications for society. It's time to stop towing the party line and stop killing our children, who are gifts from God.

Click to expand...

Abortion has zero negative effects on society. It is not a bad thing that there are fewer people in the world than there otherwise would be.

Disclaimer: I do not use over population as a reason for abortion. This is merely saying that it is a positive side effect.

Well you guys are certainly in a bit of a quandary with Norma McCorvey…

I think we will talk more about her tomorrow.

You guys be sure to come up with more excuses in the mean time

if anything to placate those butterflies in your stomach … when you realize OMG, I might actually be wrong on abortion.

Night_Ranger said:

Well you guys are certainly in a bit of a quandary with Norma McCorvey…

I think we will talk more about her tomorrow.

You guys be sure to come up with more excuses in the mean time

if anything to placate those butterflies in your stomach … when you realize OMG, I might actually be wrong on abortion.

Click to expand...

You are wrong Ln abortion if you want to make abortion illegal.

Countries that keep elective abortion legal have fewer abortions than countries that restrict abortion.

That is a FACT

Night_Ranger said:

Well you guys are certainly in a bit of a quandary with Norma McCorvey…

I think we will talk more about her tomorrow.

You guys be sure to come up with more excuses in the mean time

if anything to placate those butterflies in your stomach … when you realize OMG, I might actually be wrong on abortion.

Click to expand...

What is the quandry?

A woman has an opinion.

Her opinion changed.

minnie616 said:

You are wrong Ln abortion if you want to make abortion illegal.

Countries that keep elective abortion legal have fewer abortions than countries that restrict abortion.

That is a FACT

Click to expand...

I think WITHOUT legal abortion, abortions may become more frequent.

Currently abortion clinics do not serve many areas. Women may have to travel hundreds of miles for a legal abortion. If they become illegal, drug dealers across the US will fill that void - they will obtain and distribute abortion pills across this country. If people do not think their community has a drug dealer....ask the local high schooler.

year2late said:

What is the quandry?

A woman has an opinion.

Her opinion changed.

Click to expand...

And isn't that funny, it's always a story of hope and inspiration when someone goes pro life.

Seems like that's the way the conversions go anyway. Never from pro life to pro choice. I wonder why that is?

Night_Ranger said:

And isn't that funny, it's always a story of hope and inspiration when someone goes pro life.

Seems like that's the way the conversions go anyway. Never from pro life to pro choice. I wonder why that is?

Click to expand...

I was ambivalent. When I had multiple serious medical conditions related to pregnancy. On top of that I required a C-section and general anesthesia to deliver my son.

At that time I became PROFOUNDLY pro-choice. I had great personal resources and very food health. I had good social resources. I had really good medical insurance and access to the best of medical care.

My complications were totally unexpected - I had no risk factors. A highly skilled obstetrician noticed some subtle signs. Lab tests revealed that my kidneys were under attack - I FELT FINE!!!!!If not caught that "early" I would have been on dialysis or even dead. If I had crap health care (like a county clinic with poor resources) it is likely my outcome would have been horrible.
As it was, with treatment, surgery and nearly 6 months off work I was able to get back to "relative" normal. I still have kidney and vascular issues related to my pregnancy 26 year later.

I may have been ambivalent before. But now I am completely and utterly pro-choice. A woman needs to decide for herself what she is willing to risk.

Assuming you are a working adult.....how would you have fared being off work for nearly 6 months? If you have the personal/social resources to do so? Good for you. Most women who choose abortion lack such resources. Luckily, I had credit enough to go deeply in debt to survive, pay the rent and COBRA payments.

Night_Ranger said:

And isn't that funny, it's always a story of hope and inspiration when someone goes pro life.

Seems like that's the way the conversions go anyway. Never from pro life to pro choice. I wonder why that is?

Click to expand...

False.

People who were once pro life may decide to become pro choice.

Here is post that was made on another thread on the DP board.

Phys251 said:

Oh VanceMack, dear VanceMack. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

In your angry reply, you forgot just one little thing: I am an ex-prolifer. I know how prolife-ism works, how it sucks people in and makes them pretend that they are doing God's good work.

Once the smokescreen fell away, I realized what I had been doing all along: Claiming the right to control the genitalia of women and girls whom I didn't even know. Once I saw how ****ed up that was, I ran like hell and never looked back. One of the best decisions I ever made. :thumbs:

Click to expand...

FKD19124 said:

planned parent hood and the radical feminists have women believing that the unborn baby is not really a baby until it comes out of the mother.
so, thank you for wiping out a big segment of my generation and the ones after that.

Click to expand...

What is your generation?

Go back & check your sources

FKD19124 said:

planned parent hood and the radical feminists have women believing that the unborn baby is not really a baby until it comes out of the mother.
so, thank you for wiping out a big segment of my generation and the ones after that.

Click to expand...

Find a reliable source & look up Margaret Sanger's opinion on abortion. She was for putting birth control information & devices into the hands of women & families, so that they could control the number & spacing of children - assuming that they wanted children. (Most marriages @ the time did want to have children; but they wanted to have families @ a reasonable pace - so that the children would be well fed, healthy & properly brought up, without the entire family suffering from too many children too soon, & not enough resources to care for them all.)

Night_Ranger said:

And isn't that funny, it's always a story of hope and inspiration when someone goes pro life.

Seems like that's the way the conversions go anyway. Never from pro life to pro choice. I wonder why that is?

Click to expand...

I went from anti to pro choice and lots of others have, too.

Re: Go back & check your sources

southwest88 said:

Find a reliable source & look up Margaret Sanger's opinion on abortion. She was for putting birth control information & devices into the hands of women & families, so that they could control the number & spacing of children - assuming that they wanted children. (Most marriages @ the time did want to have children; but they wanted to have families @ a reasonable pace - so that the children would be well fed, healthy & properly brought up, without the entire family suffering from too many children too soon, & not enough resources to care for them all.)

Click to expand...

Sanger was a socialist who had this to say:





What's the takeaway here? Sanger's intent was always to eliminate children of America, NOT to help the mother in any meaningful capacity.
A permit to give birth to a child? Yup, sounds like socialism.

Be careful who you pick as your role models in this life. Everything you know about abortion is a lie.

Re: Go back & check your sources

Night_Ranger said:

Sanger was a socialist who had this to say:

…

What's the takeaway here? Sanger's intent was always to eliminate children of America, NOT to help the mother in any meaningful capacity.
A permit to give birth to a child? Yup, sounds like socialism.

Be careful who you pick as your role models in this life. Everything you know about abortion is a lie.

Click to expand...

Nah, you missed it: I said reliable source. Try again.

& try to find what she actually said/wrote, in context.

She worked as a nurse in the tenements of the working class. She saw a lot of women die early & too young, of having too many babies too close together. Her own mother died relatively young, leaving behind a large family.

Re: Go back & check your sources

southwest88 said:

Nah, you missed it: I said reliable source. Try again.

& try to find what she actually said/wrote, in context.

She worked as a nurse in the tenements of the working class. She saw a lot of women die early & too young, of having too many babies too close together. Her own mother died relatively young, leaving behind a large family.

Click to expand...

Are you claiming the quotes cannot be attributed to Sanger? Because I can show you the references. I can assure you, she said these things.

More controversial quotes from the very lovable and heartwarming godsend to humanity, known as Margaret Sanger. What a trailblazer!

1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”
“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

A Plan for Peace by MARGARET SANGER

First, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918. Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals.

The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population. b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand. c) to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924. d) to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization. f) to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization. ig) to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as
illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense--- defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers' health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives---thus reducing maternal mortality.

The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.

With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.

There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.

In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace

Re: Go back & check your sources

southwest88 said:

Nah, you missed it: I said reliable source. Try again.
& try to find what she actually said/wrote, in context.

Click to expand...

Ask and ye shall receive

Here is the context for you (direct quote taken from Sangers own writing - "America Needs a Code for Babies," 27 Mar 1934):

It will probably always be said that sex relations and parenthood are matters too intimate for any interference by public authorities. Of course, there is already a considerable amount of interference, or, if you prefer the term, regulation through marriage and divorce laws. I wonder if it will also become necessary to establish a system of birth permits. At present a marriage license is a birth permit, as well a a permit for a man and a woman to maintain a common household. Suppose, for purposes of discussion of something that may not prove to be practicable, we add the following clauses to the proposed Baby Code:
Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice. But for purposes of discussion let the clauses stand. Suppose that we had such regulations, and suppose that couples went ahead and had children without permits and regardless of the law. Well, we should be no worse off in the matter of births than we are now. Certainly the regulations would not increase the production of children in the wrong families; the tendency would be the other way. However, a general respect for the law regarding birth permits might be fostered by punishing transgressors. Society could not very well put a couple into jail for having a baby without permission; and in the case of paupers a fine could not be collected. How then should the guilty be punished? By blacklisting? By depravation of certain civil rights, such as the right to vote? If punishment is not practicable, perhaps we can go the other way around and consider awards. If it is wise to pay farmers for not raising cotton or wheat, it may be equally wise to pay certain couples for not having children.

Click to expand...

(More from the trailblazer suicide socialist )

Finally we have the problem of how to stop reproduction by those who are recognised as biologically unfit, or who have inheritable diseases. According to the report of experts made at the famous White House Conference on Child Health and Protection, there were in 1930 more than 10,000,000 handicapped children in the United States. This total included those improperly nourished, the tuberculous, those with weak or damaged hearts, the crippled, blind, and deaf, those with defective speech, and the mentally retarded, delinquent, and dependent. A large proportion of these were doomed before they were born. Now that they are here we must take care of them, at enormous cost. Billions of dollars must be raised ever year by taxation or charitable contribution to pay for the treatment and care of individuals who have been handicapped for birth.

Click to expand...