A Question To Pro-Choice People

[tosca1]

What makes you think they arent? The 'correct' way to use a condom is with jelly or another contraceptive. I wrote using bc 'correctly and consistently.'

Again: it still adds up to 10s of thousands of accidental pregnancies a year. Why do you believe it's wrong for these 10s of thousands of women to choose what is best for them and their lives, their health, their commitments and obligations to family, community, church, employer, society?

I don't want to get into a circular discussion with you Lursa. You're just rehashing your old arguments.
I'm not forcing you to buy what I'm saying. :shrug:

 

[Lursa]

I don't want to get into a circular discussion with you Lursa. You're just rehashing your old arguments.
I'm not forcing you to buy what I'm saying. :shrug:

Oh no...you just cant argue it. There's nothing circular about it. You keep claiming women wouldnt need abortions if they used bc.

I proved that you are wrong. With numbers. There's nothing circular about that.

If a woman has sex responsibly: Why do you believe it's wrong for these 10s of thousands of women to choose what is best for them and their lives, their health, their commitments and obligations to family, community, church, employer, society?

 

[Scrabaholic]

That argument doesn't work anymore, now that we have all sorts of contraceptives available.

Which contraceptives are 100% effective?

 

[zyzygy]

Which contraceptives are 100% effective?

The feng shui method. The woman pulls the wardrobe against the bedroom door so the man can't get in.

 

[Lursa]

I don't want to get into a circular discussion with you Lursa. You're just rehashing your old arguments.
I'm not forcing you to buy what I'm saying. :shrug:

Old or new, you are still avoiding an answer.

--birth control methods, even properly and consistently used, are only about 98% effective.

--millions of Americans have sex millions and millions of times a day, every day.

--with the error rate in birth control, this means that there will still be 10's of thousands of accidental pregnancies *every day.*



What makes you think they arent (using bc properly)? The 'correct' way to use a condom is with jelly or another contraceptive. I wrote using bc 'correctly and consistently.' It still adds up to thousands of accidental pregnancies, every single day.


Again: it still adds up to 10s of thousands of accidental pregnancies a year. Why do you believe it's wrong for these 10s of thousands of women to choose what is best for them and their lives, their health, their commitments and obligations to family, community, church, employer, society?​

This is a direct question on something you feel very strongly about. I'd think you would want to give an honest and direct answer. Can you? It's your thread and you just quit it.

 

[maquiscat]

Which contraceptives are 100% effective?

Only 4 things, whether you consider them contraceptive or not, are proven to be 100% effective, deity intervention aside: absolute abstinence (not even oral or mutual masterbation), removal of the testicles, removal of the uterus, and removal of the overies. The last two often happen together but not always, I have learned. Not even cutting the tubes of either sex has proven 100% effective.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Scrabaholic]

Only 4 things, whether you consider them contraceptive or not, are proven to be 100% effective, deity intervention aside: absolute abstinence (not even oral or mutual masterbation), removal of the testicles, removal of the uterus, and removal of the overies. The last two often happen together but not always, I have learned. Not even cutting the tubes of either sex has proven 100% effective.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

None of those are contraceptives.

 

[maquiscat]

None of those are contraceptives.

Which is why I made the statement, whether one considers them contraceptive or not, and called them the 4 things that are 100% effective. And while they are not contraceptions, they are contraceptive, i.e. preventing conception, in nature, even if that is not the intent they are performed with. Also, abstinence is considered a form of contraception.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[minnie616]

None of those are contraceptives.

Correct.
marquis at was describing no sexual contact at all or sterilization, neither of which are contraception.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Which is why I made the statement, whether one considers them contraceptive or not, and called them the 4 things that are 100% effective. And while they are not contraceptions, they are contraceptive, i.e. preventing conception, in nature, even if that is not the intent they are performed with. Also, abstinence is considered a form of contraception.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

My question was "Which contraceptives are 100% effective?" Not which contraceptive method. I used contraceptive as a noun, not an adjective.

 

[Crusader13]

Re: Statements of fact?

Well this whole complexity is a non-issue now anyway given that Democrats are also starting to push for the rights to kill the baby post-birth should the mother so feel powerless enough that she needs to murder something to regain her confidence.

At that point, the bodily autonomy argument is out the window since the baby is no longer a threat to the mother in any way, yet they'd still vote against a law which mandates that care be given to born babies.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Statements of fact?

Well this whole complexity is a non-issue now anyway given that Democrats are also starting to push for the rights to kill the baby post-birth should the mother so feel powerless enough that she needs to murder something to regain her confidence.

At that point, the bodily autonomy argument is out the window since the baby is no longer a threat to the mother in any way, yet they'd still vote against a law which mandates that care be given to born babies.

You are mistaken there is no push to kill a born baby.

We we already have the Federal 2002Born Alive Infants Protection Act that protects Born Alive infants/preemies .



The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8) is an Act of Congress. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed by President George W. Bush.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Statements of fact?

Well this whole complexity is a non-issue now anyway given that Democrats are also starting to push for the rights to kill the baby post-birth should the mother so feel powerless enough that she needs to murder something to regain her confidence.

This is a blatant LIE.

 

[year2late]

Re: Statements of fact?

Well this whole complexity is a non-issue now anyway given that Democrats are also starting to push for the rights to kill the baby post-birth should the mother so feel powerless enough that she needs to murder something to regain her confidence.

At that point, the bodily autonomy argument is out the window since the baby is no longer a threat to the mother in any way, yet they'd still vote against a law which mandates that care be given to born babies.

You are lying .

Cut and paste and link what makes you believe such trash.

 

[Crusader13]

Re: Statements of fact?

You are lying .

Cut and paste and link what makes you believe such trash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.ce018f54bf33

All but three Democrats voted against a procedural motion on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, denying it the necessary 60 votes to proceed. The bill would require a health-care practitioner to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child” as he or she would to “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

Not sure why dems keep outright denying this.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Statements of fact?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.ce018f54bf33



Not sure why dems keep outright denying this.

Because we already have the 2002 Born-Alive Infants protection Act.



The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8) is an Act of Congress. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed by President George W. Bush.

From Wiki

Interpretation of the Bill

Defines a "Born alive infant" as "Person, human being, Child, Individual".

Acknowledges human rights of any child born within the United States.
"Born Alive" is defined as the complete expulsion of an infant at any stage of development that has a heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, breath, or voluntary muscle movement, no matter if the umbilical cord has been cut or if the expulsion of the infant was natural, induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Read more:

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act - Wikipedia

 

[Crusader13]

Re: Statements of fact?

Because we already have the 2002 Born-Alive Infants protection Act.



The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8) is an Act of Congress. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed by President George W. Bush.

From Wiki



Read more:

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act - Wikipedia

So why block another law extending the rights to the unborn even further, and punishing doctors who refuse abide? Is it because it would add an extra layer of work to repealing the rights of people they don't like?

Democrats already support multiple laws doubling up on gun control, discrimination etc, you'd think this would be a no-brainer if they really were against infanticide.

 

[year2late]

Re: Statements of fact?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.ce018f54bf33



Not sure why dems keep outright denying this.

Cut and paste the text of the bill that indicates they can kill an infant.

Cut and paste and source it.

 

[nekrodev]

Re: Statements of fact?

So why block another law extending the rights to the unborn even further, and punishing doctors who refuse abide? Is it because it would add an extra layer of work to repealing the rights of people they don't like?

Democrats already support multiple laws doubling up on gun control, discrimination etc, you'd think this would be a no-brainer if they really were against infanticide.

mind proving some of this as well?

 

[Crusader13]

Re: Statements of fact?

Cut and paste the text of the bill that indicates they can kill an infant.

Cut and paste and source it.

Are you being thick or just trolling? The bill would have made it compulsory for a doctor to stop a baby from dying, and Democrats rejected it. They clearly don't want doctors to be forced to save dying babies should they or the mother feel it's not worthy of life.

If I reject a bill that makes it illegal to kill people, you're free to call me a ****ty person.

 

[Crusader13]

Re: Statements of fact?

mind proving some of this as well?

America already has hundreds of regulations and laws around gun ownership and there's one particular group that seems to be pushing for more everyday.

 

[year2late]

Re: Statements of fact?

Are you being thick or just trolling? The bill would have made it compulsory for a doctor to stop a baby from dying, and Democrats rejected it. They clearly don't want doctors to be forced to save dying babies should they or the mother feel it's not worthy of life.

If I reject a bill that makes it illegal to kill people, you're free to call me a ****ty person.

GIven the fact that you consider palliative care for an infant as "killing", it seems as if you are the one trolling.

 

[nekrodev]

Re: Statements of fact?

America already has hundreds of regulations and laws around gun ownership and there's one particular group that seems to be pushing for more everyday.

can you find two that cover the exact same thing on the federal level?