More Abortions Are Good For Society

[Scrabaholic]

If you don't have a sexual attraction to the opposite ses, you will not want ot have sexual intercourse with anyone. That is why gays and lesbians want to adopt children, not naturally procreate.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

But you still *can* have sex with them. Many do in order to procreate. It's not as common now that homosexuality is more accepted, but some gays marry a person of the opposite sex in order to appear straight. They do have sex with their spouses, though usually not very often.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

But you still *can* have sex with them. Many do in order to procreate. It's not as common now that homosexuality is more accepted, but some gays marry a person of the opposite sex in order to appear straight. They do have sex with their spouses, though usually not very often.

That is being BISEXUAL, not homosexual. Learn the difference.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Since the Democrats pushed abortion through shouldn't each democrat (female) show their appreciation by having at least one?

This has to be one of the stupidest suggestions I've seen in my years of debating here.

Good Lord, why? Do you understand the concept of choice?

 

[nitroexpress]

Are Abortions Good For Society? - The Atlantic

It is clear that more abortions is a good thing... not forced abortions... but voluntary. Don't confuse the two. It is an important distinction to factor into the equation so it warrants mentioning. One thing that often gets over-looked in the rhetoric is that abortion is a complicated matter that should not be thought about as merely an issue that can be looked at from one perspective. As long as that is understood then everybody involved will be better prepared... and that is a good thing. More abortions sounds crazy but less abortions does not mean a better society. Just listen and have compassion.

Yea, we need more stem cells for research and medical treatment. :roll:

 

[Scrabaholic]

That is being BISEXUAL, not homosexual. Learn the difference.

Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes. You can be straight and have sex with someone the same sex as you. You don't have to be attracted to them.

 

[Lursa]

Snappy comeback. I did not accuse you of ignoring a thing. I only said it to inform the readers.

Let's cut to the gist.

Goal Setting. What shocks me is to read a diatribe against goal setting from a person who no doubt wants sex ed to be taught. It would be similar were I to ask, what teacher should teach sex ed? NAme a teacher on staff in other words.

I could say, have each teacher include goal setting in their courses. It would ensure it spread the message a lot faster.

I do not claim all teachers get taught setting goals. I want the kid to learn the skill so why not have the teachers do it so it helps prevent crime?

There is nothing wrong with being taught to get rich. Many of the rich now teach their children how to get rich. So spread the joy of having money. Why not?

There's no diatribe. I just believe that teachers should teach and not preach values. They can have goal setting for their subjects, *as I wrote* but you didnt address why you believe it's ok for YOUR values to be a curricula-wide goal for teachers to promote. Why? I dont agree with your choice of goals. I think it's crass and materialistic.

I'd prefer 'goal-setting' be more about kids discovering their passions and talents and finding ways to be happy making a living doing those. Or maybe goal-setting regarding how we treat our fellow man.

But I completely disagree with teaching kids a materialistic view like the importance of getting rich. So again...why do you believe your values should be promoted for goal-setting? Do you want mine taught? (no, right?)

 

[Bodi]

Yea, we need more stem cells for research and medical treatment. :roll:

Not a bad idea... think of all of the lives that could be saved by having more abortions and stem cells...

 

[nitroexpress]

Not a bad idea... think of all of the lives that could be saved by having more abortions and stem cells...

Are you advocating stem cell factories? :rofl

 

[Bodi]

Are you advocating stem cell factories? :rofl

Would humanity be better off with them?

 

[roguenuke]

Because that would make them bisexual and not homosexual.

No it doesn't. Just having sex with someone does not determine a person's sexuality, particularly if the only reason for having sex with them is procreative or simply uf their reason is not related to actual attraction.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

If you don't have a sexual attraction to the opposite ses, you will not want ot have sexual intercourse with anyone. That is why gays and lesbians want to adopt children, not naturally procreate.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

This isnt true. You can have sex with someone you are not attracted to. It isnt impossible.

If course now, what us easier is simply getting donated sperm or egg and possibly a surrogate, if needed, rather than having sex.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

It has long been my view that our school system does not teach the habits of how to get rich so the graduates are likely to have poor goal setting habits along with how one reaches the goal.

Consider the kid running Track. He has the goal. Run the Mile fast. And to reach his goal, his coach is on his ass. And when reaching it, he gets a small reward. Such as a trophy.

So though sports teaches this, not true with the rest of the teachers.

It is in fact better to teach intrinsic value (such as pride in accomplishment, feelings of doing what is right) in accomplishments rather than extrinsic values (such as getting the trophy, becoming rich). This has been the goal in many schools for awhile although it isnt always seen nor is that universal of all teachers or even school systems.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

That is being BISEXUAL, not homosexual. Learn the difference.

The difference is not in who they have sex with, but rather who they are attracted to. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can have sex with both sexes, for various purposes, and as it isnt "because I was attracted to them" for both sexes, they would not be bisexual.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[AlphaOmega]

No it doesn't. Just having sex with someone does not determine a person's sexuality, particularly if the only reason for having sex with them is procreative or simply uf their reason is not related to actual attraction.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Yes it does. Who you have sex with is what factually determines your sexuality.
If you willingly have had sex with both men and women, you are factually bisexual.

 

[roguenuke]

Yes it does. Who you have sex with is what factually determines your sexuality.
If you willingly have had sex with both men and women, you are factually bisexual.

No it doesnt. Sexuality or rather sexual orientation, which is homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or asexual (there may be others), is determined by attraction, not which sex you have sex with, are willing to have sex with. Being bisexual involves being attracted to both sexes, willing to have intimate or loving relations with them, not simply having sex with them, especially not for purposes of procreation or to keep up appearances.



Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Night_Ranger]

….right! because genocide is always impacts the nation committing those atrocities in a wonderful way.

Critical thinking 101?

 

[Scrabaholic]

….right! because genocide is always impacts the nation committing those atrocities in a wonderful way.

Critical thinking 101?

What does genocide have to do w/ this?

 

[Night_Ranger]

What does genocide have to do w/ this?

What do you call the slaughter of 60,000,000 unborn children?

 

[Scrabaholic]

What do you call the slaughter of 60,000,000 unborn children?

Abortion.

 

[Night_Ranger]

Abortion.

And that’s because we rarely ask ourselves how we’d act if a 5-year-old’s life were in danger compared to how we act when a baby in the womb is in danger.

 

[roguenuke]

And that’s because we rarely ask ourselves how we’d act if a 5-year-old’s life were in danger compared to how we act when a baby in the womb is in danger.

Unborns in the womb are always in danger, from things that would require severely restricting the mothers rights to prevent such danger. It would in fact require restricting women's rights prior to her knowing about the pregnancy to really protect the unborn, which is unreasonable, given that unlike 5 year olds, the chance of a fetus dying of natural causes is around 30%. And 5 year olds arent putting a womans life in danger by being inside her, living off her life, and could receive his/her needs met by someone else. ZEFs cannot.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

What do you call the slaughter of 60,000,000 unborn children?

Genocide is an organized campaign by one group to kill/destroy another group/demographic.

--Abortion is initiated by individual women, there is no organized campaign to kill the unborn

--there is no group that wants to kill the unborn

--the unborn cross all demographics

And re: your previous comment, there are no negative effects of abortion on society. If there are, please list some?

….right! because genocide is always impacts the nation committing those atrocities in a wonderful way.

Critical thinking 101?

 

[Bodi]

What do you call the slaughter of 60,000,000 unborn children?

I call it none of your business... and they are not children. They are embryo's and fetus's.

 

[Scrabaholic]

And that’s because we rarely ask ourselves how we’d act if a 5-year-old’s life were in danger compared to how we act when a baby in the womb is in danger.

Not comparable. A five year old isn't living inside of and attached to the body of anyone.

 

[weaver2]

50 million abortions since roeVwade, you honestly think our society is for the better? The off loading of our youngest humans is the crowning achievement of a culture permeated by the morally bankrupt ideology of elective killing. A life is worthless while another is valued depending merely on personal taste or a swing of mood. Look around, tell me why suicide and depression is on the increase. We’re in harvest of sown seeds.

Starting life as unwanted is heartbreaking. Giving a new-born away to a state agency before it can be adopted out is not the start of a great relationship with life. Keeping it in a family situation that didn't want a child and can't support it is sad beyond words and the statistics for unplanned and unwanted children are pretty grim for the child, the family and society. Instead working to overturn Roe work to provide intelligent, factual sex education, more PP clinics that provide education and contraceptives , affordable insurance that covers contraceptives. Support a minimum wage that reflects the actual worth an employee contributes to a corporation. Work toward family counseling clinics, well baby clinics, visiting nurses, affordable child care, affordable housing. All of theses things help families provide a safe and stable environment that can welcome another child.

So until we as a society realize that it is cheaper to help families than punish them it's better to abort the potential child while it is undeveloped, unaware, non-sentient, feels no pain, is no bigger than a lima bean and looks no different an elephant or chicken or lizard embryo.

Think of those 50M aborted embryos as tragedies that didn't happen. And, yes I honestly think our society is better off for Roe. Passing Roe, didn't increase abortions. Overturning Roe will not decrease abortions. The same number of abortions were performed before as after Roe.