One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
A******nist's Work House
Page <<first <prev 14 of 15 next>
Mar 17, 2018 08:44:50   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
JoyV wrote:
Most of the quotes I listed were NOT from this essay. In fact, I agree with her that overpopulation is a problem, even if I don't agree with her in all particulars of this essay. My problem with a******nists is the methods used to limit population growth rely far more on dealing with the issue by ending a pregnancy instead of by never starting one in the first place.


So you agree with her on birth control?

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 16:35:50   #
JoyV
 
Bad Bob wrote:
By any chance are you Catholic?


Nope. In fact I am not Christian at all. I first visited a Christian service when I was 7. They had a ceremony which caused me to think they were cannibals.

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 16:47:16   #
JoyV
 
Bad Bob wrote:
So you agree with her on birth control?


Yes and no. If you remove a******n from the list of birth control methods, I am definitely in favor of birth control. As for Sanger's position on when and who should be the focus of birth control, not so much. It sounds like she would like to impose birth control on those she deems undesirable to "weed" them out of society. In other words imposed eugenics. While I am all in favor of women being selective on who they choose to sire their children, I am very much opposed to anyone imposing such choices on the men and women. And I am very much in favor of a woman choosing if and when, and by who; they get pregnant. The ideal should be every child is wanted and cherished. Taking even a fraction of the time in choosing when and by who to get pregnant as a person puts into choosing their car; would be a great improvement!

Reply
 
 
Mar 17, 2018 17:13:39   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
JoyV wrote:
Nope. In fact I am not Christian at all. I first visited a Christian service when I was 7. They had a ceremony which caused me to think they were cannibals.



Reply
Mar 17, 2018 17:44:50   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
JoyV wrote:
Yes and no. If you remove a******n from the list of birth control methods, I am definitely in favor of birth control. As for Sanger's position on when and who should be the focus of birth control, not so much. It sounds like she would like to impose birth control on those she deems undesirable to "weed" them out of society. In other words imposed eugenics. While I am all in favor of women being selective on who they choose to sire their children, I am very much opposed to anyone imposing such choices on the men and women. And I am very much in favor of a woman choosing if and when, and by who; they get pregnant. The ideal should be every child is wanted and cherished. Taking even a fraction of the time in choosing when and by who to get pregnant as a person puts into choosing their car; would be a great improvement!
Yes and no. If you remove a******n from the list ... (show quote)


I mostly agree with you. But I think you have to consider what it was like back in the 20s and 30s. No welfare, food stamps, no Medicaid etc. and extreme poverty. Eugenics?? if done right, "weed" ?? I can see stabilization for some women using a******n for BC and deadbeat dads yes.

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 19:37:22   #
Morgan
 
The Greater Good wrote:
Joy V. You have been misinformed. Research Jim Crow laws which were but in place mainly by republicans. They came into being after the abolishment of s***ery, (the reconstruction) to enforce segreagation. Some of which lasted into the 1990's. Lincoln freed the s***es, so that b****s could be soldiers (against the law until the Procalmation).This was the only way the North could win the war. Even then b****s could not fight with the white regiments. This was not in our old history books, but today the t***h is being taught in our colleges and universities.
Joy V. You have been misinformed. Research Jim Cro... (show quote)


Really show me where , in what book it reads that was the only way the North could have won the war, what BS, you from the south I take it?

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 19:45:51   #
Morgan
 
Bad Bob wrote:
Damn right by force. If they are too stupid to prevent an a******n, they are too stupid to be a good parent. Also for dead beat dads that don't pay child support. Also mandatory birth control for women on welfare.

"do you believe many would really be ready to take such a drastic step" No, they would rather b***h about a******n and welfare.


I say every man who seeds to an unwed mother should be forced to get a vasectomy.

Reply
 
 
Mar 17, 2018 20:09:26   #
Morgan
 
JoyV wrote:
"...that is hers alone along with to develop a child or not."

So if a woman no longer wants to provide the nourishment and shelter to a 6 month old baby, it should be her right to cease caring for it and allowing it to die? Or simply k**l it? What is the difference if the termination is done before or after a breath is drawn (which is the legal definition of a live birth.) Both before and after the baby needs extensive care. A baby cannot feed itself or take care of itself. While the baby is in the womb the woman provides for her baby with her own body's protection, warmth, nourishment, and waste disposal. When out of the womb the mother must knowingly and intentionally provide those same services. In either case, without extensive care the baby will not survive. It is only the location of the baby which differs. A baby in the womb is not part of the woman's body. It is on life support through the placenta which is attached to her body, but has its own body with separate circulatory system and mind.

"Haven't they already put a term limit on being able to have an a******n?"

Not all states have term limits. And when the late term a******n limits are challenged in court, until the case is resolved there are no limits enforced. This means up until the moment of birth, an a******n may legally be done in those states. Many states have some limits. But not all. Only a couple of states restrict a******n earlier than 22 weeks. Seeing that brain activity can be detected between 4 to 6 weeks, and heart at 3 weeks; the evidence it is far more than a mass of differentiated cells within the first trimester is overwhelming.
"...that is hers alone along with to develop ... (show quote)


Yes, a woman does have the right to give up care for the child if she chooses, she can give it up to adoption if she doesn't have the means to provide for the child properly, that btw is the responsible thing to do. To allow the child to die is manslaughter and your argument is now losing credibility. The child is an individual and thereby protected under the law.

Yes, the location is a big difference. But as you can see both come under the responsibility of the mother, not the government, unless a law is violated.

If you want to stop a******ns it is in raising the conscious mind to value all life, not just an embryo or baby. How do we save the life of a baby while let another die in war or famine? Many who are so against the loss of life to an infant have been conditioned to believe that is the best outcome, but that is just one belief. Many believe that in death comes rebirth, death is not an end but a new beginning, possibly under better conditions for a good life.

Reply
Mar 19, 2018 05:00:15   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
Kevyn wrote:
This makes sense, the only people who have a stake in this are women of child bearing age. Men have absolutely no business forcing them to become mothers against their will.


Rape is already illegal, unless your name is Clinton.

Reply
Mar 19, 2018 05:02:04   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
Morgan wrote:
I say every man who seeds to an unwed mother should be forced to get a vasectomy.
And the woman a tube tie as well?

Reply
Mar 19, 2018 05:25:30   #
PeterS
 
The Greater Good wrote:
Joy V. You have been misinformed. Research Jim Crow laws which were but in place mainly by republicans. They came into being after the abolishment of s***ery, (the reconstruction) to enforce segreagation. Some of which lasted into the 1990's. Lincoln freed the s***es, so that b****s could be soldiers (against the law until the Procalmation).This was the only way the North could win the war. Even then b****s could not fight with the white regiments. This was not in our old history books, but today the t***h is being taught in our colleges and universities.
Joy V. You have been misinformed. Research Jim Cro... (show quote)

Jim Crow laws were put in place by conservative democrats as just another form of s***ery...

Reply
 
 
Mar 19, 2018 05:27:14   #
PeterS
 
Morgan wrote:
I say every man who seeds to an unwed mother should be forced to get a vasectomy.

No, they should have their manhood cut off...

Reply
Mar 19, 2018 05:36:06   #
PeterS
 
JoyV wrote:
"...that is hers alone along with to develop a child or not."

So if a woman no longer wants to provide the nourishment and shelter to a 6 month old baby, it should be her right to cease caring for it and allowing it to die? Or simply k**l it? What is the difference if the termination is done before or after a breath is drawn (which is the legal definition of a live birth.) Both before and after the baby needs extensive care. A baby cannot feed itself or take care of itself. While the baby is in the womb the woman provides for her baby with her own body's protection, warmth, nourishment, and waste disposal. When out of the womb the mother must knowingly and intentionally provide those same services. In either case, without extensive care the baby will not survive. It is only the location of the baby which differs. A baby in the womb is not part of the woman's body. It is on life support through the placenta which is attached to her body, but has its own body with separate circulatory system and mind.
"...that is hers alone along with to develop ... (show quote)

Something doesn't need to feed itself or care for itself to be viable. If that were the definition there are people who would never be viable even into old age. A mother who withdraws aid to a child that is viable would be guilty of murder. A woman would have an a******n of a non viable fetus would not. Those are the laws whether you like them or not...

Reply
Mar 19, 2018 07:53:46   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
PeterS wrote:
Jim Crow laws were put in place by conservative democrats as just another form of s***ery...


Actually they were put in place by liberal Democrats. Or as most people call them "Democrats".

Reply
Mar 19, 2018 11:47:57   #
JoyV
 
PeterS wrote:
Something doesn't need to feed itself or care for itself to be viable. If that were the definition there are people who would never be viable even into old age. A mother who withdraws aid to a child that is viable would be guilty of murder. A woman would have an a******n of a non viable fetus would not. Those are the laws whether you like them or not...


By your definition, many a******ns would fall under your murder definition as many are in the viable range. Medical science continually push back the envelope of what age and development are viable. Many states routinely allow a******ns at late as 22 weeks. Some as late as 26 weeks. Many later if challenged. Yet the survival age of preemie age has gone as early as 21 weeks.



Reply
Page <<first <prev 14 of 15 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.