frmrCapCadet wrote:

The anti-abortion (and anti-post birth life) contingent have deliberately pursued a boa constrictor strategy. Every and any step on abortion control and contraceptives is simply the first step back to the control of women by a bunch of angry old white men.

So true!

P1aneMad wrote:

I am not thinking this whale with the sign threatening to withhold sex is going to bother anyone...She should be lucky if anyone wants to have sex with her.

Once again it just shows that most people are of middle of the road. This whole thing got started with the radical left wingers wanting abortions being available right up until birth and then maybe even after that. Then the rabid right wing pro lifers started the first of many restrictions on abortion to lock up doctors for 99 years and the heartbeat bills. Look I am an atheist and am pro choice but even I have limits abortion at full term unless for saving the life of the mother no one should be for that NO ONE!.. Lets face it rape and incest are a very very small percentage of abortions. Lets have that in the law but for the most part there should really not be a reason for many abortions today. There are much better birth control options out there compared to years past There needs to be common sense here but as usual too many on the fringes are driving the bus.

Unlike you, she probably enjoys sex regularely.
You, are just a prime example on why some men wants to regulate womens bodies.
You can’t handle that they don’t automatically want to have sex with you, so you desperately search for some kind of religion/moral/political mix that lets you control their bodies anyway.

You are all just very sick and wicked.

stratosphere wrote:

P1aneMad wrote:

I am not thinking this whale with the sign threatening to withhold sex is going to bother anyone...She should be lucky if anyone wants to have sex with her.

M564038 wrote:

You are all just very sick and wicked.

What's really sick and wicked is thinking that anyone has a right to terminate the life of an innocent human being.

Also, being pro abortion is consummate racism. Most aborted babies in the US are black. Abortions are the main reason why the black population is stagnating.

aviationaware wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You are all just very sick and wicked.

What's really sick and wicked is thinking that anyone has a right to terminate the life of an innocent human being.

A human being? I don't know where you live, but in the United States a fetus is not federally recognized as a human being, which I'm sure you know. Your opinion or religious belief may tell you otherwise, but it's exactly that - an opinion or a religious belief. It's irrelevant in the face of the law.

EA CO AS wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

How often do these occur and for what reasons?

Can we agree that even once is too many? Look up “partial birth abortion” - you’ll have trouble forgetting what you saw.

Not if the outcome is restrictions on situations where the foetus is non-viable and/or termination is necessary to save the health of the woman.

The two positions seem to be "no restrictions as late term termaination of a viable foetus is extremely unlikely" or "not allowed in the unlikely chance that a late term abortion of a vaible foetus will take place".

I'm still interested in caes of where late term termination of a viable foetus has been chosen given the laws in some jurisdictions..

[threeid][/threeid]

aviationaware wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You are all just very sick and wicked.

What's really sick and wicked is thinking that anyone has a right to terminate the life of an innocent human being.

Also, being pro abortion is consummate racism. Most aborted babies in the US are black. Abortions are the main reason why the black population is stagnating.

Just great - another clear thinker with zero regard for science - the discipline that put the US on top in days long gone.

Kent350787 wrote:

I'm still interested in caes of where late term termination of a viable foetus has been chosen given the laws in some jurisdictions..

This is a good read:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -abortion/

(fair-use excerpt)

How rare are late-term abortions, considered to be 21 weeks or later?

In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there were about 8,300 third trimester abortions, totaling about 1.3% of all abortions. Eight thousand deaths in one year is not insignificant.

But most Americans reject extreme positions on both sides of the issue.

In May 2018, the Gallup Poll found that 81% support making abortion illegal in the third trimester. However, that same poll found that 60% supported allowing abortion in the first trimester.

There has been significant discussion of the rape and incest exceptions.

The same Gallup Poll found that 77% support the rape and incest exceptions in the first trimester, but only 42% support them in the third trimester.

Magog wrote:

I would have no problem if the Democrat candidates limited their support for late term abortion to those instances. But so far not a single one has specifically said that.

Could you educate us on the Democrat party, please? Who are the Democrat party candidates?

As far as Democratic candidates, they are all against late term abortions. You have not specifically said you are against child labor so you are for it. See the flawed logic?

EA CO AS wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

I'm still interested in caes of where late term termination of a viable foetus has been chosen given the laws in some jurisdictions..

This is a good read:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -abortion/

(fair-use excerpt)

How rare are late-term abortions, considered to be 21 weeks or later?

In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there were about 8,300 third trimester abortions, totaling about 1.3% of all abortions. Eight thousand deaths in one year is not insignificant.

But most Americans reject extreme positions on both sides of the issue.

In May 2018, the Gallup Poll found that 81% support making abortion illegal in the third trimester. However, that same poll found that 60% supported allowing abortion in the first trimester.

There has been significant discussion of the rape and incest exceptions.

The same Gallup Poll found that 77% support the rape and incest exceptions in the first trimester, but only 42% support them in the third trimester.

Actually, I think it's a pretty poorly wrtitten artile and goes no way to answer the questions I posed, as that 8,300 could still quite reasonably be overwhelmingly made up of non-viable foetuses. It doesn't break down the data.

EA CO AS wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

I'm still interested in caes of where late term termination of a viable foetus has been chosen given the laws in some jurisdictions..

This is a good read:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -abortion/

(fair-use excerpt)

How rare are late-term abortions, considered to be 21 weeks or later?

In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there were about 8,300 third trimester abortions, totaling about 1.3% of all abortions. Eight thousand deaths in one year is not insignificant.

But most Americans reject extreme positions on both sides of the issue.

In May 2018, the Gallup Poll found that 81% support making abortion illegal in the third trimester. However, that same poll found that 60% supported allowing abortion in the first trimester.

There has been significant discussion of the rape and incest exceptions.

The same Gallup Poll found that 77% support the rape and incest exceptions in the first trimester, but only 42% support them in the third trimester.

I have a couple of questions:

Why were those third term abortions performed? If a majority (60% according to the Washington Times poll) support abortion, why are Republicans fighting so hard to ban it at all stages?

seb146 wrote:

why are Republicans fighting so hard to ban it at all stages?

They’re not, or at least most aren’t. They’re more interested in getting something before SCOTUS so they can take another look at Roe and hopefully send it back to the states where the decision really belongs.

stratosphere wrote:

Once again it just shows that most people are of middle of the road. This whole thing got started with the radical left wingers wanting abortions being available right up until birth and then maybe even after that. Then the rabid right wing pro lifers started the first of many restrictions on abortion to lock up doctors for 99 years and the heartbeat bills. Look I am an atheist and am pro choice but even I have limits abortion at full term unless for saving the life of the mother no one should be for that NO ONE!.. Lets face it rape and incest are a very very small percentage of abortions. Lets have that in the law but for the most part there should really not be a reason for many abortions today. There are much better birth control options out there compared to years past There needs to be common sense here but as usual too many on the fringes are driving the bus.

You actually completely miss what "radical left wingers" are wanting. First it is not radical left wingers, it is a lot of people on all sides of the spectrum. Second the intent is that it should be a decision between a woman and her doctor. And that is the key thing: It is not for politicians to get involved with. Nor is it for people with no connection to or knowledge of the situation to be involved. It is the woman and her doctors, with the woman having to decide for herself what must be one to the most terrible things to ever have to decide (except for those the only imagine carefree careless women freely ripping babies from their wombs. Those are sick people that think that.) Stand silently in the room, unseen and unknown, and go through the situation and the process. No one sane ever really wants this. But many still do not want to have it be between an doctor and the woman (when it is necessitated for a possible later term abortion). They want to force a woman to carry and birth a dead baby. They want to force a woman to birth a baby that will live then die in agony. They want to force these things to happen.

To me, this is not my decision to make. I am fine with limits for "on demand", I think pretty much everyone is, the problem is when people then jump in ans say "Great! That's the limit!!! Nothing more ever after that!! Yay!" And so they desire a woman who discovers that their baby is dead not not have any option but to carry and birth a dead baby. I think that is horrible. I say it is not my decision, if the doctor and the woman decide it is the best option then terribly, sadly the woman should be able to make that terrible and sad decision.

EA CO AS wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

I'm still interested in caes of where late term termination of a viable foetus has been chosen given the laws in some jurisdictions..

This is a good read:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -abortion/

(fair-use excerpt)

How rare are late-term abortions, considered to be 21 weeks or later?

In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there were about 8,300 third trimester abortions, totaling about 1.3% of all abortions. Eight thousand deaths in one year is not insignificant.

But most Americans reject extreme positions on both sides of the issue.

In May 2018, the Gallup Poll found that 81% support making abortion illegal in the third trimester. However, that same poll found that 60% supported allowing abortion in the first trimester.

There has been significant discussion of the rape and incest exceptions.

The same Gallup Poll found that 77% support the rape and incest exceptions in the first trimester, but only 42% support them in the third trimester.

As Kent above noted, your source provides no context. To those that think this means that 1.3% are women aborting healthy babies (and probably also thinking the women and doctors are laughing and drinking and partying while it is ripped it from her womb), that is on you. You are wanting that, you are thinking that is what it must be, to justify not having to think critically about it. You just want to say one thing and never think more of it. But life is hard and it is not fair or fun in many situations for many people.)


The idea that places like PP and other similar clinics will offer services for all abortions is flat wrong, Though they vary from region to region, it is basically first term only, following the guidelines of Roe V Wade. After that it is medical currently (though I don't know fully the new law in NY). And as I have noted above, that is not for me to blindly decide.

Tugg

seb146 wrote:

If a majority (60% according to the Washington Times poll) support abortion, why are Republicans fighting so hard to ban it at all stages?

Because abortions are fundamentally wrong and morally bankrupt. 8,500 third trimester abortions may sound like very few, but then you realize that it's almost as many as there are murders in the US every year and if that doesn't give you pause then you're really beyond redemption.

aviationaware wrote:

seb146 wrote:

If a majority (60% according to the Washington Times poll) support abortion, why are Republicans fighting so hard to ban it at all stages?

Because abortions are fundamentally wrong and morally bankrupt.

opinion only there

aviationaware wrote:

8,500 third trimester abortions may sound like very few

a few, a lot, many, loads, tiny, they are all just descriptive words that have little bearing on any facts. 8500 is the number, described it in your own head as you wish.

aviationaware wrote:

, but then you realize that it's almost as many as there are murders in the US every year

seem like one should be more bothered about murders, why are you comparing it to a murder? Why not compare it to the number of people freed from enforced slavery?

aviationaware wrote:

and if that doesn't give you pause then you're really beyond redemption.

so your assumption is that people haven’t given it pause for thought because they haven’t come to the same conclusion as you?

There is a distinct lack of promotion of female controlled birth control methods from many people promoting the abolition of abortion, that would be more helpful in refusing the number of safe abortions.

I personally think it should be a woman’s choice (with guidance from a trained professional) up to the third trimester and only after that should be about the health of the mother or baby.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

M564038 wrote:

Unlike you, she probably enjoys sex regularely.

* mic drop *

aviationaware wrote:

What's really sick and wicked is thinking that anyone has a right to terminate the life of an innocent human being.

So where do you stand on the death penalty? An unviable clump of cells is not a human being.

aviationaware wrote:

Also, being pro abortion is consummate racism.

Wow, that's some twisted logic right there.

scbriml wrote:

So where do you stand on the death penalty? An unviable clump of cells is not a human being.

I don't understand your question. People sentenced to death are rarely innocent. Are you putting unborn life on the same level of sin as someone deserving of capital punishment? And life begins at conception. That's a biological fact. Now I am certainly not an anti-abortion extremist. Like I said, I am inclined to not be opposed of the three exceptions in the first trimester and open to discussion about the second. But abortions in the third trimester are just vile and wrong, and why any other opinion than that should be allowable in today's world totally baffles me. Third trimester abortion is extremism and should be denounced just as much any other extremism. We have no place for that in our society.

aviationaware wrote:

8,500 third trimester abortions may sound like very few

Why are there so many late-term abortions in the US? One has had two trimesters to decide. Perhaps healthcare isn't what it should be? And if you really care about the number of abortions, then you should be in favor of sex education, prevention measures, health care programs etc. etc. etc.

It is a wrong to think that if you make abortions illegal, that none will take place. It will just be done in far more dangerous circumstances.

Dutchy wrote:

And if you really care about the number of abortions, then you should be in favor of sex education, prevention measures, health care programs etc. etc. etc.

Who said that I wasn't? Of course I am in favor of all that. Any reasonable person would be.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And if you really care about the number of abortions, then you should be in favor of sex education, prevention measures, health care programs etc. etc. etc.

Who said that I wasn't? Of course I am in favor of all that. Any reasonable person would be.

Would you agree that if society does everything - and the US doesn't especially in states which are against abortions - then society has done everything to prevent abortions? Then society needs to live up to the reality that there is some need with some to have an abortion for all kinds of reasons, medical - fetus or mothers health - not wanting a child, do not have the financial means to bring up a child, rape victims, incest to name a few. Or do you believe that society needs to abandon these women and drive them underground to have an abortion? An abortion will take place or a child will be hurt, emotionally at least, if it came into this world.

There are worlds between third trimester abortion and no abortion under any circumstances. You are just trying to rationalize radicalism, and it doesn't look pretty.

aviationaware wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Third trimester abortion is extremism and should be denounced just as much any other extremism. We have no place for that in our society.

I want to see data on third trimester abortions. Logic suggests to me that they would be overwhelmingly, if not solely, non-viable foetuses. I do agree that third term termination of a viable foetus would be a tragic decision.

Kent350787 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Third trimester abortion is extremism and should be denounced just as much any other extremism. We have no place for that in our society.

I want to see data on third trimester abortions. Logic suggests to me that they would be overwhelmingly, if not solely, non-viable foetuses.

Even in those cases there is a significant portion of false negatives as suggested by this study, which is admittedly 20 years old and from France, but nevertheless telling.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10426234

aviationaware wrote:

There are worlds between third trimester abortion and no abortion under any circumstances. You are just trying to rationalize radicalism, and it doesn't look pretty.

Huh?!?!?! What are you reading that I didn't write?

aviationaware wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

I want to see data on third trimester abortions. Logic suggests to me that they would be overwhelmingly, if not solely, non-viable foetuses.

Even in those cases there is a significant portion of false negatives as suggested by this study, which is admittedly 20 years old and from France, but nevertheless telling.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10426234

Thus 100% of those abortions were for medical reasons. So what does this have to do with the debate? If it is for medical reasons I think it should be possible, even that late in the pregnancy. If it is for medical reasons, it should be the parents choice with the guidance of a professional. Given that this study is 20 years old, I would guess that more accurate methods have been established, 20 years of medical progress is quite a lot.

Are you telling me that you are in favor of 3rd-trimester abortions 100% of the time? Even for medical reasons, even if the woman's life is in danger?

Dutchy wrote:

Are you telling me that you are in favor of 3rd-trimester abortions 100% of the time? Even for medical reasons, even if the woman's life is in danger?

If you meant to say against, then yes, I am. Third trimester abortion is intolerable in any case, except if the baby is already dead in which case I don't think it would qualify as an abortion.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Are you telling me that you are in favor of 3rd-trimester abortions 100% of the time? Even for medical reasons, even if the woman's life is in danger?

If you meant to say against, then yes, I am. Third trimester abortion is intolerable in any case, except if the baby is already dead in which case I don't think it would qualify as an abortion.

Then we disagree about that, in exceptional cases, it should be allowed, within strick medical boundaries.

aviationaware wrote:

[I don't understand your question. People sentenced to death are rarely innocent.

Rarely is not never. Enough have been shown to be innocent that you should be equally against it.

aviationaware wrote:

Are you putting unborn life on the same level of sin as someone deserving of capital punishment?

Sin? What?

aviationaware wrote:

Now I am certainly not an anti-abortion extremist. Like I said, I am inclined to not be opposed of the three exceptions in the first trimester and open to discussion about the second.

So let me get this right, you're inclined to agree with abortion presumably in the case of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother? What about in cases where the foetus is shown to be severely disabled or has a genetic condition that will kill it shortly after birth (some conditions might not show until the 3rd trimester)? For me, that's a decision for the parents, not anyone else and most certainly not the courts or government.

scbriml wrote:

What about in cases where the foetus is shown to be severely disabled or has a genetic condition that will kill it shortly after birth (some conditions might not show until the 3rd trimester)? For me, that's a decision for the parents, not anyone else and most certainly not the courts or government.

Disability is no reason to abort. Seriously, do you listen to what you say? That's straight out of the 1930s eugenics playbook. If you don't want a disabled child, give it up to adoption. But don't kill it, man. And the notion that not giving a child a chance at life because it's likely to die early is just mindblowingly disgusting to me. I know several families with children who have down syndrome, and none of them would espouse your views. Because they are immoral.

aviationaware wrote:

scbriml wrote:

What about in cases where the foetus is shown to be severely disabled or has a genetic condition that will kill it shortly after birth (some conditions might not show until the 3rd trimester)? For me, that's a decision for the parents, not anyone else and most certainly not the courts or government.

Disability is no reason to abort. Seriously, do you listen to what you say? That's straight out of the 1930s eugenics playbook. If you don't want a disabled child, give it up to adoption. But don't kill it, man. And the notion that not giving a child a chance at life because it's likely to die early is just mindblowingly disgusting to me. I know several families with children who have down syndrome, and none of them would espouse your views. Because they are immoral.

More subjective nonsense. 60% of vertebrate species have disappeared since 1970, rainforests and estuaries are being destroyed at record rates, insects have halved in some countries having unknown profound effects on ecosystems and coral bleaching continues unabated on reefs around the globe. Many sentient mammalian species are suffering as water and food resources grow ever more scarce and they walk longer distances than ever previously observed with their young and community units. And that’s just a survey of NatGeo and David Attenborough topics from the last five years. Where’s your ‘moral outrage’ on these matters largely driven by human overbreeding and thirst for resources? These living things we share our home with have no ability to advocate for themselves - yet some people and countries are content to keep steamrolling them into oblivion. To borrow the phrase, that’s ‘mindblowingly disgusting to me.’

We should abort abortion for environmental reasons? Interesting. Do you have a study showing that this would make an actual impact. I’m thinking that you don’t since it’s a rather radical claim. I’m pro choice, but this argument even makes me cringe.

Magog wrote:

We should abort abortion for environmental reasons? Interesting. Do you have a study showing that this would make an actual impact. I’m thinking that you don’t since it’s a rather radical claim. I’m pro choice, but this argument even makes me cringe.

I made no such suggestion. Some around here traffic in non sequitur, so I put the shoe on the other foot to make a point about subjectivity.

I am pro-choice as well, and support the scientific consensus that voluntary abortions are biologically irresponsible past 20-24 weeks.

But the non-radical claim is yes, we are overpopulated and other species are bearing the brunt. Some data scientists estimate the sustainable human population at a European standard of living to be between 2-3 billion with current agricultural methods and technological resources.

aviationaware wrote:

Disability is no reason to abort.

I said severe disability.

aviationaware wrote:

If you don't want a disabled child, give it up to adoption. But don't kill it, man. And the notion that not giving a child a chance at life because it's likely to die early is just mindblowingly disgusting to me. I know several families with children who have down syndrome, and none of them would espouse your views.

That was their choice, others chose differently. The point is, it's not your choice unless you have the misfortune to be in that situation. The fact you don't like or agree with somebody else's choice is frankly neither here nor there.

It sounds like you would force any woman to carry to birth regardless of how bad a condition the foetus might have, but you might grudgingly accept an abortion in the case of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life. Have I got that right?

aviationaware wrote:

Because they are immoral.

How do you measure morality? You can't, it's subjective.

Aaron747 wrote:

Magog wrote:

We should abort abortion for environmental reasons? Interesting. Do you have a study showing that this would make an actual impact. I’m thinking that you don’t since it’s a rather radical claim. I’m pro choice, but this argument even makes me cringe.

I made no such suggestion. Some around here traffic in non sequitur, so I put the shoe on the other foot to make a point about subjectivity.

I am pro-choice as well, and support the scientific consensus that voluntary abortions are biologically irresponsible past 20-24 weeks.

But the non-radical claim is yes, we are overpopulated and other species are bearing the brunt. Some data scientists estimate the sustainable human population at a European standard of living to be between 2-3 billion with current agricultural methods and technological resources.

It’s radical to suggest that abortion is the solution to overpopulation. Very radical.

Magog wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Magog wrote:

We should abort abortion for environmental reasons? Interesting. Do you have a study showing that this would make an actual impact. I’m thinking that you don’t since it’s a rather radical claim. I’m pro choice, but this argument even makes me cringe.

I made no such suggestion. Some around here traffic in non sequitur, so I put the shoe on the other foot to make a point about subjectivity.

I am pro-choice as well, and support the scientific consensus that voluntary abortions are biologically irresponsible past 20-24 weeks.

But the non-radical claim is yes, we are overpopulated and other species are bearing the brunt. Some data scientists estimate the sustainable human population at a European standard of living to be between 2-3 billion with current agricultural methods and technological resources.

It’s radical to suggest that abortion is the solution to overpopulation. Very radical.

Never said anything of the sort. Find the quote.

According to the Old Testament (Christian name for those books), human life begins at first breath. Aviationaware has his invented definitions but they are wrong - religiously, historically, and ethically.

aviationaware wrote:

seb146 wrote:

If a majority (60% according to the Washington Times poll) support abortion, why are Republicans fighting so hard to ban it at all stages?

Because abortions are fundamentally wrong and morally bankrupt. 8,500 third trimester abortions may sound like very few, but then you realize that it's almost as many as there are murders in the US every year and if that doesn't give you pause then you're really beyond redemption.

Third trimester abortions account for about 1% of all abortions, according to the quoted study. These are most likely not abortions performed because of rape, incest, or a regretful night.

The righties are acting like literally no one else cares. That is absolutely not true at all. We simply do not want one political party letting the government deciding for women what they should do with their reproductive health. Third trimester abortions was not even on the radar until the right was cornered.

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

why are Republicans fighting so hard to ban it at all stages?

They’re not, or at least most aren’t. They’re more interested in getting something before SCOTUS so they can take another look at Roe and hopefully send it back to the states where the decision really belongs.

Interestingly, there are zero Republicans who are discussing states rights with regard to Roe v. Wade. They simply want to overturn that decision. Some Republican law makers at the state level even want to see penalties for women who cross state lines for a safe and legal abortion. If abortion is safe and legal in a neighboring state, how does states rights apply there? I am only using this as an example and not comparing the two but when marijuana was legal only in Colorado, people were crossing state borders to smoke. Would you support arresting everyone heading into, say, Utah from Colorado for doing something legal in Colorado?

Meet Doug Mcleod—the GOP position on women in a nutshell. You’ll never guess his position on abortion!

Mississippi state rep allegedly punched wife after she took too long to undress for sex: report
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missis ... nched-wife

aviationaware wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You are all just very sick and wicked.

What's really sick and wicked is thinking that anyone has a right to terminate the life of an innocent human being.

Also, being pro abortion is consummate racism. Most aborted babies in the US are black. Abortions are the main reason why the black population is stagnating.

Lol a bunch of white nationalist incels care about black babies...no one believes you hun

Ant-Abortion. The most unreal stance by any republican believing in the castle doctrine.

Aaron747 wrote:

More subjective nonsense. 60% of vertebrate species have disappeared since 1970, rainforests and estuaries are being destroyed at record rates, insects have halved in some countries having unknown profound effects on ecosystems and coral bleaching continues unabated on reefs around the globe. Many sentient mammalian species are suffering as water and food resources grow ever more scarce and they walk longer distances than ever previously observed with their young and community units. And that’s just a survey of NatGeo and David Attenborough topics from the last five years. Where’s your ‘moral outrage’ on these matters largely driven by human overbreeding and thirst for resources? These living things we share our home with have no ability to advocate for themselves - yet some people and countries are content to keep steamrolling them into oblivion. To borrow the phrase, that’s ‘mindblowingly disgusting to me.’

If you're very concerned about your carbon footprint and impact on the environment, there is a very simple solution for that.

scbriml wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Disability is no reason to abort.

I said severe disability.

Who decides which disability is severe and which isn't?

aviationaware wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

More subjective nonsense. 60% of vertebrate species have disappeared since 1970, rainforests and estuaries are being destroyed at record rates, insects have halved in some countries having unknown profound effects on ecosystems and coral bleaching continues unabated on reefs around the globe. Many sentient mammalian species are suffering as water and food resources grow ever more scarce and they walk longer distances than ever previously observed with their young and community units. And that’s just a survey of NatGeo and David Attenborough topics from the last five years. Where’s your ‘moral outrage’ on these matters largely driven by human overbreeding and thirst for resources? These living things we share our home with have no ability to advocate for themselves - yet some people and countries are content to keep steamrolling them into oblivion. To borrow the phrase, that’s ‘mindblowingly disgusting to me.’

If you're very concerned about your carbon footprint and impact on the environment, there is a very simple solution for that.

Impossible for any one person to solve, thanks to Indonesia, Brazil, and lack of US leadership. Little Greta Thunberg and the Aussie school strikers are trying their best though.

That's not what I meant. Guess again.

aviationaware wrote:

That's not what I meant. Guess again.

Bloodthirsty incel much? I caught the drift the first time - but CGAF about whatever your fantasies are.

aviationaware wrote:

scbriml wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Disability is no reason to abort.

I said severe disability.

Who decides which disability is severe and which isn't?

Downs? No. Half a heart and one lung and 3/4 of a brain? Let the parents have the option.

Thank God we have someone as quick to pass judgement over life as you, really takes the burden from most of us.

aviationaware wrote:

Thank God we have someone as quick to pass judgement over life as you, really takes the burden from most of us.

Without your sanctimony we’d all be lost. Thank heavens you’re here to squawk from your perch and let us know where sustenance is at.

https://youtu.be/1ppZcWfmKCc

aviationaware wrote:

Thank God we have someone as quick to pass judgement over life as you, really takes the burden from most of us.

First, I find it irritating when someone makes a random comment directed toward someone without the original quote for context.

Second, why is it so horrible for doctors to give families all the information? If a baby has serious defects like missing organs, let the family decide, not the government.

Third, it was the right (keep big gub'mint outta my life!) who brought up abortion by banning because their religion is more important.

aviationaware wrote:

Thank God we have someone as quick to pass judgement over life as you, really takes the burden from most of us.

1. The only judgement being made on a life at this point is by yourself, you think no amount of misery and pain is too much. The folks who appear to be opposing you stance have categorically NOT made that decision, that’s whole ducking point, the parents do!

2. If you don’t want the burden of that decision then teach about the proper use of condoms and help women with access to the contraceptive pill, abstinence doesn’t work!

3. That’s for a different thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk