Abortion is about the worship of sex.

Why do almost all homosexuals advocate for abortion?  They can't get pregnant.  Why do they fight so hard for something that seems to have nothing to do with them?

Answer.

Abortion is about the worship of sex.  The fight over abortion is not simply about the killing of innocent children or the so-called "freedom of choice."  Rather, it is an attempt to remove any restrictions, boundaries, or limitations on sex, homosexual or heterosexual, period.  When sex is worshipped(one p or two?) there has to be abortion.  The resultant children must be eliminated because their presence will wreak havoc on the whole system.  The presence of a child demands a family, commitment and permanence.  Therefore, in order for sex to continue without restrictions, the children must be silenced.

Comfort, ease, convenience, material security, and reputation are 95 to 98% of the reasons people list for having an abortion.  Abortions are rarely done solely for the health of the mother.  Abortion silences the voice of a child who asks with its very being, "Where is my mother?  My father?  My family?"  Abortion erases the consequences of uncommitted, recreational sexuality.  That little voice demands responsibility from the young man who, possibly, never even liked the gal he "hooked up" with.  There is a good chance their relationship was all about him and his pleasure.  It makes sense for him to silence the little voice that will demand responsibility or commitment.

The suddenly pregnant young lady also rejects the consequences of her actions, "It's not the right time.  I have plans and dreams.  I'm not sure if my boyfriend is committed.  I need to finish school or college.  I don't have money to support someone else let alone myself."  An abortion ensures these very real limits on sexuality remain unchallenged.  Logically speaking, abortion is at the end of a conveyor belt in a culture that worships sex.

Please read my signature. Your thread will likely get a visit from "The Knowlegde".

No. abortion is about the right of the mother to decide what she wants to do with her own body. It is the mother and the mother alone who has to risk her body, her physical and mental health and her life to produce an offspring she may or may not want or be capable of supporting.

In the case of rape victims, how is an abortion the 'celebration' of the violation which has necessitated it?

It is the pragmatic realisation that people will always seek abortions in the event of unwanted pregnancies so it is better that it is undertaken in clean, sanitary and safe conditions than in a back-alley somewhere with a coathanger.

In almost every walk of life you oppose the state interfering in people's freedom, why, when it comes to the most intimate life and death decision a woman can take, do you make an exception?

Why do almost all homosexuals advocate for abortion?  They can't get pregnant.  Why do they fight so hard for something that seems to have nothing to do with them?

Answer.

Abortion is about the worship of sex.  The fight over abortion is not simply about the killing of innocent children or the so-called "freedom of choice."  Rather, it is an attempt to remove any restrictions, boundaries, or limitations on sex, homosexual or heterosexual, period.  When sex is worshipped(one p or two?) there has to be abortion.  The resultant children must be eliminated because their presence will wreak havoc on the whole system.  The presence of a child demands a family, commitment and permanence.  Therefore, in order for sex to continue without restrictions, the children must be silenced.

Comfort, ease, convenience, material security, and reputation are 95 to 98% of the reasons people list for having an abortion.  Abortions are rarely done solely for the health of the mother.  Abortion silences the voice of a child who asks with its very being, "Where is my mother?  My father?  My family?"  Abortion erases the consequences of uncommitted, recreational sexuality.  That little voice demands responsibility from the young man who, possibly, never even liked the gal he "hooked up" with.  There is a good chance their relationship was all about him and his pleasure.  It makes sense for him to silence the little voice that will demand responsibility or commitment.

The suddenly pregnant young lady also rejects the consequences of her actions, "It's not the right time.  I have plans and dreams.  I'm not sure if my boyfriend is committed.  I need to finish school or college.  I don't have money to support someone else let alone myself."  An abortion ensures these very real limits on sexuality remain unchallenged.  Logically speaking, abortion is at the end of a conveyor belt in a culture that worships sex.

That sounds about right.

I'm just not sure if you think this is a bad thing?

It is the mother and the mother alone who has to risk her body, her physical and mental health and her life to produce an offspring she may or may not want or be capable of supporting.

Then maybe she shouldn't have sex. 

I'm just not sure if you think this is a bad thing?

It's a very bad thing.

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 06:24:22 AM

I'm just not sure if you think this is a bad thing?

It's a very bad thing.

Oh. Why?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on February 14, 2012, 06:27:36 AM

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 06:24:22 AM

I'm just not sure if you think this is a bad thing?

It's a very bad thing.

Oh. Why?

You mean besides the the 42 million children that are killed every year worldwide?

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 06:28:18 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on February 14, 2012, 06:27:36 AM

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 06:24:22 AM

I'm just not sure if you think this is a bad thing?

It's a very bad thing.

Oh. Why?

You mean besides the the 42 million children that are killed every year worldwide?

I'm not sure what this has to do with eliminating non-sentient fetuses.

In the case of rape victims, how is an abortion the 'celebration' of the violation which has necessitated it?

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

I'm not sure what this has to do with eliminating non-sentient fetuses.

What week do they become sentient?  Or are you ok with killing a full term baby just because its not out of the womb yet?

abortion is about the right of the mother to decide what she wants to do with her own body

If your mother wanted you dead today, is that ok?

It is the mother and the mother alone who has to risk her body

Tell me, what are the risks to the unborn child's body if she does have an abortion?

her life to produce an offspring she may or may not want or be capable of supporting.

Adoption seems like a great solution for everyone. The mother who is too irresponsible to have safe sex and raise her own children, the child which now gets to live and two people who likely can't have children of their own but have space in their hearts and their homes for a child that needs them.

In the case of rape victims, how is an abortion the 'celebration' of the violation which has necessitated it?

Ahh, the rape card. Pro-abortionists always use this. Please allow me to blow this bullshit myth away

Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control.

That's pretty fucking disgusting if you ask me.

It is the pragmatic realisation that people will always seek abortions in the event of unwanted pregnancies so it is better that it is undertaken in clean, sanitary and safe conditions than in a back-alley somewhere with a coathanger.

Frankly yes. If you think the risk of having a baby is worse for your well-being than a backstreet abortion, then we should allow Darwinism to prevail. With social benefits in 1st world countries, there is no mother that cannot look after a child. The state sees to it.

In almost every walk of life you oppose the state interfering in people's freedom, why, when it comes to the most intimate life and death decision a woman can take, do you make an exception?

Because you are not only making a decision that effects your life. You are making a decision to end someone else's. Usually because it would be inconvenient.

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 06:31:53 AM

I'm not sure what this has to do with eliminating non-sentient fetuses.

What week do they become sentient?  Or are you ok with killing a full term baby just because its not out of the womb yet?

No, and I feel that we've gone through this discussion before.

Instead of focusing solely on abortion, let's discuss this whole "worshipping of sex" thing you brought up. Do you feel that it's wrong to not set boundaries to sex? As a citizen of the "land of the free", are you proposing that people limit their freedom in a matter that is really only their business?

Instead of focusing solely on abortion, let's discuss this whole "worshipping of sex" thing you brought up. Do you feel that it's wrong to not set boundaries to sex? As a citizen of the "land of the free", are you proposing that people limit their freedom in a matter that is really only their business?

My personal belief is that sex is something very special, very intimate, that is shared between a man and his wife.  Anything outside of that is sexual deviance and a detriment to our society.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on February 14, 2012, 06:34:09 AM

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 06:31:53 AM

I'm not sure what this has to do with eliminating non-sentient fetuses.

What week do they become sentient?  Or are you ok with killing a full term baby just because its not out of the womb yet?

No, and I feel that we've gone through this discussion before.

Instead of focusing solely on abortion, let's discuss this whole "worshipping of sex" thing you brought up. Do you feel that it's wrong to not set boundaries to sex? As a citizen of the "land of the free", are you proposing that people limit their freedom in a matter that is really only their business?

Being in the "land of the free" is no reason to have a lack of control. Whether that be you or the state.

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 06:36:49 AM

Instead of focusing solely on abortion, let's discuss this whole "worshipping of sex" thing you brought up. Do you feel that it's wrong to not set boundaries to sex? As a citizen of the "land of the free", are you proposing that people limit their freedom in a matter that is really only their business?

My personal belief is that sex is something very special, very intimate, that is shared between a man and his wife.  Anything outside of that is sexual deviance and a detriment to our society.

Uh huh. And why exactly is the freedom of sex detrimental to society?

Being in the "land of the free" is no reason to have a lack of control. Whether that be you or the state.

Control should only be applied where it is needed.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on February 14, 2012, 06:39:11 AM

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 06:36:49 AM

Instead of focusing solely on abortion, let's discuss this whole "worshipping of sex" thing you brought up. Do you feel that it's wrong to not set boundaries to sex? As a citizen of the "land of the free", are you proposing that people limit their freedom in a matter that is really only their business?

My personal belief is that sex is something very special, very intimate, that is shared between a man and his wife.  Anything outside of that is sexual deviance and a detriment to our society.

Uh huh. And why exactly is the freedom of sex detrimental to society?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on February 14, 2012, 06:39:53 AM

Being in the "land of the free" is no reason to have a lack of control. Whether that be you or the state.

Control should only be applied where it is needed.

Who gets to make that call of whats needed and whats not?

As to your question at me, I would say one of the reasons being because it fosters an environment of genocide.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on February 14, 2012, 06:10:47 AM

It is the mother and the mother alone who has to risk her body, her physical and mental health and her life to produce an offspring she may or may not want or be capable of supporting.

Then maybe she shouldn't have sex.

I'm sure the victim of rape would quite agree with you.

Maybe if people like yourself didn't spend so much energy shaming unwed or singles mothers, ostracising them from the community and forcing your 'one-size-fits-all' sexuality on them, perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to hide their sexual experiences with on the quiet abortions.

If your mother wanted you dead today, is that ok?

No, I'm an independant, fully developed human being, rather than an undeveloped clutch of cells attached to the walls of her uterus, consuming her nutrients and risking her life.

Tell me, what are the risks to the unborn child's body if she does have an abortion?

Irrelevant, the mother is a developed, conscious sentient being with self-awareness. The fetus is not. it has less awareness of itself and its surroundings than a pig and yet I'll bet you eat bacon.

Adoption seems like a great solution for everyone. The mother who is too irresponsible to have safe sex and raise her own children, the child which now gets to live and two people who likely can't have children of their own but have space in their hearts and their homes for a child that needs them.

the hordes of unwanted, unloved and neglected Chinese girls might dispute that.

That's pretty fucking disgusting if you ask me.

Why? To end a life before it is sentient to prevent a life unloved?

Frankly yes. If you think the risk of having a baby is worse for your well-being than a backstreet abortion, then we should allow Darwinism to prevail. With social benefits in 1st world countries, there is no mother that cannot look after a child. The state sees to it.

Thork would prefer two lives, one of them sentient, to die in a back-alley, than one with less sentience than a rat to die in a clean hospital.

Because you are not only making a decision that effects your life. You are making a decision to end someone else's. Usually because it would be inconvenient.

A 'someone' who is barely more than a aparastic growth on the mother?


If you are anti-choice and a meat eater then you don't have a moral leg to stand on.

(This dis-counts late-term abortions, apart from for reasons of health)

As to your question at me, I would say one of the reasons being because it fosters an environment of genocide.

What if everyone used protection responsibly and continued to fuck like rabbits regardless? Would it still be okay?

Why do almost all homosexuals advocate for abortion?  They can't get pregnant.  Why do they fight so hard for something that seems to have nothing to do with them?

Answer.

Abortion is about the worship of sex.  The fight over abortion is not simply about the killing of innocent children or the so-called "freedom of choice."  Rather, it is an attempt to remove any restrictions, boundaries, or limitations on sex, homosexual or heterosexual, period.  When sex is worshipped(one p or two?) there has to be abortion. [...] Logically speaking, abortion is at the end of a conveyor belt in a culture that worships sex.

You pose a loaded question while presuming to know the motivations/intentions of others with whom you don't agree with. Also, since they cannot become pregnant, it doesn't follow that "worship of sex" even could be a form of motivation.

The act of projecting intent onto people who they don't understand is a common way of rehearse one's prejudices. (Ex. Atheists just hate god)

If you are anti-choice and a meat eater then you don't have a moral leg to stand on.

(This dis-counts late-term abortions, apart from for reasons of health)

Worst argument Ive ever seen.  So because I eat meat I'm morally supposed to be pro-choice.  Wow.

Define late term.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on February 14, 2012, 06:49:21 AM

As to your question at me, I would say one of the reasons being because it fosters an environment of genocide.

What if everyone used protection responsibly and continued to fuck like rabbits regardless? Would it still be okay?

  I said one of the reasons, not the only.  There are also societal impacts of free sex that have nothing to do with abortion.  Emotional, spiritual.  All those down trodden women that look for love in sex only to find guys just repeatedly using them over and over until their spirit is completely broken.   I am convinced that empty-hearted women who have been hurt by men are one of the driving forces behind the women's rights movement.  Furthermore, empty-hearted women, in seeking to have their needs met, have contributed to the rise of divorce and abortion, which has slowly eroded the stability of society until nations begin to disintegrate from within.  Anything that threatens the health and stability of marriages and families, threatens the health and stability of societies and nations.

You pose a loaded question while presuming to know the motivations/intentions of others with whom you don't agree with. Also, since they cannot become pregnant, it doesn't follow that "worship of sex" even could be a form of motivation.

The act of projecting intent onto people who they don't understand is a common way of rehearse one's prejudices. (Ex. Atheists just hate god)

What is there to understand?  They are people that are sexually attracted to other people of the same sex. 

You are right, I don't agree with them.

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 06:31:53 AM

I'm not sure what this has to do with eliminating non-sentient fetuses.

What week do they become sentient?  Or are you ok with killing a full term baby just because its not out of the womb yet?

Sentience is a gradient but requires development of the brain, and electrical activity in said brain. Haven't we already come to an understanding that fetus' cannot possibly be sentient for the-morning-after-pill? That was a form of abortion.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 14, 2012, 07:04:14 AM

You pose a loaded question while presuming to know the motivations/intentions of others with whom you don't agree with. Also, since they cannot become pregnant, it doesn't follow that "worship of sex" even could be a form of motivation.

The act of projecting intent onto people who they don't understand is a common way of rehearse one's prejudices. (Ex. Atheists just hate god)

What is there to understand?

VVVVV

Why do almost all homosexuals advocate for abortion?

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on February 14, 2012, 06:51:51 AM

If you are anti-choice and a meat eater then you don't have a moral leg to stand on.

(This dis-counts late-term abortions, apart from for reasons of health)

Worst argument Ive ever seen.  So because I eat meat I'm morally supposed to be pro-choice.  Wow.

Define late term.

Yes. You're preared to kill or have killed for you sentient, intelligent animals capable of feeling pain. If killing unfeeling, unaware animals (as humans are) is wrong then so is your BBQ

I leave the definitions of late-term abotions to medical experts who can determine when the nervous system is developed sufficiently for the first basic sparks of sentience.

Quote

If your mother wanted you dead today, is that ok?

No, I'm an independant, fully developed human being, rather than an undeveloped clutch of cells attached to the walls of her uterus, consuming her nutrients and risking her life.

What's this risking her life business? This isn't the middle ages. Women don't regularly die from child birth. The only life at risk is the one that will be ended with a scalpel.

Quote

Tell me, what are the risks to the unborn child's body if she does have an abortion?

Irrelevant, the mother is a developed, conscious sentient being with self-awareness. .

So we should get in there quick and do the killing whilst the child is at its most vulnerable?

The fetus is not. it has less awareness of itself and its surroundings than a pig and yet I'll bet you eat bacon

Would you eat a 24 week old terminated foetus? If not, it shows you do think its human and as such the child should be treated as so. Think about that. You reduce the child to being worth less than an animal. Would you eat it?

Quote

Adoption seems like a great solution for everyone. The mother who is too irresponsible to have safe sex and raise her own children, the child which now gets to live and two people who likely can't have children of their own but have space in their hearts and their homes for a child that needs them.

the hordes of unwanted, unloved and neglected Chinese girls might dispute that.

Forget Chinese girls. We are talking about abortion in our countries. We don't legislate in China. Your off topic appeal shows how little traction your argument has.

Quote

That's pretty fucking disgusting if you ask me.

Why? To end a life before it is sentient to prevent a life unloved?

That 98% of abortions are because the mother would be inconvenienced by the child. Not for medical or other health.

Quote

Frankly yes. If you think the risk of having a baby is worse for your well-being than a backstreet abortion, then we should allow Darwinism to prevail. With social benefits in 1st world countries, there is no mother that cannot look after a child. The state sees to it.

Thork would prefer two lives, one of them sentient, to die in a back-alley, than one with less sentience than a rat to die in a clean hospital.

I would prefer people to face their responsibilities and not go to irresponsible extremes to avoid them.

I don't blame people for their mistakes, but I do ask that they pay for them.

Quote

Because you are not only making a decision that effects your life. You are making a decision to end someone else's. Usually because it would be inconvenient.

A 'someone' who is barely more than a aparastic growth on the mother?

Would you eat it?

If you are anti-choice and a meat eater then you don't have a moral leg to stand on.

(This dis-counts late-term abortions, apart from for reasons of health)

Would you eat a foetus? If no, stop this bullshit animal analogy.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on February 14, 2012, 07:11:26 AM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 14, 2012, 07:04:14 AM

You pose a loaded question while presuming to know the motivations/intentions of others with whom you don't agree with. Also, since they cannot become pregnant, it doesn't follow that "worship of sex" even could be a form of motivation.

The act of projecting intent onto people who they don't understand is a common way of rehearse one's prejudices. (Ex. Atheists just hate god)

What is there to understand?

VVVVV

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on February 14, 2012, 05:50:35 AM

Why do almost all homosexuals advocate for abortion?

Are you saying a large majority do not?  Or just that I do not know why that they do.

Yes. You're preared to kill or have killed for you sentient, intelligent animals capable of feeling pain. If killing unfeeling, unaware animals (as humans are) is wrong then so is your BBQ

I leave the definitions of late-term abotions to medical experts who can determine when the nervous system is developed sufficiently for the first basic sparks of sentience.

I am pretty sure we are done here.  Neither of us is going to produce a convincing debate to the other that animals are the same as humans or vice versa. 

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on February 14, 2012, 06:51:51 AM

If you are anti-choice and a meat eater then you don't have a moral leg to stand on.

(This dis-counts late-term abortions, apart from for reasons of health)

Worst argument Ive ever seen.  So because I eat meat I'm morally supposed to be pro-choice.  Wow.

Define late term.

Cows are more intelligent and capable of feeling pain than human fetuses. Saying that abortion is wrong based on preservation of life is the same as saying that eating meat is wrong based on preservation of life. Your argument is no better than whatever vegetarians would use to argue that eating meat is wrong.

I said one of the reasons, not the only.  There are also societal impacts of free sex that have nothing to do with abortion.  Emotional, spiritual.  All those down trodden women that look for love in sex only to find guys just repeatedly using them over and over until their spirit is completely broken.   I am convinced that empty-hearted women who have been hurt by men are one of the driving forces behind the women's rights movement.  Furthermore, empty-hearted women, in seeking to have their needs met, have contributed to the rise of divorce and abortion, which has slowly eroded the stability of society until nations begin to disintegrate from within.  Anything that threatens the health and stability of marriages and families, threatens the health and stability of societies and nations.

That only suggests that marriage and settling for one mate is unnatural for humans, since it doesn't work perfectly without imposing limitations. Alternately, you could claim that people are empty-hearted when they don't see the brilliance of communism, and the way of showing that to them is to impose it upon them without their will. I'm sure you wouldn't want that, so I don't know why you would want to support that when it comes to sex.

And as for the health and stability of marriages, the reason that is risked is because of the set ideals of sexually restricting marriage - parents stand each other only because it's better to do so for the sake of the family and the marriage, although the child would grow in a much healthier environment if the parents had separated instead of fighting over their differences in the child's everyday life. That only shows how restricting freedom of sex hurts families, not removing the restrictions.

And as for the health and stability of marriages, the reason that is risked is because of the set ideals of sexually restricting marriage - parents stand each other only because it's better to do so for the sake of the family and the marriage, although the child would grow in a much healthier environment if the parents had separated instead of fighting over their differences in the child's everyday life. That only shows how restricting freedom of sex hurts families, not removing the restrictions.

Divorce is never better for children.  Statistics have shown this time and time again.   And if those parents cannot stand each other more than likely they were pregnant prior to marriage or should have never got married in the first place.

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 07:21:54 AM

And as for the health and stability of marriages, the reason that is risked is because of the set ideals of sexually restricting marriage - parents stand each other only because it's better to do so for the sake of the family and the marriage, although the child would grow in a much healthier environment if the parents had separated instead of fighting over their differences in the child's everyday life. That only shows how restricting freedom of sex hurts families, not removing the restrictions.

Divorce is never better for children.  Statistics have shown this time and time again.   And if those parents cannot stand each other more than likely they were pregnant prior to marriage or should have never got married in the first place.

Better than having parents fight constantly in the presence of the child? Do give me the statistics, please. I want to see this.

And if those parents cannot stand each other, they should have never gotten married in the first place? Yes, I agree, they shouldn't be raising their child in such an environment. But it seems as if you were arguing against that in the previous sentence.