You want a 17 year old who has an abortion arrested for murder?

Jinx 2 said:

---

A human HAS a right to life. After birth.

---

A human HAS a right to life. At conception.

Waco1947 said:

---

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath. Wiki.
By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.

---

I have seen a lot of really stupid arguments, but none more so than that one.

Waco1947 said:

---

By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.

---

W T F is wrong with you?? You are one of Abortion rights biggest cheerleaders and then you post something like this? I hope there is someone close to you that is your power of attorney. Not really sure how stable you are or whether you are okay to live on your own and make good decisions. Hope your people are looking after you.

cinque said:

---

You want a 17 year old who has an abortion arrested for murder?

---

If a seventeen year old kills her newborn baby? Abso ****in' lutely!!!! I would hope she would get the needle. Hopefully she lives in a state that has the death penalty and the taxpayers don't have to support her for the next sixty years of her empty and meaningless life. That is the price that should be paid for willfully taking the life of another human being.

What exactly is it about murdering another human being that you don't understand? Are you human? AckAckAckAckAck. No, you are not. You are a Bot. Please tell your three puppetmasters to go pack sand.

Waco1947 said:

---

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath. Wiki.
By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.

---

If what you say is true, that the rightness or wrongness of an action should be based on its consequences rather than a prescribed set rules or laws, then judging by the utter wrongness of all your posts, I deem your posting here on this forum to be a highly immoral act.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

---

If you couple free contraception with other social programs designed to protect women after the birth (paid maternity leave/means tested subsidized daycare) I think I could be convinced that outside of rape/incest/serious risk cases, abortion should be outlawed.

---

1. Sam doesn't think any form of contraception should ever be legal. He considers women who use contraception that's not Natural Family Planning (where the woman gets to test her vaginal mucus every day and the burden is largely on her and she gets to tell hubs "not tonight, honey, I'm fertile" if the couple isn't ready for another child) are "shunning childbirth." Unfettered reproduction, as one acceptable alternative, or celibacy, as the only other acceptable alternative, with the understanding that every time you have sex, a pregnancy may result and that you must always be "open to life," are the only legitimate options, in the view of Catholic fundies. How many women want to live like that? How many men?

2. The men on this site have such contempt for women, particularly those who are single and working, they don't support spending any money, regardless of its source, on funding paid maternity leave and subsidizing day care. Some of these guys think women should be home-schooling the kids and are hoping, like Rick Santorum, to convert the school system into vouchers so they can subsidize the Dugger lifestyle. it's a strategy akin to what the FLDS Mormons call "bleeding the beast" and how they got the government to help pay for religious indoctrination by the likes of Warren Jeffs in the form of "school" in FLDS compounds where 13- and 14-year-old girls were "married" to Jeffs and raped (on tape, which is why Jeffs is now leading the FLDS faithful from the federal pen).

Jinx 2 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

---

If you couple free contraception with other social programs designed to protect women after the birth (paid maternity leave/means tested subsidized daycare) I think I could be convinced that outside of rape/incest/serious risk cases, abortion should be outlawed.

---

1. Sam doesn't think any form of contraception should ever be legal. He considers women who use contraception that's not Natural Family Planning (where the woman gets to test her vaginal mucus every day and the burden is largely on her and she gets to tell hubs "not tonight, honey, I'm fertile" if the couple isn't ready for another child) are "shunning childbirth." Unfettered reproduction or, as one acceptable alternative, celibacy, or, as the only other acceptable alternative, understanding that every time you have sex, a pregnancy may result, are the only legitimate options, in the view of Catholic fundies. How many women want to live like that? How many men?

2. The men on this site have such contempt for women, particularly those who are single and working, they don't support spending any money, regardless of its source, on funding paid maternity leave and subsidizing day care. Some of these guys think women should be home-schooling the kids and are hoping, like Rick Santorum, to convert the school system into vouchers so they can subsidize the Dugger lifestyle. it's a strategy akin to what the FLDS Mormons call "bleeding the beast" and how they got the government to help pay for religious indoctrination by the likes of Warren Jeffs in the form of "school" in FLDS compounds where 13- and 14-year-old girls were "married" to Jeffs and raped (on tape, which is why Jeffs is now leading the FLDS faithful from the federal pen).

---

Wrong, for the hundredth time.

cinque said:

---

You want a 17 year old who has an abortion arrested for murder?

---

I want anyone who intentionally kills a living human being arrested for murder. Change my mind.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath. Wiki.
By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.

---

I have seen a lot of really stupid arguments, but none more so than that one.

---

Both are Doctors of Medical Ethics in prestigious schools. You really have no idea what they are reasoning. You didn't read it and/or did not understand it.
It speaks to the result of a moral decision.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath. Wiki.
By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.

---

I have seen a lot of really stupid arguments, but none more so than that one.

---

Both are Doctors of Medical Ethics in prestigious schools. You really have no idea what they are reasoning. You didn't read it and/or did not understand it.
It speaks to the result of a moral decision.

---

DUDE. Shut the **** up.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath. Wiki.
By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.

---

If what you say is true, that the rightness or wrongness of an action should be based on its consequences rather than a prescribed set rules or laws, then judging by the utter wrongness of all your posts, I deem your posting here on this forum to be a highly immoral act.

---

I deem your support of no abortions a highly immoral act. You are encouraging men and women to have sex alll the time so as to create life. Failure to create humans is immoral on your part as a vasectomy, contraception, decision not to have children, are moral acts that deny God's claim to "to be fruitful and multiply." You want it both ways: no abortions but to also have sex without getting a woman pregnant. That's clearly against God's command. Genesis 1

You can't make this stuff up.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath. Wiki.
By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.

---

If what you say is true, that the rightness or wrongness of an action should be based on its consequences rather than a prescribed set rules or laws, then judging by the utter wrongness of all your posts, I deem your posting here on this forum to be a highly immoral act.

---

I deem your support of no abortions a highly immoral act. You are encouraging men and women to have sex alll the time so as to create life. Failure to create humans is immoral on your part as a vasectomy, contraception, decision not to have children, are moral acts that deny God's claim to "to be fruitful and multiply." You want it both ways: no abortions but to also have sex without getting a woman pregnant. That's clearly against God's command. Genesis 1

---

If you take god out of the equation...you're still an immoral POS who sacrifices babies to further your clown world political agenda.

Dehumanization works. Look how well the Nazis wielded it. Look at how well a fake ass preacher yields it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

How does contraception incrase the burden of rearing a child?

---

I think he said by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

Beat me to it.

---

Contraception, properly applied, solves 99.9% of the problem.

---

Only in the sense that you might "solve" the problem of unfair wages by never paying anyone. The problem cited by Booray was not the fact of pregnancy and child-rearing but the disproportionate burden placed on women.

---

All I'm saying is the practice of contraception would eliminate the vast majority of these unfortunate situations.

---

That was the theory. The actual results have been decidedly opposite.

---

Education and availability of contraception, plus requiring fathers to bear their share of the responsibility for rearing children would improve the current situation. Sterilization incentives might be another option for addressing some of the most egregious abuses of multiple preganancies while on government assistance.

---

"Education and availability" is wishful thinking. The reality is that contraception is available to anyone who wants it, and with the increase in availability has come a steady increase in single-parent families. There's no getting around the incentives created by the technology.

---

On the contrary, education in perfect use of contraception can further lower the rate of contraception failure. It's ludicrous to think that lack of education or availability will have any effect other than increase in pregnancies. Education about which method and proper use the method can be very effective in reducing the failure rate. Contraception is much better alternative to abortion. To think otherwise encourages abortion.

Who would u rather have lead your church, waco1947 or father Guido sarducci?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of abortions are performed on women who were using contraception when they became pregnant. Pro-choicers will never agree to criminal charges in these circumstances, let alone severe ones.

---

The conclusions from the study support the use of contraception. Contraception failure to prevent pregnancy has a lot to do with proper use. Eductation can improve effective use. The study you cite says ". Between 2000 and 2014, the overall number of abortions in the United States declined significantly, and available evidence suggests that improvements in contraceptive use contributed to the abortion decline."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

---

If you couple free contraception with other social programs designed to protect women after the birth (paid maternity leave/means tested subsidized daycare) I think I could be convinced that outside of rape/incest/serious risk cases, abortion should be outlawed.

---

1. Sam doesn't think any form of contraception should ever be legal. He considers women who use contraception that's not Natural Family Planning (where the woman gets to test her vaginal mucus every day and the burden is largely on her and she gets to tell hubs "not tonight, honey, I'm fertile" if the couple isn't ready for another child) are "shunning childbirth." Unfettered reproduction or, as one acceptable alternative, celibacy, or, as the only other acceptable alternative, understanding that every time you have sex, a pregnancy may result, are the only legitimate options, in the view of Catholic fundies. How many women want to live like that? How many men?

2. The men on this site have such contempt for women, particularly those who are single and working, they don't support spending any money, regardless of its source, on funding paid maternity leave and subsidizing day care. Some of these guys think women should be home-schooling the kids and are hoping, like Rick Santorum, to convert the school system into vouchers so they can subsidize the Dugger lifestyle. it's a strategy akin to what the FLDS Mormons call "bleeding the beast" and how they got the government to help pay for religious indoctrination by the likes of Warren Jeffs in the form of "school" in FLDS compounds where 13- and 14-year-old girls were "married" to Jeffs and raped (on tape, which is why Jeffs is now leading the FLDS faithful from the federal pen).

---

Wrong, for the hundredth time.

---

My apologies. I did something to you that I hate for people, especially on this site, to do for me: stated your opinion for you.

Let me be clear that (1) above is my understanding of your views on abortion and contraception based on years of sparring. You once said the way you would reduce/stop contraception is to eliminate access. This thread has focused on increasing access to contraception at the same time access to abortion is eliminated. Do you support that? And if not, why?

I think I'm right about (2) above. Lots of sexist posts on this site, all the time. I wouldn't want to be a younger woman posting here. Some posters have stated that they don't believe women should have leading roles in churches or anywhere else; some have accepted the "umbrella" model where God is at the top, with the husband/father underneath him, with the mother and children under the umbrella of his protection and guidance, that I was taught in Campus Crusade for Christ in the 1970s, as God's model.. You and Canada have both stated that women shouldn't be priests. I think there's ample evidence that this model sets the stage for domestic abuse of women and children and for the kind of abuse that has undermined the Catholic Church's control over government in Ireland. It's out of balance and unhealthy.

At the same time, there's all sort of sexual innuendo aimed at women posted on this site all the time. Fewer posters now joke about "doing the nasty," but that used to be a topic of conversation all the time. Sometimes this site felt like a locker room. One poster said AOC would be "fun in the sack." That's a gross way of undermining her legitimacy as anything other other than someone to f--k. And women who do the nasty are roundly condemned because there's still the attitude that "men can't help themselves" (when the fact is, men often don't bear any consequences of illicit sex) and women are thus solely responsible for controlling sex. Laws that require even rape victims to bear the children of their rapists imply that the woman was / is either complicit or responsible for her own assault, whether or not that's what's intended. And there's enough canard out there like Todd Akins' "legitimate rape" with the idea that a woman's body can "shut things down" if assaulted that at least some men appear to think women have a supernatural form of control over ovulation and implantation.

As further support for TS argument, the teen pregnancy in the US declined 64% between 1990-2015. We are on the right track independent of abortion laws.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Education and availability of contraception, plus requiring fathers to bear their share of the responsibility for rearing children would improve the current situation. Sterilization incentives might be another option for addressing some of the most egregious abuses of multiple preganancies while on government assistance.

---

"Education and availability" is wishful thinking. The reality is that contraception is available to anyone who wants it, and with the increase in availability has come a steady increase in single-parent families. There's no getting around the incentives created by the technology.

---

Education can move beyond wishful thinking by eliminating "abstinence only" programs and remove their high failure rate.

---

You're a little behind the curve on that one. The new argument against funding "abstinence only" is that, okay, it is effective, but only when it's a Democratic idea.

---

12 year old kids who self report sex? Ok.

now about those Texas teen pregnancy rates.

Edmond Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Viability begins at conception.

---

Life begins at conception. Viability is related to survivability without a mother's life giving support.

---

Agree that life begins a conception.

But part ways with 'mother's life giving support' because of the reality that every baby requires life giving support for years. I don't understand why life giving support inside the womb and outside of the womb would be considered different.

---

You're misreading me. It's not different.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

---

If you couple free contraception with other social programs designed to protect women after the birth (paid maternity leave/means tested subsidized daycare) I think I could be convinced that outside of rape/incest/serious risk cases, abortion should be outlawed.

---

1. Sam doesn't think any form of contraception should ever be legal. He considers women who use contraception that's not Natural Family Planning (where the woman gets to test her vaginal mucus every day and the burden is largely on her and she gets to tell hubs "not tonight, honey, I'm fertile" if the couple isn't ready for another child) are "shunning childbirth." Unfettered reproduction, as one acceptable alternative, or celibacy, as the only other acceptable alternative, with the understanding that every time you have sex, a pregnancy may result and that you must always be "open to life," are the only legitimate options, in the view of Catholic fundies. How many women want to live like that? How many men?

2. The men on this site have such contempt for women, particularly those who are single and working, they don't support spending any money, regardless of its source, on funding paid maternity leave and subsidizing day care. Some of these guys think women should be home-schooling the kids and are hoping, like Rick Santorum, to convert the school system into vouchers so they can subsidize the Dugger lifestyle. it's a strategy akin to what the FLDS Mormons call "bleeding the beast" and how they got the government to help pay for religious indoctrination by the likes of Warren Jeffs in the form of "school" in FLDS compounds where 13- and 14-year-old girls were "married" to Jeffs and raped (on tape, which is why Jeffs is now leading the FLDS faithful from the federal pen).

---

I'll let you and Sam work out his exact position. Generally, however, I am keenly aware that conservatives would never allow the type of social programs that would lessen the burdens if pregnancy and childbirth to the extent necessary for abortion laws to be fair to women.

As an academic exercise, however, it's possible for me to see a world where abortion is unnecessary in all but rare instances.

The contraception example is a perfect discussion point. In the context of supporting abortion bans, we get support for free contraception. When President Obama actually tried to increase access to contraception, the reception on this board was not quite as warm.

Booray said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

---

If you couple free contraception with other social programs designed to protect women after the birth (paid maternity leave/means tested subsidized daycare) I think I could be convinced that outside of rape/incest/serious risk cases, abortion should be outlawed.

---

1. Sam doesn't think any form of contraception should ever be legal. He considers women who use contraception that's not Natural Family Planning (where the woman gets to test her vaginal mucus every day and the burden is largely on her and she gets to tell hubs "not tonight, honey, I'm fertile" if the couple isn't ready for another child) are "shunning childbirth." Unfettered reproduction, as one acceptable alternative, or celibacy, as the only other acceptable alternative, with the understanding that every time you have sex, a pregnancy may result and that you must always be "open to life," are the only legitimate options, in the view of Catholic fundies. How many women want to live like that? How many men?

2. The men on this site have such contempt for women, particularly those who are single and working, they don't support spending any money, regardless of its source, on funding paid maternity leave and subsidizing day care. Some of these guys think women should be home-schooling the kids and are hoping, like Rick Santorum, to convert the school system into vouchers so they can subsidize the Dugger lifestyle. it's a strategy akin to what the FLDS Mormons call "bleeding the beast" and how they got the government to help pay for religious indoctrination by the likes of Warren Jeffs in the form of "school" in FLDS compounds where 13- and 14-year-old girls were "married" to Jeffs and raped (on tape, which is why Jeffs is now leading the FLDS faithful from the federal pen).

---

I'll let you and Sam work out his exact position. Generally, however, I am keenly aware that conservatives would never allow the type of social programs that would lessen the burdens if pregnancy and childbirth to the extent necessary for abortion laws to be fair to women.

As an academic exercise, however, it's possible for me to see a world where abortion is unnecessary in all but rare instances.

The contraception example is a perfect discussion point. In the context of supporting abortion bans, we get support for free contraception. When President Obama actually tried to increase access to contraception, the reception on this board was not quite as warm.

---

Remember Rush Limbaugh's bellowing about how a Georgetown Law student protesting the campus health plan's failure to cover contraception, even to treat medical conditions such as endometriosis, wanted "us to pay for her to have sex." That was one of the nastiest public attacks I've ever witnessed.

While I agree that increasing access to reliable contraception free of charge and making sure lots of options are available (since not every option works well for individual women) would reduce the number of abortions, the response on this board--overwhelming in support of Limbaugh's sl-t-shaming a law student for advocating for medical benefits for medical reasons and pointing out that it should be none of Georgetown's business what medication are prescribed for whom and why--leads me to conclude that conservatives are unlikely ever to support increased access to contraception that's free or very low-cost.

And here's one reason. Many conservatives come from religious traditions that firmly believe a woman's place is in the home and her highest mission is bearing and raising children.

Contraception enables women who don't want to choose that path to avoid it altogether, and women who do want to choose it, but also want to pursue meaningful careers, to delay childbirth while they pursue an education and start their careers.

None of those choices are mandated for women, but contraception ensures they are available--as (while I've seen several women do it), having and raising children and earning an M.B.A. or law degree is really hard to do at the same time.

Men and women in some church traditions believe that eliminating contraception would also eliminate options for women they don't believe should be available. Some even believe the widespread availability of effective contraception undermines marriage and the family.

I don't share those beliefs. But they are widespread enough among conservatives that they will never support free, widespread access to contraception, even if they clearly understand that simply making contraception available doesn't force women to choose to use it.

Because they realize most women will; very few women, married or single, want to be subject to endless and unpredictable pregnancies throughout their childbearing years. And they think that's a bad outcome and want to force women to do what they view as the right thing--either stay celibate or be "open to life" every time they have sex- by limiting or eliminating their options--just as they seek to do now with abortion.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

---

If you couple free contraception with other social programs designed to protect women after the birth (paid maternity leave/means tested subsidized daycare) I think I could be convinced that outside of rape/incest/serious risk cases, abortion should be outlawed.

---

1. Sam doesn't think any form of contraception should ever be legal. He considers women who use contraception that's not Natural Family Planning (where the woman gets to test her vaginal mucus every day and the burden is largely on her and she gets to tell hubs "not tonight, honey, I'm fertile" if the couple isn't ready for another child) are "shunning childbirth." Unfettered reproduction, as one acceptable alternative, or celibacy, as the only other acceptable alternative, with the understanding that every time you have sex, a pregnancy may result and that you must always be "open to life," are the only legitimate options, in the view of Catholic fundies. How many women want to live like that? How many men?

2. The men on this site have such contempt for women, particularly those who are single and working, they don't support spending any money, regardless of its source, on funding paid maternity leave and subsidizing day care. Some of these guys think women should be home-schooling the kids and are hoping, like Rick Santorum, to convert the school system into vouchers so they can subsidize the Dugger lifestyle. it's a strategy akin to what the FLDS Mormons call "bleeding the beast" and how they got the government to help pay for religious indoctrination by the likes of Warren Jeffs in the form of "school" in FLDS compounds where 13- and 14-year-old girls were "married" to Jeffs and raped (on tape, which is why Jeffs is now leading the FLDS faithful from the federal pen).

---

Quote:

---

1. Sam doesn't think any form of contraception should ever be legal. He considers women who use contraception that's not Natural Family Planning (where the woman gets to test her vaginal mucus every day and the burden is largely on her and she gets to tell hubs "not tonight, honey, I'm fertile" if the couple isn't ready for another child) are "shunning childbirth." Unfettered reproduction, as one acceptable alternative, or celibacy, as the only other acceptable alternative, with the understanding that every time you have sex, a pregnancy may result and that you must always be "open to life," are the only legitimate options, in the view of Catholic fundies. How many women want to live like that? How many men?

---

Of course he doesn't, Catholicism needs unfettered reproduction to grow its membership in order to sustain the institution. This is part of how they grow their numbers around the world, especially in third world countries, where ignorance is easily capitalized upon. With a clergy (supposedly) committed to chastity, it's easy for them to advocate either abstenance, or noncontraceptive procreation to their parishioners, knowing that abstenance is not a likely choice. With Catholicism growth rate down in Europe and the U.S., they have to prey upon the less educated third world.

TS & Booray,

The issue is whether contraception places a disproportionate burden on women. Data on pregnancy rates, or in TS' case speculation on pregnancy rates in an ideal world, is unresponsive to that question.


Quash,

How would you measure the effect of abstinence education on teen sexual activity if not through self-reporting?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

---

If you couple free contraception with other social programs designed to protect women after the birth (paid maternity leave/means tested subsidized daycare) I think I could be convinced that outside of rape/incest/serious risk cases, abortion should be outlawed.

---

1. Sam doesn't think any form of contraception should ever be legal. He considers women who use contraception that's not Natural Family Planning (where the woman gets to test her vaginal mucus every day and the burden is largely on her and she gets to tell hubs "not tonight, honey, I'm fertile" if the couple isn't ready for another child) are "shunning childbirth." Unfettered reproduction or, as one acceptable alternative, celibacy, or, as the only other acceptable alternative, understanding that every time you have sex, a pregnancy may result, are the only legitimate options, in the view of Catholic fundies. How many women want to live like that? How many men?

2. The men on this site have such contempt for women, particularly those who are single and working, they don't support spending any money, regardless of its source, on funding paid maternity leave and subsidizing day care. Some of these guys think women should be home-schooling the kids and are hoping, like Rick Santorum, to convert the school system into vouchers so they can subsidize the Dugger lifestyle. it's a strategy akin to what the FLDS Mormons call "bleeding the beast" and how they got the government to help pay for religious indoctrination by the likes of Warren Jeffs in the form of "school" in FLDS compounds where 13- and 14-year-old girls were "married" to Jeffs and raped (on tape, which is why Jeffs is now leading the FLDS faithful from the federal pen).

---

Wrong, for the hundredth time.

---

My apologies. I did something to you that I hate for people, especially on this site, to do for me: stated your opinion for you.

Let me be clear that (1) above is my understanding of your views on abortion and contraception based on years of sparring. You once said the way you would reduce/stop contraception is to eliminate access. This thread has focused on increasing access to contraception at the same time access to abortion is eliminated. Do you support that? And if not, why?

I think I'm right about (2) above. Lots of sexist posts on this site, all the time. I wouldn't want to be a younger woman posting here. Some posters have stated that they don't believe women should have leading roles in churches or anywhere else; some have accepted the "umbrella" model where God is at the top, with the husband/father underneath him, with the mother and children under the umbrella of his protection and guidance, that I was taught in Campus Crusade for Christ in the 1970s, as God's model.. You and Canada have both stated that women shouldn't be priests. I think there's ample evidence that this model sets the stage for domestic abuse of women and children and for the kind of abuse that has undermined the Catholic Church's control over government in Ireland. It's out of balance and unhealthy.

At the same time, there's all sort of sexual innuendo aimed at women posted on this site all the time. Fewer posters now joke about "doing the nasty," but that used to be a topic of conversation all the time. Sometimes this site felt like a locker room. One poster said AOC would be "fun in the sack." That's a gross way of undermining her legitimacy as anything other other than someone to f--k. And women who do the nasty are roundly condemned because there's still the attitude that "men can't help themselves" (when the fact is, men often don't bear any consequences of illicit sex) and women are thus solely responsible for controlling sex. Laws that require even rape victims to bear the children of their rapists imply that the woman was / is either complicit or responsible for her own assault, whether or not that's what's intended. And there's enough canard out there like Todd Akins' "legitimate rape" with the idea that a woman's body can "shut things down" if assaulted that at least some men appear to think women have a supernatural form of control over ovulation and implantation.

---

I said I would eliminate access to contraceptives with the potential to destroy fertilized eggs. More research is needed to determine which ones are in that category. Lately I'm more of the opinion that the Pill should be eliminated regardless. I haven't and wouldn't go so far as to say that no form of contraception should ever be legal. I don't support increasing access for a couple of reasons. First, while abortion rates are at their lowest since Roe v. Wade, they are still relatively high and will likely remain so as long as the focus is on contraception. Humans are designed to reproduce, and no amount of technology or marketing will change that. Second, contraception has had devastating effects on marriage and the family completely apart from its relationship to abortion. This isn't just a "belief." It's an opinion supported by significant evidence in the social sciences.

It's been highly convenient for opponents of the male priesthood to assume the structure of the Church hierarchy somehow inevitably leads to abuse. In fact there's little if any evidence to support that. The John Jay report points to other factors, as does the prevalence of abuse in public schools and other institutions.

I have nothing but disdain for much of what men say and do to women, on this board and elsewhere. That's about all there is to say about that.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Has nothing to do with religion, TS stated correctly life begins at conception. I believe he is an atheist, if wrong I apologize to him, so that scientific fact has nothing to do with religion. The next argument then is viability.

Could a baby live outside the womb at an early stage of pregnancy, of course not, that isn't really the issue though. A 2 month old could not make a go of it either without continual 100% care. So that should not determine humanity.

Not sure why so many things are mis-attribute to religion.

Either a human being has a right to life or they don't. The fact that their journey of life is 4 weeks post conception or 100 years post birth, should have no bearing on that given right.

The killing of a human being in embryo form, is still killing a human being.

---

This is the heart of the moral issue. At what stage of pregnancy will society and culture determine the right to life begins? Like it or not, there is a strong argument for it to begin with conception, with possibly some exceptions. Here is an interesting article on the problem: https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/ I personally know of some that found themselves in this delima, pro-life, but elected for an abortion in their own personal situation.

The essential problem is government's power to compel behavior. We accept that government must exist to some degree, which leads to tolerance of taxation and standing law enforcement and a penal system.

The Alabama law, for example, is significant in large part due to the strong penalties for abortion doctors. If there were, for example, no jail time and only a financial penalty, some providers might consider simply operating outside the law. The prison time is what forces legal contest beyond the academic question.

There are a number of laws which may or may not be constitutional, which I despise as contrary to the spirit of our nation. The seat belt laws, for example - I always wear my seat belt and agree they save lives, but if someone is foolish enough not to wear their belt they only put themselves at risk, not the other drivers, and so the law is unjust and an overreach. Same for automatic withholding of taxes. I agree we should pay our taxes, but the idea that I lose money before I even see it is a gross overreach of government power, especially since I don't get a vote on taxes. Sales tax and income tax rates are never left to the voters to decide, and that is contemptible.

With regard to abortion, I believe the issue is contentious and complex, and because it directly affects the moral fabric of our nation and changes the lives of everyone affected by such a decision, it is certainly not the business of career politicians in Washington D.C. to decide, but by any moral standard should be voted on by the people in each state, or ideally, in each town. New York wants free access to abortions for anyone who wants one. I despise the thought, but as I am not a New Yorker that is not my place to tell them 'no'. Similarly, if Alabama wants to ban abortions that is not the affair of anyone outside Alabama to compel abortions to be allowed there. I understand that some will despise the action in Alabama, but each state has the power and moral right to decide its own course, because the US Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to say anything on abortions, and that is the wrong in Roe v Wade - the SCOTUS should have rejected the case because the closest relevant statement on the matter in the US Constitution is the 10th Amendment.

We will never find a perfect solution, but trusting unelected federal judges to know what is best for the sheep is something Soviet, not American, in spirit and practice.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

---

If you couple free contraception with other social programs designed to protect women after the birth (paid maternity leave/means tested subsidized daycare) I think I could be convinced that outside of rape/incest/serious risk cases, abortion should be outlawed.

---

1. Sam doesn't think any form of contraception should ever be legal. He considers women who use contraception that's not Natural Family Planning (where the woman gets to test her vaginal mucus every day and the burden is largely on her and she gets to tell hubs "not tonight, honey, I'm fertile" if the couple isn't ready for another child) are "shunning childbirth." Unfettered reproduction or, as one acceptable alternative, celibacy, or, as the only other acceptable alternative, understanding that every time you have sex, a pregnancy may result, are the only legitimate options, in the view of Catholic fundies. How many women want to live like that? How many men?

2. The men on this site have such contempt for women, particularly those who are single and working, they don't support spending any money, regardless of its source, on funding paid maternity leave and subsidizing day care. Some of these guys think women should be home-schooling the kids and are hoping, like Rick Santorum, to convert the school system into vouchers so they can subsidize the Dugger lifestyle. it's a strategy akin to what the FLDS Mormons call "bleeding the beast" and how they got the government to help pay for religious indoctrination by the likes of Warren Jeffs in the form of "school" in FLDS compounds where 13- and 14-year-old girls were "married" to Jeffs and raped (on tape, which is why Jeffs is now leading the FLDS faithful from the federal pen).

---

Wrong, for the hundredth time.

---

My apologies. I did something to you that I hate for people, especially on this site, to do for me: stated your opinion for you.

Let me be clear that (1) above is my understanding of your views on abortion and contraception based on years of sparring. You once said the way you would reduce/stop contraception is to eliminate access. This thread has focused on increasing access to contraception at the same time access to abortion is eliminated. Do you support that? And if not, why?

I think I'm right about (2) above. Lots of sexist posts on this site, all the time. I wouldn't want to be a younger woman posting here. Some posters have stated that they don't believe women should have leading roles in churches or anywhere else; some have accepted the "umbrella" model where God is at the top, with the husband/father underneath him, with the mother and children under the umbrella of his protection and guidance, that I was taught in Campus Crusade for Christ in the 1970s, as God's model.. You and Canada have both stated that women shouldn't be priests. I think there's ample evidence that this model sets the stage for domestic abuse of women and children and for the kind of abuse that has undermined the Catholic Church's control over government in Ireland. It's out of balance and unhealthy.

At the same time, there's all sort of sexual innuendo aimed at women posted on this site all the time. Fewer posters now joke about "doing the nasty," but that used to be a topic of conversation all the time. Sometimes this site felt like a locker room. One poster said AOC would be "fun in the sack." That's a gross way of undermining her legitimacy as anything other other than someone to f--k. And women who do the nasty are roundly condemned because there's still the attitude that "men can't help themselves" (when the fact is, men often don't bear any consequences of illicit sex) and women are thus solely responsible for controlling sex. Laws that require even rape victims to bear the children of their rapists imply that the woman was / is either complicit or responsible for her own assault, whether or not that's what's intended. And there's enough canard out there like Todd Akins' "legitimate rape" with the idea that a woman's body can "shut things down" if assaulted that at least some men appear to think women have a supernatural form of control over ovulation and implantation.

---

I said I would eliminate access to contraceptives with the potential to destroy fertilized eggs. More research is needed to determine which ones are in that category. Lately I'm more of the opinion that the Pill should be eliminated regardless. I haven't and wouldn't go so far as to say that no form of contraception should ever be legal. I don't support increasing access for a couple of reasons. First, while abortion rates are at their lowest since Roe v. Wade, they are still relatively high and will likely remain so as long as the focus is on contraception. Humans are designed to reproduce, and no amount of technology or marketing will change that. Second, contraception has had devastating effects on marriage and the family completely apart from its relationship to abortion. This isn't just a "belief." It's an opinion supported by significant evidence in the social sciences.

It's been highly convenient for opponents of the male priesthood to assume the structure of the Church hierarchy somehow inevitably leads to abuse. In fact there's little if any evidence to support that. The John Jay report points to other factors, as does the prevalence of abuse in public schools and other institutions.

I have nothing but disdain for much of what men say and do to women, on this board and elsewhere. That's about all there is to say about that.

---

What "devastating effects" has contraception had on marriage and the family?

One effect is that women (and men) can wait until later to marry but still be sexually active. Most religions view sex outside of marriage as immoral, but that has never stopped it from happening. And not being forced to marry young for no other reason than the desire to have sex is a positive for people who aren't religious.

Another is that women are less likely to be trapped in abusive marriages for economic reasons. Men who married young because they wanted sex and then ended up with several children to support within a few short years created situations in which men became wife and child abusers and women were trapped because they had no skills and no means to support themselves and their children.

Another is that children in smaller families get more parental attention, and parents have more to invest in them. There's a relatively small privileged class of people who can bribe their kids' way into the Ivy League for whom this is a negative--I'd put the Trump juniors in that class. But it's a net positive for kids in middle class or low-income homes who have a better chance at success.

As for your "disdain," you support Donald Trump, a serial adulterer with a long history of calling women crude and mean names, referring to menstrual cycles in crude terms to describe the behavior of, for example, Megyn Kelly, serial adultery, payoffs to porn stars. Not to mention his abusive behavior toward families and children--which is viewed as OK because they're foreign nationals seeking asylum from gang violence and failed states. Supporting policies that benefit only white American families is a form of racism and the height of hypocrisy. Do you think God discriminates among families that are brown, black and white in HIs support? How would he view a policy of literally kidnapping kids at the border and losing them in the foster-care system? A certain parable about a lost sheep comes to mind.

I don't see you calling out his behavior or the behavior of other men on this site for which you express disdain. What you tolerate with no objection or ignore because that's the most convenient stance, you support. In that, the GOP has totally lost any credibility as the party of moral superiority.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TS & Booray,

The issue is whether contraception places a disproportionate burden on women. Data on pregnancy rates, or in TS' case speculation on pregnancy rates in an ideal world, is unresponsive to that question.


Quash,

How would you measure the effect of abstinence education on teen sexual activity if not through self-reporting?

---

One way is teen pregnancy rates. As to self reporting in one study 45 young women in an abstinence only program reported not having intercourse. Pregnant, but reported no sexual intercourse. This bunch was also twice as likely to have signed a purity pledge.

Dear Alabama GOP,
Women: "Can I have birth control?"
Republicans: "No."
Women: "I couldn't get birth control so I got pregnant. Can I have an abortion?"
Republicans: "No."
Women: Can I have prenatal and post natal healthcare that I can afford?
Republicans: No
Women: Can I have affordable labor and birth care?
Republicans: No
Women: "I had the baby, but I'm out of work. Can I have WIC and food stamps until I get back on my feet?"
Republicans: "No."
Women: I found a job but it doesn't pay a livable wage. Can I have a $15 minimum wage.
Republicans: No
Women: "I found a job, but it doesn't offer me insurance. Can I have government guaranteed insurance?"
Republicans: "No."
Women: "My kid got sick and I got fired because I missed time caring for him. Can I get unemployment?"
Republicans: "No."
Women: "I'm having a hard time getting my kid from school consistently. Can we fund after-school programs?"
Republicans: "No."

Waco1947 said:

---

Dear Alabama GOP,
Women: "Can I have birth control?"
Republicans: "No."
Women: "I couldn't get birth control so I got pregnant. Can I have an abortion?"
Republicans: "No."
Women: Can I have prenatal and post natal healthcare that I can afford?
Republicans: No
Women: Can I have affordable labor and birth care?
Republicans: No
Women: "I had the baby, but I'm out of work. Can I have WIC and food stamps until I get back on my feet?"
Republicans: "No."
Women: I found a job but it doesn't pay a livable wage. Can I have a $15 minimum wage.
Republicans: No
Women: "I found a job, but it doesn't offer me insurance. Can I have government guaranteed insurance?"
Republicans: "No."
Women: "My kid got sick and I got fired because I missed time caring for him. Can I get unemployment?"
Republicans: "No."
Women: "I'm having a hard time getting my kid from school consistently. Can we fund after-school programs?"
Republicans: "No."

---

Quit double posting.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath. Wiki.
By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.

---

If what you say is true, that the rightness or wrongness of an action should be based on its consequences rather than a prescribed set rules or laws, then judging by the utter wrongness of all your posts, I deem your posting here on this forum to be a highly immoral act.

---

I deem your support of no abortions a highly immoral act. You are encouraging men and women to have sex alll the time so as to create life. Failure to create humans is immoral on your part as a vasectomy, contraception, decision not to have children, are moral acts that deny God's claim to "to be fruitful and multiply." You want it both ways: no abortions but to also have sex without getting a woman pregnant. That's clearly against God's command. Genesis 1

---

If you view "be fruitful and multiply" as God's command to each of us individually, rather than the correct view that it was for mankind in general, then you are saying that Jesus, who did not marry and have children, disobeyed God. Are you saying Jesus sinned, and therefore wasn't a perfect sacrifice for sin?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath. Wiki.
By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.

---

If what you say is true, that the rightness or wrongness of an action should be based on its consequences rather than a prescribed set rules or laws, then judging by the utter wrongness of all your posts, I deem your posting here on this forum to be a highly immoral act.

---

I deem your support of no abortions a highly immoral act. You are encouraging men and women to have sex alll the time so as to create life. Failure to create humans is immoral on your part as a vasectomy, contraception, decision not to have children, are moral acts that deny God's claim to "to be fruitful and multiply." You want it both ways: no abortions but to also have sex without getting a woman pregnant. That's clearly against God's command. Genesis 1

---

If you view "be fruitful and multiply" as God's command to each of us individually, rather than the correct view that it was for mankind in general, then you are saying that Jesus, who did not marry and have children, disobeyed God. Are you saying Jesus sinned, and therefore wasn't a perfect sacrifice for sin?

---

Sin is not a thing.

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath. Wiki.
By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.

---

If what you say is true, that the rightness or wrongness of an action should be based on its consequences rather than a prescribed set rules or laws, then judging by the utter wrongness of all your posts, I deem your posting here on this forum to be a highly immoral act.

---

I deem your support of no abortions a highly immoral act. You are encouraging men and women to have sex alll the time so as to create life. Failure to create humans is immoral on your part as a vasectomy, contraception, decision not to have children, are moral acts that deny God's claim to "to be fruitful and multiply." You want it both ways: no abortions but to also have sex without getting a woman pregnant. That's clearly against God's command. Genesis 1

---

If you view "be fruitful and multiply" as God's command to each of us individually, rather than the correct view that it was for mankind in general, then you are saying that Jesus, who did not marry and have children, disobeyed God. Are you saying Jesus sinned, and therefore wasn't a perfect sacrifice for sin?

---

Sin is not a thing.

---

Worse than cancer is sin.