major bean wrote: You are not opposed to abortion. You are an advocate for less abortion.
Less abortion is still abortion.
I am an advocate for less abortion while abortion remains legal and an advocate for abortion no longer being legally available on demand. Does that make my viewpoint clear enough?
You just repeated what I said. Spin is a bitch, ain't it?
major bean wrote: As a matter fact, the problems have increased.
Source?
This is only the first place I stopped to look at a link:
Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing Starting in the mid-1960's the out-of-wedlock birth rate began a rapid and relentless climb. This increase continued without pause for three decades. (See Chart 3.) Then, in 1993 and 1994, former President Clinton gave a series of speeches on social harm of illegitimacy; he was the first president to address this topic in nearly three decades.[1] He also proposed that Welfare use be limited to two years.[2] Then, in 1994, Republicans gained control of both chambers of the U.S. Congress for the first time in over fifty years. With this political shift came a dramatic change in the rhetoric concerning welfare. It became clear that future Welfare would indeed be time limited and would place a far heavier emphasis on self-reliance. Further, both parties now publicly asserted that illegitimacy was harmful to children and society; the new Speaker of the House of Representatives suggested that children born out-of-wedlock might be placed in orphanages
By the way, the 60s is whenever sex education in the public schools started. Its purpose was to diminish the illegitimate birthrate. The liberal thinking at the time was that girls did not know what caused pregnancy and education would stop the problem. Ha Ha Ha Ha! Even as a teenager back then, I thought that this was stupid and funny.
Hold on - this is a bait and switch. You were claiming that education actually increased the number of teens having unprotected sex, and then you cite an article claiming the rise is due to welfare.
towermonkey wrote: If there are 1.3 million abortions a year and you reduce that number by half, you've saved 650,000 lives.
Exactly, which is why I'm often suspicious as to whether saving the lives of the unborn is actually the agenda of those who ridicule people who are trying to not only cut down on the number of abortions through legal measures, but through less coercive ones that acknowledge the reality that, at least for now, abortion is legal and easily available.
major bean wrote: You are not opposed to abortion. You are an advocate for less abortion.
Less abortion is still abortion.
I am an advocate for less abortion while abortion remains legal and an advocate for abortion no longer being legally available on demand. Does that make my viewpoint clear enough?
You just repeated what I said. Spin is a bitch, ain't it?
major bean wrote: You are not opposed to abortion. You are an advocate for less abortion.
Less abortion is still abortion.
I am an advocate for less abortion while abortion remains legal and an advocate for abortion no longer being legally available on demand. Does that make my viewpoint clear enough?
It makes you realistic. That's the trouble with this debate. The argument is always carried out on the extremes and it is always all or nothing. If there are 1.3 million abortions a year and you reduce that number by half, you've saved 650,000 lives.
I am sure that those 650,000 who were murdered will take comfort in that number.
Murder is murder. Murder is death. Death is extreme. Murder is extreme.
Compromise allows extremes of murder and death.
Compormise = death and murder. Go figure.
major bean wrote: As a matter fact, the problems have increased.
Source?
This is only the first place I stopped to look at a link:
Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing Starting in the mid-1960's the out-of-wedlock birth rate began a rapid and relentless climb. This increase continued without pause for three decades. (See Chart 3.) Then, in 1993 and 1994, former President Clinton gave a series of speeches on social harm of illegitimacy; he was the first president to address this topic in nearly three decades.[1] He also proposed that Welfare use be limited to two years.[2] Then, in 1994, Republicans gained control of both chambers of the U.S. Congress for the first time in over fifty years. With this political shift came a dramatic change in the rhetoric concerning welfare. It became clear that future Welfare would indeed be time limited and would place a far heavier emphasis on self-reliance. Further, both parties now publicly asserted that illegitimacy was harmful to children and society; the new Speaker of the House of Representatives suggested that children born out-of-wedlock might be placed in orphanages
By the way, the 60s is whenever sex education in the public schools started. Its purpose was to diminish the illegitimate birthrate. The liberal thinking at the time was that girls did not know what caused pregnancy and education would stop the problem. Ha Ha Ha Ha! Even as a teenager back then, I thought that this was stupid and funny.
Hold on - this is a bait and switch. You were claiming that education actually increased the number of teens having unprotected sex, and then you cite an article claiming the rise is due to welfare.
I documented that the trend started in the 60s and is increasing. That is what you wanted for me to document. So I did. You assertion that welfare causes out of wedlock births is quite a leap and distortion of the article posted. Nice try though.
major bean wrote: I am sure that those 650,000 who were murdered will take comfort in that number.
Murder is murder. Murder is death. Death is extreme. Murder is extreme.
Compromise allows extremes of murder and death.
Compormise = death and murder. Go figure.
Are you're saying it doesn't matter if there is one abortion or 20,000,000? Or that if abortions numbers can be cut in half, it doesn't "count" so long as there are still some happening? If so -that's nuts.
Emotionally charged films like "The Silent Scream" fall into the category of "indoctrination" in my opinion,.
Yet again truth and fact being dismissed by a lib. What's left of you so called open-minded folk pay close attention. Anytime the truth or fact doesn't jive with the warped world view of a lib, guaranteed it will evoke any of the following:
You're a bigot
You're a racist
You're a homophobe
You're a kid, I'm an adult (AV and PS standard fallback. Pg 5 of the liberal playbook)
That is indoctrination (but preaching gay sex in schools isn't, by the way)
You're anti women
You hate women
You hate people
You're a corporate stooge
Jesus was a liberal (and?) ever notice that atheists are experts on what doesn't exist?
And the number one excuse preamble "I'm conservative/Republican BUT.........................yadda yadda yadda rofllol
How about "you're an idiot"? Because you are. AS PRACTICALLY EVERYONE BUT YOU HAS FIGURED OUT, I OPPOSE ABORTION.
And when I said this was going above your head, I was dead serious. You clearly are unable to understand any other viewpoint than your own cardboard-character ideas of life.
You also came in at a total FAIL at "getting" that I didn't think you were literally nine years old, but that your arguments and viewpoints would be what I would expect from someone with a mental age of about nine. You do the math, if you can, as to where I think that puts your IQ. Or at least your behavior. And from what I've seen of that here and elsewhere on this forum, I doubt I'd get many arguing with that assessment.
I'm serious, butt out of this discussion! You're adding nothing to it. Anyone fool enough to argue with someone who essentially agrees with them on an issue as important as abortion should keep his stupid trap shut and let others who can discuss the issue without acting like a badly brought-up child to do so. Do you think you have any chance at all of swaying the opinions of those on the fence on this issue when you attack with juvenile vitriol someone who is actually ON THE SAME SIDE AS YOU, who only differs in the means to achieve the goal?
1. See label #4 above. Predictable as the sun rising in the east.
towermonkey wrote: Hold on - this is a bait and switch. You were claiming that education actually increased the number of teens having unprotected sex, and then you cite an article claiming the rise is due to welfare.
I documented that the trend started in the 60s and is increasing. That is what you wanted for me to document. So I did. You assertion that welfare causes out of wedlock births is quite a leap and distortion of the article posted. Nice try though.[/quote]
You obviously didn't read even the title of what you posted. It is also interesting that you are now telling me what I wanted you to document. Have you ever heard of the great fallacy post hoc ergo proctor hoc? Google it.
