For the logic impaired...

[fr0d0]

Yes, extermination is the answer. I can see that clearly now. Thanks for the clarification.

Well what is the answere!? To completly criminalise abortion and to thereby force single mums and other women who are incapable of affording a child into misery and thereby also their child?

It seems hypocritical to me to insist on the rights of an unborn 3 month old fetus and to completly accept that this child might have to spend the rest of it`s life in poverty.


But out of interest, let me ask:

Do you support state funded mesures which care for children and make parenting easier?

Do you support contraception?

Do you support sex education?

Firstly, this is not an emotive subject for me. You may see my early postings on this forum stating the opposite view. What I relate is something that became apparent to me. I have no investment in one side of the argument or the other.

1. The answer is that it's a question of ethics. From conception we have life that is a person. To treat it as any less is misleading yourself.

Now there are justified reasons to terminate this life, but let's not sugar coat it and pretend it's something other than a person at any stage of development.

2. You value riches over life. I don't. How can you choose someone's death based upon such an unknowable? Ah look it looks like Germans is going to experience hardship.. let's kill him now.

3. I support state assistance services, yes. I have no objection to contraception. I support sex education.

---

Contraception and abortion grant the ability to sidestep that dilemma

With contraception no unique individual has its life terminated. With abortion you have to make that call.

No dilemma/ dilemma

[Mystical]

I don't know about Germany, but here in the US it's sort of assumed that if you want to adopt the adoptive family will pay hospital expenses and give you at least $10k cash. Apparently babies are worth more to society than the free orphans sitting in the legal system.

According to the data from the National Surveys of Family Growth from 1973, 1982, 1988, and 1995, that there were 9.9 million women who had ever considered adoption, 16% had taken steps towards adoption, and 31% of these had actually adopted a child. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1999)

[jstrodel]

Yes, extermination is the answer. I can see that clearly now. Thanks for the clarification.

Well what is the answere!? To completly criminalise abortion and to thereby force single mums and other women who are incapable of affording a child into misery and thereby also their child?

It seems hypocritical to me to insist on the rights of an unborn 3 month old fetus and to completly accept that this child might have to spend the rest of it`s life in poverty.


But out of interest, let me ask:

Do you support state funded mesures which care for children and make parenting easier?

Do you support contraception?

Do you support sex education?

Why can't they adopt?

I support state funded measures to care for children.

I support contraception, but I don't think it is really effective. 99% effectiveness rate is not effective enough, if you have sex 100 times, it is very likely that you will have a child.

I support sex education, but as a Christian, I believe that the sexual act has some sort of meaning outside of self gratification.

[Joel]

I support sex education, but as a Christian, I believe that the sexual act has some sort of meaning outside of self gratification.

I believe this, too.

[Kayenneh]

I believe that the sexual act has some sort of meaning outside of self gratification.

Oh, absolutely. Sex the best way is when bringing pleasure to your partner.

[Mystical]

I support state funded measures to care for children.

So if a girl whose insurance won't pay for the pill or an IUD and she gets pregnant: you're fine with paying food, housing, childcare, medical for her and her unwanted in the first place baby? That's kind.

I support contraception, but I don't think it is really effective. 99% effectiveness rate is not effective enough, if you have sex 100 times, it is very likely that you will have a child.

Are you saying you support limiting the amount of sex people can have?

Let me tell you a story. My sister needed effective birth control for her and her fiancee. She had been given an IUD after she had a baby. When it ran out, her insurance (Catholic) through her hospital job said they wouldn't pay for anything at all. She went to her doctor who said the total would be appx 1200$. So she had to go to the health clinic to get a new one, and gladly paid the 200$. Come to find out that those very health clinics are being shut down in our city.

The hormonal IUD is considered to be a long-acting reversible contraceptive, among the most effective forms of birth control. The first year failure rate for the hormonal IUD is .2% and the five year failure rate is .7%.[2] These rates are comparable to tubal sterilization, but the effects of the hormonal IUD are reversible.

She's guaranteed not to have a kid, everyone's happy. Every girl I know has one, and they're not getting pregnant, no matter how much sex they have. Know why? Because every day the progesterone is released into their bodies.

Of course, things like having it fall out without realizing it are RARE and I've never heard of it, but that shit happens and sometimes girls get pregnant I guess.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THIS CONTRACEPTIVE IS INEFFECTIVE.

I support sex education, but as a Christian, I believe that the sexual act has some sort of meaning outside of self gratification.

Sex is beautiful when it's between you and someone you love. Sex is also self gratifying, and means just that. Not everyone is going to believe in your values on the subject, so why legislate and advocate your views as the only path to take? At the very least come up with a solution that opposing viewpoints can actually work with.

[festive1]

I just have to say I had a Mirena (two actually, one after each of my births). I think it may have led to problems with my post-partum depression. In the US federally mandated literature, it is nowhere stated that depression, psychosis, etc. is a side effect of hormonal IUDs, but it IS included in the literature mandated in Canada.

I'm all for IUDs. I just urge women to look at the Paragard vs. Mirena. Paragard has no hormones and its main side effect is a heavier period.

[Mystical]

Agreed. It's just my sister is allergic to metal so it's her only option.
Personally, That shit looked painful to have put in. And I can totally understand why someone wouldn't want to go paying out
the you know what to have it done.
On the other hand, it's a fool proof way to keep from getting pregnant. And there's lotsa fools out there.
So I advocate for better access to IUD's, and less painful insertion procedures to prevent people from deferring from using them.
Like, oh I dont know, pain meds FGS?

Or better yet, design an IUD for men! Yeah.

Or have a man and a woman taking the oral Pill. Covered on both bases

[festive1]

There are people working on that!!
http://biotechbinge.com/biotechnology/20...effective/
One shot, and no sperm! Hooray for biotechnology... Well maybe not all of it, but definately this! Drawback, I've heard it's a shot to the balls
As for IUD insertion, it's not as bad as having a baby. I'd rate it a 6 on a scale to 10 in terms of pain. Though I had unmedicated child births and thought it manageable.

[Joel]

A shot to the balls!? No way.
Not now, not ever.