Abortion = destroying life
Birth control = preventing life

No, they are not the same thing. Birth control is a moral negative, but abortion is morally much worse. I am for criminal penalties for abortion. I am pro-choice with birth control. I am personally against it (hormonal birth control), but if the woman wants to take it, that is her cross to bear and her long term side effects to deal with, not mine. Condoms are physically harmless and I would advise her to use them if she is going choose to prevent life.

(10-12-2017 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 12:24 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Idiotic post.

It's called sarcasm dumb***.

I don't believe that for a minute.

Quote:Proverbs 26:18-19

18 Like a maniac shooting
flaming arrows of death
19 is one who deceives their neighbor
and says, “I was only joking!”

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Depends on who got kilt.

(10-12-2017 01:24 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 12:06 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Abortion is legal killing of babies.

Depending upon the various categories that make up the gun death stats I would assume those that are not justified actually represent the illegal killing of people.


I answered your question. Please answer mine.

Quote:That depends. When you say "birth control" are you specifically thinking of medicine?

If so, are you talking specifically about contraceptives or do you include abortifacients as well?

But you are aware that abortion is primarily used as a method of birth control

I already answered these questions above by once again telling you my position on abortions. And as I said, I'm not going to answer all these moronic hypothetical questions.

I said birth control and I meant birth control. If I meant abortions I would have said so.

The intent of my question was to ask you to clarify what you mean by "birth control."

Do you mean any practices which prevents a child from being born?

You said:

Quote:Birth Control <> Abortion

Abortion is a subset of birth control. Agree?

No. I think that's a line played by anti-abortion activists to paint all mothers who have legal abortions a uncaring killers when they don't know these women or their individual circumstances.

Birth control is birth control: Condoms, Pills, IUD's, Diaphragms, etc.

(10-12-2017 01:36 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 12:24 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Idiotic post.

It's called sarcasm dumb***.

I don't believe that for a minute.

Most likely because you refuse to listen to what my position on gun bans and the second amendment actually is because it doesn't fit your meme of all liberals. Not my fault/problem.

(10-12-2017 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 01:24 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 12:06 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Abortion is legal killing of babies.

Depending upon the various categories that make up the gun death stats I would assume those that are not justified actually represent the illegal killing of people.


I answered your question. Please answer mine.

Quote:That depends. When you say "birth control" are you specifically thinking of medicine?

If so, are you talking specifically about contraceptives or do you include abortifacients as well?

But you are aware that abortion is primarily used as a method of birth control

I already answered these questions above by once again telling you my position on abortions. And as I said, I'm not going to answer all these moronic hypothetical questions.

I said birth control and I meant birth control. If I meant abortions I would have said so.

The intent of my question was to ask you to clarify what you mean by "birth control."

Do you mean any practices which prevents a child from being born?

You said:

Quote:Birth Control <> Abortion

Abortion is a subset of birth control. Agree?

No. I think that's a line played by anti-abortion activists to paint all mothers who have legal abortions a uncaring killers when they don't know these women or their individual circumstances.

Birth control is birth control: Condoms, Pills, IUD's, Diaphragms, etc.

The CDC is responsible for categorizing the reasons for abortion.

Roughly 93% of all abortions are simply as a matter of convenience.

Of the 59,840,388 abortions in the US since Roe v Wade in 1973:
- 55,352,358 have been for convenience
- 2,393,615 have been to protect the mother's life


Sanger considered abortion as a method of birth control.

What does birth control do? It prevents the birth of a human life. Surely you can see that abortion qualifies.

(10-12-2017 04:44 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Sanger considered abortion as a method of birth control.

This is just simply not true. Stop spreading this lie.

Quote:In Sanger’s opinion, abortion was an evil practice that would become obsolete once birth control was practiced and understood by women and families throughout the world.

In 1932, Sanger wrote: “Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.” Although she strongly condemned the practice, she felt even more strongly that “it is a woman’s duty and right to have for herself the right to say when she shall and shall not have children.” Women’s right to control their reproduction took precedent over any moral or religious position.

Unlike many today, Sanger trusted women to make the best decision for themselves.

https://sangerpapers.wordpress.com/2012/...-abortion/

Is there an argument that the vast majority of the women who have an abortion are raped?

(10-13-2017 09:21 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Is there an argument that the vast majority of the women who have an abortion are raped?

I've never heard that at all. In fact, getting pregnant from rape (while it does happen) is not that high of a probability IIRC.

The body has a way of shutting all that pregnancy stuff from rape down.

Amirite!

(10-05-2017 05:03 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 05:01 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:28 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  The bill that has passed the House makes an exception for life endangerment of the mother.

Basically, we're joining the rest of the civilized world (including liberal Europe) and putting a restriction on how late in the pregnancy.

Of course, groups like Planned Parenthood (who insist late term abortions are rare) have no recourse except to claim some kind of slippery slope fallacy.

Most of those civilized countries don't allow their subjects to own guns either.

I don't the federal government has the right to do anything on this.

If the federal government has no say on life & death then why do we have laws against murder?

I didn't say we couldn't have laws on this. I said I don't think the federal government has the authority to do anything on this. I fail to see where this power is granted to them.

Roe Vs Wade. The very decision so many on your side of the debate can't imagine being overturned is the very act that gave the federal government this authority.

It specifically defined 'the state's interest' in protecting the lives of the unborn and established that date as 'viability'. At SOME point I suspect science will make it such that 'viability' will begin at conception and abortion under roe vs wade will be effectively illegal. Certainly 'viability' will continue to be moved earlier. That's what RvW did, and not the 'made abortion legal' that most of its supporters seem to believe

(10-13-2017 10:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 05:03 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 05:01 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:28 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  The bill that has passed the House makes an exception for life endangerment of the mother.

Basically, we're joining the rest of the civilized world (including liberal Europe) and putting a restriction on how late in the pregnancy.

Of course, groups like Planned Parenthood (who insist late term abortions are rare) have no recourse except to claim some kind of slippery slope fallacy.

Most of those civilized countries don't allow their subjects to own guns either.

I don't the federal government has the right to do anything on this.

If the federal government has no say on life & death then why do we have laws against murder?

I didn't say we couldn't have laws on this. I said I don't think the federal government has the authority to do anything on this. I fail to see where this power is granted to them.

Roe Vs Wade. The very decision so many on your side of the debate can't imagine being overturned is the very act that gave the federal government this authority.

It specifically defined 'the state's interest' in protecting the lives of the unborn and established that date as 'viability'. At SOME point I suspect science will make it such that 'viability' will begin at conception and abortion under roe vs wade will be effectively illegal. Certainly 'viability' will continue to be moved earlier. That's what RvW did, and not the 'made abortion legal' that most of its supporters seem to believe

science is already there to squash that 'concept'.....it's called "the day after pill"

science is already there to conceive 'in vitro' or clone (the latter just hasn't happened legally yet)

science may one day create, "poof, there it is".....that would be the easiest route......

however, I seriously doubt that happens for a millennia.......

therefore, what is important du jour????

lest not forget about the "Almighty".....

(10-13-2017 09:33 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The body has a way of shutting all that pregnancy stuff from rape down.

Amirite!

Here's the problem with this logic (and I agree this is an exception)... these instances - rape, incest, mother's health, etc represent a minuscule # of abortions. Most abortions occur as a method of birth control.

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default...711005.pdf

Look at page 4