(08-16-2013 11:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:43 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I could care less if people have children or not. It is none of my business. I do however demand that they be able to support them financially. This is why I favor voluntary contraceptive implantation as a requirement for public assistance.

Do I think low birth rates among caucasians will have an impact down the road? Yes. Am I terrified of this? No. Our culture has evolved since it's inception from a variety of nationalities, cultures and ethic backgrounds. It is what makes America great...(that old melting pot thing). I have faith that will continue regardless of how we look as a people. Us crackers have done plenty of crappy schit that has contributed to the decay of the country. We are not that damn special nor do we hold some special high ground.

What if someone is morally or religiously opposed to contraception? Would you let them starve? What if they say they are gay?

The point is to stop incentivizing poor choices and actually help people end the cycle of poverty. I am willing to actually spend additional money train these folks to be productive citizens. I see that as a good ROI. What we are doing now is not.

Starve?...No. I support private charity both financially and as a volunteer. Those that oppose implantation woulld have to turn there for help. Private charity is perfectly capable of handling these folks.


Gay, Straight, Female, Male...makes no difference to me. Everyone gets implanted if you take funds from the public. There should be consequences for one's poor choices. I don't think any one would disagree that continuing to field more children while in poverty is a poor choice. What is happening is that the system now makes it a good choice for them. More kids..more public theft. That needs to stop.

But sometimes (when it is actually used as a safety net), public assistance is not a cycle. If I lose my job, for instance, I don't think I should have to play God with my wife's body, potentially causing future fertility problems to get unemployment or any other kind of assistance and I can guarantee you I am not part of a poverty cycle and my kids are not a criminal risk. It be should temporary, however. We use natural family planning because of our personal beliefs and it has worked perfectly so far for us and everyone we know. I don't believe in government force chemical castration.

(08-16-2013 12:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 11:40 PM)jh Wrote:  Because you keep making demonstrably false statements and refusing to acknowledge that fact?
The fertility rate was not 1.6 in 2008, it was 68.6 (I mean, it's right there). The total fertility rate wasn't 1.6 either, it was 2.09. And there is no way to get from a total fertility rate of 2.09 to a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6 without making some incredibly implausible assumptions.
There is a different between the replacement rate (the 2.11 number), which is the total fertility rate needed to maintain a constant population without immigration, and the total fertility rate needed to maintain a culture with immigration (a much more difficult number to calculate). They are not the same thing, just as the birth rate, fertility rate, and total fertility rate are not the same thing either.

Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.
https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp...birth+rate
That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

Ill take your word on the research of the fertility numbers. I submit however that there is no threshold of cultural maintenance other than our avocation of what that culture should be. Our culture is ever evolving. Nothing we can do will stop that including having more or less children.

You don't understand Demographic Stability. You also don't seem to acknowledge that we are a nation with its own cultural identity.

(08-16-2013 01:13 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.
https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp...birth+rate
That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

Ill take your word on the research of the fertility numbers. I submit however that there is no threshold of cultural maintenance other than our avocation of what that culture should be. Our culture is ever evolving. Nothing we can do will stop that including having more or less children.

You don't understand Demographic Stability. You also don't seem to acknowledge that we are a nation with its own cultural identity.

That cultural identity is itself a mixture of different cultures.

(08-16-2013 01:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:39 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Us crackers have done plenty of crappy schit that has contributed to the decay of the country. We are not that damn special nor do we hold some special high ground.

QFT.

This is *not* about race...

Oh...so the "culture" being destroyed that is being discussed in this thread includes everyone? I stand corrected.

(08-16-2013 01:13 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.
https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp...birth+rate
That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

Ill take your word on the research of the fertility numbers. I submit however that there is no threshold of cultural maintenance other than our avocation of what that culture should be. Our culture is ever evolving. Nothing we can do will stop that including having more or less children.

You don't understand Demographic Stability. You also don't seem to acknowledge that we are a nation with its own cultural identity.

If you think having more children is going to keep that cultural identity magically frozen in time...then have at it. It has and always will evolve and there is nothing wrong with that. What is important is that we follow the document that is supposed to guide our experiment. BTW...We already do everything we can to ignore it and have so for a long time. THIS is why we are screwed...not because of birth rates.

(08-16-2013 01:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 11:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:43 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I could care less if people have children or not. It is none of my business. I do however demand that they be able to support them financially. This is why I favor voluntary contraceptive implantation as a requirement for public assistance.

Do I think low birth rates among caucasians will have an impact down the road? Yes. Am I terrified of this? No. Our culture has evolved since it's inception from a variety of nationalities, cultures and ethic backgrounds. It is what makes America great...(that old melting pot thing). I have faith that will continue regardless of how we look as a people. Us crackers have done plenty of crappy schit that has contributed to the decay of the country. We are not that damn special nor do we hold some special high ground.

What if someone is morally or religiously opposed to contraception? Would you let them starve? What if they say they are gay?

The point is to stop incentivizing poor choices and actually help people end the cycle of poverty. I am willing to actually spend additional money train these folks to be productive citizens. I see that as a good ROI. What we are doing now is not.

Starve?...No. I support private charity both financially and as a volunteer. Those that oppose implantation woulld have to turn there for help. Private charity is perfectly capable of handling these folks.


Gay, Straight, Female, Male...makes no difference to me. Everyone gets implanted if you take funds from the public. There should be consequences for one's poor choices. I don't think any one would disagree that continuing to field more children while in poverty is a poor choice. What is happening is that the system now makes it a good choice for them. More kids..more public theft. That needs to stop.

But sometimes (when it is actually used as a safety net), public assistance is not a cycle. If I lose my job, for instance, I don't think I should have to play God with my wife's body, potentially causing future fertility problems to get unemployment or any other kind of assistance and I can guarantee you I am not part of a poverty cycle and my kids are not a criminal risk. It be should temporary, however. We use natural family planning because of our personal beliefs and it has worked perfectly so far for us and everyone we know. I don't believe in government force chemical castration.

Do you believe in government forcing women to get an ultrasound before getting an abortion?

(08-16-2013 01:13 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.
https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp...birth+rate
That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

Ill take your word on the research of the fertility numbers. I submit however that there is no threshold of cultural maintenance other than our avocation of what that culture should be. Our culture is ever evolving. Nothing we can do will stop that including having more or less children.

You don't understand Demographic Stability. You also don't seem to acknowledge that we are a nation with its own cultural identity.

Could you please tell us what that cultural identity is? If by cultural identity you mean the cultures of many groups gathering together, then I would agree.

(08-16-2013 01:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:13 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

Ill take your word on the research of the fertility numbers. I submit however that there is no threshold of cultural maintenance other than our avocation of what that culture should be. Our culture is ever evolving. Nothing we can do will stop that including having more or less children.

You don't understand Demographic Stability. You also don't seem to acknowledge that we are a nation with its own cultural identity.

That cultural identity is itself a mixture of different cultures.

Exactly.

(08-16-2013 01:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:13 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

Ill take your word on the research of the fertility numbers. I submit however that there is no threshold of cultural maintenance other than our avocation of what that culture should be. Our culture is ever evolving. Nothing we can do will stop that including having more or less children.

You don't understand Demographic Stability. You also don't seem to acknowledge that we are a nation with its own cultural identity.

Could you please tell us what that cultural identity is? If by cultural identity you mean the cultures of many groups gathering together, then I would agree.

Go live in another country for a couple years. You'll find out pretty quickly.

(08-16-2013 01:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:13 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

Ill take your word on the research of the fertility numbers. I submit however that there is no threshold of cultural maintenance other than our avocation of what that culture should be. Our culture is ever evolving. Nothing we can do will stop that including having more or less children.

You don't understand Demographic Stability. You also don't seem to acknowledge that we are a nation with its own cultural identity.

If you think having more children is going to keep that cultural identity magically frozen in time...then have at it. It has and always will evolve and there is nothing wrong with that. What is important is that we follow the document that is supposed to guide our experiment. BTW...We already do everything we can to ignore it and have so for a long time. THIS is why we are screwed...not because of birth rates.

More children from native born citizens. Not foreign born. If you cannot see how that preserves our culture, I cannot help you.

(08-16-2013 01:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  More children from native born citizens. Not foreign born. If you cannot see how that preserves our culture, I cannot help you.

I bet there's some foreign blood in your woodpile, and you turned into a good, solid, red-blooded 'mercan.

(08-16-2013 01:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:13 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

Ill take your word on the research of the fertility numbers. I submit however that there is no threshold of cultural maintenance other than our avocation of what that culture should be. Our culture is ever evolving. Nothing we can do will stop that including having more or less children.

You don't understand Demographic Stability. You also don't seem to acknowledge that we are a nation with its own cultural identity.

That cultural identity is itself a mixture of different cultures.

This statement would be more valid in our case about 150 years ago. All cultures are a result of different cultures blending. But, we, like most established countries have our own identity and culture.

It's fascinating to watch the freak-out some people have when they hear the word "culture" used in a political context.

(08-16-2013 01:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  More children from native born citizens. Not foreign born. If you cannot see how that preserves our culture, I cannot help you.

I bet there's some foreign blood in your woodpile, and you turned into a good, solid, red-blooded 'mercan.

Yes and no. The first part I agree with. The second part, not so sure about.

(08-16-2013 01:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  More children from native born citizens. Not foreign born. If you cannot see how that preserves our culture, I cannot help you.

I bet there's some foreign blood in your woodpile, and you turned into a good, solid, red-blooded 'mercan.

There is foreign blood in every human who identifies with a nationality.

What's your point? That doesn't mean I think it is a good idea to flood the nation with people from Pakistan because we are too wrapped up in our careers to have kids. At what point do we start resembling Pakistan?

Get it?

(08-16-2013 01:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 11:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:43 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I could care less if people have children or not. It is none of my business. I do however demand that they be able to support them financially. This is why I favor voluntary contraceptive implantation as a requirement for public assistance.

Do I think low birth rates among caucasians will have an impact down the road? Yes. Am I terrified of this? No. Our culture has evolved since it's inception from a variety of nationalities, cultures and ethic backgrounds. It is what makes America great...(that old melting pot thing). I have faith that will continue regardless of how we look as a people. Us crackers have done plenty of crappy schit that has contributed to the decay of the country. We are not that damn special nor do we hold some special high ground.

What if someone is morally or religiously opposed to contraception? Would you let them starve? What if they say they are gay?

The point is to stop incentivizing poor choices and actually help people end the cycle of poverty. I am willing to actually spend additional money train these folks to be productive citizens. I see that as a good ROI. What we are doing now is not.

Starve?...No. I support private charity both financially and as a volunteer. Those that oppose implantation woulld have to turn there for help. Private charity is perfectly capable of handling these folks.


Gay, Straight, Female, Male...makes no difference to me. Everyone gets implanted if you take funds from the public. There should be consequences for one's poor choices. I don't think any one would disagree that continuing to field more children while in poverty is a poor choice. What is happening is that the system now makes it a good choice for them. More kids..more public theft. That needs to stop.

But sometimes (when it is actually used as a safety net), public assistance is not a cycle. If I lose my job, for instance, I don't think I should have to play God with my wife's body, potentially causing future fertility problems to get unemployment or any other kind of assistance and I can guarantee you I am not part of a poverty cycle and my kids are not a criminal risk. It be should temporary, however. We use natural family planning because of our personal beliefs and it has worked perfectly so far for us and everyone we know. I don't believe in government force chemical castration.

Do you believe in government forcing women to get an ultrasound before getting an abortion?

No, I don't believe abortions should be allowed at all.

(08-16-2013 02:01 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 11:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:43 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  What if someone is morally or religiously opposed to contraception? Would you let them starve? What if they say they are gay?

The point is to stop incentivizing poor choices and actually help people end the cycle of poverty. I am willing to actually spend additional money train these folks to be productive citizens. I see that as a good ROI. What we are doing now is not.

Starve?...No. I support private charity both financially and as a volunteer. Those that oppose implantation woulld have to turn there for help. Private charity is perfectly capable of handling these folks.


Gay, Straight, Female, Male...makes no difference to me. Everyone gets implanted if you take funds from the public. There should be consequences for one's poor choices. I don't think any one would disagree that continuing to field more children while in poverty is a poor choice. What is happening is that the system now makes it a good choice for them. More kids..more public theft. That needs to stop.

But sometimes (when it is actually used as a safety net), public assistance is not a cycle. If I lose my job, for instance, I don't think I should have to play God with my wife's body, potentially causing future fertility problems to get unemployment or any other kind of assistance and I can guarantee you I am not part of a poverty cycle and my kids are not a criminal risk. It be should temporary, however. We use natural family planning because of our personal beliefs and it has worked perfectly so far for us and everyone we know. I don't believe in government force chemical castration.

Do you believe in government forcing women to get an ultrasound before getting an abortion?

No, I don't believe abortions should be allowed at all.

Well, yeah but given they ARE legal and there are several states now that make it mandatory, how do you feel about it? Should the government have the right to do it? Or is it ok for women to be violated?

(08-16-2013 02:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  More children from native born citizens. Not foreign born. If you cannot see how that preserves our culture, I cannot help you.

I bet there's some foreign blood in your woodpile, and you turned into a good, solid, red-blooded 'mercan.

There is foreign blood in every human who identifies with a nationality.

What's your point? That doesn't mean I think it is a good idea to flood the nation with people from Pakistan because we are too wrapped up in our careers to have kids. At what point do we start resembling Pakistan?

Get it?

We're being flooded with Pakistanis?

(08-16-2013 02:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 02:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  More children from native born citizens. Not foreign born. If you cannot see how that preserves our culture, I cannot help you.

I bet there's some foreign blood in your woodpile, and you turned into a good, solid, red-blooded 'mercan.

There is foreign blood in every human who identifies with a nationality.

What's your point? That doesn't mean I think it is a good idea to flood the nation with people from Pakistan because we are too wrapped up in our careers to have kids. At what point do we start resembling Pakistan?

Get it?

We're being flooded with Pakistanis?

That's the best liberal snark you could muster?

(08-16-2013 02:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 02:01 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 11:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The point is to stop incentivizing poor choices and actually help people end the cycle of poverty. I am willing to actually spend additional money train these folks to be productive citizens. I see that as a good ROI. What we are doing now is not.

Starve?...No. I support private charity both financially and as a volunteer. Those that oppose implantation woulld have to turn there for help. Private charity is perfectly capable of handling these folks.


Gay, Straight, Female, Male...makes no difference to me. Everyone gets implanted if you take funds from the public. There should be consequences for one's poor choices. I don't think any one would disagree that continuing to field more children while in poverty is a poor choice. What is happening is that the system now makes it a good choice for them. More kids..more public theft. That needs to stop.

But sometimes (when it is actually used as a safety net), public assistance is not a cycle. If I lose my job, for instance, I don't think I should have to play God with my wife's body, potentially causing future fertility problems to get unemployment or any other kind of assistance and I can guarantee you I am not part of a poverty cycle and my kids are not a criminal risk. It be should temporary, however. We use natural family planning because of our personal beliefs and it has worked perfectly so far for us and everyone we know. I don't believe in government force chemical castration.

Do you believe in government forcing women to get an ultrasound before getting an abortion?

No, I don't believe abortions should be allowed at all.

Well, yeah but given they ARE legal and there are several states now that make it mandatory, how do you feel about it? Should the government have the right to do it? Or is it ok for women to be violated?

No, I don't believe in any government mandated medical procedures. If abortion has to be legal, I support parental consent laws for minors.