Abortion

SkyWriting said:

Given that " the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1" it is ten times more likely for a heterosexual to be a pedophile, this tells me that the people whom you trust for information.....cannot be trusted. They are lying to you.

Click to expand...

Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.

So, your conclusion is wrong. Its the opposite.

myst33 said:

Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.

So, your conclusion is wrong. Its the opposite.

Click to expand...

Your sources are also lying to you.
The percentage reporting their sexual identity as homosexual ranged from 2% to 4% of males, and about 1% to 2% of females.
Diversity of sexual orientation


According to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, 5.6% of United States adults identify as LGBT. That's up from 4.5%, based on the company's 2017 data. In 2012, when Gallup began tracking the measure, that number was 3.5%.

So gay adoptive parents are not the problem.

SkyWriting said:

Your sources are also lying to you.
The percentage reporting their sexual identity as homosexual ranged from 2% to 4% of males, and about 1% to 2% of females.
Diversity of sexual orientation

Click to expand...

Even with 2% of the population, your math is still wrong. It would make homosexuals to be 5x more likely to be pedophiles.

myst33 said:

Even with 2% of the population, your math is still wrong. It would make homosexuals to be 5x more pedophiles than heterosexuals.

Click to expand...

So you are not going to admit that your sources suck then?

SkyWriting said:

So you are not going to admit that your sources suck then?

Click to expand...

Your math sucks, not sources.

RileyG said:

Yikes. Not sure how I feel about that

Click to expand...

They get screened just like all couples.

myst33 said:

Your math sucks, not sources.

Click to expand...

Deflecting from the garbage that misinforms.....

SkyWriting said:

Deflecting from the garbage that misinforms.....

Click to expand...

I would recommend you to think again about what you are posting in this thread.

You are the one who misinformed the audience with saying that heterosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. While the opposite is true.

Debating if homosexuals are 1% or 2% of the population changes nothing regarding that and it will obviously fluctuate depending on the poll, bias, what countries have been included and time.

myst33 said:

I would recommend you to think again about what you are posting in this thread

Click to expand...

....back on the topic of abortion and how few pro-life christians adopt teens. So that each state has about 2000 children waiting for adoption. So people are not really as Pro-Life as they claim they are. Pro-life yes. Pro-Life-but-I-Wish-People-Had-More-Abortions.

Riley, I do think that every adoption agency, secular or religious, should take the feelings of the birth mother into consideration. If a birth mother is strongly opposed to her child being placed with a gay couple, or a single parent, or couples whose race differs from her child's race the agency should agree. In the case of a foster child who is removed from a parent's custody, if the child has had a religious upbringing the agency should strive to find foster (adoptive) parents who will continue that religious training.

3 Resurrections said:

That point is completely inconsistent. Children in the process of being aborted ARE suffering. It's absolute hypocrisy for someone to say they want to alleviate the suffering of those children who have already been born into the world, but to then ignore the suffering of those helpless infants whose lives are being snuffed out by one tortuous method or another. Someone who truly wants to eradicate the suffering of children should not be discriminating as to the age that child happens to be, whether in the womb or out of it.

Click to expand...

Then why do we strip rights away from people the moment they are born?

If we are to say one human being has the intrinsic, God Given, Human right to the use of another Human being's Body, even against their will, then that right should not be terminated, stripped away from that human being, once it draws its first breath.

Human rights exist from conception to death, otherwise, they are not rights, they are priveleges.

Now we can posit the argument that the unborn human ought to have the unique privilege of using another human being's body against their will, and that such a unique and special privelege should end at birth, but we can't then call it a "human right to life".

The lastest SCOTUS decision on abortion is very broad, and Just handed states the authority to legislate laws that make organ donation, blood and bone marrow donation and vaccines, compulsory.

If your body can be used to save the life of another, States can now enact laws that require you to do so.
The archaic notion of Individual Bodily Autonomy, has just been relegated to the dustbin of history. SCOTUS just codified that the Life Saving Needs of society as a whole outweigh the preferences of the individual to not be "inconvenienced". Personal Choices about how your Body can be used by society for the greater good are now irrelevant and wholly subserviant to what the State decides is the best use of your Body for the good of all.

Just imagine, Instead of a Jury Duty summons, you get a "Bone marrow, Blood or Kidney donation summons" in the mail and you must report to the hospital for the extraction on the date provided, or go to jail for contempt, and stay there until you either agree to the extraction willingly, or they simply anesthetize you and forcibly take from you what the State has lawfully determined you owe society.

There are presently 123,000 people in the United states alone who are waiting for an organ and if they don't get one they will die. Over 100,000 of those are awaiting a kidney. 12 people are added to that list every minute.

True "Pro Life" States now have the legal, morally superior authority, to turn that number to ZERO in a matter of months by instituting mandatory kidney donation alone.

States can now mandate that your PREFERENCE to keep all of your Blood, Bone Marrow or both of your Kidneys does not supercede the RIGHT to life of the other person who needs any of that from you, lest they die a horrible, suffering, torturous death.

States can now say that you no longer have the right to say "no thanks", because, just as in the case of the pregnant woman, Your preference not to be temporarily inconvenienced by another human being using your body in order for them to live, MUST not supercede that other human being's right to life.

Which is a true, consistent "pro life" position.

If you are anti-abortion, yet find yourself opposed to such life affirming, bodily autonomy eliminating legislation, then you are not truly pro life, you are merely pro forced birth.

Wow, I never thought of it that way. Kidneys?
But there are some real extremists in my state legislature who have proposed some pretty crazy things.

parousia70 said:

Then why do we strip rights away from people the moment they are born?

If we are to say one human being has the intrinsic, God Given, Human right to the use of another Human being's Body, even against their will, then that right should not be terminated, stripped away from that human being, once it draws its first breath.

Human rights exist from conception to death, otherwise, they are not rights, they are priveleges.

Now we can argue whether or not the unborn human ought to have the privilege of using another human being's body against their will, and whether that privelege should end at birth, but we can't then call it a "human right to life".

The lastest SCOTUS decision on abortion is very broad, and Just handed states the authority to legislate laws that make organ donation, blood and bone marrow donation and vaccines, compulsory.

If your body can be used to save the life of another, States can now enact laws that require you to do so.
The archaic notion of Individual Bodily Autonomy, has just been relegated to the dustbin of history. SCOTUS just codified that the Needs of the many outweigh the preferences of the One. Personal Choices about how your Body can be used by society for the greater good are now irrelevant and wholly subserviant to what the State decides is the best use of your Body for the good of all.

Just imagine, Instead of a Jury Duty summons, you get a "Bone marrow, Blood or Kidney donation summons" in the mail and you must report to the hospital for the extraction on the date provided, or go to jail for contempt, and stay there until you either agree to the extraction willingly, or they simply anesthetize you and take from you what the State has lawfully determined you owe society.

There are presently 123,000 people in the United states alone who are waiting for an organ and if they don't get one they will die. Over 100,000 of those are awaiting a kidney. 12 people are added to that list every minute.

True "Pro Life" States now have the legal, morally superior authority, to turn that number to ZERO in a matter of months by instituting mandatory kidney donation alone.

States can now mandate that your PREFERENCE to keep all of your Blood, Bone Marrow or both of your Kidneys does not supercede the RIGHT to life of the other person who needs any of that from you, or they will die a horrible, suffering, torturous death.

States can now say that you no longer have the right to say "no thanks", because, just as in the case of the pregnant woman, Your preference not to have your body used by another Human in order for it to live does not supercede that other human being's right to life.

Which is a true, consistent "pro life" position.

If you are anti-abortion, yet find yourself opposed to such life affirming, bodily autonomy eliminating legislation, then you are not truly pro life, you are merely pro forced birth.

Click to expand...

This reminds me that I had been wondering if all the pressure to wear masks and get vaccinated against COVID, even if one didn't want to do either, sort of undermined the "my body my choice" thing just enough to give the Roe-v-Wade reversal more of a foothold. Doing what you think is right for your body in that situation was often labeled as "selfish" if it meant refraining from masks/vaccines, and the "my body my choice" position took a hit. I could be wrong in seeing a connection, there...


-

Rajni said:

This reminds me that I had been wondering if all the pressure to wear masks and get vaccinated against COVID, even if one didn't want to do either, sort of undermined the "my body my choice" thing just enough to give the Roe-v-Wade reversal more of a foothold. Doing what you think is right for your body in that situation was often labeled as "selfish" if it meant refraining from masks/vaccines, and the "my body my choice" position took a hit. I could be wrong in seeing a connection, there...

Click to expand...

I think you are spot on.
This SCOTUS ruling has effectively eliminated ANY viable legal challenge to Vaccine and Mask Mandates.

While we are seeing States Codify the removal of Bodily Autonomy through Abortion Bans, we will also, in short order, see States Codify the Removal of Bodily autonomy through Vaccine Mandates, and compulsory Organ/Blood/Marrow Donation.

Again, this Ruling is so broad, that it enables States to Legislate that, if your body can be used to save the life of another, through what amounts to a temporary inconvenience for you, such as a 2 second Vaccination, a 3 hour Blood/Bone Marrow/Organ extraction, or 9 month pregnancy, regardless of the risk, then you are required by law to comply.

Every Pro- Lifer ought to agree that, as @3 Resurrections aluded to, no matter the age of the person, from conception to death, it is absolute hypocrisy to claim only one sub-group of human beings (such as the unborn) should have their right to life supercede another human's mere preference not to be inconvenienced.

Either that same Right to Life exists for EVERYONE, from conception to death, or it doesn't exist at all.

SCOTUS Agrees.

Fantine said:

Wow, I never thought of it that way. Kidneys?
But there are some real extremists in my state legislature who have proposed some pretty crazy things.

Click to expand...

It's gonna get a little bit like the wild west out here over the next couple years as this thing shakes out, that is for certain.

It's kind of ironic, because the same people who insisted on the right to choose what to do with one's body in the context of abortion backpedaled on that when it came to the same right to choose in the area of vaccines and masks.

And now it has come back to bite us all on the backside through the R-v-W overturn.

I don't really do politics (eeeeeeewww!!! ), but I'm thinking I should double-down on voting Libertarian going forward (as I did this past presidential election). The two-party mindset needs an overhaul, especially since, at the end of the day, Left and Right are just two wings on the same dang bird (and they seem to be working more in unison lately, as seen with this overturn, which has - again, ironically - taken place under a Democrat President's watch).




-

What's interesting is that,

In a strange sense, we already are legally obligated to take care of abandoned children via taxes to state owned orphanages, foster care, group homes etc. And with abortions banned, that in a round about way would likely result in tax increases to care for more children. Right or wrong.