Abortion

[JacksBratt]

I would be great of the adoption process was made easier and quicker.

Exactly... why so difficult and expensive?

 

[JacksBratt]

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).




-

I didn't think that R v W was overturned. From my understanding, the Federal Supreme court deemed that it is the responsibility of each state.

In the big picture, I think that abortion is a sin. But, all the reaction is kinda fabricated.. It's just not a federal decision now. If you really want to get one.. You just have to drive. I guess, if you cannot put yourself out a bit.. to drive a couple of states over.. you certainly wouldn't drive your kid to their out of state sports event.. college... grandparents.. vacation spot....
Maybe... just maybe... you shouldn't have kids... But, killing the one you created... not the solution.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study - PubMed

I don't consider a pedophile to be heterosexual.... They are just another deviated sexual attraction catagory that is... for now.... considered unacceptable.

 

[friend of]

Exactly... why so difficult and expensive?

I can only assume it's been designed that way by the evil one.

 

[Rajni]

I didn't think that R v W was overturned. From my understanding, the Federal Supreme court deemed that it is the responsibility of each state.

True, not literally overturned. Just turned over (handed over) to the states to decide.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't consider a pedophile to be heterosexual.

I was referring to sources that do make the distinction and was not quoting you.

 

[JacksBratt]

I was referring to sources that do make the distinction and was not quoting you.

No worries. I didn't think you quoted me.

I just think that it is dangerous to classify pedophiles as "heterosexual" as it skews statistics.

They are their own breed, mindset, sexual orientation. Not gender.. Not sex... Just a different catagory.

 

[parousia70]

No worries. I didn't think you quoted me.

I just think that it is dangerous to classify pedophiles as "heterosexual" as it skews statistics.

They are their own breed, mindset, sexual orientation. Not gender.. Not sex... Just a different catagory.

So there is no such thing as pedophiles attracted only to children of the opposite gender?
The gender of their victims has nothing to do with the attraction?

I never knew this.

 

[parousia70]

In the big picture, I think that abortion is a sin. But, all the reaction is kinda fabricated.. It's just not a federal decision now. If you really want to get one.. You just have to drive. I guess, if you cannot put yourself out a bit.. to drive a couple of states over.. you certainly wouldn't drive your kid to their out of state sports event.. college... grandparents.. vacation spot....

Well, A ten year old Mother is gonna have to wait 6 years before she could drive her kid out of state to visit the grandparents anyway, since we certainly don't want 10 year old mothers driving! That would be wrong.

 

[JacksBratt]

So there is no such thing as pedophiles attracted only to children of the opposite gender?
The gender of their victims has nothing to do with the attraction?

I never knew this.

What I'm saying is a pedo is a pedo is a pedo.. I could care less if they are attracted to the opposite sex as themselves or the same... They are all pedophiles.... I do not think that they should be called Hetero or Homo sexuals... IMO

If a child is violated.. who cares of it was a same sex violation... it's unacceptable.

 

[JacksBratt]

So there is no such thing as pedophiles attracted only to children of the opposite gender?
The gender of their victims has nothing to do with the attraction?

I never knew this.

In my opinion.... look it's not that complicated..


If someone is attracted to the same sex.... Homosexual
If someone is attracted to oppostite sex.. Heterosexual
If someone is attracted to both.... bisexual
If someone is attracted to children... Pedophile.

IMO, it's wrong to state "heterosexual pedophile".. who cares...hetero, homo or bi?

 

[parousia70]

What I'm saying is a pedo is a pedo is a pedo.. I could care less if they are attracted to the opposite sex as themselves or the same... They are all pedophiles.... I do not think that they should be called Hetero or Homo sexuals... IMO

Well, if what you are saying is that pedophelia itself exists irrespective of sexual orientation, then I agree..
But I disagree that it negates sexual orientation, or is a sexual orientation in and of itself.

If a child is violated.. who cares of it was a same sex violation... it's unacceptable.

However, We do need to force the child who became pregnant from such a violation, to risk her life by carrying the child to term, correct?

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, A ten year old Mother is gonna have to wait 6 years before she could drive her kid out of state to visit the grandparents anyway, since we certainly don't want 10 year old mothers driving! That would be wrong.

Yes... because there are sooooooo many 10 year olds that are getting pregnant....
First of all.. there are other crimes here.
Second.. someone else is responsible for that pregnancy as it is certainly not the 10 year old.

I guess since the 10 year old has been violated and abused and assaulted.. You should tell her that, since she is young.. we have to also kill the innocent baby insider her.

Sick upon sick upon sick..

If a 10 year old is able to get pregnant.. her body is perfectly mature enough to deliver it...

It's been going on for thousands of years.

BUT... the big point here is that you don't base a massive issue such as this on the miniscual chance of a 10 year old pregnancy which is very rare.

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, if what you are saying is that pedophelia itself exists irrespective of sexual orientation, then I agree..
But I disagree that it negates sexual orientation, or is a sexual orientation in and of itself.



However, We do need to force the child who became pregnant from such a violation, to risk her life by carrying the child to term, correct?

Read my previous post.

 

[parousia70]

If a 10 year old is able to get pregnant.. her body is perfectly mature enough to deliver it...

This either describes a tremendous ignorance of cephalopelvic disproportion on your part, or a willful disregard for the facts.

Only you know which is true.

Can a 10-Year-Old Boy Get a Girl Pregnant? (Important Facts) | Family Life Share.

A girl being able to get pregnant at 10 or younger in no way means she can deliver a baby safely. Younger girls may not be able to push the baby through the birth canal. The female pelvis doesn’t completely widen until later in the teenage years. Thus, the baby’s head may be wider than the pelvic opening. This is known as cephalopelvic disproportion.

There are other pregnancy risks which are heightened in young girls. For instance, their babies have a greater chance of being born premature or with a very low birth weight. The mothers can suffer from abnormally low iron levels or pregnancy-induced hypertension. There is also a high infant mortality rate in young girls.

 

[JacksBratt]

This either describes a tremendous ignorance of cephalopelvic disproportion on your part, or a willful disregard for the facts.

Only you know which is true.

Can a 10-Year-Old Boy Get a Girl Pregnant? (Important Facts) | Family Life Share.

A girl being able to get pregnant at 10 or younger in no way means she can deliver a baby safely. Younger girls may not be able to push the baby through the birth canal. The female pelvis doesn’t completely widen until later in the teenage years. Thus, the baby’s head may be wider than the pelvic opening. This is known as cephalopelvic disproportion.

There are other pregnancy risks which are heightened in young girls. For instance, their babies have a greater chance of being born premature or with a very low birth weight. The mothers can suffer from abnormally low iron levels or pregnancy-induced hypertension. There is also a high infant mortality rate in young girls.

11-Year-Old Pregnant Girl Gives Birth Reportedly Becoming UK's Youngest Mom

I never stated that this would be a acceptable or typical situation. Unfortunately, in some third world countries it is very common..

With today's medical technology it would be far safer than it has been in the past.

When the life expectancy of humans was in the 30's or earlier... you certainly didn't wait until you were 20 to have kids.
Most girls were concidered sexually mature soon as they "became a woman" and were married off.

Our entire population is a result of that...

You pick that one site and article? I read many that state something different.. Who is Mike Zhang anyway? Some be all and end all?

Nope.. Just some website through Amazon services.

There are many many young girls that give birth at young ages.. Is it right? Nope.. but, then again the pregnancy is the symptom of a bigger problem.. It doesn't mean that you kill the baby.

10 year old pregnancies are not a bullet point support for abortions.

 

[KitKat1230]

If a 10 year old is able to get pregnant.. her body is perfectly mature enough to deliver it...

It's been going on for thousands of years.

Absolutely not. I've heard horror stories about child pregnancies. I recently read about an 11-year-old girl who had to have an emergency hysterectomy because childbirth destroyed her reproductive system. That girl will NEVER be able to have children when she is an adult if she wants to, all because some evil piece of excrement raped her and she and her mother didn't have the opportunity to terminate the fetus. I've read a story about a 12-year-old girl whose pregnancy (by her own father) ended with both her and the baby dying in childbirth.

Lady Margaret Beaufort, the mother of King Henry VII of England, gave birth to him at 13. The pregnancy and childbirth did so much damage to her reproductive system that she was unable to have any other children after him.

Pregnancy is dangerous enough for a grown woman. For a young girl who is barely pubescent, it can be a death sentence. It can cause reproductive issues. It further continues the trauma she already had from being raped.

It is also worth noting that most girls hundreds and thousands of years ago began puberty later than most girls today. The average age of menarche (a girl's first period) in 1840 was 16.5 years old; now it is 13 (The age of menarche - PubMed (nih.gov)). I got my first period when I was 11. There is no way I would have been ready to marry and have children at 11. I would have probably been good as dead.

And just because something was/has been done, doesn't mean it was okay or a good thing, e.g., chattel slavery, prostitution, marrying girls and women collected in war conquests, torturing people in cruel and unusual ways, colonization, etc.

Would I sacrifice the potential life of a fetus for the certain life of an already-born child? Without a doubt.

 

[JacksBratt]

Absolutely not. I've heard horror stories about child pregnancies. I recently read about an 11-year-old girl who had to have an emergency hysterectomy because childbirth destroyed her reproductive system. That girl will NEVER be able to have children when she is an adult if she wants to, all because some evil piece of excrement raped her and she and her mother didn't have the opportunity to terminate the fetus. I've read a story about a 12-year-old girl whose pregnancy (by her own father) ended with both her and the baby dying in childbirth.

Firstly, I don't think that any doctor who has morals.. nor that there is any law that would insist that a pregnancy be continued if the life of the mother was in danger.

Secondly.. Many 10 year olds have had perfectly safe pregnancies... AND.. a friend of mine had a daughter who was a 25 year old and had a pregnancy that destroyed her reproductive organs..

This is not new and the fetus should not be killed due to the chance of this happening. The pregnancy would be monitored as would the health of the mother and the baby.

This is not the 1400's.

Lady Margaret Beaufort, the mother of King Henry VII of England, gave birth to him at 13. The pregnancy and childbirth did so much damage to her reproductive system that she was unable to have any other children after him.

Again, this happens even today with full adult women. Thing is, with the medical advancements and technology.. this is not the case anymore.

Pregnancy is dangerous enough for a grown woman. For a young girl who is barely pubescent, it can be a death sentence. It can cause reproductive issues. It further continues the trauma she already had from being raped.

Yep.. but it has been happening for thousands of years and we are here because of it..

You... you want to add to the trauma of a young woman by having her know that she killed her baby?

It is also worth noting that most girls hundreds and thousands of years ago began puberty later than most girls today. The average age of menarche (a girl's first period) in 1840 was 16.5 years old; now it is 13 (The age of menarche - PubMed (nih.gov)). I got my first period when I was 11. There is no way I would have been ready to marry and have children at 11. I would have probably been good as dead.

Kids, years ago, were far more capable than our bubble wrapped kids of today. You would probably be charged with child abuse, today, for some things that were expected of kids in the 1930's. A few..would be just expecting them to get out of bed, do chores, walk miles to school, start a fire...

And just because something was/has been done, doesn't mean it was okay or a good thing, e.g., chattel slavery, prostitution, marrying girls and women collected in war conquests, torturing people in cruel and unusual ways, colonization, etc.

Seriously? I'm not saying that this should be the norm.. or to be acceptable..

I'm saying, if a young girl gets pregnant..
1/ her body is biologically ready
2/ we have the medical technology and expertise to monitor both her and her child and keep them both safe
3/ The problem isn't the pregnancy.. that is the symptom.
4/ The bably should not be killed right off, due to what "may" happen.

Would I sacrifice the potential life of a fetus for the certain life of an already-born child? Without a doubt.

Firstly.... Nobody is doing that. If, by chance, the mothers life is at risk.. as in any case, things would have to be done....

Secondly... In some states.. they are killing the infant up to 28 days after it's born....

IMO.. this is nothing short of child sacrifice.. for a sick bunch who think that the mother has a right to her body.. the baby has no right to it's life.. and the father.. well.. .what's he even doing in the picture?

 

[KitKat1230]

Firstly, I don't think that any doctor who has morals.. nor that there is any law that would insist that a pregnancy be continued if the life of the mother was in danger.

Secondly.. Many 10 year olds have had perfectly safe pregnancies... AND.. a friend of mine had a daughter who was a 25 year old and had a pregnancy that destroyed her reproductive organs..

This is not new and the fetus should not be killed due to the chance of this happening. The pregnancy would be monitored as would the health of the mother and the baby.

This is not the 1400's.



Again, this happens even today with full adult women. Thing is, with the medical advancements and technology.. this is not the case anymore.


Yep.. but it has been happening for thousands of years and we are here because of it..

You... you want to add to the trauma of a young woman by having her know that she killed her baby?



Kids, years ago, were far more capable than our bubble wrapped kids of today. You would probably be charged with child abuse, today, for some things that were expected of kids in the 1930's. A few..would be just expecting them to get out of bed, do chores, walk miles to school, start a fire...



Seriously? I'm not saying that this should be the norm.. or to be acceptable..

I'm saying, if a young girl gets pregnant..
1/ her body is biologically ready
2/ we have the medical technology and expertise to monitor both her and her child and keep them both safe
3/ The problem isn't the pregnancy.. that is the symptom.
4/ The bably should not be killed right off, due to what "may" happen.



Firstly.... Nobody is doing that. If, by chance, the mothers life is at risk.. as in any case, things would have to be done....

Secondly... In some states.. they are killing the infant up to 28 days after it's born....

IMO.. this is nothing short of child sacrifice.. for a sick bunch who think that the mother has a right to her body.. the baby has no right to it's life.. and the father.. well.. .what's he even doing in the picture?

Yes, grown women go through that too. What I am saying is that those complications are even more likely to occur in young girls, because their bodies are greatly underdeveloped. Their pelvises and hips are too narrow and their bodies are smaller, which means more and more nutrients being drained by the fetus. And 10-12-year-old girls DO NOT have the physical or mental maturity to deal with something like pregnancy and childbirth. Just because a girl is biologically capable of carrying and birthing a child doesn't mean they SHOULD. Children should not be forced to have children. I would have not wanted to carry a child if I was raped and got pregnant at 11. I was still watching Disney Channel and Cartoon Network at 11. I was still playing with Barbie dolls and action figures at 11. Being forced to go through 9 months of pregnancy and then 18-32+ hours of labor would have been a nightmare. A 10-year-old child can't legally adopt a child, so why should a 10-year-old child be forced to give birth? All because of some doctrine that is not even in the Bible? The Bible never condemns abortion. The Bible never addresses fetuses like they are people with souls.

And where, exactly, are they allowing people to kill their babies 28 days after they're born? Because this sounds like fiction and conspiracy theory nonsense to me. What government in their right mind would allow people to murder already-born children? I found these articles here because I don't trust the GOP and right-wing sites to be truthful about this and not totally misunderstand and twist this. Apparently, the bill is meant to protect parents whose babies were stillborn or died shortly after birth due to pregnancy-related issues from being legally punished.
PolitiFact | No, this California bill wouldn't allow mothers to kill their children after they're born
Fact Check-California reproductive health bill leads to misinterpretation online | Reuters
California bill doesn’t allow killing babies 7 days after birth | abc10.com

It's worth noting, too, that the majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, while late-term abortions are far less common at about 7%. And most late-term abortions are for medical emergencies (e.g. incomplete miscarriage, fetal deformity or defect that would give it little or no quality of life, and health complications that put the mother's life at risk).
Abortion By The Numbers (forbes.com)

 

[KitKat1230]

Yes, grown women go through that too. What I am saying is that those complications are even more likely to occur in young girls, because their bodies are greatly underdeveloped. Their pelvises and hips are too narrow and their bodies are smaller, which means more and more nutrients being drained by the fetus. And 10-12-year-old girls DO NOT have the physical or mental maturity to deal with something like pregnancy and childbirth. Just because a girl is biologically capable of carrying and birthing a child doesn't mean they SHOULD. Just because they are "biologically ready," doesn't mean that they are truly physically and mentally ready for such a taxing, dangerous situation.

And even if impregnating young girls is the reason for much of human population, that doesn't mean it's dandy and fine. After all, rape is also one of the things that has led to great populating over the history of the world. Rape and subjugation of women has been a tool for population growth by systems, kingdoms, and governments for millennia. That doesn't mean it's okay. That doesn't make it any less messed up. Much of human civilization was misogynistic and patriarchal as hell and didn't give a crap about female autonomy or consent until the 19th and 20th centuries. And 10 and 11-year-old girls can not consent to sex or pregnancy. Most 10-12-year-old girls do not want to have a baby at 10-12 years old. Because they are too young.

Children should not be forced to have children. I would have not wanted to carry a child if I was raped and got pregnant at 11. I was still watching Disney Channel and Cartoon Network at 11. I was still playing with Barbie dolls and action figures at 11. Being forced to go through 9 months of pregnancy and then 18-32+ hours of labor would have been a nightmare. A 10-year-old child can't legally adopt a child, so why should a 10-year-old child be forced to give birth? All because of some doctrine that is not even in the Bible? The Bible never condemns abortion. The Bible never addresses fetuses like they are people with souls.

And where, exactly, are they allowing people to kill their babies 28 days after they're born? Because this sounds like fiction and conspiracy theory nonsense to me. What government in their right mind would allow people to murder already-born children? I found these articles here because I don't trust the GOP and right-wing sites to be truthful about this and not totally misunderstand and twist this. Apparently, the bill is meant to protect parents whose babies were stillborn or died shortly after birth due to pregnancy-related issues from being legally punished.
PolitiFact | No, this California bill wouldn't allow mothers to kill their children after they're born
Fact Check-California reproductive health bill leads to misinterpretation online | Reuters
California bill doesn’t allow killing babies 7 days after birth | abc10.com

It's worth noting, too, that the majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, while late-term abortions are far less common at about 7%. And most late-term abortions are for medical emergencies (e.g. incomplete miscarriage, fetal deformity or defect that would give it little or no quality of life, and health complications that put the mother's life at risk).
Abortion By The Numbers (forbes.com)