What's fair?

[miamited]

Hi @hislegacy

Not pragmatic in any way.

The idea itself may not be pragmatic. What I meant by my being a bit more pragmatic, is that I can pretty clearly see that this idea you have of spreading the gospel until there are no more requests for abortions is pie in the sky hopefulness. Just as Noah's spreading of the truth to the people around him turned out to be. I am more pragmatic in my thinking that, no, there must be a better way to get a handle on this issue that will be effective a bit quicker than our preaching the gospel.

I mean, let's be real here for a moment. In the U.S. the gospel of Jesus Christ has been preached in pretty much every town and village for at least the last 75 years. Especially by the Catholic based denominations that are pretty staunchly against the procedure. Not speaking for the world, although it's been pretty well saturated also. We've had tent revivals and we have small and large fellowships meeting every Sunday that are preaching the gospel and explaining how a life of righteousness is to be lived. And yet...we have hundreds of thousands of abortions performed every year in this country. Why is it that your plan of action hasn't taken hold here yet?

Understanding that it isn't going to and working towards a better plan of action is what pragmatism is about. Seeing, especially among the lost of the world, the reality of what's actually happening out there in real life and real time. That's pragmatism.

prag·mat·ic
/praɡˈmadik/
adjective

1. dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

God bless,
Ted

 

[hislegacy]

BTW just as an aside. I heard on the news yesterday that abortion requests in Oklahoma are skyrocketing because of requests from women in Texas. So, already we can see that this idea of making abortions illegal...isn't going to stop abortions.

Hi MT,

Of course you can provide proof of that.

I await proof.

 

[hislegacy]

The idea itself may not be pragmatic.

Hi MT

First accurate thing you have stated on this thread IMHO

 

[miamited]

Hi MT,

Of course you can provide proof of that.

I await proof.

As Texans fill up abortion clinics in other states, low-income people get left behind

However, I may have been mistaken as to the state they were going to. If you read through the article you'll see that Gov. Abbot tried this before for a couple of months and there were major increases of Texans seeking abortions in both New Mexico and Colorado.

 

[miamited]

Hi MT

First accurate thing you have stated on this thread IMHO

Hi @hislegacy

Hey look. Fine! If you don't agree that my thinking is more pragmatic, I don't have an issue with that. But whether or not I see the issue in a more pragmatic way than you do has nothing to do with the workability of the idea that has been presented. Pragmatism merely deals with how a person sees issues. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not plans to deal with those issues are good or bad, right or wrong.

God bless,
Ted

 

[hislegacy]

BTW just as an aside. I heard on the news yesterday that abortion requests in Oklahoma are skyrocketing because of requests from women in Texas. So, already we can see that this idea of making abortions illegal...isn't going to stop abortions.

As Texans fill up abortion clinics in other states, low-income people get left behind

However, I may have been mistaken as to the state they were going to. If you read through the article you'll see that Gov. Abbot tried this before for a couple of months and there were major increases of Texans seeking abortions in both New Mexico and Colorado.

Hi MT,

Glad you found your error. Might I suggest you get your info from a better source than one that is funded by Planned Parenthood

Disclosure: Bumble, Planned Parenthood and Afiya Center have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune,​

 

[hislegacy]

But whether or not I see the issue in a more pragmatic way than you do has nothing to do with the workability of the idea that has been presented.

Hi MT,

That is exactly what I am bringing out. The idea of forcing a surgical procedure is not a workable solution.

 

[miamited]

Hi MT,

Glad you found your error. Might I suggest you get your info from a better source than one that is funded by Planned Parenthood

Disclosure: Bumble, Planned Parenthood and Afiya Center have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune,​

Ahhh, the old Ad Hominem logical fallacy. You should, but something tells me likely don't, understand that the only part provided from a Planned Parenthood spokesperson is the part about how difficult it is for some to get out of state. The whole of the article was written by two reporters who actually work for the Texas Tribune. They just asked Planned Parenthood for some input regarding the situation and Planned Parenthood provided them with a couple of sentences in a 26 paragraph article.

I'm guessing you read down to the first mention of Planned Parenthood and cried, "Eureka!!!!" This entire story must be wrong because it mentions Planned Parenthoold. Look friend, we all have our little bogey men issues. Mine is pretty much anything on Fox news or OANN or NewsMax. But, if someone directs me to one of their pieces, I will at least read it and give it some thought.

BTW, you say 'funded by'. Do you know that the Texas Tribune is funded by Planned Parenthood?

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi MT,

That is exactly what I am bringing out. The idea of forcing a surgical procedure is not a workable solution.

Yet some think that 'forcing' women to not have abortions is.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi @hislegacy

Look, I get it that you don't think my idea is workable. I'll note that for future reference. However, I'm amused that when you asked for proof of Texans going to another state to get abortions now, I gave it, but admitted that I had mentioned the wrong state. After all, I was making the statement from memory of a news blurb I saw last night on TV. But rather than accept that the 'proof' I offered did in fact support my claim that Texans were leaving the state to get abortions, you used your ad hominem grounded attack against the source rather than the 'facts' of the article.

It gives me a pretty clear indication of where you stand in your ability to fairly discuss an issue. I'm sure I'll see you around in other threads.

God bless,
Ted

 

[hislegacy]

Hi @hislegacy

Look, I get it that you don't think my idea is workable. I'll note that for future reference. However, I'm amused that when you asked for proof of Texans going to another state to get abortions now, I gave it, but admitted that I had mentioned the wrong state. After all, I was making the statement from memory of a news blurb I saw last night on TV. But rather than accept that the 'proof' I offered did in fact support my claim that Texans were leaving the state to get abortions, you used your ad hominem grounded attack against the source rather than the 'facts' of the article.

It gives me a pretty clear indication of where you stand in your ability to fairly discuss an issue. I'm sure I'll see you around in other threads.

God bless,
Ted

Hi MT,

Let's be clear shall we. I took issue with the following quote:

BTW just as an aside. I heard on the news yesterday that abortion requests in Oklahoma are skyrocketing because of requests from women in Texas. So, already we can see that this idea of making abortions illegal...isn't going to stop abortions.

You did NOT say Texans are going to another other state (general), but mentioned one specific state - Oklahoma - which the article you offered for proof said no such thing.

That is the crazy thing about discussions - seeing two sides of an issue.

Nor did the article support your claim that abortion requests are sky rocketing. Only that abortion providers in New Mexico are getting calls from out of state.

Additionally, identifying the source of the information as being funded by the nations largest abortion provider is not ad hominem in any way shape or form.



So, please spare me the histrionics -. There is no ad homin

 

[hislegacy]

Here is the science: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf

The most often touted reasons for abortions is the woman's health and rape/incest. The science shows that the vast majority of abortions are for money reasons, inconvenience, or an interruption to a person's life. Another way of saying that abortion is viewed as a birth control method after the child is conceived.

I don't think we will ever end abortion, but we can sure speak the truth about it.

It's just an interesting observation that in this thread based on fairness, we are not addressing the one whose life ends before birth. How is that fair?

 

[miamited]

Hi @hislegacy

Do you know what the graph you posted actually says as regards your claim

The most often touted reasons for abortions is the woman's health and rape/incest.

Your graph shows nothing of the sort, in fact, the attending article states: •Reasons in 2004. Among the structured survey respondents, the two most common reasons were “having a baby would dramatically change my life” and “I can’t afford a baby now” (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively—Table 2). A large proportion of women cited relationship problems or a desire to avoid single motherhood (48%). Nearly four in 10 indicated that they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third said they were not ready to have a child. Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).* Respondents wrote in a number of specific health reasons, from chronic or debilitating conditions such as cancer and cystic fibrosis to pregnancy-specific concerns such as gestational diabetes and morning sickness. The most common subreason given was that the woman could not afford a baby now because she was unmarried (42%). Thirty-eight percent indicated that having a baby would interfere with their education, and the same proportion said it would interfere with their employment. In a related vein, 34% said they could not afford a child because they were students or were planning to study.

In fact, other than partner abuse, the two reasons you posted were the 'least' offered as reasons for an abortion by women in 2004.

I feel almost like Phillip coming up alongside the Eunich, "Do you understand what it is that you're reading?"

God bless,
Ted

 

[hislegacy]

Hi MT @miamited

Your graph shows nothing of the sort, in fact, the attending article states: •Reasons in 2004. Among the structured survey respondents, the two most common reasons were “having a baby would dramatically change my life” and “I can’t afford a baby now” (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively—Table 2). A large proportion of women cited relationship problems or a desire to avoid single motherhood (48%). Nearly four in 10 indicated that they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third said they were not ready to have a child. Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).* Respondents wrote in a number of specific health reasons, from chronic or debilitating conditions such as cancer and cystic fibrosis to pregnancy-specific concerns such as gestational diabetes and morning sickness. The most common subreason given was that the woman could not afford a baby now because she was unmarried (42%). Thirty-eight percent indicated that having a baby would interfere with their education, and the same proportion said it would interfere with their employment. In a related vein, 34% said they could not afford a child because they were students or were planning to study.

The most often touted reasons for abortions is the woman's health and rape/incest. The science shows that the vast majority of abortions are for money reasons, inconvenience, or an interruption to a person's life. Another way of saying that abortion is viewed as a birth control method after the child is conceived.

Perhaps if you read my whole statement instead of the one part of it you quoted:


I'll ask you the same question - do you understand what you are reading?

 

[miamited]

Hi @hislegacy

Yes, I did read your full post.

It's just an interesting observation that in this thread based on fairness, we are not addressing the one whose life ends before birth. How is that fair?

I'm also not understanding why you think this is an interesting observation. This entire thread is about how to take care of a child that will be born now that we aren't using abortion as birth control. Throughout this entire thread, certainly as far as I am concerned, the whole point was about how Texas had outlawed abortion and my intent here is to now find a way that a man and a woman, who conceive an unwanted child, would still be responsible for taking care of that child.

As far as your comment about my not reading your post. I actually quoted the first sentence of your post. You said the most often touted reasons for abortions was the woman's health and rape/incest. That was followed by a period. Now, if you meant to draw a line between what people, and honestly I'm not sure what people say that the most often touted reason for abortion is the woman's health and rape/incest, but if you somehow wanted to draw some difference between what some amorphous group of people you claim tout vs. what the science says, then you should have begun your next sentence with..."however...". That way you are showing the juxtaposition between what you claim some people tout against what the scientific facts of the matter seem to be.

The way you wrote your first sentence was a declarative with no grammatical link to the second sentence. Just as you are now claiming to be interestingly observing that this thread is not addressing the one whose life (would have been) ending. My entire position in this thread is to come up with some way that we can insure that an unwanted child, now having to be born, which is right and good, is also financially taken care of. That's all about the child, my friend!

God bless,
Ted

 

[Hazelelponi]

Bette Midler Calls For Sex Strike In Wake Of Radical Texas Abortion Crackdown | HuffPost

Now, before anyone gets their tights wrapped up, I do believe that abortion is wrong. However, I also believe that God intended for the sexual union to be between a husband and wife. So, we can pile on a whole bunch of wrongs that lead to this issue of abortion.

Let's start from the beginning of a pregnancy. A man has sexual relations with a woman or visa versa. There are two people involved in the coupling that produces a pregnancy and in many, many cases, obviously, that pregnancy is unwanted by both the man and the woman. Yet, it is only the woman that will be held to a responsibility to carry through with the pregnancy and be responsible for the child. Whether the child is put up for adoption or raised by his mother.

I believe that for the law in Texas to be fair, then what should be done is that any woman who has an unwanted pregnancy must name the man involved. The man, pending DNA verification, must purchase a $100,000 surety bond and provide medical insurance for both the hospital costs and the child until he/she is 18. The $100,000 surety bond would then be used to force the man to pay at least $500.00/month child support for his child, also until the age of 18.

Sadly, because the sexual union is so often used these days, and portrayed in much of our entertainment, as just the way one enjoys the after dinner time, rather than within the confines of a committed marriage, we are always going to have unwanted pregnancies.

Now, we could further the reduction of unwanted pregnancies by making sexually active men undergo a reversible vasectomy until they produce a valid marriage certificate to have the procedure reversed.

That would be more fair. Not just putting all this responsibility of a sexual union, in which two people were involved, on just one of the two.

God bless,
Ted

I see nothing wrong with women refusing to have sex if they don't want to use birth control...

It's not Christian women who are so angry about not being able to murder babies... Christian women have sex within the confines of their marriage and use various forms of birth control to prevent unwanted pregancies, and have joy in their families and their union with their spouse...

There are plethora of ways to prevent pregnancy, it's time people use those ways. 60 million + abortions in the U.S. alone means its high time they learn what those are, and use them.

 

[hislegacy]

As far as your comment about my not reading your post. I actually quoted the first sentence of your post.

Yes, and if you had read the second, I doubt you would have made your post because you would have seen there was no need for it.

 

[Brihaha]

In my state, it's just money for child support.
Now they garnish the father's wages. If that doesn't work they take his driver's license. It's the same for mothers who aren't raising their children.

Too bad they didn't punish negligent fathers like that in the 60s 70s and 80s. Many of the deadbeat dads simply moved to another state to avoid accountability.

 

[hislegacy]

Too bad they didn't punish negligent fathers like that in the 60s 70s and 80s. Many of the deadbeat dads simply moved to another state to avoid accountability.

If confirmed by a paternity test, the fathers should Be required to financially support the child until 18.

no matter what state they live in.

They should be required to surrender their drivers license and passport until they are consistently supporting the child.

 

[Will Joseph]

"Oh no! A sex strike!" said every celibate never.