Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.

My feelings essentially mirror yours.

Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.

---

Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…

---

It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).

There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.

---

Civ, some of those people believe they should be able to have an abortion all the way up to birth. Its their body and their choice... How can you deny them?

---

I get it. For a millennia women were abused, forced, and coerced by men into having unwanted sex. Women have been broadly denied legal bodily autonomy for most of human existence. It's time they had full control over their bodies and pregnancies, especially those pregnancies forced upon them by will or violence.

So I get the pendulum swing to "my body, my choice" until the moment that baby separates physically from them. All that said that's still a distinctly minority position and is almost certainly not politically viable.

All laws require compromise and this is no different.

---

With this compromise, should this be done at the Federal or State level?

All of a sudden my posts are "disappearing..." 4 today....

Wonder why...?

Kind of like Pelosi telling me it's law to get jabbed …

Glasswolf said:

---

Abortion will not stop. People will cross state lines or go back to the butchers in a back alley. Hopefully Congress will not get filled with a bunch of middle aged whites women passing laws about a man can do with their bodies. We also need to make it easier and less expensive to adopt. That's where we go next. Abolish the death penalty. A life is a life right?

---

D33z said:

---

Kind of like Pelosi telling me it's law to get jabbed …

Glasswolf said:

---

Abortion will not stop. People will cross state lines or go back to the butchers in a back alley. Hopefully Congress will not get filled with a bunch of middle aged whites women passing laws about a man can do with their bodies. We also need to make it easier and less expensive to adopt. That's where we go next. Abolish the death penalty. A life is a life right?

---

---

It's "science" as long as it's their version of "science."

As long as they can rule over the uneducated rube Conservatives that is all they care about.

Now lets see how long this post stays up before it "magically" disappears like several of mine have today.

BBW12OG said:

---

D33z said:

---

Kind of like Pelosi telling me it's law to get jabbed …

Glasswolf said:

---

Abortion will not stop. People will cross state lines or go back to the butchers in a back alley. Hopefully Congress will not get filled with a bunch of middle aged whites women passing laws about a man can do with their bodies. We also need to make it easier and less expensive to adopt. That's where we go next. Abolish the death penalty. A life is a life right?

---

---

It's "science" as long as it's their version of "science."

As long as they can rule over the uneducated rube Conservatives that is all they care about.

Now lets see how long this post stays up before it "magically" disappears like several of mine have today.

---

Nothing magically disappeared. I delete your post. Just like I stopped Steve from perma-banning you last week for calling me a drunk therapist moderator. What to try the bonus round where you can go for the big money?

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.

My feelings essentially mirror yours.

Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.

---

Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…

---

It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).

There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.

---

Civ, some of those people believe they should be able to have an abortion all the way up to birth. Its their body and their choice... How can you deny them?

---

I get it. For a millennia women were abused, forced, and coerced by men into having unwanted sex. Women have been broadly denied legal bodily autonomy for most of human existence. It's time they had full control over their bodies and pregnancies, especially those pregnancies forced upon them by will or violence.

So I get the pendulum swing to "my body, my choice" until the moment that baby separates physically from them. All that said that's still a distinctly minority position and is almost certainly not politically viable.

All laws require compromise and this is no different.

---

Some folks are incapable of nuance. The strongest voices on either side are the most divisive. Most of the folks I know are somewhere in the middle and don't fall into either side's definition of left or right.

Glasswolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

D33z said:

---

Kind of like Pelosi telling me it's law to get jabbed …

Glasswolf said:

---

Abortion will not stop. People will cross state lines or go back to the butchers in a back alley. Hopefully Congress will not get filled with a bunch of middle aged whites women passing laws about a man can do with their bodies. We also need to make it easier and less expensive to adopt. That's where we go next. Abolish the death penalty. A life is a life right?

---

---

It's "science" as long as it's their version of "science."

As long as they can rule over the uneducated rube Conservatives that is all they care about.

Now lets see how long this post stays up before it "magically" disappears like several of mine have today.

---

Nothing magically disappeared. I delete your post. Just like I stopped Steve from you from being perma-banning you last week for calling me a drunk therapist moderator. What to try the bonus round where you can go for the big money?

---

He emailed me. I let him know you threatened to dox me by revealing my payment information. That's an offense that warrants a ban if not more. But, you seem to have survived it without so much as a scratch.

Why did you delete my posts???? You don't agree so you delete them???

Glad things are out in the open. Not the first time you've deleted posts you don't agree with.

BBW12OG said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

D33z said:

---

Kind of like Pelosi telling me it's law to get jabbed …

Glasswolf said:

---

Abortion will not stop. People will cross state lines or go back to the butchers in a back alley. Hopefully Congress will not get filled with a bunch of middle aged whites women passing laws about a man can do with their bodies. We also need to make it easier and less expensive to adopt. That's where we go next. Abolish the death penalty. A life is a life right?

---

---

It's "science" as long as it's their version of "science."

As long as they can rule over the uneducated rube Conservatives that is all they care about.

Now lets see how long this post stays up before it "magically" disappears like several of mine have today.

---

Nothing magically disappeared. I delete your post. Just like I stopped Steve from you from being perma-banning you last week for calling me a drunk therapist moderator. What to try the bonus round where you can go for the big money?

---

He emailed me. I let him know you threatened to dox me by revealing my payment information. That's an offense that warrants a ban if not more. But, you seem to have survived it without so much as a scratch.

Why did you delete my posts???? You don't agree so you delete them???

Glad things are out in the open. Not the first time you've deleted posts you don't agree with.

---

And I publicly admitted I was wrong and apologized to you in public and in private. What have you done? Nothing of course because you are never wrong. About anything. And Steve/ James knew what I had done before I ever apologized to you because I shared it with them both. And I never threatened to share your information. I just stated at the time you joined the moderators had access to your email and up address which I used every day to check to see if the user is a spammer. I've banned over 400 Russian bots alone since the site was founded. That info is not available anymore.

I made a big mistake and fessed up to it. I've also lobbied to have your ban overturned before. You've yet to apologized about the comment other than "good job with my recovery"

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.

My feelings essentially mirror yours.

Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.

---

Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…

---

It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).

There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.

---

Civ, some of those people believe they should be able to have an abortion all the way up to birth. Its their body and their choice... How can you deny them?

---

I get it. For a millennia women were abused, forced, and coerced by men into having unwanted sex. Women have been broadly denied legal bodily autonomy for most of human existence. It's time they had full control over their bodies and pregnancies, especially those pregnancies forced upon them by will or violence.

So I get the pendulum swing to "my body, my choice" until the moment that baby separates physically from them. All that said that's still a distinctly minority position and is almost certainly not politically viable.

All laws require compromise and this is no different.

---

With this compromise, should this be done at the Federal or State level?

---

Ideally all the states would make that deal.

The problem is that they won't, and a woman's ability to obtain desired or necessary care should not depend on what state she lives in. Like so many other taxes and laws, such a situation becomes highly regressive. Those in poor health, relationship, or financial situations are disproportionately impacted.

I know that's a non-answer Cary. If I think that no woman should be denied the right to that type of health care, the implication is that such a compromise would be federal. However, jurisprudence complexities aside the irony also isn't missed that if a federal judgment upholding abortion is constitutional, then so to would be a federal abortion ban.

I think this issue goes away as more of a consensus develops nationally, and despite the current climate I think we're actually trending in that direction.

More can be deduced from this fact than all Corporate Media bu$$**** combined for which truth is most often the opposite of their narrative pushed.


1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
-- Interview with John Parsons, 1947
2. "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
-- Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920) http://www.bartleby.com/1013/
3. "We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."
-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2
https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/...
4. "I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered."
-- Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 366
5. "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically... Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sinthat people cancan commit."
-- Interview with journalist Mike Wallace, 1957
6. "The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children..."
-- Sanger, Margaret. Woman and the New Race (1920). Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families. http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5...
7. "Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded [sic] upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1919) Birth Control and Racial Betterment. The Birth Control Review.
8. "As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda. The Birth Control Review, p. 5. http://birthcontrolreview.net/...
9. "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, Birth Control Review, p. 5
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
10. "No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1918) When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children? Birth Control Review, Nov. 1918, 6-7, Margaret Sanger Microfilm, S70:807.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
11. "A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 3, 27 Mar 1934.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
12. "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 4, March 27, 1934.
13. "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman's part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 5, March 27, 1934.
14. "No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth..."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 6, March 27, 1934.
15. "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
-- Sanger, Margaret. "My Way to Peace," Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
16. "... these two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."
-- Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
17. "Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease..."
-- Sanger, Margaret (1922). The Pivot of Civilization.
18. "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement."
-- Margaret Sanger, "The Pope's Position on Birth Control," Jan. 27, 1932.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
19. "All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class... Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger, "Morality and Birth Control," Feb-Mar 1918.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sa...
20. "Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots."
-- Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, 1922
https://www.scribd.com/documen...
21. "Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives… If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman." -- "Woman and the New Race," 1920

Quote:

---

PackFansXL said:
https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

Quote:

---

Quote:
The state of Florida records a reason for every abortion that occurs within its borders each year. In 2020, there were 74,868 abortions in Florida. This table lists each reason and the percentage of abortions that occurred because of it.

Percentage Reason
0.01% The pregnancy resulted from an incestuous relationship
0.15% The woman was raped
0.20% The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
0.98% There was a serious fetal abnormality
1.48% The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
1.88% The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy
20.4% The woman aborted for social or economic reasons
74.9% No reason (elective)

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

• In 2019, women who had not aborted in the past accounted for 58% of all abortions; women with one or two prior abortions accounted for 34%, and women with three or more prior abortions accounted for 8% (CDC).

---

Notice the reasons given by about 75% of women is simply elective. According to this data, only 20% of would be mothers mentioned finances as their primary reason.

---

If we go with the previously mentioned "no brainer" line, we would allow only 0.36% of abortions requested in Florida in 2019. I am curious where others would draw the line irrespective of the age of the fetus. What justification for an abortion is acceptable?

Glasswolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

D33z said:

---

Kind of like Pelosi telling me it's law to get jabbed …

Glasswolf said:

---

Abortion will not stop. People will cross state lines or go back to the butchers in a back alley. Hopefully Congress will not get filled with a bunch of middle aged whites women passing laws about a man can do with their bodies. We also need to make it easier and less expensive to adopt. That's where we go next. Abolish the death penalty. A life is a life right?

---

---

It's "science" as long as it's their version of "science."

As long as they can rule over the uneducated rube Conservatives that is all they care about.

Now lets see how long this post stays up before it "magically" disappears like several of mine have today.

---

Nothing magically disappeared. I delete your post. Just like I stopped Steve from you from being perma-banning you last week for calling me a drunk therapist moderator. What to try the bonus round where you can go for the big money?

---

He emailed me. I let him know you threatened to dox me by revealing my payment information. That's an offense that warrants a ban if not more. But, you seem to have survived it without so much as a scratch.

Why did you delete my posts???? You don't agree so you delete them???

Glad things are out in the open. Not the first time you've deleted posts you don't agree with.

---

And I publicly admitted I was wrong and apologized to you in public and in private. What have you done? Nothing of course because you are never wrong. About anything. And Steve/ James knew what I had done before I ever apologized to you because I shared it with them both. And I never threatened to share your information. I just stated at the time you joined the moderators had access to your email and up address which I used every day to check to see if the user is a spammer. I've banned over 400 Russian bots alone since the site was founded. That info is not available anymore.

I made a big mistake and fessed up to it. I've also lobbied to have your ban overturned before. You've yet to apologized about the comment other than "good job with my recovery"

---

A few things... I never knew you battled alcohol and I never knew you were a therapist if in fact you are/were. Again, if those comments offended you sorry. But as far as ill intent there was none. There were comments made prior to mine about you "drunk posting." And they weren't by me so I piled on.

Next, you came on here a few weeks ago saying that you weren't moderating anymore on this board and that "(sic) you didn't care what was said, the gloves were off." And you were just going to troll comment threads. Is that not what you said? I know it's not word for word but you get the gist of it. Judging from those comments why should anyone not think it's ok to post whatever. But, I guess if you are a moderator when you want to be and an antagonist when you want to be with ability to control the conversation with moderator powers you get the best of both worlds am I right?????

Finally deleting my threads is laughable. Nothing I said was out of line. Not one rule was broken. Explain why, you, as an obviously biased moderator, can justify deleting threads. Especially the ones you don't agree with.

I'll be looking forward to that answer.



Several posters commented and were glad that we were free to engage in back and forth. Do you remember that?

Werewolf said:

---

More can be deduced from this fact than all Corporate Media bu$$**** combined for which truth is most often the opposite of their narrative pushed.

---

ah, good ol' Passport Magazine

You don't need to put up a bull**** meme when the real quote is just fine:

"the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

Poor Holkie, he offended in this case. He's fine if it's fake news that supports his Marxist agenda.

I'll look into this and If it's fabricated happily take it down. You are quite an impressive hypocrite....

Supposedly the Hyde Amendment will prevent it. But like most things there are different rules for Conservatives than there are for the lefties……

See above.

hokiewolf said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

More can be deduced from this fact than all Corporate Media bu$$**** combined for which truth is most often the opposite of their narrative pushed.

---

ah, good ol' Passport Magazine

You don't need to put up a bull**** meme when the real quote is just fine:

"the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

---

How about these, hand wringer? Check these for me.......be sure to use SNOPES.com........highly trusted :-)

Planned Parenthood = Democrats = Margaret Sanger = RINOs of today too.

1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
-- Interview with John Parsons, 1947
2. "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
-- Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920) http://www.bartleby.com/1013/
3. "We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."
-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2
https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/...
4. "I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered."
-- Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 366
5. "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically... Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sinthat people cancan commit."
-- Interview with journalist Mike Wallace, 1957
6. "The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children..."
-- Sanger, Margaret. Woman and the New Race (1920). Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families. http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5...
7. "Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded [sic] upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1919) Birth Control and Racial Betterment. The Birth Control Review.
8. "As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda. The Birth Control Review, p. 5. http://birthcontrolreview.net/...
9. "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, Birth Control Review, p. 5
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
10. "No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1918) When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children? Birth Control Review, Nov. 1918, 6-7, Margaret Sanger Microfilm, S70:807.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
11. "A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 3, 27 Mar 1934.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
12. "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 4, March 27, 1934.
13. "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman's part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 5, March 27, 1934.
14. "No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth..."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 6, March 27, 1934.
15. "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
-- Sanger, Margaret. "My Way to Peace," Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
16. "... these two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."
-- Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
17. "Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease..."
-- Sanger, Margaret (1922). The Pivot of Civilization.
18. "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement."
-- Margaret Sanger, "The Pope's Position on Birth Control," Jan. 27, 1932.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...
19. "All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class... Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger, "Morality and Birth Control," Feb-Mar 1918.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sa...
20. "Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots."
-- Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, 1922
https://www.scribd.com/documen...
21. "Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives… If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman." -- "Woman and the New Race," 1920

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.

My feelings essentially mirror yours.

Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.

---

Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…

---

It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).

There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.

---

Civ, some of those people believe they should be able to have an abortion all the way up to birth. Its their body and their choice... How can you deny them?

---

I get it. For a millennia women were abused, forced, and coerced by men into having unwanted sex. Women have been broadly denied legal bodily autonomy for most of human existence. It's time they had full control over their bodies and pregnancies, especially those pregnancies forced upon them by will or violence.

So I get the pendulum swing to "my body, my choice" until the moment that baby separates physically from them. All that said that's still a distinctly minority position and is almost certainly not politically viable.

All laws require compromise and this is no different.

---

With this compromise, should this be done at the Federal or State level?

---

Ideally all the states would make that deal.

The problem is that they won't, and a woman's ability to obtain desired or necessary care should not depend on what state she lives in. Like so many other taxes and laws, such a situation becomes highly regressive. Those in poor health, relationship, or financial situations are disproportionately impacted.

I know that's a non-answer Cary. If I think that no woman should be denied the right to that type of health care, the implication is that such a compromise would be federal. However, jurisprudence complexities aside the irony also isn't missed that if a federal judgment upholding abortion is constitutional, then so to would be a federal abortion ban.

I think this issue goes away as more of a consensus develops nationally, and despite the current climate I think we're actually trending in that direction.

---

Civ, why shouldn't a woman's ability to obtain desired or necessary care not depend on what state she lives in?

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dude please take your chronic beefing with Glass to PM.

The rest of us don't care.

---

Civ, although I agree that Glass and BBW should take the debate to their own thread and/or PM's, I do find it comical that you called out BBW and not Glass.

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to ask both of them to take it somewhere else? I do, as it showed your partiality…. Civ, I know you can do better…

---

I'm done with Glass. I was better off ignoring him. He deleted posts for no reason and can because he is a moderator. We all know he's biased and protects his own ilk.

Civ… you aren't worth the time or trouble.

Nice post Werewolf…. You sent Pinocchio back to the basement with no desert tonight!!! He and his merry band of libbies will regroup, come back, delete posts and tell us how mean we are….

Sieve is about 30.....a child. Not worth the time.

Glass surprised me, I thought he was somewhat of an elder statesman. I'm somewhat new to the Water Cooler so I'm still learning.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.

My feelings essentially mirror yours.

Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.

---

Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…

---

It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).

There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.

---

Civ, some of those people believe they should be able to have an abortion all the way up to birth. Its their body and their choice... How can you deny them?

---

I get it. For a millennia women were abused, forced, and coerced by men into having unwanted sex. Women have been broadly denied legal bodily autonomy for most of human existence. It's time they had full control over their bodies and pregnancies, especially those pregnancies forced upon them by will or violence.

So I get the pendulum swing to "my body, my choice" until the moment that baby separates physically from them. All that said that's still a distinctly minority position and is almost certainly not politically viable.

All laws require compromise and this is no different.

---

With this compromise, should this be done at the Federal or State level?

---

Ideally all the states would make that deal.

The problem is that they won't, and a woman's ability to obtain desired or necessary care should not depend on what state she lives in. Like so many other taxes and laws, such a situation becomes highly regressive. Those in poor health, relationship, or financial situations are disproportionately impacted.

I know that's a non-answer Cary. If I think that no woman should be denied the right to that type of health care, the implication is that such a compromise would be federal. However, jurisprudence complexities aside the irony also isn't missed that if a federal judgment upholding abortion is constitutional, then so to would be a federal abortion ban.

I think this issue goes away as more of a consensus develops nationally, and despite the current climate I think we're actually trending in that direction.

---

Civ, why shouldn't a woman's ability to obtain desired or necessary care not depend on what state she lives in?

---

For the same reason it doesn't benefit the public good to limit sale of rubbers, IUD's, angioplasties, tonsillectomies, vasectomies, or any other necessary or desired health care based on geography.

PackFansXL said:

---

If we go with the previously mentioned "no brainer" line, we would allow only 0.36% of abortions requested in Florida in 2019. I am curious where others would draw the line irrespective of the age of the fetus. What justification for an abortion is acceptable?

---

You are aware that rape is significantly underreported right?

And that there is no incentive for women getting ready to undergo an abortion to divulge the reason(s) and situation(s) that led them to that clinic, especially if they were the victims of rape or incest (or coercive sex) and don't want to be re-traumatized by discussing that trauma with strangers?

Regardless, the whole idea of bodily autonomy and legal abortion is that, up to some point in their pregnancy, women don't need to justify to you, me, or anyone else why they are electing to have an abortion.

Civilized said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

If we go with the previously mentioned "no brainer" line, we would allow only 0.36% of abortions requested in Florida in 2019. I am curious where others would draw the line irrespective of the age of the fetus. What justification for an abortion is acceptable?

---

You are aware that rape is significantly underreported right?

And that there is no incentive for women getting ready to undergo an abortion to divulge the reason(s) and situation(s) that led them to that clinic, especially if they were the victims of rape or incest (or coercive sex) and don't want to be re-traumatized by discussing that trauma with strangers?

Regardless, the whole idea of bodily autonomy and legal abortion is that, up to some point in their pregnancy, women don't need to justify to you, me, or anyone else why they are electing to have an abortion.

---

Seems rather flippant when we consider the choice results in the death of another person. A strong argument can be made for providing as much protection for those who would be killed since they have no power to protect themselves. We need to shift our focus from the adult who usually has already chosen to have unprotected sex and is unwilling to take the consequences and put it on the completely innocent person who's life she is so willing to extinguish. We recognize justifiable homicide in this country. It seems we should have a standard in these cases as well. Abortion for any reason seems far too low of a standard to me and I assume to the roughly 1 million American victims in a given year.

Steve Videtich said:

---

Do you have an issue with repeat users of abortion as a form of birth control?

---

Yes.

PackFansXL said:

---

Civilized said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

If we go with the previously mentioned "no brainer" line, we would allow only 0.36% of abortions requested in Florida in 2019. I am curious where others would draw the line irrespective of the age of the fetus. What justification for an abortion is acceptable?

---

You are aware that rape is significantly underreported right?

And that there is no incentive for women getting ready to undergo an abortion to divulge the reason(s) and situation(s) that led them to that clinic, especially if they were the victims of rape or incest (or coercive sex) and don't want to be re-traumatized by discussing that trauma with strangers?

Regardless, the whole idea of bodily autonomy and legal abortion is that, up to some point in their pregnancy, women don't need to justify to you, me, or anyone else why they are electing to have an abortion.

---

Seems rather flippant when we consider the choice results in the death of another person. A strong argument can be made for providing as much protection for those who would be killed since they have no power to protect themselves. We need to shift our focus from the adult who usually has already chosen to have unprotected sex and is unwilling to take the consequences and put it on the completely innocent person who's life she is so willing to extinguish. We recognize justifiable homicide in this country. It seems we should have a standard in these cases as well. Abortion for any reason seems far too low of a standard to me and I assume to the roughly 1 million American victims in a given year.

---

A fertilized egg or fetus up to a point isn't a person (my take).

Does it have hopes, dreams, aspirations? Emotional connections? A social security number? By what definition is a fertilized egg/fetus a person?

When a person is dying, do they call time of death when the heart stops or when brain activity stops? By that definition when does consequential brain activity begin in a fetus? At how many weeks?

There's always a reason.

Not financially prepared.
Bad timing.
Bad partner.
Bad night.
Interferes with life plans.
Health reasons.
Pressured into sex.
Raped.

If you believe that post-conception fertilized eggs are people then that's incompatible with the concept of bodily autonomy for pregnant women.

The whole idea of bodily autonomy is that there is a period of time, post-conception and pre-birth, where for xx weeks the fetus isn't sentient, aware, viable, etc. and is simply part of the woman's body.

In this line of thinking, abortion up to xx weeks doesn't need your approval. It's the mother's decision because that fetus is a part of her body and not a separate, sentient, aware, viable person.

ETA: I don't know what that goofy-ass emoji is doing on this post. That wasn't me (intentionally)

You asked a lot of questions about a fetus and its hopes and dreams and SSN. But it has a heartbeat, that's proof of life on Mars, so thats good enough for plenty of us to say it should be protected. Sorry some people have life plans though. But even if we wait til "xx" weeks, thats still far from the full term rights most on the left want.

Good debate though, hope Glass doesnt delete it. Civ, I respect the fact that you are up for the debates.

Most of us pro-lifers believe that you have to tell yourself a heartbeat isnt a life, and cover that in as many layers of rationale possible, because no ones wants to face the idea that they are a part of ending a baby's life. And I understand your medical reasoning, but to me I just think it sounds like something we need to be true, more than it is true. So its just a procedure for many. Hence way more 2nd and 3rd procedures than ones from rape. And even if rape is vastly underreported, its stil at .04 percent. So ten times that? 4%?

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dude please take your chronic beefing with Glass to PM.

The rest of us don't care.

---

Civ, although I agree that Glass and BBW should take the debate to their own thread and/or PM's, I do find it comical that you called out BBW and not Glass.

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to ask both of them to take it somewhere else? I do, as it showed your partiality…. Civ, I know you can do better…

---

I just wish that they could both try to take the high road and move on from their personal feelings for one another on this board... I know, easier said than done and all that. I think they've both been correct in some of their arguments, and I think they've both been wrong in some of their arguments... no different from most of the rest of us here.

Bottom line is that I appreciate both of them posting here and hope that they "continue to feel as called" (apologies to wolfer 79 for stealing his line)... listen, we can all get pretty fired up here sometimes, but sometimes it's just better to say what you feel that you need to say "within reason" - and then move on.

We are starting to get beyond "within reason" in this conversation.

Might be time to move on from it and discuss something else.

---

Storm I agree with you. Like I said, I'm done engaging with him.

But, there was absolutely NO reason for him to delete several of my posts from yesterday other than the fact that he can and he has that power. I've overstepped before and I admit it. I also paid the consequences more than once.

He comes on here and pretty much like I said earlier, plays moderator when he wants and antagonist when he wants. Plus he has the power to delete posts whenever it suits him. Talk about a power trip....

And that is all I am saying further on the topic. He's shown who he is more than once and his actions yesterday further solidify that.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.

My feelings essentially mirror yours.

Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.

---

Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…

---

It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).

There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.

---

Civ, some of those people believe they should be able to have an abortion all the way up to birth. Its their body and their choice... How can you deny them?

---

I get it. For a millennia women were abused, forced, and coerced by men into having unwanted sex. Women have been broadly denied legal bodily autonomy for most of human existence. It's time they had full control over their bodies and pregnancies, especially those pregnancies forced upon them by will or violence.

So I get the pendulum swing to "my body, my choice" until the moment that baby separates physically from them. All that said that's still a distinctly minority position and is almost certainly not politically viable.

All laws require compromise and this is no different.

---

One circumstance that is different this time, and the law is part of the problem. As a new tactic to legally indulge in misogyny, some males calling themselves women to victimize women.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.

My feelings essentially mirror yours.

Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.

---

Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…

---

It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).

There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.

---

Civ, some of those people believe they should be able to have an abortion all the way up to birth. Its their body and their choice... How can you deny them?

---

I get it. For a millennia women were abused, forced, and coerced by men into having unwanted sex. Women have been broadly denied legal bodily autonomy for most of human existence. It's time they had full control over their bodies and pregnancies, especially those pregnancies forced upon them by will or violence.

So I get the pendulum swing to "my body, my choice" until the moment that baby separates physically from them. All that said that's still a distinctly minority position and is almost certainly not politically viable.

All laws require compromise and this is no different.

---

With this compromise, should this be done at the Federal or State level?

---

Ideally all the states would make that deal.

The problem is that they won't, and a woman's ability to obtain desired or necessary care should not depend on what state she lives in. Like so many other taxes and laws, such a situation becomes highly regressive. Those in poor health, relationship, or financial situations are disproportionately impacted.

I know that's a non-answer Cary. If I think that no woman should be denied the right to that type of health care, the implication is that such a compromise would be federal. However, jurisprudence complexities aside the irony also isn't missed that if a federal judgment upholding abortion is constitutional, then so to would be a federal abortion ban.

I think this issue goes away as more of a consensus develops nationally, and despite the current climate I think we're actually trending in that direction.

---

Civ, why shouldn't a woman's ability to obtain desired or necessary care not depend on what state she lives in?

---

For the same reason it doesn't benefit the public good to limit sale of rubbers, IUD's, angioplasties, tonsillectomies, vasectomies, or any other necessary or desired health care based on geography.

---

Civ, I've been trying to change the conversation, albeit, I've done a horrible job, to more of a 10th amendment discussion. I hear what you're saying; however, most is more about an emotional argument, that I might agree with.

In my view, the beauty of this ruling was as much about constitutional governance than overturning Roe. I see all your points as a States rights issue, than anything else. Once these issue are with the States, then you and I will have more power, that leads to better results, to elect representatives that will change certain laws.

All I ask is that we celebrate the idea that we can have more say in laws that affect us. That truly is the beauty of this country's founding…. Remember, we wouldn't have a federal government had, we the states, didn't create it. We, the states, didn't give full reign over to the Federal Government for total control.

Here comes a controversial comment… the civil war loss, by the south, hurt more about this country, than anything! Put aside (if you can) slavery and think about the idea of States Rights (10th Amendment) and you will see what I mean. Remember, the Northeast had all the power because they controlled all the banking. We lost the true sovereignty of each State, shortly after the Civil War. What came next was an all powerful Federal government, lead by the Rosevelt family. For the good Teddy did, his bad, killed the fabric of our founding.