This old pro life logic have failed time and time again. You want to not FUND abortions, not BAN abortions. Why? cause no one likes BANS.
They can believe life begins at conception and still vote against a ban. Why? because no one likes BANS. However, no one likes to pay for a stupid mistake someone else did either, Trump use DEFUND PP for a reason.
Would I like to ban abortion, stop premarital sex and have world peace? heavenly yes, but that's not reality. People can't have stupid sex and easily vote for banning abortions. Mike Pence though obviously can, but most humans? Nah
The same goes for unwed cohabitation. Living as a couple prior to making a legal commitment with your current property and future earnings at stake is perfectly logical.
It used to be banned in the states in religious areas and it didn't work, it isn't reality, that's the point. The point is common sense is what bans things not laws.
The thing is persuading people over time is better than making a law that bans. There is a lot less visible slavery now, same with cannibalism. Sure there is a 'ban' but was it the law or the common sense that is really banning it? Wage slavery is very real still, did minimum wage help much at all?
Laws are great at gray areas, like you can have abortions before x weeks and not after. Laws are not great at bans, like lets ban murder, doesn't work? ban guns, doesn't work? ban aggressive males, doesn't work? etc but age of consent or drinking? great!
So to the point, telling pregnant mothers they are wonderful and it's gonna be great to have mini them running around the world, and you and many will help them raise the kid will work way better than laws.
Poor women in bad areas often have low self esteem and support which make abortion a very real choice. For example, if you think your kid is gonna be the next Trump, you'll die for that baby right? but if you think you are nothing the father won't be there and the kid is probably not far from the tree then...it's sad.
I don't necessarily disagree. In fact, I've made similar arguments over the years. Remember when the argument was "Well, abortion sucks, but it's necessary"? Yeah, that's went out the window now. "Let's celebrate our 19th abortion on Twitter! sponsored by Google! Yay women!"
I still think you're arguing semantics, though. But it's not an invalid approach, I guess.
You do you. If it works for you, you're doing God's work. Despite your well-reasoned argument, I would, myself, still consider any sort of abortion ban a success.
Think of it this way, if it is God's work, learn all the ways to communicate with someone. Learn all the semantics if needed.
My point is what is posted will not succeed in swaying people. Something like: Planned parenthood made 1.67 billions in 2017-2018 & 79% of their surgical abortion facilities were within walking distance of African American or Hispanic communities.
How do we feel about profiting off of abortions? what would Jesus say?
Let's get rid on the "BAN" on killing people because you want their wallets too, then, because "nobody likes bans." Killing innocent human beings is OK to ban.
This old pro life logic have failed time and time again. You want to not FUND abortions, not BAN abortions. Why? cause no one likes BANS.
They can believe life begins at conception and still vote against a ban. Why? because no one likes BANS. However, no one likes to pay for a stupid mistake someone else did either, Trump use DEFUND PP for a reason.
Would I like to ban abortion, stop premarital sex and have world peace? heavenly yes, but that's not reality. People can't have stupid sex and easily vote for banning abortions. Mike Pence though obviously can, but most humans? Nah
The same goes for unwed cohabitation. Living as a couple prior to making a legal commitment with your current property and future earnings at stake is perfectly logical.
It used to be banned in the states in religious areas and it didn't work, it isn't reality, that's the point. The point is common sense is what bans things not laws.
Cohabitation makes breakups emotionally feel like divorces, and breakups get nasty with pet custody disputes or kids; thus I don’t think it’s smart.
Premarital sex is necessary because you have to test drive before getting married.
You want to stop premarital sex? How about you go fuck yourself and mind your own business you fucking socialist.
read it again...did you just woke up or something jeez
And then Amazon and Netflix step up with their funding abortions plan, like Bloomberg add him paying off his felon's fines so they can vote.
And we're right back to where we started from.
But I don't disagree with your premise of defunding abortions. It's a start.
Your argument is like saying, "Let's stop funding slavery! But banning slavery? WHAAAT? No one likes bans!"
Still, I don't disagree entirely. But I can always see a devil's advocate position. I'd still prefer to have it banned outright.
The thing is persuading people over time is better than making a law that bans. There is a lot less visible slavery now, same with cannibalism. Sure there is a 'ban' but was it the law or the common sense that is really banning it? Wage slavery is very real still, did minimum wage help much at all?
Laws are great at gray areas, like you can have abortions before x weeks and not after. Laws are not great at bans, like lets ban murder, doesn't work? ban guns, doesn't work? ban aggressive males, doesn't work? etc but age of consent or drinking? great!
So to the point, telling pregnant mothers they are wonderful and it's gonna be great to have mini them running around the world, and you and many will help them raise the kid will work way better than laws.
Poor women in bad areas often have low self esteem and support which make abortion a very real choice. For example, if you think your kid is gonna be the next Trump, you'll die for that baby right? but if you think you are nothing the father won't be there and the kid is probably not far from the tree then...it's sad.
Most people should have problems of PP making 1.67 billion last year of of aborted babies, then contributing to democrats.
I'll leave the pro life or pro choice bs argument to someone else.
Since when are we ok with solving social problems by ending the life of the innocent?
Society would do really well if we could just kill off a few million people.
Hmm.
I don't necessarily disagree. In fact, I've made similar arguments over the years. Remember when the argument was "Well, abortion sucks, but it's necessary"? Yeah, that's went out the window now. "Let's celebrate our 19th abortion on Twitter! sponsored by Google! Yay women!"
I still think you're arguing semantics, though. But it's not an invalid approach, I guess.
You do you. If it works for you, you're doing God's work. Despite your well-reasoned argument, I would, myself, still consider any sort of abortion ban a success.
Think of it this way, if it is God's work, learn all the ways to communicate with someone. Learn all the semantics if needed.
My point is what is posted will not succeed in swaying people. Something like: Planned parenthood made 1.67 billions in 2017-2018 & 79% of their surgical abortion facilities were within walking distance of African American or Hispanic communities.
How do we feel about profiting off of abortions? what would Jesus say?
IMHO is more effective in reach and persuasion.
Maybe use a condom or birth control. Or don't be a hoe.
Let's get rid on the "BAN" on killing people because you want their wallets too, then, because "nobody likes bans." Killing innocent human beings is OK to ban.
I would like to defund the killing of children. And I would like to BAN the killing of children. Both.