The only form of birth control that’s 100% effective is abstinence.

Temujin

Well-known member
Then don't reply to with with such an inane response skippy.
You are sticking your nose into a conversation I am having with someone else. Inane is all that person understands. Abuse seems to be all you are capable of, sock puppet.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
As the saying goes, the only form of birth control that’s 100% effective is abstinence. “Most of the time, birth control does work, but ‘accidents’ can happen,” Dolan says.

Siobhan Dolan, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

Ugly ignorant pro-deathers argue with a Doc.
Using the standard atheist trick of word games.

Pro-abortion apologists with no credentials and hatred for humanity.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Abstinence does not prevent rape. So not 100% effective.
Sterilization then? Why isn't sterilization being offered as an option? I'm actually kind of surprised because so many people really don't want to have children. A lot of men are getting their tubes tied, but doctors tend to be reluctant to tie a woman's tubes until they've had a baby.

Death is 100% effective.

Isolation is also 100% effective.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Crass as this may sound, plenty of men plough into women... are you opposed to abortions in cases of rape?
I'm opposed to making the exception the rule. If a woman can't be bothered to report, and undergo an examination as well as have her womb scraped or any of the other alternatives to prevent pregnancy from taking place, then she should not have an abortion.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
I'm opposed to making the exception the rule. If a woman can't be bothered to report, and undergo an examination as well as have her womb scraped or any of the other alternatives to prevent pregnancy from taking place, then she should not have an abortion.
Then you are in favour of the law forcing a woman to carry her rapist's child to term?
If so, that's the most loathsome viewpoint I can imagine.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Then you are in favour of the law forcing a woman to carry her rapist's child to term?
Yep.
If so, that's the most loathsome viewpoint I can imagine.
So you have no imagination. So what?

People are being forced to take experimental gene therapies for the good of society. The same argument can be made that killing innocent babies is not good for society. It turns societies into barbarians.

Murdering unborn babies is pretty loathsome, but coming up with justifications for murder is downright contemptible.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Well, at least you own it.
Would you be prepared to hold a placard to that effect outside a rape crisis centre?

IF YOU ARE PREGNANT, TOUGH - YOU CARRY THAT RAPE-BABY ALL THE WAY!
Why would I want to waste my time with that? If I thought it would make a difference, I'd rather invest my time lobbying for more stringent regulations prohibiting those who are too lazy to report rapists, or their own rape to authorities, and deal with the possibility of conception before it happens rather than waiting until the taxpayer has to foot the bill.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Why would I want to waste my time with that? If I thought it would make a difference, I'd rather invest my time lobbying for more stringent regulations prohibiting those who are too lazy to report rapists, or their own rape to authorities, and deal with the possibility of conception before it happens rather than waiting until the taxpayer has to foot the bill.
Let's say a first-time victim reports the rape and takes every prosecutorial avenue open to her - would you allow her to abort then?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Let's say a first-time victim reports the rape and takes every prosecutorial avenue open to her - would you allow her to abort then?
That's not the main point. The main point is that she take every preventative avenue open to her to prevent conception from taking place as soon as possible. Waiting six months, and then showing up to have an abortion is idiotic. She should be sterilized.

I suspect that a whole lot of women these days would jump at the chance to be freed from the onerous task of being responsible for utilizing any and all forms of contraception. Instead of going through a quite burdensome process of killing and extracting a dead baby from their body repeatedly, how many would love to have one simple out patient surgery that allows them to have all the worry free sex they could ever want?

Think of the savings in time, and money this would produce, along with the exponential reduction in hundreds of thousands of abortions. Over time, we're talking about millions upon millions of abortions that would never happen; a win/win.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Waiting six months, and then showing up to have an abortion is idiotic. She should be sterilized.
But if life beings at conception, isn't post-rape sterilization the same as abortion, if she happens to be pregnant?
I suspect that a whole lot of women these days would jump at the chance to be freed from the onerous task of being responsible for utilizing any and all forms of contraception. Instead of going through a quite burdensome process of killing and extracting a dead baby from their body repeatedly, how many would love to have one simple out patient surgery that allows them to have all the worry free sex they could ever want?

Think of the savings in time, and money this would produce, along with the exponential reduction in hundreds of thousands of abortions. Over time, we're talking about millions upon millions of abortions that would never happen; a win/win.
I agree completely. And I think not only that it should be free, it should be incentivized by the government. Or, at least, the incentives that come with having children should be removed - no tax breaks, no free child care, not even "parent and child" parking spaces.

If you can't afford children off your own back, you don't get to have them, IMO.
 
Top