Off Topic

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose
adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were
compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in
owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy
mills today.

Err just about all farming involving lifestock.

But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

From a pro-abortion site:

It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly
after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods.

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site. Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable. It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

I believe your site states that in 2014, slightly over half of the abortions provided were to patients who reported using contraception the month they became pregnant. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...th-they-became So, 49% were irresponsible harlots who should be denied an abortion and publicly stoned? Can the other 51% get an abortion -- or are they disqualified for some other reason, like for wanting an abortion?

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/8/2019 1:42 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose
adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were
compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in
owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy
mills today.

Err just about all farming involving lifestock.

But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

From a pro-abortion site:

It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly
after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods.

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site. Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable. It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

I believe your site states that in 2014, slightly over half of the abortions provided were to patients who reported using contraception the month they became pregnant. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...th-they-became So, 49% were irresponsible harlots who should be denied an abortion and publicly stoned? Can the other 51% get an abortion -- or are they disqualified for some other reason, like for wanting an abortion?

"Using contraceptives the month they got pregnant" is not the same as
"got pregnant because a contraceptive failed."

But whatever the number, I've never said they were harlots who deserve
to be stoned.

What I am saying is that society should promote personal responsibility
regarding sex. That includes but is not limited to taking effective
measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy before it happens.

If the energy devoted to just allowing late term abortions were directed
toward assuming that sort of personal responsibility, it would be a
major change, and a major benefit for society.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:20:42 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 1:42 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose
adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were
compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in
owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy
mills today.

Err just about all farming involving lifestock.

But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

From a pro-abortion site:

It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly
after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods.

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site. Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable. It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

I believe your site states that in 2014, slightly over half of the abortions provided were to patients who reported using contraception the month they became pregnant. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...th-they-became So, 49% were irresponsible harlots who should be denied an abortion and publicly stoned? Can the other 51% get an abortion -- or are they disqualified for some other reason, like for wanting an abortion?

"Using contraceptives the month they got pregnant" is not the same as
"got pregnant because a contraceptive failed."

But whatever the number, I've never said they were harlots who deserve
to be stoned.

What I am saying is that society should promote personal responsibility
regarding sex. That includes but is not limited to taking effective
measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy before it happens.

If the energy devoted to just allowing late term abortions were directed
toward assuming that sort of personal responsibility, it would be a
major change, and a major benefit for society.

Society does promote personal responsibility regarding sex. It also promotes personal responsibility regarding operating motor vehicles and boats. It promotes personal responsibility regarding smoking, exercise and healthy eating. What are you suggesting it do differently?

Planned Parenthood can also walk and chew gum. The vast majority of its patients are not seeking abortions. They are seeking contraceptives, treatment for STDs, breast exams, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests, etc. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/up...port18-p03.pdf PP has been promoting contraception for decades, as you know. Even the article you cite indicates that it promotes contraception to its abortion patients.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:20:42 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 1:42 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose
adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were
compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in
owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy
mills today.

Err just about all farming involving lifestock.

But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

From a pro-abortion site:

It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly
after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods.

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site. Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable. It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

I believe your site states that in 2014, slightly over half of the abortions provided were to patients who reported using contraception the month they became pregnant. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...th-they-became So, 49% were irresponsible harlots who should be denied an abortion and publicly stoned? Can the other 51% get an abortion -- or are they disqualified for some other reason, like for wanting an abortion?

"Using contraceptives the month they got pregnant" is not the same as
"got pregnant because a contraceptive failed."

But whatever the number, I've never said they were harlots who deserve
to be stoned.

What I am saying is that society should promote personal responsibility
regarding sex. That includes but is not limited to taking effective
measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy before it happens.

If the energy devoted to just allowing late term abortions were directed
toward assuming that sort of personal responsibility, it would be a
major change, and a major benefit for society.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Is this delicate matter something we should discuss here?

Lou

wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:20:42 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 1:42 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose
adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were
compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in
owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy
mills today.

Err just about all farming involving lifestock.

But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

From a pro-abortion site:

It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly
after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods.

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site. Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable. It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

I believe your site states that in 2014, slightly over half of the
abortions provided were to patients who reported using contraception
the month they became pregnant.
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...th-they-became
So, 49% were irresponsible harlots who should be denied an abortion
and publicly stoned? Can the other 51% get an abortion -- or are they
disqualified for some other reason, like for wanting an abortion?

"Using contraceptives the month they got pregnant" is not the same as
"got pregnant because a contraceptive failed."

But whatever the number, I've never said they were harlots who deserve
to be stoned.

What I am saying is that society should promote personal responsibility
regarding sex. That includes but is not limited to taking effective
measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy before it happens.

If the energy devoted to just allowing late term abortions were directed
toward assuming that sort of personal responsibility, it would be a
major change, and a major benefit for society.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Is this delicate matter something we should discuss here?

Lou


Apparently, it beats talking about bicycles.

On 8/8/2019 5:06 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:20:42 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 1:42 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose
adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were
compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in
owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy
mills today.

Err just about all farming involving lifestock.

But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

From a pro-abortion site:

It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly
after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods.

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site. Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable. It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

I believe your site states that in 2014, slightly over half of the abortions provided were to patients who reported using contraception the month they became pregnant. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...th-they-became So, 49% were irresponsible harlots who should be denied an abortion and publicly stoned? Can the other 51% get an abortion -- or are they disqualified for some other reason, like for wanting an abortion?

"Using contraceptives the month they got pregnant" is not the same as
"got pregnant because a contraceptive failed."

But whatever the number, I've never said they were harlots who deserve
to be stoned.

What I am saying is that society should promote personal responsibility
regarding sex. That includes but is not limited to taking effective
measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy before it happens.

If the energy devoted to just allowing late term abortions were directed
toward assuming that sort of personal responsibility, it would be a
major change, and a major benefit for society.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Is this delicate matter something we should discuss here?

Oh, probably not.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 11:32:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site.

There is Pro and Pro. Anti-aboortionist have been running "pro-abortion'
information sources since rinting started.

Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at
all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable.

Perhaps you would care to list these modern wonders?
Also include the side effects. TANSTAAFL

It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

It is certainly unwise, but your point glosses over many of the reason
why contraception is not used. Perhaps you should examine your fears.

Throughout life i've encountered a few males who refused to use
"contraception" and when she aborted "their" chld, then went over the top
claiming 'she had no right". Shame they didn't make it clear they were
prepared to act as a responsible father by supporting her during her
pregnancy.

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 14:20:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


What I am saying is that society should promote personal responsibility
regarding sex. That includes but is not limited to taking effective
measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy before it happens.

Capitalism has capture sex as a marketing tool. good luck there.

If the energy devoted to just allowing late term abortions were directed
toward assuming that sort of personal responsibility, it would be a
major change, and a major benefit for society.

The planet is over populated and any method to prevent more is becoming
worth consideration.

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:30:19 PM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 11:32:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site.

There is Pro and Pro. Anti-aboortionist have been running "pro-abortion'
information sources since rinting started.

Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at
all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable.

Perhaps you would care to list these modern wonders?
Also include the side effects. TANSTAAFL

Seriously? You don't have Google?

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contra...contraception/

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control

Granted, the effectiveness is less if they are used only "typically" -
IOW, sometimes not used. I don't see that as a fault of the contraceptive.
I see it as a lack of responsibility.


It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

It is certainly unwise, but your point glosses over many of the reason
why contraception is not used. Perhaps you should examine your fears.

Throughout life i've encountered a few males who refused to use
"contraception" and when she aborted "their" chld, then went over the top
claiming 'she had no right". Shame they didn't make it clear they were
prepared to act as a responsible father by supporting her during her
pregnancy.

That is another example of lack of responsibility. Your argument is coming
through as a bit garbled, but I hope you're not somehow defending those men.

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 03:30:12 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 11:32:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site.

There is Pro and Pro. Anti-aboortionist have been running "pro-abortion'
information sources since rinting started.

Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at
all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable.

Perhaps you would care to list these modern wonders?
Also include the side effects. TANSTAAFL

It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

It is certainly unwise, but your point glosses over many of the reason
why contraception is not used. Perhaps you should examine your fears.

Throughout life i've encountered a few males who refused to use
"contraception" and when she aborted "their" chld, then went over the top
claiming 'she had no right". Shame they didn't make it clear they were
prepared to act as a responsible father by supporting her during her
pregnancy.

Given that excessively large populations are a problem why not a law
that after the birth of the second child the male partner will be
sterilized. On one hand, "if you get pregnant you gotta have the kid"
and on the other side, "I'll be damned sure that you don't get
pregnant". Sauce for Gander, sauce for the Goose :-)

--

Cheers,

John B.