******** after six weeks effectively banned in Texas

[pesticid]

Well I certainly don't claim any kinda expertise So it should be easy enough to prove me wrong with facts and evidence right? Otherwise your words ring kinda hollow.

What happened in developed Countries? Lotta back street ********s amongst other things although adoption rates were higher too both voluntary and involuntary. Why do you think it was legalised in the first place?

Once again what do you predict the outcomes will be? you don't see more kids growing up in poverty then, or more back street ********s with all the grotesque risks they involve? You don't believe there'll be an increase in suicides amongst pregnant girls and women or even an increase in violence and murder against women from partners? No? All gonna be happy smiling newborns in La La Land then?

Look man, you got your beliefs and you can talk about the plethora of choices pregnant women got all you like but I'm spelling out some of the realities for you... Now if you believe fetal rights ***** all that and that 6 weeks is so much different from 12 or 20 weeks that's your right, but shutting your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears ain't gonna change the fact that these laws are gonna has some bad consequences for many pregnant women.

In Canada, in 1931, 12 % of children were in lone parent families.

The baby-boom years in Canada (1946-1965) were characterized by a relatively large share of married couple families and HIGH FERTILITY RATES. In 1961, 94% of children in census families were living with married parents, the highest proportion observed over the last century.

In 1988, ******** becomes legal in Canada. In 2011 lone parent families rose to 22%.

I repeat, you know nothing. I just broke your naive argument to atoms really, yet your pride won't let you admit it, singing the false gospel of crackhead hoes raising unwanted, unaborted childrem from corner to corner, block to block, city to city, province to province and ocean to ocean.

[Citizen Koba]

In Canada, in 1931, 12 % of children were in lone parent families.

The baby-boom years in Canada (1946-1965) were characterized by a relatively large share of married couple families and HIGH FERTILITY RATES. In 1961, 94% of children in census families were living with married parents, the highest proportion observed over the last century.

In 1988, ******** becomes legal in Canada. In 2011 lone parent families rose to 22%.

I repeat, you know nothing. I just broke your naive argument to atoms really, yet your pride won't let you admit it, singing the false gospel of crackhead hoes raising unwanted, unaborted childrem from corner to corner, block to block, city to city, province to province and ocean to ocean.

AnnualNegligibleBarnowl-max-1mb.gif

WTF even was that? That's your idea of a KO blow?.... man I didn't even feel the wind off your punches. Always amuses me when folk seem to think that declaring they've made a strong argument actually makes it so. Like those boxers who you'll see luanch a bunch of wild swings wide then raise their hands in the air like they're fooling anyone.

First off you haven't actually addressed a single point I've made about the harm caused by making ******** more difficult, which is understandable because you really can't. It's not even controversial or open to question that more women will seek out dangerous alternatives if safe ******** isn't available, nor is it open to question that women without partners are more likely to seek ******** than any other group or that the poorest will have least recourse to leaving the state. As for calling it an argument, well it wasn't really... I was just pointing out a few pertinent facts. For it to be an argument I'd have to be making the case that Texas shouldn't have brought in it's new laws, which might be my belief but wasn't actually an argument I was making since what Texas does is up to the Texas legislature... I was merely pointing out the likely consequences for the more myopic of the posters on here who seem to believe this decision is an unmitigated positive.

Now to address your point - it doesn't even warrant the designantion of an argument - firstly what are you even trying to demonstrate? Best I can guess you're trying to say that in some way imposing stricter laws on ******** will lead to fewer single parent families? Am I even close to the mark? Your post's verging on the incoherent so it's hard to tell. I suspect what you're trying to do is counter my list of drawbacks (thus inadvertantly acknowledging them) with what you believe will be a postive outcome from this legislation but if that is what you're trying to do you made a piss poor job of it.

Right OK ... so assuming that's what you're trying to say for your point to have any relevence whatsoever you'd have to first demonstrate causation, ie that it was banning ******** specifically as opposed to a plethora of other factor factors (such as increased financial and political independence of women due to the activities of the feminist movement or increased ***ualisation of the mass media or a decline in religious adherence) that led to the increase in the number of single parent families. Good luck with that.

Secondly even if it were possible to demonstrate that ******** was the cause of the decline in children raised in two parent families (which it probably ain't) that's not even the case you're making. For your argument to make sense you'd then have to demonstrate that banning or restricting ******** is likely to reverse or reduce that trend which kinda flies in the face of common sense and rationality since the vast majority of ********s are by single pregnant women rather than couples. So unless you can come up with some mechanism to explain how denying single women the right to abort is gonna reduce the number of children they have the case is nonsensical. Can you?... I mean explain to me how that would work?

What I suspect you have given away though is the true pupose behind the anti-******** movement though which is essentially in a two pronged assault by simultaneously attacking welfare and benefits for mothers, two attempt to force or at the very least coerce women back into dependence upon a male income... in short try to force a return to the nuclear family whether women would chose it or not and iirespective of the impact on the welbeing of those women. Am I close to the mark?

As to the final bit about about ocean to ocean crackhead hoes... well despite your bizarre obsession with em I don't even understand what the **** you're talking about nor have I said anything like that. In terms of raw numbers we're probably talking about a few tens of thousands of women each year in Texas who will be directly affected by the new legislation and of those the large majority will find alternatives by travelling or whatever so we're maybe talking a few thousand to the low tens of thousands each year who will be faced with the choice of whether to attempt auto-********, an unlicensed clinic or individual or to just go ahead and have the baby irrespective of their circumstances or readiness. That clarify it for you a bit more? Do you think the fact that it might only be a few thousand individual women or families who suffer as a result of this negates the points I'm making or the very real pain suffering and even physical injury or death that will result for those individuals any less meaningful?

[pesticid]

AnnualNegligibleBarnowl-max-1mb.gif

WTF even was that? That's your idea of a KO blow?.... man I didn't even feel the wind off your punches. Always amuses me when folk seem to think that declaring they've made a strong argument actually makes it so. Like those boxers who you'll see luanch a bunch of wild swings wide then raise their hands in the air like they're fooling anyone.

First off you haven't actually addressed a single point I've made about the harm caused by making ******** more difficult, which is understandable because you really can't. It's not even controversial or open to question that more women will seek out dangerous alternatives if safe ******** isn't available, nor is it open to question that women without partners are more likely to seek ******** than any other group or that the poorest will have least recourse to leaving the state. As for calling it an argument, well it wasn't really... I was just pointing out a few pertinent facts. For it to be an argument I'd have to be making the case that Texas shouldn't have brought in it's new laws, which might be my belief but wasn't actually an argument I was making since what Texas does is up to the Texas legislature... I was merely pointing out the likely consequences for the more myopic of the posters on here who seem to believe this decision is an unmitigated positive.

Now to address your point - it doesn't even warrant the designantion of an argument - firstly what are you even trying to demonstrate? Best I can guess you're trying to say that in some way imposing stricter laws on ******** will lead to fewer single parent families? Am I even close to the mark? Your post's verging on the incoherent so it's hard to tell. I suspect what you're trying to do is counter my list of drawbacks (thus inadvertantly acknowledging them) with what you believe will be a postive outcome from this legislation but if that is what you're trying to do you made a piss poor job of it.

Right OK ... so assuming that's what you're trying to say for your point to have any relevence whatsoever you'd have to first demonstrate causation, ie that it was banning ******** specifically as opposed to a plethora of other factor factors (such as increased financial and political independence of women due to the activities of the feminist movement or increased ***ualisation of the mass media or a decline in religious adherence) that led to the increase in the number of single parent families. Good luck with that.

Secondly even if it were possible to demonstrate that ******** was the cause of the decline in children raised in two parent families (which it probably ain't) that's not even the case you're making. For your argument to make sense you'd then have to demonstrate that banning or restricting ******** is likely to reverse or reduce that trend which kinda flies in the face of common sense and rationality since the vast majority of ********s are by single pregnant women rather than couples. So unless you can come up with some mechanism to explain how denying single women the right to abort is gonna reduce the number of children they have the case is nonsensical. Can you?... I mean explain to me how that would work?

What I suspect you have given away though is the true pupose behind the anti-******** movement though which is essentially in a two pronged assault by simultaneously attacking welfare and benefits for mothers, two attempt to force or at the very least coerce women back into dependence upon a male income... in short try to force a return to the nuclear family whether women would chose it or not and iirespective of the impact on the welbeing of those women. Am I close to the mark?

As to the final bit about about ocean to ocean crackhead hoes... well despite your bizarre obsession with em I don't even understand what the **** you're talking about nor have I said anything like that. In terms of raw numbers we're probably talking about a few tens of thousands of women each year in Texas who will be directly affected by the new legislation and of those the large majority will find alternatives by travelling or whatever so we're maybe talking a few thousand to the low tens of thousands each year who will be faced with the choice of whether to attempt auto-********, an unlicensed clinic or individual or to just go ahead and have the baby irrespective of their circumstances or readiness. That clarify it for you a bit more? Do you think the fact that it might only be a few thousand individual women or families who suffer as a result of this negates the points I'm making or the very real pain suffering and even physical injury or death that will result for those individuals any less meaningful?

Just so you know, I didn't waste any time going through your jibberish.

[Citizen Koba]

Just so you know, I didn't waste any time going through your jibberish.

Wasn't expecting you to man, folk usually don't. Mostly do it for the benefit of keeping my own mind sharp anyways.

Wish sometimes people would actually come up with coherent arguments for the points they're trying to make though... lost fucking art.

Here you go, this might suit your pace better....



In short your 'silver bullet' KO argument is actually meaningless even if it had have been relevent.... which it wasn't.

[1bad65]

are you happy with these crackhead kids raised wrong killing and robbing people?? are you happy for you tax money to be paying for people raised wrong in prison and foster care?? wtf does someone having an ******** have to do with you???

I asked my questions of you first.

Once you answer them, then I'll happily answer yours.

That's how rational, adult discourse goes, ya know.


This should not be a problem Larry.

Surely you can say you are happy that your mother chose life for you, and your sons' mother chose life for them?????

[siablo14]

I asked my questions of you first.

Once you answer them, then I'll happily answer yours.

That's how rational, adult discourse goes, ya know.


This should not be a problem Larry.

Surely you can say you are happy that your mother chose life for you, and your sons' mother chose life for them?????

Yes - Because those women wanted to have those children.

Silly 1bad, women who want children don't abort them!

[1bad65]

In Canada, in 1931, 12 % of children were in lone parent families.

The baby-boom years in Canada (1946-1965) were characterized by a relatively large share of married couple families and HIGH FERTILITY RATES. In 1961, 94% of children in census families were living with married parents, the highest proportion observed over the last century.

In 1988, ******** becomes legal in Canada. In 2011 lone parent families rose to 22%.

I repeat, you know nothing. I just broke your naive argument to atoms really, yet your pride won't let you admit it, singing the false gospel of crackhead hoes raising unwanted, unaborted childrem from corner to corner, block to block, city to city, province to province and ocean to ocean.

I've said once and I'll say it again.

He's a member of The Never Wrong Crew here.
(There's a bout 6 or so members)

Those guys have never, ever been wrong on anything, nor have they ever conceded a point they've agued. EVER

Between them they have tens of thousands of posts, and they've argued with just about everyone here.

And not once have they ever admitted they were wrong.

Trust me, you aren't going to be the one to do it.


Use the Ignore function, please!!!!

[pesticid]

I've said once and I'll say it again.

He's a member of The Never Wrong Crew here.
(There's a bout 6 or so members)

Those guys have never, ever been wrong on anything, nor have they ever conceded a point they've agued. EVER

Between them they have tens of thousands of posts, and they've argued with just about everyone here.

And not once have they ever admitted they were wrong.

Trust me, you aren't going to be the one to do it.


Use the Ignore function, please!!!!

Bingo and you know pride is the 1st of the 7 deadly sins.

[Citizen Koba]

I've said once and I'll say it again.

He's a member of The Never Wrong Crew here.
(There's a bout 6 or so members)

Those guys have never, ever been wrong on anything, nor have they ever conceded a point they've agued. EVER

Between them they have tens of thousands of posts, and they've argued with just about everyone here.

And not once have they ever admitted they were wrong.

Trust me, you aren't going to be the one to do it.


Use the Ignore function, please!!!!

Except I admitted I was wrong to Theodore just yesterday...

//krikya360.com/forums/n...4#post31073164

Besides I freely admit I now believe I was wrong, that the current circumstances and explosion in improper payments including fraudulent ones do probably require an expansion of investigative services.

I admit I'm wrong when I am wrong though, although usually I'm talking in generalities, personal observations or just making critiques of other peoples positions so mostly these aren't really things you can be demonstrably wrong on. **** I even think I shifted my position on gun control somewhat after a debate that I think was with you a few years back although I coulda got you mixed up with someone else. On boxing matters though.. damn I make technical mistakes all the time and **** up. Your issue is apparently that I can almost always back up my arguments with genuine credible sources, facts and research and if I couldn't I wouldn't have commented on a subject in the first place. That supposed to be a bad thing?

You, on the other hand I got to say I have never seen admiting you are wrong even when I confronted you with indisputable facts such as the origins and meanings of certain political terminology. You gonna show me where you ever admitted to being at fault... y'know I showed you mine now you gonna show me yours, pom-pom boy? And stop being such a crybaby... thought you dudes pride yourselves on being made of sterner stuff than us snowflakes.

[siablo14]

I've said once and I'll say it again.

He's a member of The Never Wrong Crew here.
(There's a bout 6 or so members)

Those guys have never, ever been wrong on anything, nor have they ever conceded a point they've agued. EVER

Between them they have tens of thousands of posts, and they've argued with just about everyone here.

And not once have they ever admitted they were wrong.

Trust me, you aren't going to be the one to do it.


Use the Ignore function, please!!!!

Red - You made progress. You used to call all of us Sunspace.