Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black A...

Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's Future"

There are 5790 comments on the Booker Rising story from Sep 24, 2012, titled Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's Future". In it, Booker Rising reports that:

The From Catholic Online : "Adding to the argument that abortion threatens one sector of American society over others, Catherine Davis, president of The Restoration Project, pointed out to the great racial disparity of women currently getting abortions." The article continues: "Davis said that according to the Centers for Disease Control, ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Booker Rising.

Ink

Levittown, PA

#2193 Nov 17, 2013
dragonpat wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Cant wait to hear that bible thumpers answer to this one!
That isn't what the Bible says. She is talking about God breathing life into Adam. Since he wasn't conceived and alive in the womb, it was probably the only way to get him started.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#2194 Nov 17, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis 2:7
The people who wrote the bible didn't know about conception. They thought a man's "seed" was just that, seed.
Are you saying that the writers of the Bible didn't know that intercourse accounted for pregnancy and children? Where did you get that from?
Ink

Levittown, PA

#2195 Nov 17, 2013
dragonpat wrote:
<quoted text>
cant murder something with no identity and has never lived.
Then why do we have laws to protect them?

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2196 Nov 17, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't what the Bible says. She is talking about God breathing life into Adam. Since he wasn't conceived and alive in the womb, it was probably the only way to get him started.
No, it's just a Bronze Age myth.
Over and over again, the buy bull indicates life begins with the breath.
"O remember that my life is a breath: my eye shall no more see good." Job 7:7

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2197 Nov 17, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that the writers of the Bible didn't know that intercourse accounted for pregnancy and children? Where did you get that from?
They knew intercourse accounted for pregnancy, but they didn't know women produced eggs, and the sperm united with the egg. They thought the semen was "seed" that implanted inside the woman.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#2198 Nov 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's just a Bronze Age myth.
Over and over again, the buy bull indicates life begins with the breath.
"O remember that my life is a breath: my eye shall no more see good." Job 7:7
It says his life is like the wind. Basically here one minute and gone the next. The Bible considers life to begin before birth.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2199 Nov 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It says his life is like the wind. Basically here one minute and gone the next. The Bible considers life to begin before birth.
Quit trying to explain it away, it's quite clear the bible indicates life begins with the breath.

People can go to http://bible.cc and search.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#2200 Nov 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want a facelift you can get it. If you want more boobs, you can get them. If you want lap band surgery, you can get it. All very involved procedures. So why can't you get your tubes tied if you want to? Shouldn't it be the woman's choice?
I'm guessing you missed the part of 'pro-life' that says barriers to life are damn nearly as 'evil' as a nasty old abortion. Your fellow posters on the SCPL side almost unanimously advocate celibacy in lieu of artificial contraception of any kind...denial of one's lustful proclivities is preferable in the SCPL mind, to facilitating them...

Most legislators who identify as pro-life politically, are of the opinion that women should be 'protected' or 'prevented' from making these sort of decisions for ourselves. In most cases you would seem to have this mindset also. Your querulous mewling about voluntary sterilization being the 'woman's choice', is belied by your insistence that she should be subjected to involuntary, unnecessary procedures, if she makes a choice with which you don't approve, and that you don't believe we should have the choice to abort unless we convince someone ELSE our reasons are acceptable.

Of course it should be the woman's choice....but the people you keep electing to Congress are avidly trying to curtail access to that choice, as they are doing with all of our reproductive rights.

You're quite well aware of this, and have often bragged that your way is becoming more and more en vogue...so don't try to tell me that the laws patronizing and infantilizing women don't fit your agenda.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#2201 Nov 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the doctor doesn't want to do the surgery. That isn't much of an explanation although you seem to buy it. Who cares what he wants, it's your body.
If no doctor will perform the surgery, because of his/her personal convictions and/or a desire to conform to the law (did you miss that 'law' part, Ink? You know, that "not before 2 kids or the age of 32" part?) I guess we should just buy a textbook on the procedure, and tie 'em ourselves.....

Please please PLEASE tell me you missed that part...nobody's as stupid as you appear here, dear...

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#2202 Nov 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Thinks things through how far? How far do you have to think to be able to guarantee that you won't conceive children that you don't want? It seems logical to me.
You were in such a hurry to jump on my assumption that you didn't think this through, that you failed to notice this part of my post:

"I just wish sterilization absent medical necessity was legal, whenever the person decides they don't want to be fertile anymore, even if they're just 18. As it is, the legality of it is a barrier to getting fewer unwanted kids conceived, and that sucks regardless of the doctor's vulnerability to lawsuits. JMO"

That's why we can't 'guarantee' that we won't have children, if we want to have sex without the risk of having babies.

The
doctors
can't
perform
tubals or hysterectomies
until the woman meets certain conditions.

Get it now?
Ink

Levittown, PA

#2203 Nov 19, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>I'm guessing you missed the part of 'pro-life' that says barriers to life are damn nearly as 'evil' as a nasty old abortion. Your fellow posters on the SCPL side almost unanimously advocate celibacy in lieu of artificial contraception of any kind...denial of one's lustful proclivities is preferable in the SCPL mind, to facilitating them...
Most legislators who identify as pro-life politically, are of the opinion that women should be 'protected' or 'prevented' from making these sort of decisions for ourselves. In most cases you would seem to have this mindset also. Your querulous mewling about voluntary sterilization being the 'woman's choice', is belied by your insistence that she should be subjected to involuntary, unnecessary procedures, if she makes a choice with which you don't approve, and that you don't believe we should have the choice to abort unless we convince someone ELSE our reasons are acceptable.
Of course it should be the woman's choice....but the people you keep electing to Congress are avidly trying to curtail access to that choice, as they are doing with all of our reproductive rights.
You're quite well aware of this, and have often bragged that your way is becoming more and more en vogue...so don't try to tell me that the laws patronizing and infantilizing women don't fit your agenda.
I am not responsible for what others think. Women already have and have had access to abortion for forty years and have supported abortion clinics to almost a million a year. I am only asking why they are refused tubal ligations. Any woman who kills her unborn baby knows she doesn't want kids.

My question would be are abortions more profitable than sterilization which would eliminate the abortion neccessity for the rest of her life.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#2204 Nov 19, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>
doctors
can't
perform
tubals or hysterectomies
until the woman meets certain conditions.
Get it now?
Well we need to change that. Call your senator.

“Blessed Be”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2205 Nov 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not responsible for what others think. Women already have and have had access to abortion for forty years and have supported abortion clinics to almost a million a year. I am only asking why they are refused tubal ligations. Any woman who kills her unborn baby knows she doesn't want kids.
My question would be are abortions more profitable than sterilization which would eliminate the abortion neccessity for the rest of her life.
But would not help the woman who just doesn't want to continue one pregnancy, but wants children later.

A tubal ligation costs between $1500 and $6000.

And it's been explained. Good grief, how many times do we have to tell about women who were refused a tubal because the doctor thought they were too young, or that they would later change their minds and try to sue?

I had a friend who was 33, who already had two daughters, who smoked, who had a family history of various forms of cancer, and she STILL couldn't find a doctor who would do a tubal. One doctor just said "what if something happens to one of your daughters?". Even after my friend told her "My daughters couldn't be replaced anyway", the doctor still wouldn't do it.

The only reason I got mine, at 30, was because they could do it during my third C-section, and the fact that I couldn't have another C-section, OR hope to give birth vaginally. And they STILL only did it reluctantly.

On a side note, even tubal ligations have a failure rate. The same as most other methods of contraception, in fact.

The only 100% sterilization procedure is the removal of the ovaries or testes, and THOSE no doctor will do just for contraception, only for medical need.

“Blessed Be”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2206 Nov 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Well we need to change that. Call your senator.
Why?

Should we also, while we have them on the phone, insist that doctors be forced to perform abortions too?

Why are you so determined that physicians be forced to perform non-emergency surgery, Tyrant?
Ink

Levittown, PA

#2207 Nov 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Why?
Should we also, while we have them on the phone, insist that doctors be forced to perform abortions too?
Why are you so determined that physicians be forced to perform non-emergency surgery, Tyrant?
Because if I want one I should have it. Men get vasectomies all the time Why should women be treated differently? Women are again being treated like children who don't know what is good for themselves. Basically a second class citizen.

“Blessed Be”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2208 Nov 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Because if I want one I should have it. Men get vasectomies all the time Why should women be treated differently? Women are again being treated like children who don't know what is good for themselves. Basically a second class citizen.
This would mean more if you also weren't doing the same thing every time you judge a woman's decision to abort as though it was for trivial reasons.

Still, a woman can get a tubal, if she can find a doctor willing to perform it. I believe the other poster is incorrect that it's not legal. I've never heard of any law against it.

Why do you want doctors to be forced to perform non-emergency surgery? Do you feel the same way about abortion procedures?
Ink

Levittown, PA

#2209 Nov 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
This would mean more if you also weren't doing the same thing every time you judge a woman's decision to abort as though it was for trivial reasons.
Still, a woman can get a tubal, if she can find a doctor willing to perform it. I believe the other poster is incorrect that it's not legal. I've never heard of any law against it.
Why do you want doctors to be forced to perform non-emergency surgery? Do you feel the same way about abortion procedures?
No I don't think they should be forced to, I just think women's rights are being violated again. Why are they willing to sterilize men? Are they smarter in knowing what they want? Are women just too dumb to know if they want kids?

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#2210 Nov 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
This would mean more if you also weren't doing the same thing every time you judge a woman's decision to abort as though it was for trivial reasons.
Still, a woman can get a tubal, if she can find a doctor willing to perform it. I believe the other poster is incorrect that it's not legal. I've never heard of any law against it.
Why do you want doctors to be forced to perform non-emergency surgery? Do you feel the same way about abortion procedures?
Different States have different laws regarding the legality of voluntary sterilization. Here, the law was changed just last year, to preclude it for childless women, and women under the age of 32. It is now 30. And I personally wrote to every Congressperson in Oklahoma, in staunch opposition to this change, when news of its proposition became available to me.

Didn't help.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#2211 Nov 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't think they should be forced to, I just think women's rights are being violated again. Why are they willing to sterilize men? Are they smarter in knowing what they want? Are women just too dumb to know if they want kids?
In the minds of Oklahoma Congresspersons, and anti-choice abortion abolitionists like yourself, apparently we are.

Don't act like that isn't YOUR stance, you sanctimonious cowardly creature.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#2212 Nov 19, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Different States have different laws regarding the legality of voluntary sterilization. Here, the law was changed just last year, to preclude it for childless women, and women under the age of 32. It is now 30. And I personally wrote to every Congressperson in Oklahoma, in staunch opposition to this change, when news of its proposition became available to me.
Didn't help.
Sorry, the law USED to allow 31 year olds, with more than one child, to SEEK a tubal. Now, the woman has to be at least 32, with at least two kids, absent medical necessity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min THE DEVIL 1,264,989
U.S. BM in Egytpt breaksdown 'OUR'-story (Video) 5 min Wadi 1
R I P Whitey Era 1492 - 2008 5 min T BOS 34
I conducted a Studies that shows WW prefer BM a... 7 min NSDAP 15
The Great Con of Illuminati ??? 8 min selina london 9
What does WM and Rubbish Bins Have in Common? 8 min The Black Foreigner 1
a bm invented CALCULUS back in 1908 9 min T BOS 20
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 48 min Curious Me 35,051
So many white women are having sex with black men (Jan '14) 48 min trish_b 124
BW are evil, devious, vindictive and WM can hav... 1 hr kojo 150
Trump will destroy America ! 2 hr PolakPotrafi 98
Africans did not sell their own 2 hr selina london 182
More from around the web