#Sexstrike

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 270
#31
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
How about we research a way to remove embryos from a pregnant woman who does no want to be pregnant, and the transplant them into pro-life men and women: either directly or via an artificial womb.

That would solve the problem.

Topic's author
#32
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
How about we research a way to remove embryos from a pregnant woman who does no want to be pregnant, and the transplant them into pro-life men and women: either directly or via an artificial womb.
Pro life men can't get pregnant, pro life women might be willing to, they weren't the ones who had sex.  As for artificial wombs, people are working on those.  Once they exist and are cheap and effective at delivering pregnancy, the abortion issue will go away and both sides win.
#33
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
Thats why I said via an artificial womb, to allow a man to carry them.

I think this should be a policy - that anyone formally registering as pro life can be forcefully given an embryo to carry to term, or an eventually born child if the mother does not want the baby.
Topic's author
#34
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
I think this should be a policy - that anyone formally registering as pro life can be forcefully given an embryo to carry to term
How would someone who is not pregnant and can't get pregnant carry a baby to term?  They probably would set the kid up for adoption just like what many pro lifers are fine with the mother doing.  There are 140 million pro lifers in the US about and about 300,000 abortions per year.  Who takes care of the fetus/baby?


#35
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
we will research a way to allow pro lifers to be able to carry an embryo. Right now, anyone that would be signed up on the pro life register would be required to take an unwanted baby, when chosen at random.
#36
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@disgusted
Don't call us the retards when all you do is shove your shit agenda down our throats. All you do is attack us, so we have a right to attack you. The Sex Strike is stupid, just like libtards

#37
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Calling someone a bigot is not gonna save the world
#38
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Maybe if I do get raped I would be responsible enough to either tell the police or get some Plan B. Counterseptives are not murder, abortion is murder

#39
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Vader
I don't give a shit what you think. You agree with bigot boy obviously and hate women having rights to fuck who they want when they want. 
#40
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You are stupid as hell for thinking I am a bigot when orthodox christianity has been the scapegoat of the libtard agenda for this entire decade

This does not give women a right to express themselves. It limits their sexual desires and what they do and who they do it with just because some middle age women can't get some dick
#41
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Vader
You think people who have been through the traumatic experience of being raped don’t go to the police because they are “irresponsible”?

Topic's author
#42
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
we will research a way to allow pro lifers to be able to carry an embryo.
Better to get a machine to carry the baby.

Right now, anyone that would be signed up on the pro life register would be required to take an unwanted baby, when chosen at random.
It costs about $10,000 per year to take care of a child, $3,000,000,000 to take care of all aborted children, probably less then that if the kids are foster care.  Since there are 140 million pro lifers in the nation, every pro lifer can pay about $20 per year.  At the same time, since pro choicers tend to want birth control so badly as well as every other government program, only tax the democrats to pay for welfare and every other expense that the left is fine with.  If your Right wing, you pay only right wing taxes, like the military and artificial womb research.  If your left wing, you pay left wing taxes, like welfare, extended social security and medicare for all.  Does this sound like a good idea?

#43
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Ramshutu
They should feel confident in our justice system that what they experience will be taken care of.

Also, rape abortions are only 2% of all abortions in America. You really gonna bring up those small stats 

Topic's author
#44
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
If the rape victims get sufficient evidence that the rape was done by someone, then the police can arrest the guy responsible for the rape and the rapist can go to jail for 25 years with labor.  Rape victim gets $250,000 paid gradually to prevent lottery syndrome.
#45
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
Those who are pro life, and vote for pro life policies should be responsible for their decisions. If you don’t want to be stuck with a child you dont want, you can simply not vote for pro life policies.

Topic's author
#46
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
If you don’t want to be stuck with a child you dont want, you can simply not vote for pro life policies.
If the woman doesn't want the kid either, she can set the kid up for adoption.  This way, in about 2 years on average, consenting parents take care of the kid.
#47
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
With 300,000 abortions each year, the adoption system will not cope: we need a gaurenteed way of ensuring the children born are well taken care of, have their needs met and are in loving families.

its a perfect system: vote for pro life policies, and you get out on a list where you can be picked to be personally responsible for the new babies.


Nothing would demonstrate conservative dedication to pro life policies more than making your vote REALLY show that you’re truly interested in human life - even when it’s inconvenient.


#48
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
If you would just pay for your own birth control, that'd be great.

Topic's author
#49
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu

With 300,000 abortions each year, the adoption system will not cope
According to http://www.adopt.org/adoption-statistics, it states that over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years.  Not only that, but since adoption costs a lot of money, this may sound like a negative but in reality, it means that only rich people are adopting.  

If the mother vigilanticaly tries to relocate the child on her own to someone able and willing to take care of them, after like 30 tries, if she fails after those 30 tries, then she can set the kid up for adoption in the foster system.  At that point though, only like 1% of the 300,000 people would be entering the foster system since so many would have gotten relocated to parents/families that would want them.  The foster system that handles over 100,000 kids (https://www.adoptivefamilies.com/how-to-adopt/foster-care-adoption/understanding-foster-care-system/) can easily deal with a 3% increase.

its a perfect system: vote for pro life policies, and you get out on a list where you can be picked to be personally responsible for the new babies.
You can use the same logic for liberal policies.  It would be like me saying, "These liberals all want free birth control?  How about anyone who wants free birth control pays for it themselves".  
#50
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
there are 135,000 children adopted each way, and around 300,000 in foster care.

You're massively increasing the numbers: rather than be an idiot and simply hope that adoption can handle it - and palm the problem off to someone else.

thats a terrible idea, based on your hopes - not facts - that the system can cope.


Its MUCH better to simply make sure all children have a home, and can get a family, by skipping the entire adoption process and give the children directly to those voting against abortion and pro choice policies.

You cant possibly have an issue with it, as It would be a fully consensual system. The conservatives who refuse to let women chose what they want with their bodies get their way - but are directly burdened with the responsibility of those children.








Topic's author
#51
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
there are 135,000 children adopted each way
Citation?  My citation states that 94% get adopted within 4 years.

You're massively increasing the numbers:
100,000 kids to 103,000 kids isn't a massive increase.

Its MUCH better to simply make sure all children have a home
Most kids already get a home in about 2 years.

by skipping the entire adoption process and give the children directly to those voting against abortion and pro choice policies.
You can make the same argument about any policy that the left advocates big government for.

The conservatives who refuse to let women chose what they want with their bodies get their way - but are directly burdened with the responsibility of those children.
The people being forced to be parents against their will might treat the child badly.  It's better if the kid gets adopted by consenting parents.  Adoption agencies could advertise much more then what they currently do.  40% of US families have considered adoption (https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families).  So what's preventing them from adopting?  One factor is people just don't think about it.  Advertising helps get consenting families to adopt by putting the idea in their heads.  
#52
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
Honestly, if the richest fattest nation in the world won't afford their own kids, that sounds like a problem of priorities.
#53
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
You’re simply hoping the adoption system can cope with 300,000 child increase over 100,000. I don’t know if you can even do maths given your calculations.


Like I said, you’re simply hoping, that kids will be adopted. You haven’t checked whether the system can cope - or even care whether there are enough people willing to voluntarily adopt to account for all the kids. But hey - nothing says you care about human life than just through 300,000 kids per year into government run homes and hope everything turns out okay.


Its clearly a much better idea and a MUCH more respectful idea to force conservatives who consented to being adoptive parents by virtue of voting for pro life policies to take the children. 

Hell, once artificial wombs are present, we can give the burden fully to the pro life upon decision to remove the fetus. It can be given to a pro life family, from a low gestational age and the conservatives can figure out what to do with it.



I don’t understand what possible issue you can have with the system I’m proposing - it’s as if you want to do everything you want to avoid taking care of children even if it potentially seriously harms their long term future.


#54
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
I wonder if it would help with the racism in places like New York.
#55
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Snoopy
Probably - pro life so tend to be conservative: so maybe a bunch ofnconservative racists beimg forced to raise black children could indeed help.

#56
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
Progressives value hedonism. That's why they don't buy this argument. They value being a blind slave to pleasures rather than actually focusing on morality and social responsibility. 

This is a good reason why many of them overlook abortion. They believe people are entitled to pleasure and feeling good above all else, including social stability and morality. They will overlook such a questionable and immooral practice of killing an unborn child simply because some wh0re believes she's entitled to endless unprotected sex with strangers.


#57
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@triangle.128k
I'd like to admire your courage in expressing such ignorance but I fear it's more likely to result from the mental restrictions of being a conservitard.
But just in case you have actually given this some thought, whose morals are you claiming to use?

Progressives value hedonism
And what do you regressives value? Living in caves perhaps?
Topic's author
#58
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
You’re simply hoping the adoption system can cope with 300,000 child increase over 100,000.
Since the mother would vigilanticaly do the foster system's job for them essentially by sending the kids to a good foster home by asking people to adopt the kid for the foster system 99% of the time, this makes the increase about 3000 kids, not 300,000.  They wouldn't be strangers, they would be people that the mother knows.

You haven’t checked whether the system can cope - or even care whether there are enough people willing to voluntarily adopt to account for all the kids.
They can according to the data in my link.  I can repost it if you want.

Its clearly a much better idea and a MUCH more respectful idea to force conservatives who consented to being adoptive parents by virtue of voting for pro life policies to take the children. 
If this is what's needed to get abortion outlawed and ended, by putting adult conservative families in a lottery to adopt kids, then fine, such a lottery can exist.  If they adopted a kid on their own, they should be exempt from the lottery.  I want to adopt when I'm older, so once I do that, I should be exempt, since I want to do it on my own later.

I don’t understand what possible issue you can have with the system I’m proposing
I think your idea is good.  But it could be better if consenting families adopted instead of conservatives.  This can be achieved by mass advertising, which would get people to adopt.

#59
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
Why are you so aggressive and hostile? Can you argue without throwing an insult every 5 words?
Topic's author
#60
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@triangle.128k
It's the SJW strategy.