I see what you're saying, but I think the difference lies in whether the laws merely interfere with personal decisions or are necessary to protect other people. (And, no, embryos don't count as other people.)
I see the distinction and agree with it. But if we want the feds to overstep that distinction on some things, we shouldn't be surprised when others do as well...I hate the thought of someone having an abortion, and I don't envy anyone who is in the position where they need to consider it, even for a second...
and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?
Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:
I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?
Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.
I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.
and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?
Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:
I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?
Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.
I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.
you don't have to apologize for jumping in,
I suppose any abortion is birth control if we try hard enough to call it that. People who come to the conclusion to have an abortion don't think of it as birth control. They don't use it as their family planning technique. They use it to terminate a pregnancy for one reason or another...it is RARELY if ever used as a birth control technique in the sense used when discussing the pill or iud's.
...in order to really answer your question I think we would have to decide what "as birth control" means. I would think it would mean that a person PLANS on having abortions INSTEAD of taking the pill or using another contraception device. But I don't think it would be fair for either of us to assume one way or the other when i am sure someone out there gathers these stats...I think we are also talking about a relatively small number of them in either case.
So i guess i could have spelled it out further in my initial question.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
No you are not alone. This topic is one that people will not change their minds on though. No amount of back an forth will. They say rape we say murder and then we both shake our heads at the others stupidity and lack of reason and understanding.
It's a no win. :(
But, see, people's opinions about abortion are not relevant to this discussion. We're not talking about abortion. We're talking about whether politicians have a right to mandate unnecessary, invasive medical procedures. The answer should be the same no matter the subject it's attached to.
and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?
Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:
I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?
Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.
I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.
And frankly, I'm ok with that. It's not a decision I would ever make. If I ever got a girlfriend or wife pregnant I would do everything I could to convince her to have our child. I couldn't bear the thought of going through life wondering about the child I could have had. I know I'll get berated for this, but I could care less if others around the world have abortions. There are too many people on this planet anyway. And I would venture to guess that most of those having abortions do so because they feel they can't support the child. So I find it odd that it's always those who don't support welfare or public programs that want to abolish abortions.
So here is a scenario for you....
I have a very good friend who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when we were 20. She has decided that she does not want children because there is a high risk that after pregnancy and childbirth that her disease will become much more aggressive. Because of other health issues, she's can't use contraceptives and her and her long-time boyfriend rely on condoms. Well, at one point one of them must have broken because she ended up pregnant. Thankfully, she lives here in Canada, but let's move her Virginia for the sake of this debate.
She decides that she is going to have an abortion. Let's also mention that she was beaten and raped as a teen and suffers from PTSD. So, she gets the the doctor and is told they need to determine the age of the fetus before they can preform the abortion. A regular ultrasound can't detect the fetus, so she is told she needs a “internal ultrasound.” She is not visibly pregnant, and obviously not very far along. BUT... because of government legislation she has to be subjected to the completely unnecessary, intrusive and upsetting procedure before the doctor can perform the abortion (something that is very upsetting and traumatizing to her to begin with).
Her CHOICES in the situation are:
1. Suffer through an very upsetting procedure where a probe is inserted and moved around until the doctor can get a good enough look at the fetus.
2. Carry the pregnancy to term and risk her own health, eyesight and mobility.
no, transvaginal ultrasound is not prerequisite for an abortion. it is not necessary and only serves to shame the woman and make her change her mind. if that is not government getting between a patient and the doctor i do not know what is.
but just keep harping on about how obama's health insurance plan is stepping over some boundaries...
It wasn't before, but it could be. Medical prerequisites are established every day. As for your point on the purpose, if you're right... and the hope is the change the persons mind, why is that bad?
PLEASE ANSWER:
Do you want to increase abortions or limit them? Do you think abortions are a good thing?
it is not a black and white or yes or no answer. it is not as simple as the conservative and the general republican simple minded 2nd grade world view that everything is black or white, everything is good or evil, or that there is a simple answer to everything. i tend to look at this issue and see the gray areas that require a certain higher level of understanding instead of the blanket black and white good vs bad....
i am pro CHOICE. as in i will fight for ANY woman to have the basic human right to CHOOSE what happens inside of her own body. it is a medical decision and the government should stay the fuck out of that situation. to me it is unethical for some virgin, celibate man in a pointy hat who has an office in the vatican to tell anyone what they have to do in medical situations. his views are antiquated and oppressive. to me, if he is going to consciously CHOOSE to never ever shag a woman then he is automatically out of touch with the reality that the rest of us subscribe to, and as such, he should shut the fuck up and mind his own business and focus on exorcising devils or investigating (or not investigating) his pedofile priests... that is why i am against any religious tenets in our set of laws, aside from you shall not kill or steal.
to answer your questions...
do i like the procedure that is abortion?
no i don't.
am i glad that that medical procedure is legal and that women have access to safe abortions?
yes i am.
would i want my wife or girlfriend that i had sex with and got pregnant to have an abortion?
no i wouldn't. but at the end of the day it is NOT MY CHOICE TO MAKE because i am not her and i do not have to carry that baby and deliver it and raise it. and i believe that it is severely unethical for me to attempt to FORCE her to have that kid.
do i wish that there were less abortions performed in a year?
yes i do, but it is not my place to impose my self righteous or my misogynistic, or my religious views onto others and make it impossible for others to have the procedure. high risk pregnancies happen all the time. pregnancies where the mother's life is at risk happens all the time. women get raped and pregnant all the time. i would never in a million years force any of the women in those examples to have the kid if their life is at risk, or if the kid is the child of the violent offender who raped her.
do i think abortion is a good thing?
it is not my place to say. that is between the woman and her doctor, and the woman and her conscience. far be it for me to make her feel worse by judging and condemning her for making that difficult life altering choice. but yes i believe that it is a good thing for any woman to have access to safe abortions and i believe the government should stay out of the bedroom and especially out of the doctor's exam/procedure room....
i can't believe any libertarian would support this proposed law that allows government to step over so many boundaries...
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Gimmie, in your rant full of derogatory remarks it interests me that you said you wouldn't have to "raise" the child as part of your reasoning that's woman be allowed to make that choice in a vacuum. Why is that? Pretty sure lots of dads raise their kids.
and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?
Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:
I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?
Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.
I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.
you don't have to apologize for jumping in,
I suppose any abortion is birth control if we try hard enough to call it that. People who come to the conclusion to have an abortion don't think of it as birth control. They don't use it as their family planning technique. They use it to terminate a pregnancy for one reason or another...it is RARELY if ever used as a birth control technique in the sense used when discussing the pill or iud's.
...in order to really answer your question I think we would have to decide what "as birth control" means. I would think it would mean that a person PLANS on having abortions INSTEAD of taking the pill or using another contraception device. But I don't think it would be fair for either of us to assume one way or the other when i am sure someone out there gathers these stats...I think we are also talking about a relatively small number of them in either case.
So i guess i could have spelled it out further in my initial question.
Yeh, I think in a way, abortion could be considered birth control pretty much every time, but even outside of that we have a difference of opinion then on what is meant by birth control. For example, a lot of people use "the pull out" method. There's risk involved there. Is that a birth control method? Abortion could be considered a back-up birth control method to some there. For others, they just don't really think about what could happen at all. And, to me, it's birth control there too. Lots of scenarios.
and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?
Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:
I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?
Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.
I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.
And frankly, I'm ok with that. It's not a decision I would ever make. If I ever got a girlfriend or wife pregnant I would do everything I could to convince her to have our child. I couldn't bear the thought of going through life wondering about the child I could have had. I know I'll get berated for this, but I could care less if others around the world have abortions. There are too many people on this planet anyway. And I would venture to guess that most of those having abortions do so because they feel they can't support the child. So I find it odd that it's always those who don't support welfare or public programs that want to abolish abortions.
I think it's fantastic that you would try to convince your gf or wife to have the child.
But, on your other point, I disagree. There are not too many people on this planet. People were saying the same thing 300 years ago, and they were wrong... global standard of living has improved with population growth. People rarely take into account technology advancement. But, further only about 10% of the earth is inhabited by humans. More people, is not bad for economic growth, in fact it's good. Finally, in order to support your favored welfare or social insurance programs you need young people to tax, so we don't run into problems like we are with the baby boomers.
So here is a scenario for you....
I have a very good friend who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when we were 20. She has decided that she does not want children because there is a high risk that after pregnancy and childbirth that her disease will become much more aggressive. Because of other health issues, she's can't use contraceptives and her and her long-time boyfriend rely on condoms. Well, at one point one of them must have broken because she ended up pregnant. Thankfully, she lives here in Canada, but let's move her Virginia for the sake of this debate.
She decides that she is going to have an abortion. Let's also mention that she was beaten and raped as a teen and suffers from PTSD. So, she gets the the doctor and is told they need to determine the age of the fetus before they can preform the abortion. A regular ultrasound can't detect the fetus, so she is told she needs a “internal ultrasound.” She is not visibly pregnant, and obviously not very far along. BUT... because of government legislation she has to be subjected to the completely unnecessary, intrusive and upsetting procedure before the doctor can perform the abortion (something that is very upsetting and traumatizing to her to begin with).
Her CHOICES in the situation are:
1. Suffer through an very upsetting procedure where a probe is inserted and moved around until the doctor can get a good enough look at the fetus.
2. Carry the pregnancy to term and risk her own health, eyesight and mobility.
If she was put into that situation she'd have to make a choice.
Since you gave a scenario, let me present another...
There's this multi-million dollar family, they live in VA outside DC. They have two children. The Dad is a stockbroker, and the Mom stays home. She's prissy, but beautiful. Works out every day and is regimented. Their children occasionally interfere with her lifestyle, so she hires a nanny. The kids live a very nice life. Their Dad is a fantastic Dad and the nanny is great. The Mom, although egocentric, is also a nice person deep down. Anyway, she doesn't use birth control because it makes her breakout. They both don't like the feel of condoms. So, they pull out. If, on the rare, occasion it doesn't work. She gets an abortion because at this point, "she can't think of putting up with another, maybe in a few years". She's had at least three abortions in the last 10 years. She gets pregnant again...
HER choices in the situation are:
1. Go through a procedure, which is not much worse than a typical gyno visit, which due to the ultra sound could potentially change her mind. She decides to go through with the abortion afterwards, her mind unchanged.
2. Go through a procedure, which is not much worse than a typical gyno visit, which due to the ultra sound could potentially change her mind. She decides to go through with the abortion afterwards, but rethinks the use of birth control in the future.
3. Go through a procedure, which is not much worse than a typical gyno visit, and she does not get an abortion.
it is not a black and white or yes or no answer. it is not as simple as the conservative and the general republican simple minded 2nd grade world view that everything is black or white, everything is good or evil, or that there is a simple answer to everything. i tend to look at this issue and see the gray areas that require a certain higher level of understanding instead of the blanket black and white good vs bad....
I don't believe that everything is black and white at all, nor good or evil. I understand that you're trying your hardest with the vocabulary you possess to be condescending. I get it.
My bottom line here is, yes it's a simple "yes" or "no" answer. You either want to limit the abortion procedure or you don't. President Obama and Nancy Pelosi answered this question and said they want to limit the procedure, I figured you would fall in line. Good for you for having a distinction from the leading Democrats.
i am pro CHOICE. as in i will fight for ANY woman to have the basic human right to CHOOSE what happens inside of her own body. it is a medical decision and the government should stay the fuck out of that situation. to me it is unethical for some virgin, celibate man in a pointy hat who has an office in the vatican to tell anyone what they have to do in medical situations. his views are antiquated and oppressive. to me, if he is going to consciously CHOOSE to never ever shag a woman then he is automatically out of touch with the reality that the rest of us subscribe to, and as such, he should shut the fuck up and mind his own business and focus on exorcising devils or investigating (or not investigating) his pedofile priests... that is why i am against any religious tenets in our set of laws, aside from you shall not kill or steal.
Personally, I'm not a virgin, celibate, man in a pointy hat etc. But, this portion here I would define as 'bigoted'. Yep, bigoted. Just because a religion isn't a race or a gender, doesn't mean prejudice can't be shown towards section of people.
do i like the procedure that is abortion?
no i don't.
am i glad that that medical procedure is legal and that women have access to safe abortions?
yes i am.
would i want my wife or girlfriend that i had sex with and got pregnant to have an abortion?
no i wouldn't. but at the end of the day it is NOT MY CHOICE TO MAKE because i am not her and i do not have to carry that baby and deliver it and raise it. and i believe that it is severely unethical for me to attempt to FORCE her to have that kid.
Ummmm... as a married Dad, I have to "raise my kids". Am I abnormal? And also I know of many single Dads raising kids. Also, you ever hear of the term - adoption?
but it is not my place to impose my self righteous or my misogynistic, or my religious views onto others and make it impossible for others to have the procedure. high risk pregnancies happen all the time. pregnancies where the mother's life is at risk happens all the time. women get raped and pregnant all the time. i would never in a million years force any of the women in those examples to have the kid if their life is at risk, or if the kid is the child of the violent offender who raped her.
You are imposing your thoughts on the subject onto the fetus in the garbage can though. To stay consistent, you clearly HAVE to believe life doesn't begin until birth, otherwise you're advocating what you said you're against - murder.
Also, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the entire abortion population, not just the certainly less than 10% (that are rape victims or health concerns).
do i think abortion is a good thing?
it is not my place to say. that is between the woman and her doctor, and the woman and her conscience. far be it for me to make her feel worse by judging and condemning her for making that difficult life altering choice. but yes i believe that it is a good thing for any woman to have access to safe abortions and i believe the government should stay out of the bedroom and especially out of the doctor's exam/procedure room....
It's not your place to have an opinion? Ummm... call me crazy, but you do have an opinion. Your on a message board stating your opinion repetitively in an abortion thread. You can't act like you're holier than talking about a subject, in the midst of talking about that very subject. If it wasn't your place to say, why are you involved in the conversation at all?
i can't believe any libertarian would support this proposed law that allows government to step over so many boundaries...
[/quote]
I assume you are referring to me as a libertarian. I would mostly fall in as a libertarian, but I am also not a sheep and don't strictly abide by everything an ideology preaches. Furthermore, it's my opinion that the child has rights just like the Mom.
So, as I'll just repeat what I said earlier:
No amount of pro-abortion/sexist rhetoric on a woman's body, will take away the fact that half the fetus' being killed are women, and their bodies are not only being invaded, they're being destroyed. Where's the outrage over the dead women in garbage cans?
...is the procedure (abortion) itself "medically necessary" or are they opting into the procedure?
That depends. Most knowledgeable medical professionals and many state laws say it's medically necessary.
So, in all cases, a female MUST get an abortion? Why do I see all these babies about? Seems like 99.99% of cases, it's a choice of the mom's. Not a mandate by government.
Medical necessity has nothing to do with government mandates
I know you're dodging it, but I'll ask again (Yes or No question):
Do you want to limit abortions (the # of procedures)?
I'm not dodging it at all. I answered the question. You just think it's clever that you refuse to define your terms. And why exactly are you refusing to do that?
But I'll answer your loaded question yet again: I want to limit abortions in the same way & to the same extent that I want to limit appendectomies, heart bypass surgeries, the use of blood pressure medication, the use of eye glasses, etc. None of these procedures are wrong or bad - in fact, they're all good - but given their cost, discomfort, & indication of a health problem, it would be better if fewer were needed.
I see what you're saying, but I think the difference lies in whether the laws merely interfere with personal decisions or are necessary to protect other people. (And, no, embryos don't count as other people.)
I see the distinction and agree with it. But if we want the feds to overstep that distinction on some things, we shouldn't be surprised when others do as well...I hate the thought of someone having an abortion, and I don't envy anyone who is in the position where they need to consider it, even for a second...
and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?
I can't think of a case where I want the Feds to overstep that distinction.
and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?
Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:
I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?
Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.
I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.
I would LOVE to see some legitimate data to support your claims - or even some explanation of what they mean.
and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?
Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:
I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?
Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.
I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.
you don't have to apologize for jumping in,
I suppose any abortion is birth control if we try hard enough to call it that. People who come to the conclusion to have an abortion don't think of it as birth control. They don't use it as their family planning technique. They use it to terminate a pregnancy for one reason or another...it is RARELY if ever used as a birth control technique in the sense used when discussing the pill or iud's.
...in order to really answer your question I think we would have to decide what "as birth control" means. I would think it would mean that a person PLANS on having abortions INSTEAD of taking the pill or using another contraception device. But I don't think it would be fair for either of us to assume one way or the other when i am sure someone out there gathers these stats...I think we are also talking about a relatively small number of them in either case.
So i guess i could have spelled it out further in my initial question.
Re: stats:
1. The majority of women having abortions in the U.S. are using contraception.
2. If a woman used abortion as her form of birth control, she would have 30 (thirty) abortions by the age of 45.
No you are not alone. This topic is one that people will not change their minds on though. No amount of back an forth will. They say rape we say murder and then we both shake our heads at the others stupidity and lack of reason and understanding.
It's a no win. :(
But, see, people's opinions about abortion are not relevant to this discussion. We're not talking about abortion. We're talking about whether politicians have a right to mandate unnecessary, invasive medical procedures. The answer should be the same no matter the subject it's attached to.
True. I did go off topic.
I agree with this mandate.
And so you also agree with the punching Republicans in the face before they can get blood pressure medication mandate?
Gimmie, in your rant full of derogatory remarks it interests me that you said you wouldn't have to "raise" the child as part of your reasoning that's woman be allowed to make that choice in a vacuum. Why is that? Pretty sure lots of dads raise their kids.
Not to answer for gimme, but I noticed that comment too & here's my experenced take on it: Sure, lots of dads "raise" her kids. But LOTS of dads don't. I mean lots & lots of dads. And dads just aren't held to the same level of responsibility for their children that moms are. Dads can very easily just walk away. But moms are much less likely to have that option, especially if the dad walked away first. So what he said is true: dads don't really have to raise their children.
Where's the outrage over the dead women in garbage cans?
Seriously, man. :roll: The only dead women in garbage cans are the adults & children who have already been born and are killed by people (of an unnamed gender :roll: ) who want to control women. You're just making yourself sound like a child by repeating that nonsense.
1. The majority of women having abortions in the U.S. are using contraception.
2. If a woman used abortion as her form of birth control, she would have 30 (thirty) abortions by the age of 45.
You asked for data supporting some of my claims in this thread:
-Roughly 50% used contraception during the MONTH (at some time) they became pregnant, that doesn't mean they used it when they should have or even correctly. Of the forementioned approx 50%, roughly three-quarters of pill users used it incorrectly and roughly 50% of condom users used it incorrectly. Whereas, only 13% (pill and condom users) report correct usage. -AGI
In other words, of all abortions, about 10-15% were using contraceptive methods in the correct manner. Why this was brought up, not quite sure, but interesting nonetheless.
-47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).
To me this is a ridiculous stat, which underscores the fact those who have abortions continue to have them again. This reinforces the use abortion as birth control argument.
---Your statistic is on the number of abortions is ridiculous and clearly made up.
Where's the outrage over the dead women in garbage cans?
Seriously, man. :roll: The only dead women in garbage cans are the adults & children who have already been born and are killed by people (of an unnamed gender :roll: ) who want to control women. You're just making yourself sound like a child by repeating that nonsense.
I like how you cut out the rest.
Yes, seriously, woman. :roll:
Your argument on women's rights to their own body, in regards to abortion, is full of holes if life begins at conception. Why? well, because once again, under that scenario the fetus is a human life (half of which are women in sex). These men AND women have rights. Like the right to not be killed by a vacuum. That's the point. Everything within these discussions always comes back to when life begins.
IMHO, the only way to be consistent and pro-abortion is to believe life begins at birth. But, even then, partial birth abortion is and should be unquestionably a crime to EVERYONE.
1. The majority of women having abortions in the U.S. are using contraception.
2. If a woman used abortion as her form of birth control, she would have 30 (thirty) abortions by the age of 45.
You asked for data supporting some of my claims in this thread:
-Roughly 50% used contraception during the MONTH (at some time) they became pregnant, that doesn't mean they used it when they should have or even correctly. Of the forementioned approx 50%, roughly three-quarters of pill users used it incorrectly and roughly 50% of condom users used it incorrectly. Whereas, only 13% (pill and condom users) report correct usage. -AGI
In other words, of all abortions, about 10-15% were using contraceptive methods in the correct manner. Why this was brought up, not quite sure, but interesting nonetheless.
-47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).
To me this is a ridiculous stat, which underscores the fact those who have abortions continue to have them again. This reinforces the use abortion as birth control argument.
---Your statistic is on the number of abortions is ridiculous and clearly made up.
As I know your source told you, more than 50% (i.e. the majority) of women having abortions have a regular method of contraception, for which they have "typical" use, as opposed to "perfect" (which is nearly impossible for most methods) use.
"47% of women who have abortions have had at least one previous abortion" is not the same as "47% of women who have abortions will have another abortion," which is what you at suggesting.
So any stat that you don't like the sound of is made up, huh? :roll: I guess you didn't care to look that one up too then. (Hell, why would you when you have such a great refutation? ) Go ahead. Look it up. There's plenty of data to prove it & you have a good source right before you.
As I know your source told you, more than 50% (i.e. the majority) of women having abortions have a regular method of contraception, for which they have "typical" use, as opposed to "perfect" (which is nearly impossible for most methods) use.
No, according to my source it's not "typical", it's "used it in the past month". That's a huge difference. As I already stated, that leads to roughly 15% were using it in the correct manner. I don't believe placing on a condom or taking a daily pill, is nearly impossible.
"47% of women who have abortions have had at least one previous abortion" is not the same as "47% of women who have abortions will have another abortion," which is what you at suggesting.
Seriously? This part is silly. My point was a large amount of women get more than one abortion. This stat proves it.
So any stat that you don't like the sound of is made up, huh? :roll: I guess you didn't care to look that one up too then. (Hell, why would you when you have such a great refutation? ) Go ahead. Look it up. There's plenty of data to prove it & you have a good source right before you.
No, I work in statistics. I know that it's impossible to prove a counterfactual. Your comment on knowing the amount of abortions a woman would by 45 if they used abortion as their method of birth control is pure and obvious speculation. It's a made up stat. I should have no need to look it up. Regardless of who made it up, it's made up. You wanted sources, I provided them, you did not.
Where's the outrage over the dead women in garbage cans?
Seriously, man. :roll: The only dead women in garbage cans are the adults & children who have already been born and are killed by people (of an unnamed gender :roll: ) who want to control women. You're just making yourself sound like a child by repeating that nonsense.
I like how you cut out the rest.
Yes, seriously, woman. :roll:
Your argument on women's rights to their own body, in regards to abortion, is full of holes if life begins at conception. Why? well, because once again, under that scenario the fetus is a human life (half of which are women in sex). These men AND women have rights. Like the right to not be killed by a vacuum. That's the point. Everything within these discussions always comes back to when life begins.
IMHO, the only way to be consistent and pro-abortion is to believe life begins at birth. But, even then, partial birth abortion is and should be unquestionably a crime to EVERYONE.
I cut the rest out because I'm sick of repeating myself, so I was only addressing that one outrageous claim you keep repeating. I love how you didn't address my post at all, so I'll say it again: There are no fetuses in trash cans. The only times there are fetuses in trash cans is when abortions are made illegal.
And regarding the rest of your off-topic comment, I don' give a rat's ass when life supposedly begins and that presents no holes in my argument. The big, gaping hole in your argument is your assumption of the desires (as if they had any, life or not) of every unborn fetus.
Also, your simplistic, banket opinion that so-called "partial birth abortion... should be unquestionably a crime to EVERYONE" just shows a lack of understanding of the procedures & the circumstances under which they are performed. (We've already had huge conversations about this in the past, though. You'd probably benefit from reading them.)
I cut the rest out because I'm sick of repeating myself, so I was only addressing that one outrageous claim you keep repeating. I love how you didn't address my post at all, so I'll say it again: There are no fetuses in trash cans. The only times there are fetuses in trash cans is when abortions are made illegal.
And regarding the rest of your off-topic comment, I don' give a rat's ass when life supposedly begins and that presents no holes in my argument. The big, gaping hole in your argument is your assumption of the desires (as if they had any, life or not) of every unborn fetus.
The desires of life... ha ha. The % of suicides to population is less than .01%. I'm pretty sure that would be higher if people did not want to live.
Also, your simplistic, banket opinion that so-called "partial birth abortion... should be unquestionably a crime to EVERYONE" just shows a lack of understanding of the procedures & the circumstances under which they are performed. (We've already had huge conversations about this in the past, though. You'd probably benefit from reading them.)
Lack of understanding on pulling out a viable fetus from it's mother, even up to 8-9 months and stabbing it in the head and literally sucking out it's brain? Hmmm... yeh, lack of understanding.
As I know your source told you, more than 50% (i.e. the majority) of women having abortions have a regular method of contraception, for which they have "typical" use, as opposed to "perfect" (which is nearly impossible for most methods) use.
No, according to my source it's not "typical", it's "used it in the past month". That's a huge difference. As I already stated, that leads to roughly 15% were using it in the correct manner. I don't believe placing on a condom or taking a daily pill, is nearly impossible.
"47% of women who have abortions have had at least one previous abortion" is not the same as "47% of women who have abortions will have another abortion," which is what you at suggesting.
Seriously? This part is silly. My point was a large amount of women get more than one abortion. This stat proves it.
So any stat that you don't like the sound of is made up, huh? :roll: I guess you didn't care to look that one up too then. (Hell, why would you when you have such a great refutation? ) Go ahead. Look it up. There's plenty of data to prove it & you have a good source right before you.
No, I work in statistics. I know that it's impossible to prove a counterfactual. Your comment on knowing the amount of abortions a woman would by 45 if they used abortion as their method of birth control is pure and obvious speculation. It's a made up stat. I should have no need to look it up. Regardless of who made it up, it's made up. You wanted sources, I provided them, you did not.
Yeah, I work in statistics too - reproductive health statistics specifically. So I know exactly what each of the Guttmacher stats says & have read every study from which they came. You can argue about "typical" vs "in the month" all day & it won't matter because the study talks about both (and I never said anything to the contrary). (It would be of great benefit to you & your wife, however, for you to develop an understanding of the difference between typical & perfect contraceptive use.)
What I can't understand is how a man who works in statistics can say that the second stat proves that a large number of women get more than one abortion. In fact, it gives no indication whatsoever about how many women get more than one abortion.
And the third statistic is not a counterfactual. (From where on earth did you even get that?) It's very easy to know how many abortions women have when they use abortion as birth control for two reasons: 1. There have been millions of women - on whom data has been collected - who actually do use abortion as birth control. But they're not American women; they're women who live in countries where contraception is prohibited. 2. Women's fertility cycles/rates are not a mystery. Knowledge of fertility & some simple math tells us how many pregnancies a typical, sexually-active, non-contracepting woman will have in a lifetime. I didn't provide sources because I've provided them a million times already around here & you already have them anyway.
I cut the rest out because I'm sick of repeating myself, so I was only addressing that one outrageous claim you keep repeating. I love how you didn't address my post at all, so I'll say it again: There are no fetuses in trash cans. The only times there are fetuses in trash cans is when abortions are made illegal.
And regarding the rest of your off-topic comment, I don' give a rat's ass when life supposedly begins and that presents no holes in my argument. The big, gaping hole in your argument is your assumption of the desires (as if they had any, life or not) of every unborn fetus.
The desires of life... ha ha. The % of suicides to population is less than .01%. I'm pretty sure that would be higher if people did not want to live.
Also, your simplistic, banket opinion that so-called "partial birth abortion... should be unquestionably a crime to EVERYONE" just shows a lack of understanding of the procedures & the circumstances under which they are performed. (We've already had huge conversations about this in the past, though. You'd probably benefit from reading them.)
Lack of understanding on pulling out a viable fetus from it's mother, even up to 8-9 months and stabbing it in the head and literally sucking out it's brain? Hmmm... yeh, lack of understanding.
I call bullshit on that story. Even if things did happen exactly like it claimed, that still doesn't justify the general characterization of aborted fetuses being thrown in the trash, which is illegal. I will clarify my statement though; I meant to say fetuses are only thrown into trash cans when they are done illegally - like when abortion is outlawed & women do them themselves. If you're truly concerned about minimizing the number of fetuses in trash cans, you should support legal access to abortion.
Suicide rates are not in any way indicative of whether a fetus would have chosen to be born. It doesn't matter anyway, though, since they aren't capable of desiring to not be born any more than they're capable of desiring to be born - which is not at all. Again, though, we've had this discussion a million times around here already & that's not wha this thread is about. Same with the later-term abortion procedures which people have no true desire to understand.
Yeah, I work in statistics too - reproductive health statistics specifically. So I know exactly what each of the Guttmacher stats say & have read every study from which they came. You can argue about "typical" vs "in the month" all day & it won't matter because the study talks about both (and I never said anything to the contrary). (It would be of great benefit to you & your wife, however, for you to develop an understanding of the difference between typical & perfect contraceptive use.)
It does matter. The source specifically states the number refers to those who have used either form (pill or condoms) in the last month, then goes on to break it down further when discussing those who used it regularly/properly, etc.
What I can't understand is how a man who works in statistics can say that the second stat proves that a large number of women get more than one abortion. In fact, it gives no indication whatsoever about how many women get more than one abortion.
The stat says that 47% of women having an abortion, have had a previous abortion. Clearly, that indicates that there's a good portion of the abortion community who have at least two abortions. Do you not understand that?
And the third statistic is not a counterfactual. (From where on earth did you even get that?) It's very easy to know how many abortions women have when they use abortion as birth control for two reasons: 1. There have been millions of women - on whom data has been collected - who actually do use abortion as birth control. But they're not American women; they're women who live in countries where contraception is prohibited. 2. Women's fertility cycles/rates are not a mystery. Knowledge of fertility & some simple math tells us how many pregnancies a typical, sexually-active, non-contracepting woman will have in a lifetime. I didn't provide sources because I've provided them a million times already around here & you already have them anyway.
Obviously you don't know what the term means:
counterfactual [ˌkauntəˈfæktʃʊəl] Logic
adj
(Philosophy / Logic) expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions
This is by definition counterfactual. You can't know precisely how many women use abortion for birth control, let alone project the number of abortions the average woman "would have" if they did use abortion as birth control. There's tons of assumptions to come up with that counterfactual statistic.
You didn't provide a source for the amount of abortions a woman would have if it were the sole means of birth control until 45 because you most likely don't have one. You most likely made it up, or someone else did. If you do have a source, fair enough, prove it.
Comments
I see the distinction and agree with it. But if we want the feds to overstep that distinction on some things, we shouldn't be surprised when others do as well...I hate the thought of someone having an abortion, and I don't envy anyone who is in the position where they need to consider it, even for a second...
and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:
I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?
Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.
I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
you don't have to apologize for jumping in,
I suppose any abortion is birth control if we try hard enough to call it that. People who come to the conclusion to have an abortion don't think of it as birth control. They don't use it as their family planning technique. They use it to terminate a pregnancy for one reason or another...it is RARELY if ever used as a birth control technique in the sense used when discussing the pill or iud's.
...in order to really answer your question I think we would have to decide what "as birth control" means. I would think it would mean that a person PLANS on having abortions INSTEAD of taking the pill or using another contraception device. But I don't think it would be fair for either of us to assume one way or the other when i am sure someone out there gathers these stats...I think we are also talking about a relatively small number of them in either case.
So i guess i could have spelled it out further in my initial question.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
True. I did go off topic.
I agree with this mandate.
And frankly, I'm ok with that. It's not a decision I would ever make. If I ever got a girlfriend or wife pregnant I would do everything I could to convince her to have our child. I couldn't bear the thought of going through life wondering about the child I could have had. I know I'll get berated for this, but I could care less if others around the world have abortions. There are too many people on this planet anyway. And I would venture to guess that most of those having abortions do so because they feel they can't support the child. So I find it odd that it's always those who don't support welfare or public programs that want to abolish abortions.
I have a very good friend who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when we were 20. She has decided that she does not want children because there is a high risk that after pregnancy and childbirth that her disease will become much more aggressive. Because of other health issues, she's can't use contraceptives and her and her long-time boyfriend rely on condoms. Well, at one point one of them must have broken because she ended up pregnant. Thankfully, she lives here in Canada, but let's move her Virginia for the sake of this debate.
She decides that she is going to have an abortion. Let's also mention that she was beaten and raped as a teen and suffers from PTSD. So, she gets the the doctor and is told they need to determine the age of the fetus before they can preform the abortion. A regular ultrasound can't detect the fetus, so she is told she needs a “internal ultrasound.” She is not visibly pregnant, and obviously not very far along. BUT... because of government legislation she has to be subjected to the completely unnecessary, intrusive and upsetting procedure before the doctor can perform the abortion (something that is very upsetting and traumatizing to her to begin with).
Her CHOICES in the situation are:
1. Suffer through an very upsetting procedure where a probe is inserted and moved around until the doctor can get a good enough look at the fetus.
2. Carry the pregnancy to term and risk her own health, eyesight and mobility.
i am pro CHOICE. as in i will fight for ANY woman to have the basic human right to CHOOSE what happens inside of her own body. it is a medical decision and the government should stay the fuck out of that situation. to me it is unethical for some virgin, celibate man in a pointy hat who has an office in the vatican to tell anyone what they have to do in medical situations. his views are antiquated and oppressive. to me, if he is going to consciously CHOOSE to never ever shag a woman then he is automatically out of touch with the reality that the rest of us subscribe to, and as such, he should shut the fuck up and mind his own business and focus on exorcising devils or investigating (or not investigating) his pedofile priests... that is why i am against any religious tenets in our set of laws, aside from you shall not kill or steal.
to answer your questions...
do i like the procedure that is abortion?
no i don't.
am i glad that that medical procedure is legal and that women have access to safe abortions?
yes i am.
would i want my wife or girlfriend that i had sex with and got pregnant to have an abortion?
no i wouldn't. but at the end of the day it is NOT MY CHOICE TO MAKE because i am not her and i do not have to carry that baby and deliver it and raise it. and i believe that it is severely unethical for me to attempt to FORCE her to have that kid.
do i wish that there were less abortions performed in a year?
yes i do, but it is not my place to impose my self righteous or my misogynistic, or my religious views onto others and make it impossible for others to have the procedure. high risk pregnancies happen all the time. pregnancies where the mother's life is at risk happens all the time. women get raped and pregnant all the time. i would never in a million years force any of the women in those examples to have the kid if their life is at risk, or if the kid is the child of the violent offender who raped her.
do i think abortion is a good thing?
it is not my place to say. that is between the woman and her doctor, and the woman and her conscience. far be it for me to make her feel worse by judging and condemning her for making that difficult life altering choice. but yes i believe that it is a good thing for any woman to have access to safe abortions and i believe the government should stay out of the bedroom and especially out of the doctor's exam/procedure room....
i can't believe any libertarian would support this proposed law that allows government to step over so many boundaries...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yeh, I think in a way, abortion could be considered birth control pretty much every time, but even outside of that we have a difference of opinion then on what is meant by birth control. For example, a lot of people use "the pull out" method. There's risk involved there. Is that a birth control method? Abortion could be considered a back-up birth control method to some there. For others, they just don't really think about what could happen at all. And, to me, it's birth control there too. Lots of scenarios.
Abortion prevents "birth" pretty much every time.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I think it's fantastic that you would try to convince your gf or wife to have the child.
But, on your other point, I disagree. There are not too many people on this planet. People were saying the same thing 300 years ago, and they were wrong... global standard of living has improved with population growth. People rarely take into account technology advancement. But, further only about 10% of the earth is inhabited by humans. More people, is not bad for economic growth, in fact it's good. Finally, in order to support your favored welfare or social insurance programs you need young people to tax, so we don't run into problems like we are with the baby boomers.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
If she was put into that situation she'd have to make a choice.
Since you gave a scenario, let me present another...
There's this multi-million dollar family, they live in VA outside DC. They have two children. The Dad is a stockbroker, and the Mom stays home. She's prissy, but beautiful. Works out every day and is regimented. Their children occasionally interfere with her lifestyle, so she hires a nanny. The kids live a very nice life. Their Dad is a fantastic Dad and the nanny is great. The Mom, although egocentric, is also a nice person deep down. Anyway, she doesn't use birth control because it makes her breakout. They both don't like the feel of condoms. So, they pull out. If, on the rare, occasion it doesn't work. She gets an abortion because at this point, "she can't think of putting up with another, maybe in a few years". She's had at least three abortions in the last 10 years. She gets pregnant again...
HER choices in the situation are:
1. Go through a procedure, which is not much worse than a typical gyno visit, which due to the ultra sound could potentially change her mind. She decides to go through with the abortion afterwards, her mind unchanged.
2. Go through a procedure, which is not much worse than a typical gyno visit, which due to the ultra sound could potentially change her mind. She decides to go through with the abortion afterwards, but rethinks the use of birth control in the future.
3. Go through a procedure, which is not much worse than a typical gyno visit, and she does not get an abortion.
Point here is - These events can work both ways.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
My bottom line here is, yes it's a simple "yes" or "no" answer. You either want to limit the abortion procedure or you don't. President Obama and Nancy Pelosi answered this question and said they want to limit the procedure, I figured you would fall in line. Good for you for having a distinction from the leading Democrats.
Personally, I'm not a virgin, celibate, man in a pointy hat etc. But, this portion here I would define as 'bigoted'. Yep, bigoted. Just because a religion isn't a race or a gender, doesn't mean prejudice can't be shown towards section of people.
Ummmm... as a married Dad, I have to "raise my kids". Am I abnormal? And also I know of many single Dads raising kids. Also, you ever hear of the term - adoption?
Why?
You are imposing your thoughts on the subject onto the fetus in the garbage can though. To stay consistent, you clearly HAVE to believe life doesn't begin until birth, otherwise you're advocating what you said you're against - murder.
Also, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the entire abortion population, not just the certainly less than 10% (that are rape victims or health concerns).
It's not your place to have an opinion? Ummm... call me crazy, but you do have an opinion. Your on a message board stating your opinion repetitively in an abortion thread. You can't act like you're holier than talking about a subject, in the midst of talking about that very subject. If it wasn't your place to say, why are you involved in the conversation at all?
[/quote]
I assume you are referring to me as a libertarian. I would mostly fall in as a libertarian, but I am also not a sheep and don't strictly abide by everything an ideology preaches. Furthermore, it's my opinion that the child has rights just like the Mom.
So, as I'll just repeat what I said earlier:
No amount of pro-abortion/sexist rhetoric on a woman's body, will take away the fact that half the fetus' being killed are women, and their bodies are not only being invaded, they're being destroyed. Where's the outrage over the dead women in garbage cans?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Medical necessity has nothing to do with government mandates
I'm not dodging it at all. I answered the question. You just think it's clever that you refuse to define your terms. And why exactly are you refusing to do that?
But I'll answer your loaded question yet again: I want to limit abortions in the same way & to the same extent that I want to limit appendectomies, heart bypass surgeries, the use of blood pressure medication, the use of eye glasses, etc. None of these procedures are wrong or bad - in fact, they're all good - but given their cost, discomfort, & indication of a health problem, it would be better if fewer were needed.
I can't think of a case where I want the Feds to overstep that distinction.
I would LOVE to see some legitimate data to support your claims - or even some explanation of what they mean.
Re: stats:
1. The majority of women having abortions in the U.S. are using contraception.
2. If a woman used abortion as her form of birth control, she would have 30 (thirty) abortions by the age of 45.
And so you also agree with the punching Republicans in the face before they can get blood pressure medication mandate?
Not to answer for gimme, but I noticed that comment too & here's my experenced take on it: Sure, lots of dads "raise" her kids. But LOTS of dads don't. I mean lots & lots of dads. And dads just aren't held to the same level of responsibility for their children that moms are. Dads can very easily just walk away. But moms are much less likely to have that option, especially if the dad walked away first. So what he said is true: dads don't really have to raise their children.
Seriously, man. :roll: The only dead women in garbage cans are the adults & children who have already been born and are killed by people (of an unnamed gender :roll: ) who want to control women. You're just making yourself sound like a child by repeating that nonsense.
You asked for data supporting some of my claims in this thread:
-Roughly 50% used contraception during the MONTH (at some time) they became pregnant, that doesn't mean they used it when they should have or even correctly. Of the forementioned approx 50%, roughly three-quarters of pill users used it incorrectly and roughly 50% of condom users used it incorrectly. Whereas, only 13% (pill and condom users) report correct usage. -AGI
In other words, of all abortions, about 10-15% were using contraceptive methods in the correct manner. Why this was brought up, not quite sure, but interesting nonetheless.
-47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).
To me this is a ridiculous stat, which underscores the fact those who have abortions continue to have them again. This reinforces the use abortion as birth control argument.
---Your statistic is on the number of abortions is ridiculous and clearly made up.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I like how you cut out the rest.
Yes, seriously, woman. :roll:
Your argument on women's rights to their own body, in regards to abortion, is full of holes if life begins at conception. Why? well, because once again, under that scenario the fetus is a human life (half of which are women in sex). These men AND women have rights. Like the right to not be killed by a vacuum. That's the point. Everything within these discussions always comes back to when life begins.
IMHO, the only way to be consistent and pro-abortion is to believe life begins at birth. But, even then, partial birth abortion is and should be unquestionably a crime to EVERYONE.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
As I know your source told you, more than 50% (i.e. the majority) of women having abortions have a regular method of contraception, for which they have "typical" use, as opposed to "perfect" (which is nearly impossible for most methods) use.
"47% of women who have abortions have had at least one previous abortion" is not the same as "47% of women who have abortions will have another abortion," which is what you at suggesting.
So any stat that you don't like the sound of is made up, huh?
No, according to my source it's not "typical", it's "used it in the past month". That's a huge difference. As I already stated, that leads to roughly 15% were using it in the correct manner. I don't believe placing on a condom or taking a daily pill, is nearly impossible.
Seriously? This part is silly. My point was a large amount of women get more than one abortion. This stat proves it.
No, I work in statistics. I know that it's impossible to prove a counterfactual. Your comment on knowing the amount of abortions a woman would by 45 if they used abortion as their method of birth control is pure and obvious speculation. It's a made up stat. I should have no need to look it up. Regardless of who made it up, it's made up. You wanted sources, I provided them, you did not.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I cut the rest out because I'm sick of repeating myself, so I was only addressing that one outrageous claim you keep repeating. I love how you didn't address my post at all, so I'll say it again: There are no fetuses in trash cans. The only times there are fetuses in trash cans is when abortions are made illegal.
And regarding the rest of your off-topic comment, I don' give a rat's ass when life supposedly begins and that presents no holes in my argument. The big, gaping hole in your argument is your assumption of the desires (as if they had any, life or not) of every unborn fetus.
Also, your simplistic, banket opinion that so-called "partial birth abortion... should be unquestionably a crime to EVERYONE" just shows a lack of understanding of the procedures & the circumstances under which they are performed. (We've already had huge conversations about this in the past, though. You'd probably benefit from reading them.)
False. Here's one that was actually alive -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1137486/Newborn-baby-thrown-trash-ALIVE-botched-abortion.html
The desires of life... ha ha. The % of suicides to population is less than .01%. I'm pretty sure that would be higher if people did not want to live.
Lack of understanding on pulling out a viable fetus from it's mother, even up to 8-9 months and stabbing it in the head and literally sucking out it's brain? Hmmm... yeh, lack of understanding.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Yeah, I work in statistics too - reproductive health statistics specifically. So I know exactly what each of the Guttmacher stats says & have read every study from which they came. You can argue about "typical" vs "in the month" all day & it won't matter because the study talks about both (and I never said anything to the contrary). (It would be of great benefit to you & your wife, however, for you to develop an understanding of the difference between typical & perfect contraceptive use.)
What I can't understand is how a man who works in statistics can say that the second stat proves that a large number of women get more than one abortion. In fact, it gives no indication whatsoever about how many women get more than one abortion.
And the third statistic is not a counterfactual. (From where on earth did you even get that?) It's very easy to know how many abortions women have when they use abortion as birth control for two reasons: 1. There have been millions of women - on whom data has been collected - who actually do use abortion as birth control. But they're not American women; they're women who live in countries where contraception is prohibited. 2. Women's fertility cycles/rates are not a mystery. Knowledge of fertility & some simple math tells us how many pregnancies a typical, sexually-active, non-contracepting woman will have in a lifetime. I didn't provide sources because I've provided them a million times already around here & you already have them anyway.
I call bullshit on that story. Even if things did happen exactly like it claimed, that still doesn't justify the general characterization of aborted fetuses being thrown in the trash, which is illegal. I will clarify my statement though; I meant to say fetuses are only thrown into trash cans when they are done illegally - like when abortion is outlawed & women do them themselves. If you're truly concerned about minimizing the number of fetuses in trash cans, you should support legal access to abortion.
Suicide rates are not in any way indicative of whether a fetus would have chosen to be born. It doesn't matter anyway, though, since they aren't capable of desiring to not be born any more than they're capable of desiring to be born - which is not at all. Again, though, we've had this discussion a million times around here already & that's not wha this thread is about. Same with the later-term abortion procedures which people have no true desire to understand.
It does matter. The source specifically states the number refers to those who have used either form (pill or condoms) in the last month, then goes on to break it down further when discussing those who used it regularly/properly, etc.
The stat says that 47% of women having an abortion, have had a previous abortion. Clearly, that indicates that there's a good portion of the abortion community who have at least two abortions. Do you not understand that?
Obviously you don't know what the term means:
counterfactual [ˌkauntəˈfæktʃʊəl] Logic
adj
(Philosophy / Logic) expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions
This is by definition counterfactual. You can't know precisely how many women use abortion for birth control, let alone project the number of abortions the average woman "would have" if they did use abortion as birth control. There's tons of assumptions to come up with that counterfactual statistic.
You didn't provide a source for the amount of abortions a woman would have if it were the sole means of birth control until 45 because you most likely don't have one. You most likely made it up, or someone else did. If you do have a source, fair enough, prove it.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Of course you do.
Of course. They are just a reliable current, real-life statistic of the average person's desire to not live.
Anyway, I'm done for the night. Enjoy.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="