I thought I'd start a thread on Abortion

angelica

catch22 wrote:

got any real world examples for us, instead of textbook gibberish? which values and options are being minimized and how? how do you know about it, aside from your assumption that everyone automatically (except for you, of course) is biased and manipulative in their actions and speech on this issue?

bias and manipulation is shown by bias and manipulation. again, it's self evident.

It's interesting to me that people might find this concept unfathomable. Why would someone challenge what is normal and part of who we are in our evolution at this time?

When we perpetuate the unjustifiable, we create negative consequences to learn by. The problem comes in when people must put blinders on in order to protect their egos.

_

angelica wrote:

bias and manipulation is shown by bias and manipulation.

Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyes:

angelica

scb wrote:

Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyes:

If that's not clear for you there's little I can do.

Dylan Stone

angelica wrote:

bias and manipulation is shown by bias and manipulation.

CorporateWhore

scb wrote:

but I think it's downright libelous & disrespectful to suggest that hard-working, caring, medical professionals are out there preying on distraught women so as to propagate a pro-abortion agenda rather than being objective and supportive.

We could go back and forth on this:

Medical "professionals" that provide abortions are the ambulance chasers of the medical field. Most doctors choose to abide by the hippocratic oath and give life, while abortionists choose to take life.

Abortionists don't necessarily need to prey on women, but they do locate themselves in the inner-city where the business of abortion thrives. They have a regular supply and demand. They supply abortions, and distraught women demand them. Plenty of those women, if they had the opportunity, would carry their babies to term. If you think for a moment that the abortionist wants them to do that, you're sorely mistaken. They have a conflict of interest - they benefit financially when abortions are in demand. They are in the business of baby killing.

If there were less supply, women might choose abortion less. I thought pro-choicers always wanted less abortion, but when conservatives try to make that happen, pro-choicers go out of their way to make abortion more accessible.

Obama is a good example. He voted against a bill that would've made it illegal to murder a born child because he was concerned that it would provide a loophole around Roe v. Wade. That's just murder, plain and simple.

Dylan Stone

CorporateWhore wrote:

I thought pro-choicers always wanted less abortion, but when conservatives try to make that happen...

I know... all those conservatives trying to help out with the problem of unwanted pregnancies...

Always pushing for sex education, free condoms, and greater funding to school and public health clinics to help them with reproductive education.

And we liberals... we are all like...

"Why the free condoms??? You conservatives are fucking everything up with your accessible birth control and reproductive education programs!!!

_

CorporateWhore wrote:

We could go back and forth on this:

Medical "professionals" that provide abortions are the ambulance chasers of the medical field. Most doctors choose to abide by the hippocratic oath and give life, while abortionists choose to take life.

Abortionists don't necessarily need to prey on women, but they do locate themselves in the inner-city where the business of abortion thrives. They have a regular supply and demand. They supply abortions, and distraught women demand them. Plenty of those women, if they had the opportunity, would carry their babies to term. If you think for a moment that the abortionist wants them to do that, you're sorely mistaken. They have a conflict of interest - they benefit financially when abortions are in demand. They are in the business of baby killing.

Obviously you don't know (m)any abortion providers. Most/many of them deliver many, many more babies than they abort. And the fee for prenatal care & delivery is considerably higher than the fee for abortion - not to mention the lifetime of revenue generated by a kid who is born. So it would actually be MUCH more financially beneficial for these doctors to be biased in support of childbirth, not abortion.

_

GTFLYGIRL wrote:

I know... all those conservatives trying to help out with the problem of unwanted pregnancies...

Always pushing for sex education, free condoms, and greater funding to school and public health clinics to help them with reproductive education.

And we liberals... we are all like...

"Why the free condoms??? You conservatives are fucking everything up with your accessible birth control and reproductive education programs!!!

Well at least the conservatives don't objectify women or sleep around. I mean, you never see them on message board threads talking about all the women they should bang while they're in college. They always keep their dicks in their pants and their legs shut. :rolleyes:

CorporateWhore

GTFLYGIRL wrote:

I know... all those conservatives trying to help out with the problem of unwanted pregnancies...

Always pushing for sex education, free condoms, and greater funding to school and public health clinics to help them with reproductive education.

And we liberals... we are all like...

"Why the free condoms??? You conservatives are fucking everything up with your accessible birth control and reproductive education programs!!!

All those "solutions" are crap. We're talking about reducing abortion, not conception.

_

CorporateWhore wrote:

All those "solutions" are crap. We're talking about reducing abortion, not conception.

Haha! That's the quote of the day! Of course - reducing conception is a horrible method of reducing abortion.

Medicated-Genius

know1 wrote:

Still disagree. There are TONS of options or choices out there. What the pro-abortion crowd really cares about is having abortion as an option.

There are not TONS of options or choices out there. There are 3. And only 3. Either, continue with the pregnancy and keep the child, continue with the pregnancy and adopt the child out, or do not continue the pregnancy. This is an abortion debate, not a Birth Control one. What one should have or could have done to prevent the pregnancy is not part of the discussion. What we're talking about is whether or not a woman has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, or not. The law says she does.
As for the pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-life, anti-life, pro-choice, anti-choice......... does it really matter what you call it? At the end of the day, one either believes a woman has a right to an abortion, or they don't. And one side of the argument is never going to convince the other side of the argument to change sides.

CorporateWhore

scb wrote:

Obviously you don't know (m)any abortion providers. Most/many of them deliver many, many more babies than they abort.

False. Abortion providers specialize in abortion procedures. Women who wish to carry their child to term do not go to abortion clinics. The clinics can develop economies of scale by bringin' in young ladies, hackin the baby up and sending the girl out the door in just a few hours. They don't really give a fuck about the girl, they're mainly concerned with makin' dat money.

And the fee for prenatal care & delivery is considerably higher than the fee for abortion - not to mention the lifetime of revenue generated by a kid who is born.

Haha! I see you know a lot about profitable business operations ::sarcasm::

The average abortion takes less time to perform than prenatal care and delivery. The woman walks in, asks for an abortion, the clinic jumps through a few legalistic hoops and wham, the abortion has been performed and the clinic got their cash.

It's a profitable business because it doesn't take as much time. So, you can cram a lot of dead babies into the work day. The abortionist develops economies of scale because he can become specialized in that trade, much like a midwife is specialized in delivering babies.

Delivering a live baby introduces costly complications. Then ya got two people that you need to give medical care. That costs money!

The abortionist just has to worry about one person, so he can focus on not fucking up with the woman. He can do whatever he wants to the baby's carcass. No worries there - toss it in the trash can.

The doctor that delivers the baby must treat it like a human being, and that is costly!!!

So it would actually be MUCH more financially beneficial for these doctors to be biased in support of childbirth, not abortion.

The average abortion takes less time to perform than prenatal care and delivery. The woman walks in, asks for an abortion, the clinic jumps through a few legalistic hoops and wham, the abortion has been performed and the clinic got their cash.

I would be interested in seeing what kind of figures you can draw up describing the expected revenues that the average delivered baby and its mother would bring in to a specialized abortionist. How can you predict that at all?

If it was always more profitable to deliver babies instead of abort them, abortionists wouldn't choose that trade. They are running a business out of choice. The government hasn't made them become abortionists, and if they could make more money delivering babies instead of murdering them, any sound business mind would choose to deliver babies.

CorporateWhore

scb wrote:

Haha! That's the quote of the day! Of course - reducing conception is a horrible method of reducing abortion.

Your causal relationships are all haywire, but that's a common leftist mindset.

Conception doesn't necessitate abortion. There is no reason why a pregnant woman must choose abortion.

Reducing conception simply guarantees that the woman will not get pregnant and won't be forced to not choose abortion. What's the difference?

catch22

angelica wrote:

bias and manipulation is shown by bias and manipulation. again, it's self evident.

It's interesting to me that people might find this concept unfathomable. Why would someone challenge what is normal and part of who we are in our evolution at this time?

When we perpetuate the unjustifiable, we create negative consequences to learn by. The problem comes in when people must put blinders on in order to protect their egos.

and a jabberwock is a jabberwock. sweet.

heet toth mank nurl. get it?

example please? you obviously had something specific in mind with your initial posts, but don't have the courage to voice it. perhaps it is your ego that is being protected, by your refusal to discuss what you perceive to be the biases being acted out in the conduct of pro-choice workers at clinics? you hinted at it, and then when challenged retreat into these vague evasions.

catch22

scb wrote:

Well at least the conservatives don't objectify women or sleep around. I mean, you never see them on message board threads talking about all the women they should bang while they're in college. They always keep their dicks in their pants and their legs shut. :rolleyes:

that was me, not corporatewhore. and i'm firmly pro-choice and pro-real sex ed. can your wrap your mind around that contradiction? not all misogynists are right-wing conservatives and i really resent the latter implication. it is incredibly offensive!

catefrances

angelica wrote:

I made my point. It is clearly a person. I see you disagree.

clearly a person? hmmm. what exactly is a person? is it just another name for human? a human embryo is a human embryo, but whether it can be said to be clearly a person is debatable. only after a certain amount of time of development can a human embryo be recognised as being distinctly human

catch22

CorporateWhore wrote:

If it was always more profitable to deliver babies instead of abort them, abortionists wouldn't choose that trade. They are running a business out of choice. The government hasn't made them become abortionists, and if they could make more money delivering babies instead of murdering them, any sound business mind would choose to deliver babies.

i thought doctors were all about the hippocratic oath? doesn't that mean their chief concern in providing medical services, not making profit? if this was the case, why are there any foot doctors? neurosurgeons make more. shit, why are there any nurses? they could make more as a doctor! shit, why are there maintenance dudes keeping the cat scan running? they could make more as a nurse!

this is an absurd analogy you've got here.

catefrances

Pats54 wrote:

One question I have always had is this. Why if someone murders a pregnant woman is he/she charged with murder of two. This logic does not line up with me.

Also we have laws in this country that make it illegall to be a prostitute. Isn't that the Govt. teleing people what they can and can't do tot their bodies.

Just food for thought.

it depends on the gestational age of the unborn i believe.

as for prostitution, i dont think it should be illegal. and yes, the governemnt is telling people what they can do with their bodies by making prostitution illegal. but im sure youll hear it being illegal has something to do with protecting women from being exploited. where to me its about men not being able to regulate fully something which is out of their control.
and yes i am aware there are male prostitutes.

catefrances

catch22 wrote:

that was me, not corporatewhore. and i'm firmly pro-choice and pro-real sex ed. can your wrap your mind around that contradiction? not all misogynists are right-wing conservatives and i really resent the latter implication. it is incredibly offensive!

how is being prochoice and pro real sex ed contradictory?

catch22

catefrances wrote:

how is being prochoice and pro real sex ed contradictory?

i was making a crack because they seemed to be saying that being a misogynist and a liberal were contradictory... and i'm living proof that is not true i thought they were calling me a conservative or something, which insulted me, hehe.

so i'm pro-choice, pro-sex ed, and i like to objectify women which makes me kind of sexist/misogynistic. that's the contradiction i referred to.