|
|
Abortion illegal in South Dakota starting July1 (Page 6)
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status:
Offline
|
|
Liberal men score but they take their responsibilities and put the health and welfare of their partners first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Here's something to consider:
Abortion was legal in the US until about 100 years ago, when many states passed laws against it. This was also roughly the period of the Comstock law which made birth control and any sex-education information illegal.
I think this is important because often, traditionalists argue that modern society is going down hill, and we need to get back to the way things were in the good old days. But the good olds days often didn't happen in the way the traditionalists claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status:
Offline
|
|
Russell I totally agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Monique
Again you always put it on the women shoulders like she is alone in bed. I know it is difficult for conservative men to take some of the responsibilities but you do not want to be a father use some condoms.
Hey Monique, Do you even read my posts at all?
I said it was BOTH responsibilities. It's on BOTH people.
YOU are the one that is blaming only ONE SIDE.
Not I.
If you do not want to take your responsibilities you have no say to the outcome of that problem.
What if I do! What If I want to be a father?
You might be perfect Kevin but women are human beings and they sometime make the mistake to trust a conservative man.
I am hardly perfect.
But no one makes anyone have sex unless it's rape.
Monique, you not only have a problem with reading comprehension, but blame shifting too.
I suggest you get professional help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BRussell
Here's something to consider:
Abortion was legal in the US until about 100 years ago, when many states passed laws against it. This was also roughly the period of the Comstock law which made birth control and any sex-education information illegal.
I think this is important because often, traditionalists argue that modern society is going down hill, and we need to get back to the way things were in the good old days. But the good olds days often didn't happen in the way the traditionalists claim.
Awesome post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
Awesome post.
Thanks.
You see that a lot, I think. When the "Leftist War on Christmas" nonsense was in full swing, they talked about how we needed to get back to the way things used to be. But early Americans thought it gawdy and inappropriate to celebrate Christmas. It's mainly a modern marketing tool.
When they talk about getting back to family values, they don't talk about the extremely high rates of common-law, unsanctioned "marriage" in the recent past, not to mention the high rates of polygamy in human culture throughout history.
The good old days weren't as they're often claimed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
No, they're talking about just prior to Roe v. Wade. But what I'm saying is that there's often an implication that abortion being legal is some new feature of society that signifies modern corruption. But that's just not true. For the first half of the history of the US, as well as prior to American independence and in Britain, abortion was legal.
The period of 100 years or so that abortion was illegal is the exception in history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Again BR, they are usually talking about 30s-50s era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Interesting read: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...n-states_x.htm
Brinkman's bill would go much further. It would make performing an abortion or transporting a woman across state lines to have an abortion a felony.
What a jerk this Brinkman is.
Copeland, 36, a former organizer for the AFL-CIO, hopes the intense debate sure to be sparked if a state ban was a legal possibility, not a hypothetical question, would persuade some legislators to change their minds.
She notes that the Roe decision consistently commands majority support in public opinion surveys. The USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in January found that Americans backed it by 66%-25%. In the survey, 53% said they considered themselves "pro-choice" and 42% said they were "pro-life," a breakdown that has stayed about the same for a decade.
In a USA TODAY poll last month, six of 10 Americans opposed statewide bans on abortion; 36% supported them.
Determining abortion restrictions state-by-state only makes sense to Dorothy Timbs, legislative counsel for the department of state legislation at National Right to Life.
"Obviously the issue would return back to the states to decide for themselves," she says. "We believe an issue as sensitive as abortion, that affects so many women and their children, should be up to their legislators who are accountable to the people."
Non sequitur.
Try this: Obviously the issue should stay in the hands of women to decide for themselves," she says. "We believe an issue as sensitive as abortion, that affects so many women and their children, should be up to the women themselves.
Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, protests that overturning Roe would make access to a fundamental right dependent on geography. She predicts it will inflame what is already one of the most divisive issues in American politics. "It is going to make abortion the center of every local race for office, every state legislative race, of every state judicial race, of every state executive race, not to mention a battle for federal elections," she says. "It will be a never-ending battle."
Sad, just sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
Try this: Obviously the issue should stay in the hands of women to decide for themselves," she says. "We believe an issue as sensitive as abortion, that affects so many women and their children, should be up to the women themselves.
Why not ask women's children as well?
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why not also give men a choice?
I mean we don't have a choice. Why are women allowed to have a choice and we aren't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes Kevin you have a choice to wear a condom or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Monique
Yes Kevin you have a choice to wear a condom or not.
So do women.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status:
Offline
|
|
But the Conservative men want to take the decisions for women about what happen to their bodies after they made a mistake and trusted these men. The conservative men do not want to take responsibilities. So, women should never never go to bed with a conservative men because they are not respected, they will never been taken of, they are not estimated enough for those men to wear a condom, and if they get pregnant those men will be out of the door so fast.
Conclusion let's keep abortions legal just in case a woman is stupid enough to go to bed with a conservative man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
(
Last edited by Demonhood; Apr 20, 2006 at 11:48 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Monique
Yes Kevin you have a choice to wear a condom or not.
You have the same choice that I do then.
I am saying, you think women should have a choice to be a mother or not.
Why shouldn't men have a choice to be a father or not?
You can't say women should have that right, but not man!
That would be sexist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Monique
But the Conservative men want to take the decisions for women about what happen to their bodies after they made a mistake and trusted these men. The conservative men do not want to take responsibilities. So, women should never never go to bed with a conservative men because they are not respected, they will never been taken of, they are not estimated enough for those men to wear a condom, and if they get pregnant those men will be out of the door so fast.
Conclusion let's keep abortions legal just in case a woman is stupid enough to go to bed with a conservative man.
Again, your mistake was you choose to have unprotected sex.
I bet there is a man out there going around saying you can't trust liberal women. They have sex with out without telling you they aren't on birth control!
Do you not see it's your fault too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BRussell
Here's something to consider:
Abortion was legal in the US until about 100 years ago, when many states passed laws against it.
We know the Assyrians for example would throw women upon stakes for having an abortion. 700 BC? Thankfully, we've come quite a way since then. However, as early as 1312, modern history shows a legislated distaste for the procedure.
The first colonies operated under a form of English Common Law. They measured life by whether or not the mother could "feel" the baby or "quickening". Abortion prior to "quickening" was considered a misdemeanor and after "quickening" a felony. Obviously, science had not come to expose the fetal development as it does today so the diagnosis were relatively crude relying on being able to actually hear the heartbeat. By the early 1800s, after the development of more advanced microcopics and subsequent discoveries, life began taking on new meaning as not being at quickening, but at fertilization. This was so in Britain as well. 186 years ago the states began formally illegalizing abortion after the 4th month. Abortion was an act primarily driven by men as noted by staunch feminists of the time who opposed it such as Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The Comstock law of 1873 was initiated by physicians and the American Medical Association and by 1900 most abortions were illegalized. The procedure was deemed wholly unsafe and endangered the lives of women. The Comstock Law was in fact a morally authoritarian law passed in the interest of spreading morality as it included bans on birth control and information pertaining to birth control, but it was an easy sell. It was authored and pushed into place by the medical establishment. Abortion was essentially exploiting women on the whims of the man and was in dire need of illegalization as part of building the foundation that would help lead to women's rights. Interesting to note that more women oppose abortion in general and support tighter restrictions on the procedure than men to this day.
BTW; Not conservative men Monique, just men. Actually, primarly liberal men.
I think this is important because often, traditionalists argue that modern society is going down hill, and we need to get back to the way things were in the good old days. But the good olds days often didn't happen in the way the traditionalists claim.
Generally, what traditionalists argue is that in the old days there was a little more chivalry and chastity. This may be a mistaken notion because men were as barbaric then as they are today so your point is noted. Unfortunately as part of women's equality, they've become as barbaric as the men they used to keep in check. Now, we do see a significant decline in civility, chastity, and chivalry and all are contributing to the problems in society. Not unlike the dollar, the more of them that you see crammed in front of you, the less valuable they become.
Thought I'd offer up some clarifications on the history of abortion. There are several pro-choicers who have an ideal of the older, good old days that often didn't happen in the way the pro-choicer claims.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
The first colonies operated under a form of English Common Law. They measured life by whether or not the mother could "feel" the baby or "quickening". Abortion prior to "quickening" was considered a misdemeanor and after "quickening" a felony. Obviously, science had not come to expose the fetal development as it does today so the diagnosis were relatively crude relying on being able to actually hear the heartbeat. By the early 1800s, after the development of more advanced microcopics and subsequent discoveries, life began taking on new meaning as not being at quickening, but at fertilization. This was so in Britain as well. 186 years ago the states began formally illegalizing abortion after the 4th month. Abortion was an act primarily driven by men as noted by staunch feminists of the time who opposed it such as Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The Comstock law of 1873 was initiated by physicians and the American Medical Association and by 1900 most abortions were illegalized. The procedure was deemed wholly unsafe and endangered the lives of women. The Comstock Law was in fact a morally authoritarian law passed in the interest of spreading morality as it included bans on birth control and information pertaining to birth control, but it was an easy sell. It was authored and pushed into place by the medical establishment. Abortion was essentially exploiting women on the whims of the man and was in dire need of illegalization as part of building the foundation that would help lead to women's rights. Interesting to note that more women oppose abortion in general and support tighter restrictions on the procedure than men to this day.
Thought I'd offer up some clarifications on the history of abortion. There are several pro-choicers who have an ideal of the older, good old days that often didn't happen in the way the pro-choicer claims.
I posted all this already, so obviously I do think it happened this way. It proves the pro-choice point-of-view, not yours (except for the emphasis, which is just nonsense).
The procedure was deemed wholly unsafe and endangered the lives of women. As mentioned in Roe v Wade, once the procedure was essentially safe, this concern vanished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
I posted all this already, so obviously I do think it happened this way. It proves the pro-choice point-of-view, not yours (except for the emphasis, which is just nonsense).
The Pro-Choice view is that abortion is harmful to women and was driven by the personal whims of men then, just as it is today? Interesting.
Please give me a link where my points were posted already. I didn't see them. I do see you're still trying to belittle the points of others in general though. Nonsensical indeed. I thought you would've learned something from the last time we did this.
I don't call ya sun cuz ya shine, I call ya son cuz you're mine!
The procedure was deemed wholly unsafe and endangered the lives of women. As mentioned in Roe v Wade, once the procedure was essentially safe, this concern vanished.
It was an archaic pratice most doctors didn't want to perform then and it's an archaic practice most doctors don't want to perform today. "Essentially safe" would mean a lot more to me if clinic inspections were conducted on more than a complaint-only basis. Feminists were opposed to it then because it was driven by men. It's being driven by men today and true feminists still oppose it.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
The Pro-Choice view is that abortion is harmful to women and was driven by the personal whims of men then, just as it is today? Interesting.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Please give me a link where my points were posted already. I didn't see them.
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=290293 and http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/roevwade.pdf
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I do see you're still trying to belittle the points of others in general though. Nonsensical indeed. I thought you would've learned something from the last time we did this.
Learn from you?
In case anyone forgot, this is how you ended our debate last time:
Originally Posted by ebuddy
It should be noted that lpkmckenna will likely continue on. He may try to claim that he's somehow owned this debate and that he's somehow "put a whoopin' down" bla, bla, bla. To be clear it may very well be what he needs to do for himself right now so it's all good. However, I'll not be contributing to the break-down here. Folks, this is an internet forum. If you argue here because you're trying to compensate for a small penis and you're tired of the big kids shoving you into the gym lockers or maybe your mom dressed you up like a sissy and made you go to Church, whatever, you'll end up in worse condition than when you started. You'll get a lot less sympathy here than you would if you just saw a doctor for your intersex condition or a psychiatrist for your self-worth issues.
Clearly, you never learn. You're as childish now as you were then.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I don't call ya sun cuz ya shine, I call ya son cuz you're mine!
Irrelevent chest-pounding.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
It was an archaic pratice most doctors didn't want to perform then and it's an archaic practice most doctors don't want to perform today.
Irrelevent. Most doctors don't want to be proctologists, either.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Feminists were opposed to it then because it was driven by men. It's being driven by men today and true feminists still oppose it.
"True feminists?" Like your hero, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
We know the Assyrians for example would throw women upon stakes for having an abortion. 700 BC? Thankfully, we've come quite a way since then. However, as early as 1312, modern history shows a legislated distaste for the procedure.
The first colonies operated under a form of English Common Law. They measured life by whether or not the mother could "feel" the baby or "quickening". Abortion prior to "quickening" was considered a misdemeanor and after "quickening" a felony. There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence. In some cases, it was governed by English common law, which found abortion to be legally and ethically acceptable if occurring before 'quickening,' when the movement of the fetus could first be felt. Laws against abortion began to appear in the 1820s. Connecticut outlawed post-quickening abortions in 1821, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor eight years later. Many of the early laws were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by worry about the safety of the procedure. Indeed, many early feminists, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, argued against abortion, favoring birth control instead. The former wrote:
Here's what wikipedia says about it
There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence. In some cases, it was governed by English common law, which found abortion to be legally and ethically acceptable if occurring before 'quickening,' when the movement of the fetus could first be felt. Laws against abortion began to appear in the 1820s. Connecticut outlawed post-quickening abortions in 1821, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor eight years later. Many of the early laws were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by worry about the safety of the procedure. Indeed, many early feminists, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, argued against abortion, favoring birth control instead. The former wrote:
I have no direct knowledge of any of these things, but I've also read that abortions have been performed throughout all of human history, and yet there are no records of laws against abortion, for example in Judaism or Roman culture.
As far as I can tell, outlawing abortion is a modern (i.e., in the past 150 years or so) conservative idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status:
Offline
|
|
Of course Anthony and Stanton preferred the women to use birth control than to be operated on; like 99.9 percent of women preferred to use contraception than having an abortion. Abortions exist when contraception fail, or when men lie and say they are responsible and they are not, when a woman gets rape... It is not black and white and it is not about men; it is about the welfare of over 1 million of women a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Whoa, I just agreed with a Monique post.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status:
Offline
|
|
Update: Louisiana is pulling a South Dakota. A bill very similar is drawing closer to being passed in the Bayou state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
In case anyone forgot, this is how you ended our debate last time
You didn't like it then either.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Just keep stuffing those words in my mouth, ebuddy, since it's the only thing you know how to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Monique
Of course Anthony and Stanton preferred the women to use birth control than to be operated on; like 99.9 percent of women preferred to use contraception than having an abortion. Abortions exist when contraception fail, or when men lie and say they are responsible and they are not, when a woman gets rape... It is not black and white and it is not about men; it is about the welfare of over 1 million of women a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Monique
Of course Anthony and Stanton preferred the women to use birth control than to be operated on; like 99.9 percent of women preferred to use contraception than having an abortion.
Because abortions were and still are unsafe.
... the desire for sex is simply too overwhelming to worry about pesky little implications like AIDs, various other STDs, and pregnancy.
contraception fails and men lie.
I'll give you that much.
men say they are responsible
No more or less responsible than the woman they obviously talked into bed in your example. You're pro- choice right?
when a woman gets rape...
Rape is a horrible act and the fullest extent of the law should be applied to those power-hungry whackos. There are some cases unfortunately, where the woman lied about rape and the man is assumed guilty until proven innocent. This also is a shame.
It is not black and white and it is not about men
So why do you spend so much of your time indicting them?
it is about the welfare of over 1 million of women a year.
There is no statistic to suggest that women fare any better with legalized abortion Monique. None. It is about progress and knowing what's best for yourself. It's about being enlightened enough in this day and age to know what's at risk and ensuring you're not placing yourself in the risk categories. 97% of abortions are performed on women who engaged consensual sex. Period. Not rape, not incest, and not health of mother. This is between two people who have all too often not considered the implications of their act. You can't have it both ways Monique. You can't say it's all the man's fault, then claim it's not about men.
I was hoping we had come a long way from the mid 1800's. Unfortunately not.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
Again, your mistake was you choose to have unprotected sex.
I bet there is a man out there going around saying you can't trust liberal women. They have sex with out without telling you they aren't on birth control!
Do you not see it's your fault too?
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
There is no statistic to suggest that women fare any better with legalized abortion Monique. None.
I'm not aware of any statistic to suggest women fare better (whatever that means) with the right to vote — should that be taken away as well?
Originally Posted by ebuddy
It is about progress and knowing what's best for yourself. It's about being enlightened enough in this day and age to know what's at risk and ensuring you're not placing yourself in the risk categories. 97% of abortions are performed on women who engaged consensual sex. Period. Not rape, not incest, and not health of mother. This is between two people who have all too often not considered the implications of their act.
So what? She hadn't considered the implications, and we shouldn't let her take an out because…we like to watch women get punished for their lapses in judgment? If a woman accidentally sets her house on fire because she left her curling iron on, is it "about being enlightened enough in this day and age to know what's at risk and ensuring you're not placing yourself in the risk categories," so we shouldn't save her?
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
I'm not aware of any statistic to suggest women fare better (whatever that means) with the right to vote — should that be taken away as well?
This was in direct response to "women's welfare". Ask Monique Chuckit. Regarding the right to vote; you don't consider the right to vote or hold positions in office evidence of the betterment of women? It certainly was influential considering the 11 of 14 female representatives who voted in favor of the ban in South Dakota. I hope it doesn't bother you that women may use their right to oppose something they always have.
Now is not the time to deny women a voice simply because you disagree.
So what? She hadn't considered the implications, and we shouldn't let her take an out because…we like to watch women get punished for their lapses in judgment?
Certainly less oppressive than denying them the right to vote or hold positions in office at all.
If a woman accidentally sets her house on fire because she left her curling iron on, is it "about being enlightened enough in this day and age to know what's at risk and ensuring you're not placing yourself in the risk categories," so we shouldn't save her?
If her curling iron caused not only her house to catch on fire, but the neighbor's house, and the one next door to them, and so on... there may be a few who would suggest she get a curling iron that shuts itself off after a few minutes or not curl her hair anymore. So, if a pro-life woman is sitting on a raft and it's about to go over a waterfall, you wouldn't save her? Honestly, we can come up with the most absurd analogies possible and we could do this for a month. I suppose if you continue to extrapolate absurdities, I'm left with no choice than to counter with them.
We're talking about a huge, lucrative industry wholly unregulated that seeks to forward the "rights of women" while the majority of women oppose the act. It is a huge and lucrative, unregulated industry that seeks to improve socio economic conditions through legalized genocide. If you don't have a problem with me punishing women, I guess you're cool with genocide, though I thought we were interested in "progress".
(
Last edited by ebuddy; Apr 22, 2006 at 08:18 AM.
)
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Now is not the time to deny women a voice simply because you disagree.
No one is advocating this.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Certainly less oppressive than denying them the right to vote or hold positions in office at all.
Again, no one is advocating this.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I suppose if you continue to extrapolate absurdities, I'm left with no choice than to counter with them.
You'll counter with absurdities anyways!
Originally Posted by ebuddy
We're talking about a huge, lucrative industry wholly unregulated that seeks to forward the "rights of women" while the majority of women oppose the act.
Individual rights trump majority opinion.
If you want to advocate safety regulations for abortion clinics, go ahead. That doesn't violate freedom of choice.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
It is a huge and lucrative, unregulated industry that seeks to improve socio economic conditions through legalized genocide. If you don't have a problem with me punishing women, I guess you're cool with genocide, though I thought we were interested in "progress".
Genocide? If you ever wonder why we don't think highly of your opinions, it's partly because of your tasteless and hysterical misuse of terminology.
You keep mentioning "lucrative." All medical practices are lucrative. I'm sure even proctologists make a lot of money. Do you have a problem with people legally making money?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Because abortions were and still are unsafe.
I have no doubt that you believe this. But abortions are overwhelmingly safer than most medical procedures, including giving birth. This very fact was mentioned way back in Roe v Wade. 33 years later, it is safer than ever.
Give this point a rest. No one except you takes it seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
This was in direct response to "women's welfare". Ask Monique Chuckit. Regarding the right to vote; you don't consider the right to vote or hold positions in office evidence of the betterment of women?
I also consider the right to have an abortion evidence of the betterment of women. I generally think that the more rights someone has, the better off he (or she, in this case) is.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
If her curling iron caused not only her house to catch on fire, but the neighbor's house, and the one next door to them, and so on... there may be a few who would suggest she get a curling iron that shuts itself off after a few minutes or not curl her hair anymore.
Absolutely. That was an intentional part of the scenario. She made a lapse in judgment that led to a bad consequence. It would have been better if she hadn't made the mistake. But nonetheless, to suggest we should just let people rot in their bad decisions ("Who cares if that dumbass kid fell down a well?!") is pretty heartless, and certainly not something I want made a legal requirement. We all need saving from our sins at one point or another.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
So, if a pro-life woman is sitting on a raft and it's about to go over a waterfall, you wouldn't save her? Honestly, we can come up with the most absurd analogies possible and we could do this for a month. I suppose if you continue to extrapolate absurdities, I'm left with no choice than to counter with them.
Disingenuousness is a wonderful debate tactic, ebuddy. Very attractive on you.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
We're talking about a huge, lucrative industry wholly unregulated that seeks to forward the "rights of women" while the majority of women oppose the act.
Many women oppose the act of voting for certain political candidates, but that doesn't mean they necessarily think their right to do so should be taken away.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
It is a huge and lucrative, unregulated industry that seeks to improve socio economic conditions through legalized genocide. If you don't have a problem with me punishing women, I guess you're cool with genocide, though I thought we were interested in "progress".
Please explain the "genocide" here.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
I also consider the right to have an abortion evidence of the betterment of women. I generally think that the more rights someone has, the better off he (or she, in this case) is.
I believe that is debateable Chukit. There are many things we don't have the right to do and that is not a bad thing. More rights does not always equal good.
Absolutely. That was an intentional part of the scenario. She made a lapse in judgment that led to a bad consequence. It would have been better if she hadn't made the mistake. But nonetheless, to suggest we should just let people rot in their bad decisions ("Who cares if that dumbass kid fell down a well?!") is pretty heartless, and certainly not something I want made a legal requirement. We all need saving from our sins at one point or another.
If you wonder why I seemed unfair below, it's because of statements like these. The assumption that I would want a woman to "rot" in her own decisions comparing this by supposing I'd also have some indifference to a child falling into a well is wholly unfair, not to mention unnecessarily dramatic. If you don't appreciate my tactics, go back through and read why I might've responded to you in this way. As noted by others, I will address you in the exact same manner you address me. I do this to show you why banter like this is unhealthy and unfruitful.
Disingenuousness is a wonderful debate tactic, ebuddy. Very attractive on you.
You mean like saying I'd rather women rot in their bad decisions likening it to indifference to a child having fallen in a well? While I use it to illustrate a point, you seem to be using it as standard discourse.
Many women oppose the act of voting for certain political candidates, but that doesn't mean they necessarily think their right to do so should be taken away.
Please explain the relevance of this point???
Please explain the "genocide" here.
It is supposed that unwanted children lead to crime, whether it be an abusive parent or birthing future criminals as part of a demographic prominent among the abortion customer. Crime is viewed as primarily a socio-economic condition and abortion is, but one of several answers to many. I've cited quotes not only from proponents of abortion at it's inception, but of those today, like Dr. Henry Morgentaler; "Unwanted children suffer neglect. As a result, they are prone to grow up committing more crimes. Since abortion eliminates unwanted children, perhaps it is good for society. It cuts crime by eliminating future criminals."
Granted, I've not seen any statistic to show that abortion has decreased the number of unwanted children, but his philosophy seems to be shared by many.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
I have no doubt that you believe this. But abortions are overwhelmingly safer than most medical procedures, including giving birth. This very fact was mentioned way back in Roe v Wade. 33 years later, it is safer than ever.
How would you know? Have you had an abortion? How do you know it's "safer than ever"?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to suppose the possibility that an unregulated, but hugely lucrative industry could be harmful.
Give this point a rest. No one except you takes it seriously.
Don't seek to take away my freedoms. Abortions are unsafe. Period.
Pregnancy and giving birh brings forth the life of another and most view this as a positive aspect of living. There are many who liken pregnancy and child-birth as "rotting" or a deal-breaker for good living. I disagree. Conversely, seeing as how almost half return to the abortion clinic for another go-around, their choices continue on for nothing more than to engage unsafe sex. I'm not advocating their punishment, life does through numerous STDs and AIDs. Life can be unfair at times.
Who shall we indict for the spreading of these "rotting" agents?
(
Last edited by ebuddy; Apr 23, 2006 at 10:01 AM.
)
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I believe that is debateable Chukit. There are many things we don't have the right to do and that is not a bad thing. More rights does not always equal good.
Not always, but generally. As the saying goes, we should be as free as possible. Somebody should have to make a compelling argument against a right, not vice-versa.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
If you wonder why I seemed unfair below, it's because of statements like these. The assumption that I would want a woman to "rot" in her own decisions comparing this by supposing I'd also have some indifference to a child falling into a well is wholly unfair, not to mention unnecessarily dramatic. If you don't appreciate my tactics, go back through and read why I might've responded to you in this way. As noted by others, I will address you in the exact same manner you address me. I do this to show you why banter like this is unhealthy and unfruitful.
You mean like saying I'd rather women rot in their bad decisions likening it to indifference to a child having fallen in a well? While I use it to illustrate a point, you seem to be using it as standard discourse.
No, there's a major difference. I was attempting to continue the discussion. I indicated what I took your post to mean — that you think abortion should be illegal because most abortions stem from of a lack of judgment — and I argued against this idea. If I had accurately understood, you could argue back. If I had not understood correctly, you had the opportunity to clarify your position. This is much faster than each of us asking before every post, "So, I take this statement to mean this and that statement to mean the other thing. Is this correct, so I can respond, like, a week from now?" I will generally assume I've understood correctly, knowing you can set me right if this is not the case. That way things can flow smoothly.
You, on the other hand, were just making stuff up "to show me."
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Please explain the relevance of this point???
The fact that women generally oppose an action doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to do it.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
It is supposed that unwanted children lead to crime, whether it be an abusive parent or birthing future criminals as part of a demographic prominent among the abortion customer. Crime is viewed as primarily a socio-economic condition and abortion is, but one of several answers to many. I've cited quotes not only from proponents of abortion at it's inception, but of those today, like Dr. Henry Morgentaler; "Unwanted children suffer neglect. As a result, they are prone to grow up committing more crimes. Since abortion eliminates unwanted children, perhaps it is good for society. It cuts crime by eliminating future criminals."
Granted, I've not seen any statistic to show that abortion has decreased the number of unwanted children, but his philosophy seems to be shared by many.
That doesn't really fit the definition of "genocide" (to entirely destroy a people). Do you mean eugenics?
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
The assumption that I would want a woman to "rot" in her own decisions comparing this by supposing I'd also have some indifference to a child falling into a well is wholly unfair, not to mention unnecessarily dramatic.
...
As noted by others, I will address you in the exact same manner you address me. I do this to show you why banter like this is unhealthy and unfruitful.
"Your comments are unfair to me. My comments just illustrate a point." Boo hoo.
You've admitted to me before that you know you're a hypocrite, but you don't care so long as it keeps the "other side" from making unchallenged statements. But I'm starting to realize that's not true. What's really going on is that you're simply so self-involved that you can't tell when you're doing the exact same thing you complain about your opponent doing, at the same time you make the complaint.
In this case your words clearly indicate that you don't consider women worth rescuing from their poor judgement, if and only if that judgement was of a sexual nature. When the person in jeopardy is a child in a well, or a "pro-life woman is sitting on a raft," the suggestion of not saving them from the poor decisions that put them there is abhorrent to you. It's "unfair" to even suggest. But when the person is a woman who's poor decision was sexual, you say "life can be unfair at times." Do you realize you're thinking of these women as less human than the well-bound child and the pro-life woman? Do you even see how hypocritical you're being right now?
Here's another one for you to ponder, ebuddy:
"I'm not advocating their punishment, life does through numerous STDs and AIDs. Life can be unfair at times.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't permit women to get abortions, because life is unfair at times? Are you suggesting we shouldn't permit women to get treatement for STDs because life is unfair at times? Really, I'm asking because I can't understand this: what are you trying to say with this statement? This is only half for my own edification, and half for yours. This is what you believe (isn't it? you've repeated it often enough), what does it mean? What does it say about your beliefs?
And finally:
"Pregnancy and giving birh brings forth the life of another and most view this as a positive aspect of living. There are many who liken pregnancy and child-birth as "rotting" or a deal-breaker for good living. I disagree."
It's beautiful that you disagree. I love that about America, that we are free to disagree with each other. Why is it that the Pro-Choice movement wants us to be free to continue to disagree with each other, yet the Pro-Life movement demands that everyone agree with you on this point, ebuddy?
----
Here's what I'd like to contribute:
This issue hinges solely on whether a fetus deserves protection under the law as an individual. The meta-arguments about who's at fault, and for doing what, are entirely irrelevant. This has been illustrated perfectly by Chuckit: even when people are at fault for their predicaments, we still save them from those predicaments. Afterward, we sometimes punish them for their mistakes (or commit them to treatment centers), but our system of justice has no provisions for preventing people from helping each other out of trouble as a form of punishment. People think the abortion debate is complicated, but really it's simple: Is a fetus a person? Based on what precedent?
Another thing I'd like to contribute. If the state decides the fetus is a person with rights, the state should be responsible for keeping it alive independently of the mother, if that's her decision. That way she doesn't get to say "I want that person dead," she just gets to say "I want my body to myself." It seems to me this would satisfy both sides. Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Not always, but generally. As the saying goes, we should be as free as possible. Somebody should have to make a compelling argument against a right, not vice-versa.
A foundation of understanding has to be attained prior to deeming something a compelling argument. i.e. it is a no brainer to say murder is wrong. It is not so easy when the debate is whether or not the act is murder. This is the crux of the debate and by the way; why pro-lifers will continue to lose the debate. Some say at conception, others say after first, second, or third trimester. Pro-choicers simply say the choice should be available. I'll be honest with you Chuckit, I'm part of this problem and there is no easy answer at this point.
No, there's a major difference. I was attempting to continue the discussion. I indicated what I took your post to mean
I apologize for misunderstanding. It seemed to me you were extrapolating and projecting an attitude upon me that simply doesn't exist. I was absurd to drive the point home. I'm willing to offer you a concession to keep it moving.
that you think abortion should be illegal because most abortions stem from of a lack of judgment — and I argued against this idea.
Certainly, abortion does overwhelmingly stem from a lack of judgment. Any statistic you can find will support this notion. However, I'm not out to punish anyone personally. I think life in and of itself is unfair and I don't have to initiate it's nature. I believe irresponsible sex is just that, irresponsible. It's not only hurting the two involved, but is responsible for thousands of deaths annually.
Life is Unfair; Consider an article on death rate found in a report by S.H. Ebrahim, M.T. McKenna & J.S. Marks, Sexual Behaviour: Related Adverse Health Burden in the United States, Sexually Transmitted Infections, vol. 81, pp. 38-40 (2005); STDs were responsible for nearly 30,000 deaths in the U.S. in 1998. A third of the deaths were among women, and two thirds among men. To compare; there were about 44,000 deaths caused by car accidents, a little more than 30,000 suicides, a little under 18,000 homicides, and a bit over 30,000 total firearms deaths (including suicides, homicides, and the few accidents). Three quarters of the deaths were from HIV, but nearly 5000 were from cervical cancer, which seems to be generally caused by some strains of human papilloma virus, and nearly 2000 were caused by sexually transmitted hepatitis and hepatitis-caused liver cancer. (The study purported to take into account the fact that not all hepatitis is sexually transmitted.) There were also over 100 deaths from syphilis and fewer than 10 from gonorrhoea (presumably from the very rare gonorrhoea-caused heart disease), but apparently modern antibiotics have done a great deal to limit death and serious illness caused in the U.S. by bacterial sexually transmitted diseases.
The study also reported that sexually transmitted disease causes some 600,000 cases of infertility per year (overwhelmingly among women).
Careful Consideration; In this unfair life there are consequences for actions. I don't author those consequences, but I can do what I can to minimize the destruction and warn others of them. There is little careful consideration by the abortion customer evidenced by their repeat return to the clinic to the tune of 47%. There is too often no careful consideration in regards to STDs and how it manifests itself in society evidenced by the shocking increase of STD's. Pregnancy used to provide a perfectly natural means of ensuring some careful consideration. Not among all of course, but to a significant degree more. How do I know? Look at the skyrocketing increase in sexual freedoms and how that has manifest in society from the 60's "sexual revolution". How did we overcome the biggest of our concerns (pregnancy)? By legalizing abortions. Now view the skyrocketing rate of STDs from that point. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences. You may say these things are not causal, I disagree. What I can tell you for certain is that there is no statistic to suggest less children are born into poverty because in fact there are more. There is no statistic to show a decrease in the teen birth rate because in fact there are more. Exponentially more. There is no statistic to show that more children will be wanted children because in fact child abuse has increased 1000-fold since the legalization of abortion. There is no statistic to suggest decreased crime because the freakonomics study does not take into account anything resembling accurate data regarding those who would've been affected by Roe V Wade. What I can tell you is youth crime has skyrocketed since the legalization of abortion. These are the facts;
Why would "wanted children" be so apt to commit crime to such a greater degree now than they were when they were "unwanted"??? You can say these things are not causal, but I have a much more compelling argument than you when raw data is taken into account. This means your irresponsible sex is the curling iron that is now burning down other homes in my neighborhood and I have a problem with it.
The fact that women generally oppose an action doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to do it.
No, but in the interest of women, women's rights, and women's bodies don't you think we should consider what most of them are telling us?
That doesn't really fit the definition of "genocide" (to entirely destroy a people). Do you mean eugenics?
Eugenics; The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
I wasn't really talking about the study of anything. Eugenics could be the study of genocide in this case or the ideal that eugenics can lead to genocide is also arguable.
I meant genocide; the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
How would you know? Have you had an abortion? How do you know it's "safer than ever"?
Whether I've had an abortion is irrelevant. That would merely be ad hoc information.
Every scientific study confirms the general safety of abortion. For instance, from the Center for Disease Control:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
In 1998 and 1999 (the most recent years for which data are available), 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. Ten of these deaths occurred in 1998 and four occurred in 1999; no deaths were associated with known illegal abortion.
Interpretation: From 1990 through 1997, the number of legal induced abortions gradually declined. In 1998 and 1999, the number of abortions continued to decrease when comparing the same 48 reporting areas. In 2000, even with one additional reporting state, the number of abortions declined slightly. In 1998 and 1999, as in previous years, deaths related to legal induced abortions occurred rarely (<1 death per 100,000 abortions).
I doubt that will shut you up, but the fact of the matter is: giving birth is at least twelve times deadlier than abortion.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to suppose the possibility that an unregulated, but hugely lucrative industry could be harmful.
Don't seek to take away my freedoms. Abortions are unsafe. Period.
I already dismissed your irrelevant opinions on "regulation" and "lucrative." See: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...39#post2958239
No one is trying to take away your freedoms. I am merely telling you that your endless repetition of defeated arguments is a waste of time.
You don't even seem to know your own opinions. In one sentence you "suppose the possibility" that abortion is unsafe, and in another you say "Abortions are unsafe. Period." I'd ask you which is your actual opinion, but I really don't care.
The fact of the matter is: you have no facts. You claim abortion is unsafe because you wish to pad your arguments with pseudo-facts.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Pregnancy and giving birh brings forth the life of another and most view this as a positive aspect of living.
So do I. This statement is pointless and irrelevant.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I'm not advocating their punishment, life does through numerous STDs and AIDs. Life can be unfair at times.
Life doesn't "punish" people with disease. What a stupid notion.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Who shall we indict for the spreading of these "rotting" agents?
Another pointless statement.
(
Last edited by lpkmckenna; Apr 23, 2006 at 07:21 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
As noted by others, I will address you in the exact same manner you address me. I do this to show you why banter like this is unhealthy and unfruitful.
"As noted by others?" Yes, I heard this exact same whining from you. Remember this:
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I reserve a particular demeanor for unreasonable people like you. This is the second time I've engaged discussion with you and you've reached all new levels of desperation, failed points, feeble arguments, and vitriol; lest you forget you set the tone for our discussion here.
" I did it 'cause you did it." You sound like a schoolyard whiner.
Blaming others for your juvenile style of discourse is pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
"Your comments are unfair to me. My comments just illustrate a point." Boo hoo.
You continue on with a host of knee-jerk projections and insults that really aren't fruitful for anything other than self indulgence. Have at it man, I've obviously tickled a nerve.
It's beautiful that you disagree. I love that about America, that we are free to disagree with each other. Why is it that the Pro-Choice movement wants us to be free to continue to disagree with each other, yet the Pro-Life movement demands that everyone agree with you on this point, ebuddy?
I actually give it more credit for it's complexity than you may know. I don't have all the answers, but I know for certain status quo is not working. In the interest of progress, I'd like to see some other ideas on the table. Until some folks here quit defending 30 minutes of feel goodz and think about how this behavior manifests in society, we'll likely not get any progress.
Finally, a contribution.
Here's what I'd like to contribute:
This issue hinges solely on whether a fetus deserves protection under the law as an individual. The meta-arguments about who's at fault, and for doing what, are entirely irrelevant.
You can call issues related to problems of epidemic proportion irrelevant. I disagree already.
This has been illustrated perfectly by Chuckit: even when people are at fault for their predicaments, we still save them from those predicaments.
Of course we do. Interesting you should relegate pregnancy to something one would need "salvation" from. I think it's something that requires a few helping hands and there are many to lend them if you're trying.
People think the abortion debate is complicated, but really it's simple: Is a fetus a person? Based on what precedent?
Other than 6 centuries of legal precedent?
Another thing I'd like to contribute. If the state decides the fetus is a person with rights, the state should be responsible for keeping it alive independently of the mother, if that's her decision. That way she doesn't get to say "I want that person dead," she just gets to say "I want my body to myself." It seems to me this would satisfy both sides. Right?
I completely agree with the notion that these issues should be left at the State level, not Federal. This is one thing for which I'm absolutely certain.
How do we find ourselves saying "I want to have irresponsible sex" and "I want my body to myself" in the same sentence? As just a kind of spectator, I find the human condition so assinine at times. How about considering the implications of how sharing your body irresponsibly leads to sharing your body biologically? I mean honestly Uncle, do you use protection? Do you know how to use protection? Do you engage sex with multiple partners weekly, monthly, yearly? If not, why not?
Why would we ever assume the average person is less intelligent than you that you'd need to help them in the manner you see fit? There are other ways of providing help other than going to a voting booth and saying "yes" to abortion.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
There is too often no careful consideration in regards to STDs and how it manifests itself in society evidenced by the shocking increase of STD's.
This issue has nothing to do with abortion.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Now view the skyrocketing rate of STDs from that point. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences. You may say these things are not causal, I disagree.
They are not casual. The STD rate was rising long before abortion was legalized. One has nothing to do with the other.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
There is no statistic to show that more children will be wanted children because in fact child abuse has increased 1000-fold since the legalization of abortion.
1000 fold? That is simply impossible. Do you mean 1000 times? Even that is impossible. You got a reference for that, or are you just making stuff up again?
Increases in child abuse statistics occurred because authorities only started seriously caring about child abuse around the 70s. You've been told this already. You didn't listen then, and I'm sure you won't listen now.
Why did the homicide rate drop in 1996? Was abortion re-criminalized or something?
This chart says nothing at all about abortion.
This chart says nothing about abortion either. The illegitimacy rate was rising before decriminalization, and continued to rise after decriminalization. This chart works against you, not for you.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
This means your irresponsible sex is the curling iron that is now burning down other homes in my neighborhood and I have a problem with it.
Ha ha! What a ridiculous notion.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I meant genocide; the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
Which does not even remotely describe abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
Whether I've had an abortion is irrelevant. That would merely be ad hoc information.
Point taken.
Every scientific study confirms the general safety of abortion. For instance, from the Center for Disease Control:
Both studies you provided regarded death rate. So... "safe" means; you didn't die??? Please try to read the post you're replying to. Just because a woman didn't bleed to death on the table doesn't mean it's safe.
I doubt that will shut you up, but the fact of the matter is: giving birth is at least twelve times deadlier that abortion.
I can give you examples of unsterile clinic environments, would that "shut you up"? Somehow I doubt it. Giving birth propogates the species. Abortion propogates unsafe sex.
You dismissed it by saying "individual rights trump majority opinion." Yet, somehow I'm the low-empathy boob here? I was saying that abortion is a woefully unregulated industry that is extremely lucrative. We don't let other industries get away with it. I can appreciate the sensitive nature of this, but I don't think any industry putting a woman under the knife should be unregulated. Do you? Yet, you're somehow the one trumpeting woman's rights by inviting me to do something about it if I care so much.
No one is trying to take away your freedoms. I am merely telling you that your endless repetition of defeated arguments is a waste of time.
How are you the one to gauge what is and is not effective use of time? Why is it that your use of time here is more fruitful than mine? Abortion is now illegal in South Dakota and other States are following. It seems my waste of time is shared by others and in fact moving in a direction you disagree with. i.e. As usual, you are not qualified to advise me of anything as the burden of a compelling argument against this movement would be on you, not me.
You don't even seem to know your own opinions. In one sentence you "suppose the possibility" that abortion is unsafe, and in another you say "Abortions are unsafe. Period." I'd ask you which is your actual opinion, but I really don't care.
For the other posters here; show me where I said "suppose the possibility that abortion is unsafe" lpk. You seem link-happy, give me one for this statement directly so I can show the others how desperate you are.
Ahh, that's right, this is a snippet of my post you'll be breezing right past.
The fact of the matter is: you have no facts. You claim abortion is unsafe because you wish to pad your arguments with pseudo-facts.
I provided a report released in 2005. I posted graphs, percentages, and statistics. You've addressed absolutely none of them. Not one. Read the post, leave your pride at the front page, try again.
So do I. This statement is pointless and irrelevant.
Life doesn't "punish" people with disease. What a stupid notion.
Another pointless statement.
When you're ready to offer anything of substance, give it a go.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
This issue has nothing to do with abortion.
Arguable.
They are not casual. The STD rate was rising long before abortion was legalized. One has nothing to do with the other.
arguable.
1000 fold? That is simply impossible. Do you mean 1000 times? Even that is impossible. You got a reference for that, or are you just making stuff up again?
Since 1973, the number of reported cases of child abuse has increased by 1,497%, from 167,000 to 2.5 million in 1991. [US Department of Health & Human Services]
Increases in child abuse statistics occurred because authorities only started seriously caring about child abuse around the 70s.
Impossible! People only started really caring about child abuse in the 70's? That is simply impossible. You got a reference for this or are you just making stuff up?
Why did the homicide rate drop in 1996? Was abortion re-criminalized or something?
I'm not exactly sure. I'd have to find some FBI crime stats on that. Maybe it's the would-be criminals thwarted by abortions from years ago? What do you think?
It is strange seeing as just about any other crime you can think of including rape and aggravated assault continued incline.
This chart says nothing at all about abortion.
No, but it's a pretty effective argument for the actions of "wanted children".
This chart says nothing about abortion either. The illegitimacy rate was rising before decriminalization, and continued to rise after decriminalization. This chart works against you, not for you.
You're not paying attention. Abortion has not helped the illegitimacy birth rate.
I've cited these statistics to refute the sheeple statements regarding "more wanted children", "less crime", "less children born into poverty" and to illustrate how there is simply no basis for these "sells". None at all. If you disagree with my statements, refute my statements. Not some strawman you like to pull out whenever you're feeling backed into a corner.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Both studies you provided regarded death rate. So... "safe" means; you didn't die??? Please try to read the post you're replying to. Just because a woman didn't bleed to death on the table doesn't mean it's safe.
Then perhaps you can show how it's unsafe?
Originally Posted by ebuddy
You dismissed it by saying "individual rights trump majority opinion."
No, I dismissed it by saying
You keep mentioning "lucrative." All medical practices are lucrative. I'm sure even proctologists make a lot of money. Do you have a problem with people legally making money?
and
If you want to advocate safety regulations for abortion clinics, go ahead. That doesn't violate freedom of choice.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I don't think any industry putting a woman under the knife should be unregulated. Do you?
No.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
How are you the one to gauge what is and is not effective use of time? Why is it that your use of time here is more fruitful than mine? Abortion is now illegal in South Dakota and other States are following. It seems my waste of time is shared by others and in fact moving in a direction you disagree with.
The only direction this is going is the Supreme Court. Are you a betting man?
I said you were wasting time by insisting on false facts, something I don't do.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
For the other posters here; show me where I said "suppose the possibility that abortion is unsafe" lpk. You seem link-happy, give me one for this statement directly so I can show the others how desperate you are.
When you said "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to suppose the possibility that an unregulated, but hugely lucrative industry could be harmful." See: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...80#post2958780
So are you still supposing, or is it now a fact? (And are you done making a fool of yourself for the other posters?)
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I provided a report released in 2005. I posted graphs, percentages, and statistics.
Actually, I did deal with that.
(
Last edited by lpkmckenna; Apr 23, 2006 at 08:25 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Since 1973, the number of reported cases of child abuse has increased by 1,497%, from 167,000 to 2.5 million in 1991. [US Department of Health & Human Services]
I have no doubt that the number of reportings have increased that much, but not the number of actual incidents of abuse.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Impossible! People only started really caring about child abuse in the 70's? That is simply impossible. You got a reference for this or are you just making stuff up?
I didn't say "people," I said "authorities." By that, I mean child psychologists, who in turn started putting pressure on governments to do something. This happened around the 60s and 70s. (Shoving words in my mouth again? Will you ever learn?)
Requested links:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/hist/csa.htm
The most spectacularly successful social force of the 1970s, the child protection movement, began early in the previous decade.
In a 1962 paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Denver paediatrician Henry Kempe coined the term "the battered-child syndrome" to remind doctors that not all injuries to young children were accidental. Kempe claimed that this "recognised trauma" was "a frequent cause of permanent injury or death", and "one of the most serious concerns facing society."
By 1967, Kempe had persuaded all 50 states to pass child abuse reporting laws. The following year, two articles in scholarly journals cast doubt on his alarmist claims but failed to slow his momentum. Kempe expanded his frontiers and renamed his territory "child abuse."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...social_problem
Child sexual abuse became a public issue in the 1970s and 1980s. Prior to this point in time sexual abuse remained rather secretive and socially unspeakable. Child sexual abuse only came an issue after laws that protected cruelty to children were established. In the late 1800s the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was formed and by 1900 there were 161 similar groups. This legal action was in response to a high profile case in 1874 known as the Mary Ellen case, which involved the abuse of a small child.
In 1900 children were given equal status as domesticated animals under the law. Studies on child molestation were nonexistent until the 1920s and the first national estimate of the number of child sexual abuse cases was published in 1948. By 1968 forty four states had enacted mandatory laws that required physicians to report cases of suspicious child abuse. Legal action began to become more prevalent in the 1970s with the enactment of the Child Abuse and Treatment Act in 1974 in conjunction with the creation of the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect. Since the creation of the Child Abuse and Treatment Act, reported child abuse cases have increased dramatically. Finally, the National Abuse Coalition was created in 1979 to create pressure in congress to create more sexual abuse laws. In 1986, Congress passed the Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act, giving children a civil claim in sexual abuse cases. The number of laws created in the 1980s and 1990s began to create greater prosecution and detection of Child Sexual Abusers. During the 1970s a large transition began in the legislature related to Child Sexual Abuse. Megan's Law which was enacted in 2004 gives the public access to knowledge of sexual predators nationwide.
And http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/. More info than anyone could ever read on this issue.
Happy? Probably not.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I'm not exactly sure. I'd have to find some FBI crime stats on that. Maybe it's the would-be criminals thwarted by abortions from years ago? What do you think?
I think it's irrelevant one way or the other, as I keep saying.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
You're not paying attention. Abortion has not helped the illegitimacy birth rate.
Why would it? Some are still going to give birth, even when abortion is legal. That's called "choice." I never claimed abortion is going to solve illegitimacy. No one does.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I've cited these statistics to refute the sheeple statements regarding "more wanted children", "less crime", "less children born into poverty" and to illustrate how there is simply no basis for these "sells". None at all. If you disagree with my statements, refute my statements. Not some strawman you like to pull out whenever you're feeling backed into a corner.
I never feel backed into a corner. (Attempted mind-reading and jumping to conclusions, again.)
I've made no straw-men. (Clearly, you have no idea what a straw-man argument is.)
Abortion, by itself, isn't going to solve poverty or crime, and no one thinks it will. There are too many other relevant factors, so you've refuted nothing.
If a young girl drops out of school to become a mother, she will probably be poorer. No statistical analysis required. It's common sense.
"Sheeple?" Grow up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
ebuddy, I'm shocked that you would display the very behavior you condemn in the same post, so soon after I mentioned you were doing it. Wait, not shocked, what's the word? Ah yes, entertained. You're a hoot.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
It seemed to me you were extrapolating and projecting an attitude upon me that simply doesn't exist.
...
There is no statistic to show that more children will be wanted children. There is no statistic to suggest decreased crime...Why would "wanted children" be so apt to commit crime to such a greater degree now than they were when they were "unwanted"???
Chuckit didn't mention any of that stuff. I don't recall anyone here doing so. Why are you even talking about it?
There is little careful consideration by the abortion customer evidenced by their repeat return to the clinic to the tune of 47%.
You say this a lot. It is not a logical statement. If they carefully considered the risks the first time and found the risks acceptable, consideration of the same risks again should be easy. For those that found the risks acceptable for themselves (gasp! they disagree with you!), why shouldn't they repeat their behavior?
I don't have all the answers, but I know for certain status quo is not working.
How do you know the status quo isn't working? Just because people still have abortions?
You can call issues related to problems of epidemic proportion irrelevant
It is irrelevant, because all that's at issue is whether or not the "problems of epidemic proportion" are real, or merely in your head.
How do we find ourselves saying "I want to have irresponsible sex" and "I want my body to myself" in the same sentence?
Sex is something we enjoy. It's entirely logical to say "I want my body to myself so I can use it to have sex." I know you like to slip the "irresponsible" part in there to make yourself sound right, but people who have responsible sex get pregnant too, so you're wrong to do so.
How about considering the implications of how sharing your body irresponsibly leads to sharing your body biologically
This is a perfect example of why I said the meta-arguments are entirely irrelevant. If fetuses are not considered people, the biological implications of sharing your body are simply that there's a chance you might need an abortion later. No different than people who prefer to eat fast food at the cost of higher risk of needing heart surgery down the line, or people who play professional sports taking on a higher risk of knee surgery.
what does multiple partners have anything to do with anything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|