[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think a statement by the former director of Planned Parenthood in 1960 regarding 90% of the procedures being performed by competent physicians is at least as telling as your former Roe V Wade advocate-turned-pro-lifer statement of women having injured themselves.

This is a plausible mechanism. I'd like a link to further educate myself.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interesting that the onus should somehow be on me when this is the single largest reason abortion advocates cite for legalizing the procedure.

WTF? Yellow card.

The onus is on you because it is you and I who are having a conversation. I'm not "abortion advocates". I haven't cited safety as a reason for jack.

You brought up the counterintuitive proposal without evidence, post hoc.

As I stated above, you have now defended your proposal, but it's really unfair for you to be throwing attitude at me for trying to coax that defense out of you. I'm not here to defend your points, at least until you have attempted to prove them to be correct.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Knowing that the CDC...

I think the onus is on you to define "safer".

Same frigging attitude. How do I know the CDC does whatever unless you mention it? You provide information but make sure I feel it was inappropriate to ask. Sheesh.

You do recall that what precipitated my claim the onus was on you was your statement "but there's really nothing else to go by is there?" Apparently there was a lot to go by. Why the ambush?

You claimed I was making an assumption. I acknowledged this. I didn't even ask you for proof of your assumption. I merely asked for a mechanism (i.e. how).

For that, you have now twice deigned it appropriate to "correct" me for thinking I shouldn't have to make your arguments for you.

WTF? You've become disrespectful for no reason.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

America... South Africa. So many differences, so little time. Let me guess, someone introduced them to penicillin.

This is wrong. What makes South Africa a potential candidate for comparison is that it's a first world country, and hence has been briefed on things such as basic medicine.

However the point you are trying to make (that they aren't directly comparable) was implied by me, so there's no reason to argue it. The statistic you asked for isn't available (which I explicitly stated) so I provided the best substitute. My apologies if it wasn't clear that's what it was.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is a plausible mechanism. I'd like a link to further educate myself.





WTF? Yellow card.

The onus is on you because it is you and I who are having a conversation. I'm not "abortion advocates". I haven't cited safety as a reason for jack.

You brought up the counterintuitive proposal without evidence, post hoc.

As I stated above, you have now defended your proposal, but it's really unfair for you to be throwing attitude at me for trying to coax that defense out of you. I'm not here to defend your points, at least until you have attempted to prove them to be correct.





Same frigging attitude. How do I know the CDC does whatever unless you mention it? You provide information but make sure I feel it was inappropriate to ask. Sheesh.

You do recall that what precipitated my claim the onus was on you was your statement "but there's really nothing else to go by is there?" Apparently there was a lot to go by. Why the ambush?

You claimed I was making an assumption. I acknowledged this. I didn't even ask you for proof of your assumption. I merely asked for a mechanism (i.e. how).

For that, you have now twice deigned it appropriate to "correct" me for thinking I shouldn't have to make your arguments for you.

WTF? You've become disrespectful for no reason.






This is wrong. What makes South Africa a potential candidate for comparison is that it's a first world country, and hence has been briefed on things such as basic medicine.

However the point you are trying to make (that they aren't directly comparable) was implied by me, so there's no reason to argue it. The statistic you asked for isn't available (which I explicitly stated) so I provided the best substitute. My apologies if it wasn't clear that's what it was.

I had spent over two hours of my morning addressing this point only to research a pdf online and have Safari quit and close all windows. I apologize if I've been disrespectful.

I'm done here for a while.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I had spent over two hours of my morning addressing this point only to research a pdf online and have Safari quit and close all windows. I apologize if I've been disrespectful.

Understood and all good.

Really. This is appreciated.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm done here for a while.

Even though I just read you the riot act, I say with 100% seriousness that I will miss you, and eagerly anticipate your return.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is a plausible mechanism. I'd like a link to further educate myself.

Unsafe abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mary S. Calderone, M.D.: "Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem." American Journal of Public Health, 50:948, 1960.

WTF? Yellow card.

What’s a yellow card?

The onus is on you because it is you and I who are having a conversation. I'm not "abortion advocates". I haven't cited safety as a reason for jack.

The discussion was whether or not abortion is safer today. You took issue with me on the number of deaths prior to Roe V Wade and cited a known fallacious figure. Now I understood this for what it was subego, but it also seemed like an attitude to me. You may or may not advocate abortion, but of the numerous contributors to this thread you’ve focused your attention exclusively on those who are clearly not advocates of abortion. Of course there's nothing wrong with that unless you're trying to maintain a noble degree of neutrality.

You brought up the counterintuitive proposal without evidence, post hoc.

My main point is that I don't think the implications of abortion are fully known nor given enough consideration.

As I stated above, you have now defended your proposal, but it's really unfair for you to be throwing attitude at me for trying to coax that defense out of you. I'm not here to defend your points, at least until you have attempted to prove them to be correct.

I wasn’t trying to have an attitude with you here. I apologize for coming off as more argumentative than informative.

Same frigging attitude. How do I know the CDC does whatever unless you mention it? You provide information but make sure I feel it was inappropriate to ask. Sheesh.

There was an attitude here and I think it had to do with you requiring "proof". Again, I felt the posts you chose to take issue with were more indicative of your position than you knew and it led me to believe the request was disingenuous. If I’ve misrepresented your position, I apologize again.

You do recall that what precipitated my claim the onus was on you was your statement "but there's really nothing else to go by is there?" Apparently there was a lot to go by. Why the ambush?

What I'm probably not being clear enough about is the fact that IMO, this issue has so much to do with social ill. When I see an increase particularly in the number of repeat abortions, it just seems so reckless to me. I don't see as much of the "improved good" that others see. I recognize them, but again I don't think all the implications are fully understood nor respected.

You claimed I was making an assumption. I acknowledged this. I didn't even ask you for proof of your assumption. I merely asked for a mechanism (i.e. how).

For that, you have now twice deigned it appropriate to "correct" me for thinking I shouldn't have to make your arguments for you.

With all due respect subego, I was clearly being tongue in cheek and I would’ve thought the liberal use of emoticons enough to overcome sensitivities.

This is wrong. What makes South Africa a potential candidate for comparison is that it's a first world country, and hence has been briefed on things such as basic medicine.

There are vast differences between the US and SA with regard to medical advancement, the health care structure, and availability. The sarcasm was in fact an attitude, I apologize.

However the point you are trying to make (that they aren't directly comparable) was implied by me, so there's no reason to argue it. The statistic you asked for isn't available (which I explicitly stated) so I provided the best substitute. My apologies if it wasn't clear that's what it was.

No problem subego. Oh and... I missed you too.

You know I can't spend too much time away from here.

[subego]

I want to thank you right off the bat for the link, and the information provided in the post I took issue with.

My request for that information was genuine, so I am actually very appreciative of you for providing it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What’s a yellow card?

Think "personal foul" of the type that happens often in the team sport of your choice. Enough to owe the other team a free throw or a penalty kick, but not enough to get you ejected from the game (a red card).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The discussion was whether or not abortion is safer today. You took issue with me on the number of deaths prior to Roe V Wade and cited a known fallacious figure. Now I understood this for what it was subego, but it also seemed like an attitude to me. You may or may not advocate abortion, but of the numerous contributors to this thread you’ve focused your attention exclusively on those who are clearly not advocates of abortion. Of course there's nothing wrong with that unless you're trying to maintain a noble degree of neutrality.

I won't reject the label "abortion advocate", though I maintain my position is... complicated. The little woman is also an "abortion advocate". Since I value my junk, this isn't a topic we discuss anymore.

Separate from those complexities, if I'm going to advocate something so ugly, I think it's my duty (at the least) to be brutally honest with myself about it. I not so humbly claim that what you perceived here as attitude is in fact the absence of self-deception. This is something you probably aren't all too familiar with coming from "my side".

As an abortion advocate, how you address the lies perpetrated in the name of its legality is what divides the darkly cynical from that which is truly loathsome.


With regards to where I've focused my attention, I think you'll find that before I got all emo on you, most of my effort has gone into trying to explain how a direct numerical comparison is inappropriate in a situation with differing population sizes, along with a few added points here and there about the non-abortion aspects of PP.

You'll notice I had a discussion in this thread with stupendousman, where I also pointed out the inaccuracy of his claim from a mathematical standpoint. The moment he withdrew that claim, I not only dropped the issue and agreed with his reformulated argument, I actually volunteered more fuel for it, even though what stupendousman is trying to burn is the very thing I'm advocating.

The mathematical aspect was the same argument I was having with you, until you dropped it as well. Afterwards, you presented the possibility that even if we compare them as a percentage they still may not be safer. This was an idea that hadn't been presented to me ever, let alone in this thread, and was a subject to which I was able to sling a total of one post.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My main point is that I don't think the implications of abortion are fully known nor given enough consideration.

I am in complete agreement here. The example I gave to stupendousman (the psychological effect of having an abortion) is exactly the type of implication that gets the short-shrift.

I also want to make clear that the last thing I want to do is use something as irrelevant as the safety of the procedure to give the short-shrift to the types of implications you speak of.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There was an attitude here and I think it had to do with you requiring "proof". Again, I felt the posts you chose to take issue with were more indicative of your position than you knew and it led me to believe the request was disingenuous. If I’ve misrepresented your position, I apologize again.

Any attitude you detected was based in what I felt was a successful defense of my mathematical argument being greeted by a hasty attack from a different direction, with little to no acknowledgment of the territory that had just been covered. It's not like I want to shy away from further debate, but it's human nature to want a little something-something first for the effort.

If this was the type of thing that caused an extreme response in me, I've chosen a really bad place to hang out. I don't think my response here was extreme, but the feeling you had pulled a bit of a bait and switch certainly prompted me to address my vulnerability at the moment in a way other than directly sharing it with you...

Finding your argument counter-intuitive pretty much by definition strips me of the one available tool with which I could come up with a mechanism within a reasonable time frame: my intuition.

As I said in the beginning, my request was completely genuine. This is not only because I want to confront the parts of this argument that make me uncomfortable, but in this specific case, I was pretty much a prisoner to my own thought process without your response.

Talk about stealing thunder.



So, where were we? Oh yeah, I was accepting your apology.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With all due respect subego, I was clearly being tongue in cheek and I would’ve thought the liberal use of emoticons enough to overcome sensitivities.

There wasn't a single emoticon in the post I took umbrage with.

Really though, assuming I didn't screw up this post too badly and get you pissed at me, the time for umbrage has long passed. Welcome back!

[ebuddy]

Originally, I thought you were upset at my having accused you of stealing my thunder. I used tongue faces and winkee faces at those points. Miscommunication. No problem. I do appreciate your honesty as for the remainder of your post.

This issue has and will likely always be a volatile subject. Truth be told, I've debated this issue before and my personal view is that one legal abortion should be allowed for all for any circumstance. This would essentially cut the total number of them in half. Of course, this would never pass legislative muster. I believe the second, third, and more abortions are indicative of a larger social ill and this is the crux of the disagreement IMO. We won't generally talk about the social ills because any attempt to legislate them is considered fascist.

Self-proclaimed Pro-lifers struggle with the rape and incest argument more than most would admit, myself being one of them. It is an example in which you are forced to put yourself into the position of the victim. Would I carry this fetus full-term? I believe this lack of a united front among pro-lifers is why abortion is legal today as I think you'd find that most feel the procedure itself is reprehensible. I consider the arguments for abortion and I have a hard time with some of them.

- laws against abortion kill women. I have a hard time accepting this as it is apparent to me that laws favoring them can kill women too. Less women? More women? Hard to tell really either way. Then, there is no doubt a fetus is being eliminated. Ethical opposition based on a somewhat IMO, ambiguous demarcation between what is life protected and what is not. Legal abortions protect women's health. Again, difficult to measure with any degree of certainty. There are times in which child-birthing would be dangerous to the mother, and I'm not sure you can address every issue. Only the greater good. I'm assuming the above risk is exceedingly rare. I'm open for any feedback on this. A woman is more than a fetus. The short answer is that many believe the fetus is more than a fetus. This one is difficult to argue frankly without being deemed sexist. Interestingly as of April, 2004 per PEW research polling, women "expressed significantly stronger feelings about the issue than men." For example; 33% of women say they strongly oppose more restrictions on abortion, compared with 26% of men. 19% of women strongly favor greater restrictions, compared with 15% of men. What you see is a greater general opposition to it among women than men. Abortion more powerful issue among women
Outlaw abortion, and more children will bear children Teen birth rates were in fact up over 3% according to the CDC for data compiled of pregnancies 2006. There was a dramatic spike of increase in teen birthrate between '85 and '92 and a steady decline from '92 to 2004, but is now back on the rise and in going further back cannot connect this to Roe V Wade with any certainty at all. Every child a wanted child. Child abuse and child-battery has increased over the past 20 years to the extent that it is considered an epidemic in some circles.

There's got to be a better way.

[Chongo]

Wow, talk about a close brush with death!
Mother's anger turns to delight after her baby survives an abortion | Mail Online

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's got to be a better way.

I certainly wouldn't cite any of the reasons you provide as good ones, perhaps with the exception of the last one. However, I wouldn't be so kind with it.

Ultimately, in most cases, couples who have abortions are a self-selecting sample of irresponsible people. Doubly irresponsible because they irresponsibly got themselves into the situation, and then deal with the situation in an irresponsible manner.

This is the last group of people I want becoming parents.

It also ties into the adoption argument, because offering your child up for adoption is perhaps one of the most difficult and responsible decisions you could ever expect someone to make, especially in light of all the biological processes going on that are designed to make such an idea anathema to a woman who has just given birth.

Further, I think a frank appraisal of what the results would be of having the laws determined by a state by state manner is that it would only affect people on the margins, be they poor, or young, or both. I find this especially problematic considering we are already dealing with people facing the hurdle of being obscenely irresponsible to begin with.

I should note though, that I would be happier with a situation that was constitutional. I don't see the current situation that way.