Why are liberals so CLUELESS? (want to take our rights away?)

[Town Heretic]

There's no need to cite...

Nothing after that matters. If you can't support an empirical claim with empirical, verifiable data then you're just making sounds with your fingers.

In 1973, with legalization the number of abortions stood at between 614,000 to 744,000.

The next year it climbed by over a hundred thousand. It continued to climb until around 1990, when it hit well over a million and a half.

The point being that asserting legalization didn't facilitate a much greater loss of human life is contradicted by the clear, objectively relatable facts.

 

[quip]

When an individual's *liberty* consists of killing an unborn baby, the "feel good reason" is to protect the unborn.

Doesn't seem your keeping up with the argument:

Nothing after that matters. If you can't support an empirical claim with empirical, verifiable data then you're just making sounds with your fingers.

In 1973, with legalization the number of abortions stood at between 614,000 to 744,000.

The next year it climbed by over a hundred thousand. It continued to climb until around 1990, when it hit well over a million and a half.

The point being that asserting legalization didn't facilitate a much greater loss of human life is contradicted by the clear, objectively relatable facts.

Abortion facts

 

[Rusha]

Doesn't seem your keeping up with the argument

What I said stands on it's own merit. Most abortions are done for no other reason than convenience. One life is always lost when abortions are performed. Unnecessarily so.

You cannot show that pregnancies *just happen*. Once they happen, there is another life involved. An innocent life. Either two lives can go on OR one can be snuffed out due to the selfishness of the mother. Those are the only options. You side on the option which intentionally harms an innocent, unborn baby.

 

[Town Heretic]

Abortion facts

Not sure what the link point is. I was using numbers between Guttmacher on the low end to the CDC report for the higher. Legalizing abortion led to a fairly rapid growth in the practice until around 1990. World Wide numbers aren't relevant when speaking to the impact of Roe in the states.

I noticed a section attempting to suggest that it's reasonable to compare abortion law and rates in disparate cultures and compacts to draw rules irrespective of those distinctions. That's poor methodology.

 

[quip]

What I said stands on it's own merit. Most abortions are done for no other reason than convenience. One life is always lost when abortions are performed. Unnecessarily so.

You cannot show that pregnancies *just happen*. Once they happen, there is another life involved. An innocent life. Either two lives can go on OR one can be snuffed out due to the selfishness of the mother. Those are the only options. You side on the option which intentionally harms an innocent, unborn baby.

Nature abhors the unborn far more than induced abortion does.

Here's some interesting facts:

The anti-birth control crowd leaves out one very important fact: a woman’s body naturally rejects at least 18% of fertilized eggs. This means that if you have unprotected sex that leads to the fertilization of an egg (30% chance of successful fertilization), the resulting zygote has an 18% chance of being rejected by the uterus. The human body naturally performs “abortions” almost 20% of the time. So does taking birth control actually increase the chances of zygote abortion, or does birth control actually reduce the chances of this occurring? Let’s do the math. Without Birth Control: Out of 100 fertile women without birth control, 100 of them will ovulate in any given month. Out of those 100 released eggs, 33 will become fertilized. Out of those 33, 18% will be rejected by the uterus. In a group of 100 women not on birth control: 6 zygotes will “die” With Birth Control: Out of 100 fertile women on birth control, around 6 of them will ovulate in any given month. Out of those 6 released eggs, only 2 will become fertilized. Out of those 2, 100% will be rejected by the uterus. In a group of 100 women on birth control: 2 zygotes will “die” So let’s get this straight, taking birth control makes a woman’s body LESS likely to dispel fertilized eggs. If you believe that life begins at conception, shouldn’t it be your moral duty to reduce the number of zygote “abortions?” If you believe that a zygote is a human, you actually kill more babies by refusing to take birth control.

Is there any major pro-life research in this area...any concerted effort to save these babies?

Due to hormone imbalances, genetic anomalies, and a number of unknown factors, between 50 percent and 75 percent of embryos fail to implant in the uterus and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow. If we agree with pro-life advocates that every embryo is as morally valuable as an adult human, this means that more than half of humans immediately die. Yet the same pro-life leaders who declare that every embryo is morally equivalent to a fully developed child have done nothing to advocate such research.

You're only solacing yourself.

 

[Rusha]

Nature abhors the unborn far more than induced abortion does.

Oh ... you say that as though it means something.

Much like nature, water can be dangerous if someone does not know how to swim OR if they are in no condition to swim. Water is not intentionally dangerous nor intentionally evil.

I am not going to waste my time arguing with a force (nature) that does not have the ability to be reasoned with.

I will, however, speak out to women who are considering killing their unborn babies in hopes that they would reconsider.

 

[quip]

Not sure what the link point is.

To simply show an extensive lack of cause/correlation between lower abortion rates and legal prohibitions on such. Conversely, a significant one concerning abortion proscription and relevant mortality rates.

In short...Horn's hamhanded point.

Both efficiently rejected by way of a micro-selective anecdote.

Are you pro-life writ large or merely selectively so? :5020:

 

[quip]

Oh ... you say that as though it means something.

Are you telling me that nearly 50% of humanity perishing dosesn't mean anything to you...a pro-lifer?! :shocked:

Just think of all those mewling babies being allowed to die a natural death! You'd think more would be done by the pro-life crowd to curb this massive carnage.

Kind of puts to question the very pro-life premise...doesn't it? :think:

 

[Rusha]

Are you telling me that nearly 50% of humanity perishing dosesn't mean anything to you...a pro-lifer?! :shocked:

No, I am saying that *your* reasoning is faulty. Death and accidents happen in life. That is not the same thing as someone intentionally CAUSING them to happen.

Abortion doesn't *just happen*. It's intentional.

Just think of all those mewling babies being allowed to die a natural death! You'd think more would be done by the pro-life crowd to curb this massive carnage.

Considering your argument, you should be rolling your eyes ... at yourself.

Natural death does not equate to PURPOSEFUL death.

Kind of puts to question the very pro-life premise...doesn't it? :think:

No, it doesn't. Until you can show an argument where prolifers are forcing women to have sex, you have no argument.

You do realize that having sex happens prior to getting pregnant, right?

 

[quip]

No, I am saying that *your* reasoning is faulty. Death and accidents happen in life. That is not the same thing as someone intentionally CAUSING them to happen.

Abortion doesn't *just happen*. It's intentional.


Considering your argument, you should be rolling your eyes ... at yourself.

Natural death does not equate to PURPOSEFUL death.

By such reasoning you should dissallow doctors to treat your ill children ...though in refusing to do what's within your power to do so would be willfully neglectful...a complete immoral indifference to fellow human suffering.

That's exactly what you must stand against....lest the unborn lack some significant level of parity to that of an archetypal human-being. :idunno:

No, it doesn't. Until you can show an argument where prolifers are forcing women to have sex, you have no argument.

And that - moreso than "life saving" - lies the true crux of your argument. Yes?

You do realize that having sex happens prior to getting pregnant, right?

(Apparently not in extreme divine cases :chuckle

Likewise to those +50%, morally unrepresented who perish naturally.

 

[Rusha]

By such reasoning you should dissallow doctors to treat your ill children ...though in refusing to do what's within your power to do so would be willfully neglectful...a complete immoral indifference to fellow human suffering.

That's exactly what you must stand against....lest the unborn lack some significant level of parity to that of an archetypal human-being. :idunno:

Again, you are not making any sense. My children became *my* responsibility the moment I became pregnant. IF not for my own actions, they would never have been conceived.

And that - moreso than "life saving" - lies the true crux of your argument. Yes?

Since you seem bound and determined to find something in my words I have not said, let me make it clear for you:

Without the actions of an unborn baby's mother and father, they would not exist and thereby, there would be no necessity to save them. Simply put ... they didn't just show up ... they were created. Cause and Effect.

(Apparently not in extreme divine cases :chuckle

Likewise to those +50%, morally unrepresented who perish naturally.

I am not arguing about divine cases. Apparently that is your argument.

Next, you are pretty much saying that because death happens, it's okay to CAUSE the death of others. Intentionally.

It's not okay and only shows that your argument is weak.

 

[Town Heretic]

To simply show an extensive lack of cause/correlation between lower abortion rates and legal prohibitions on such.

Then I don't think the link manages it.

Conversely, a significant one concerning abortion proscription and relevant mortality rates.

Relevant? I think the unborn are fairly relevant. Else, same sort of thing. It's trying to compare disparate societies with very different approaches. It's a bit like comparing gun laws and violence in Japan with gun laws and violence in Texas. The variables that come into play are significant.

Now if you want to speak to estimates before Roe and after Roe, within the same cultural context. By some estimates the Roe decisions led to a dramatic increase, one that continued to grow yearly for nearly the first twenty years.

Are you pro-life writ large or merely selectively so?

You'll have to put particulars to what you mean by it. In the present the discourse was confined and my answer also.

The notion that anti abortion laws increase abortion, that they'd do anything other than decrease it, is contrary to any good reason. So how do selected countries appear to make a different case by way of? Well, in heavily religious (mostly Catholic) climes there are as frequently prohibitions relating to procreation. Couple the absence of contraceptives with increased populations and you get, unsurprisingly, an increase in abortions. And that's before we begin to address sexual practices among the poor and how many of the countries wherein the unreasonable claim is rooted have large, desperately poor and uneducated populations, particularly uneducated in matters relating to sexual practices.

 

[brewmama]

cite?

It has been pointed out to him several times that this is a lie, and a purposeful lie at that, but he ignores it and just continues with the lie.

 

[lighthouse99]

Hogwash, the numbers of women seeking abortions if it were banned is minimal. Ban all abortions except under certain conditions.

almost never do women die because of pregnancy. I don't see any situation other than ectopic pregnancies that would warrnat murder (ectopic removal is not murder b/c both--or at least the child--would die if the pregnancy continued a/way)



:luigi:

 

[quip]

Again, you are not making any sense. My children became *my* responsibility the moment I became pregnant. IF not for my own actions, they would never have been conceived.

Then you're simply extending the moral aspect of my argument for me. Those +50% unborn deaths should harbor as much moral concern as similar deaths brought about by induced abortion.....but they don't. Have you ever considered exactly why that is?

Since you seem bound and determined to find something in my words I have not said, let me make it clear for you:

Of course you haven't "said it"...it would not serve your pro-life cause in doing so. Rather you logically infer such via the holes in your reasoning.

Without the actions of an unborn baby's mother and father, they would not exist and thereby, there would be no necessity to save them. Simply put ... they didn't just show up ... they were created. Cause and Effect.

No one is stating otherwise...quite the opposite really as I'm the one recognizing all the pertinent effects to prior causes here. You, on the other hand, remain conveniently blind to an entire segment of the abortion spectrum....namely the natural one.

I am not arguing about divine cases. Apparently that is your argument.

Next, you are pretty much saying that because death happens, it's okay to CAUSE the death of others. Intentionally.

It's not okay and only shows that your argument is weak.

Well, constructed straw-men are, by design, rather weak...that's what makes their simplistic destruction all the more tempting.
Rather, my point being the pro-life insistent focus upon "intentions" ....which seems more germane to the pro-life premise then the very lives it purports to champion.

 

[quip]

Then I don't think the link manages it.

Of course not...I would never expect that of you.

Relevant? I think the unborn are fairly relevant.

One simply couldn't approach the issue of abortion without them.

Though, I was referring to the other half of the abortion equation: Women who's lives have succumbed to less than legal and medically standard abortions.

Now if you want to speak to estimates before Roe and after Roe, within the same cultural context. By some estimates the Roe decisions led to a dramatic increase, one that continued to grow yearly for nearly the first twenty years.

Not surprising. Much like the ripples wrought by a thundering "cannon-ball".... courtesy of the local fat kid. What's more to the point is the possible circumstances relevant to such a dramatic counter change to our current "cultural context" in regard to abortion's legality...and the reflections of foreign contexts as a relevant portent.

You'll have to put particulars to what you mean by it. In the present the discourse was confined and my answer also.

Meaning scope used was micro rather then macro.

The notion that anti abortion laws increase abortion, that they'd do anything other than decrease it, is contrary to any good reason. So how do selected countries appear to make a different case by way of? Well, in heavily religious (mostly Catholic) climes there are as frequently prohibitions relating to procreation. Couple the absence of contraceptives with increased populations and you get, unsurprisingly, an increase in abortions. And that's before we begin to address sexual practices among the poor and how many of the countries wherein the unreasonable claim is rooted have large, desperately poor and uneducated populations, particularly uneducated in matters relating to sexual practices.

This sadly reads like a script written closer to home than comfortably intended. In fact, noting the popular resistance against birth-control; sex education; sexual practices among the poor and such, you've no solid indication that this would indeed not be the case. All the more sad and concerning given that such a move to eagerly proscribe abortion would put the risk to women exponentially and unacceptably high.

 

[Town Heretic]

Of course not...I would never expect that of you.

You shouldn't. Anyone looking into the presentation should be able to spot the problems with it unless they're bias blind.

One simply couldn't approach the issue of abortion without them.

Though, I was referring to the other half of the abortion equation: Women who's lives have succumbed to less than legal and medically standard abortions.

I understood that. It was the exclusivity of your concentration that I was underlining.

Not surprising. Much like the ripples wrought by a thundering "cannon-ball".... courtesy of the local fat kid. What's more to the point is the possible circumstances relevant to such a dramatic counter change to our current "cultural context" in regard to abortion's legality...and the reflections of foreign contexts as a relevant portent.

Or, we agree about the impact of legalizing nearly anything. You invite greater participation and you get it. I've noted the problem with comparing anecdotal evidence from cultural contexts and legal frameworks with very different contributors and historical markers.

Meaning scope used was micro rather then macro.

The literal meaning wasn't in question. Your application of it was. So...if you don't want to spell that out you'll just have to ask questions relating to your aim with it, I suppose.

This sadly reads like a script written closer to home than comfortably intended. In fact, noting the popular resistance against birth-control; sex education; sexual practices among the poor and such, you've no solid indication that this would indeed not be the case.

What I underscored was that in the countries typically noted with strong anti-abortion law there's an equal want of reproductive education, often coupled with proscription pertaining to contraception. That invites both population growth and a growth in abortion numbers among a class of people who have a limited understanding of and access to the means to avoid pregnancies. But we're a much different compact. Protecting the unborn needn't be coupled with a want of information about contraception or restrictions of the sort I'm noting relating to it.

All the more sad and concerning given that such a move to eagerly proscribe abortion would put the risk to women exponentially and unacceptably high.

A lot of subjective valuation there. I'd say the risk to the unborn was demonstrably, unacceptably higher.

 

[Rusha]

Then you're simply extending the moral aspect of my argument for me. Those +50% unborn deaths should harbor as much moral concern as similar deaths brought about by induced abortion.

Different concern because they are completely different scenarios. It is not immoral for a woman to have a miscarriage.

It is immoral to intentionally cause a miscarriage or intentionally kill an unborn baby via abortion.

It's very similar to a person accidentally drowning because they cannot swim VS a second party holding the person's head underneath the water so they can't breath.

Pro-abortion mothers are the one's holding a person's head under the water so they can't breath.

 

[The Horn]

Rusha, no one is "pro-abortion ". They're PRO CHOICE . They believe the decision to bear a child should be a woman's , not the government's .
People who oppose abortion are not "pro-life." They are ANTI CHOICE .
Pro FORCED birth .

 

[Town Heretic]

Rusha, no one is "pro-abortion ". They're PRO CHOICE .

Great. I'm pro-life. What's the other choice again?

They believe the decision to bear a child should be a woman's , not the government's .

The government is us. So all you're saying is they don't believe we have any business making a law prohibiting their asserted and granted right to take the life of the unborn.

A growing number of us aren't comfortable with that principle.

People who oppose abortion are not "pro-life." They are ANTI CHOICE .

Anti the one choice that ends life. Seems fairly pro-life.

Pro FORCED birth .

Pro birth. Else it's like saying pro forced compliance with any law. Well, okay. Sure. We force people to stop at stop signs.