REAL information on abortion.

[tkr4lf]

I've played that game with you before only to have you hoot and howl over how the REAL issue is something other than what's been cited that you don't like. This thread is just the latest in a long line of your ideological sermons. That first page was an absolute classic - writing so much as to not only convince yourself that you're right, but to also drown out dissent. I'm content to sit back and watch tgd kick your rherorical ass

Alas, TGD, much as I disagree with both him and Player fairly often, listens to reason when it's presented and doesn't have quite the persecution complex you employ in virtually all of your posts. Try talking rather than drowning out arguments with droll posts about how you tried arguing before and can't be bothered anymore, because, of course, you're right and anyone who disagrees is simply trying to drown out dissent.

Sorry, but I have to agree with bradley. I can't be bothered anymore either trying to talk with player, it's like trying to talk to a brick wall. There is no point. Nothing gets through to her. You may as well try to teach calculus to an 8 year old kid with Down's Syndrome.

And yet you post replies about how above replying you are.

I'm not above replying. I'm just above replying to player. I replied to you, not player. I have no problem trying to talk to normal people, but I won't subject myself again to the masochism of engaging with player. The Santorum thread taught me an important lesson.

Anyway, I'm off topic...so, back to your discussion you go.

[Symmetry]

It would be helpful if someone who Player thinks is pro-choice tried to reason with her. I'm pro-choice, but she doesn't seem to believe I am. Symmetry? Neoteny? Frigidus? Anyone? Help?

Part of the problem here is that you let yourself get lumped in with other posters when you're disagreeing with a certain point of view. It's often difficult to discern or address a unique set of points when three or four posters attack a single post, but never show disagreement with one another.

I've found it difficult to discuss a point with you when your response follows or is mixed with those of BBS and Saxi, and you don't engage with their posts at all. Default is to think that you're pretty much ok with their messages, but it will distort your own message.

Basically, it comes across as only disagreeing to the points you disagree with. The sad corollary is that you also come across as being in general agreement with the rest, or at least, not at a point where you think the points are worth disagreement.

Two things:

(1) I acknowledge your point, agree with it, and am trying to rectify it on an ongoing basis.
(2) To be fair, most posters do that. Why would you argue with Player if you agree with her overall message? At least in the other thread, natty dread posted that graph (which apparently Player didn't look at).

I argue with her on other points- generally religion and education. On this I feel Player is right, but being over-zealous, as many pro-choicers are, and many pro-lifers. Player is perfectly correct in her terms and, as far as I can see, with most of her evidence. I don't like to frame the debate in that way though. It wins no arguments, but only proves the other side unreasonable.

Or to rephrase it slightly, it does no benefit to the pro-choice side to point out that abortions are medically necessary in some case, or the result of say rape or incest. It does no good to the anti-abortion side to portray it as killing a child, or murder. For the most part, that's not where the argument is at. It's in the middle. Probably slightly more to the choice side, as at least most can agree that abortion shouldn't actually be treated as murder.

[Symmetry]

I've played that game with you before only to have you hoot and howl over how the REAL issue is something other than what's been cited that you don't like. This thread is just the latest in a long line of your ideological sermons. That first page was an absolute classic - writing so much as to not only convince yourself that you're right, but to also drown out dissent. I'm content to sit back and watch tgd kick your rherorical ass

Alas, TGD, much as I disagree with both him and Player fairly often, listens to reason when it's presented and doesn't have quite the persecution complex you employ in virtually all of your posts. Try talking rather than drowning out arguments with droll posts about how you tried arguing before and can't be bothered anymore, because, of course, you're right and anyone who disagrees is simply trying to drown out dissent.

Sorry, but I have to agree with bradley. I can't be bothered anymore either trying to talk with player, it's like trying to talk to a brick wall. There is no point. Nothing gets through to her. You may as well try to teach calculus to an 8 year old kid with Down's Syndrome.

And yet you post replies about how above replying you are.

I'm not above replying. I'm just above replying to player. I replied to you, not player. I have no problem trying to talk to normal people, but I won't subject myself again to the masochism of engaging with player. The Santorum thread taught me an important lesson.

Anyway, I'm off topic...so, back to your discussion you go.

You know she can read it when you post here, right? That's some passive-aggressive BS you've got going on right there.

[tkr4lf]

I'm not above replying. I'm just above replying to player. I replied to you, not player. I have no problem trying to talk to normal people, but I won't subject myself again to the masochism of engaging with player. The Santorum thread taught me an important lesson.

Anyway, I'm off topic...so, back to your discussion you go.

You know she can read it when you post here, right? That's some passive-aggressive BS you've got going on right there.

There's nothing passive-aggressive about it. I'm flat out saying that I would rather take a wire brush in my asshole then willingly converse with player about anything. I honestly can't stand her. Is that direct enough to not be passive-aggressive? If not, sorry, but I can't be too direct or I risk another ban for saying what I really want to about her.

[Symmetry]

I'm not above replying. I'm just above replying to player. I replied to you, not player. I have no problem trying to talk to normal people, but I won't subject myself again to the masochism of engaging with player. The Santorum thread taught me an important lesson.

Anyway, I'm off topic...so, back to your discussion you go.

You know she can read it when you post here, right? That's some passive-aggressive BS you've got going on right there.

There's nothing passive-aggressive about it. I'm flat out saying that I would rather take a wire brush in my asshole then willingly converse with player about anything. I honestly can't stand her. Is that direct enough to not be passive-aggressive? If not, sorry, but I can't be too direct or I risk another ban for saying what I really want to about her.

Dude, it's straight out schoolyard crap- it's saying to a third party, loudly and in front of someone you don't like, how you're NOT TALKING TO THEM ANYMORE AND THEY'RE NOT YOUR FRIEND, SO HUH.

[tkr4lf]

I'm not above replying. I'm just above replying to player. I replied to you, not player. I have no problem trying to talk to normal people, but I won't subject myself again to the masochism of engaging with player. The Santorum thread taught me an important lesson.

Anyway, I'm off topic...so, back to your discussion you go.

You know she can read it when you post here, right? That's some passive-aggressive BS you've got going on right there.

There's nothing passive-aggressive about it. I'm flat out saying that I would rather take a wire brush in my asshole then willingly converse with player about anything. I honestly can't stand her. Is that direct enough to not be passive-aggressive? If not, sorry, but I can't be too direct or I risk another ban for saying what I really want to about her.

Dude, it's straight out schoolyard crap- it's saying to a third party, loudly and in front of someone you don't like, how you're NOT TALKING TO THEM ANYMORE AND THEY'RE NOT YOUR FRIEND, SO HUH.

No, I'm saying that there is no point in talking to her. I already told her directly that I was done conversing with her in the Santorum thread. And here, I agreed with somebody else saying they already played the game with her, and didn't want to again. You can see it however you like, but I see it more as calling her out on her bullshit. Constant arguments about definition. Constantly bringing up miscarriages in an abortion thread. Who the f*ck thinks about miscarriages when abortion is being talked about? They're two different things.

Eh, whatever. You're free to converse with her all you want, if you see a reason to. Anyway, this has gone on long enough. This thread is about abortion, or... whatever this thread is about, not about you or me, so I'll leave since I have nothing on-topic to add to the conversation.

[Symmetry]

I'm not above replying. I'm just above replying to player. I replied to you, not player. I have no problem trying to talk to normal people, but I won't subject myself again to the masochism of engaging with player. The Santorum thread taught me an important lesson.

Anyway, I'm off topic...so, back to your discussion you go.

You know she can read it when you post here, right? That's some passive-aggressive BS you've got going on right there.

There's nothing passive-aggressive about it. I'm flat out saying that I would rather take a wire brush in my asshole then willingly converse with player about anything. I honestly can't stand her. Is that direct enough to not be passive-aggressive? If not, sorry, but I can't be too direct or I risk another ban for saying what I really want to about her.

Dude, it's straight out schoolyard crap- it's saying to a third party, loudly and in front of someone you don't like, how you're NOT TALKING TO THEM ANYMORE AND THEY'RE NOT YOUR FRIEND, SO HUH.

No, I'm saying that there is no point in talking to her. I already told her directly that I was done conversing with her in the Santorum thread. And here, I agreed with somebody else saying they already played the game with her, and didn't want to again. You can see it however you like, but I see it more as calling her out on her bullshit. Constant arguments about definition. Constantly bringing up miscarriages in an abortion thread. Who the f*ck thinks about miscarriages when abortion is being talked about? They're two different things.

Eh, whatever. You're free to converse with her all you want, if you see a reason to. Anyway, this has gone on long enough. This thread is about abortion, or... whatever this thread is about, not about you or me, so I'll leave since I have nothing on-topic to add to the conversation.

Apparently Utah cares about the definition, but hey, if it's just Player saying so...

Here's the link though, if you are genuinely interested:
Link

[tkr4lf]

Apparently Utah cares about the definition, but hey, if it's just Player saying so...

Here's the link though, if you are genuinely interested:
Link

I don't see how that bill has anything to do with definition. They're not arguing that a miscarriage is an abortion. They're criminalizing miscarriages. Sure, they have to prove "reckless behavior", but that could be anything. Utah is dumb, that's a given, but again, that doesn't have anything to with definitions.

[Night Strike]

Ultimately, does it matter how many voluntary abortions are performed?

Truth ALWAYS matters. Christians are not taught to lie. That is Satan's tool. The Bible makes that clear over and over. In fact, using half truths.. giving partial truth and ignoring the rest, like claiming that there are 1.37 million "abortions" and not mentioning that "gee, about 1/3 of those numbers are miscarriages" is a lie, is actually worse than a flat lie, because it is harder to detect. That particular type of lie is prominent as being one of Satan's tools.

Sooo.. begin there. If this is, as so many claim a Christian debate, a debate about morality and following the Bible/God, then why the need to lie?

Even for those who don't use the "Christianity" argument (and yes, I realize you mostly have not), honesty and truth matters.

So, using your numbers, approximately 915,000 abortions are performed every year on fetuses that are still alive when the procedure takes place.

Try again. MY figures are that at the very most only about 20% even have a real chance at surviving through birth. (in THAT figure you do have to include the fully natural miscarriages, because often an abortion preemptive to prevent complications from a pending miscarriage, even if the baby has not yet miscarried).

WOW. Do you not even know your own stats and figures? (Although I shouldn't be surprised since you make them all up.) Your statement:

In fact, using half truths.. giving partial truth and ignoring the rest, like claiming that there are 1.37 million "abortions" and not mentioning that "gee, about 1/3 of those numbers are miscarriages" is a lie, is actually worse than a flat lie, because it is harder to detect.

I simply took those two numbers and calculated that it meant 915,000 abortions are being performed on fetuses that are still living at the time the procedure begins. Your argument against my number is that "only 20% would survive anyway". So you're saying that it's ok to artificially kill them because 80% were going to die anyway? You just stated that only 1/3 of the procedures were for miscarriages, yet now you want to claim that 80% of the 1.37 million procedures are for miscarriages? Could you at least be consistent in your "stats"?

There are approximately 5 homicides per 100,000 people in the United States, which comes out to about 15,000 homicides every year. We as a society legally in the name of abortion kill 61 times per people every year than criminals kill illegally. Yet abortions should be condoned and even extolled? But that's ok. It's allowed because it's a woman's right to kill. This has nothing to do with the right to life.

It is allowed because in the first trimester, there is not enough of humanity there to be anything. That is so based on science and even most religions. There are, of course, a few exceptions.. groups that want to use their own defition. But, guess what. There are people who think that sperm and eggs alone are "life". the Roman Catholic Church is pretty close to that, in fact and may actually revise its thinking. (that is one of the reasons why masturbation is condemned, because it is "spilling seed").

That's funny, I thought the fetus had a set of DNA that is completely different from the mother's? Sounds like a very definitive line at what is a human and what is not. By the way, "there is not enough of humanity there" was an argument to justify slavery and the Holocaust: because blacks and Jews were not human enough to warrant their own freedom or even lives.

You want freedom, but ONLY when the views agree with you. That is not real freedom, it is bullying.

Really? All I EVER see you post is how you want to grow the government in order to bully everyone else to have things your way. You want the government to handle every single issue in society, real or conceived. I want freedom for all people, especially those in the US who are governed by the Constitution. And that includes the unborn, who have the same right to life as the rest of us. You however want to make sure the government exerts more power over its citizens in every area of our lives, which causes oppression, not freedom. If YOU believed in freedom, you wouldn't be turning to the government on every topic.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, have fun, guys.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, have fun, guys.

I need one of Saxi's "plane flying away" gifs here. Because I'm done with the abortion talk (he types, fully realizing that he'll be back... oh, he'll be back).

[Dukasaur]

It would be helpful if someone who Player thinks is pro-choice tried to reason with her. I'm pro-choice, but she doesn't seem to believe I am. Symmetry? Neoteny? Frigidus? Anyone? Help?

Part of the problem here is that you let yourself get lumped in with other posters when you're disagreeing with a certain point of view. It's often difficult to discern or address a unique set of points when three or four posters attack a single post, but never show disagreement with one another.

I've found it difficult to discuss a point with you when your response follows or is mixed with those of BBS and Saxi, and you don't engage with their posts at all. Default is to think that you're pretty much ok with their messages, but it will distort your own message.

Basically, it comes across as only disagreeing to the points you disagree with. The sad corollary is that you also come across as being in general agreement with the rest, or at least, not at a point where you think the points are worth disagreement.

Sadly, I too find I'm often a victim of this "lumping together" that you're referring to, and I don't think it's the posters fault. There's not enough hours in a day to go through everybody's posts and indicate everything I disagree with, and even if it were possible, it would essentially amount to spam. (Usually) I only reply if I see something specific where I think I can contribute something new and unique that others haven't mentioned, or that they haven't mentioned clearly enough to be noticed through the fog.

It's a lazy assumption to think there's only two possible points of view and that anyone who disagrees with POV 1 must obviously adhere to POV 2.

[Symmetry]

It would be helpful if someone who Player thinks is pro-choice tried to reason with her. I'm pro-choice, but she doesn't seem to believe I am. Symmetry? Neoteny? Frigidus? Anyone? Help?

Part of the problem here is that you let yourself get lumped in with other posters when you're disagreeing with a certain point of view. It's often difficult to discern or address a unique set of points when three or four posters attack a single post, but never show disagreement with one another.

I've found it difficult to discuss a point with you when your response follows or is mixed with those of BBS and Saxi, and you don't engage with their posts at all. Default is to think that you're pretty much ok with their messages, but it will distort your own message.

Basically, it comes across as only disagreeing to the points you disagree with. The sad corollary is that you also come across as being in general agreement with the rest, or at least, not at a point where you think the points are worth disagreement.

Sadly, I too find I'm often a victim of this "lumping together" that you're referring to, and I don't think it's the posters fault. There's not enough hours in a day to go through everybody's posts and indicate everything I disagree with, and even if it were possible, it would essentially amount to spam. (Usually) I only reply if I see something specific where I think I can contribute something new and unique that others haven't mentioned, or that they haven't mentioned clearly enough to be noticed through the fog.

It's a lazy assumption to think there's only two possible points of view and that anyone who disagrees with POV 1 must obviously adhere to POV 2.

Just to be absolutely clear, this is a criticism I level at myself too, which is kind of why it came out as a coherent argument. It's something I look at in my own posts in both directions.

[thegreekdog]

I think it's a natural inclination to argue with those you generally (but not always) disagree with and not argue with those you generally (but not always) agree with. Symmetry is not the first to point that out with respect to my own posting (Woodruff did it a few months ago). It's a valid point, but one that I think applies to most people. You will rarely find Symmetry and Natty Dread getting into a heated discussion, just as you won't find BBS and me getting into a heated discussion.

[Neoteny]

It would be helpful if someone who Player thinks is pro-choice tried to reason with her. I'm pro-choice, but she doesn't seem to believe I am. Symmetry? Neoteny? Frigidus? Anyone? Help?

I'm not sure how helpful I'd be at this at any rate. PLAYER and I often agree, but I feel like our reasoning often comes from wildly different directions. So there's that.

In short, I don't feel like jumping into this one.

[PLAYER57832]

[ Sorry, but I have to agree with bradley. I can't be bothered anymore either trying to talk with player, it's like trying to talk to a brick wall. There is no point. Nothing gets through to her. You may as well try to teach calculus to an 8 year old kid with Down's Syndrome.

Since asking that you actually provide facts, read the references you post instead of just summaries or whatever. And, yeah, actually take the time to read contrary opinions you claim to be debating.( that is the REAL opinions, not just your pre-concieved idea)

[PLAYER57832]

I think it's a natural inclination to argue with those you generally (but not always) disagree with and not argue with those you generally (but not always) agree with. Symmetry is not the first to point that out with respect to my own posting (Woodruff did it a few months ago). It's a valid point, but one that I think applies to most people. You will rarely find Symmetry and Natty Dread getting into a heated discussion, just as you won't find BBS and me getting into a heated discussion.

There are 3 different issues here.

#1 the definition of abortion and valid statistics. Despite the many claims here, I HAVE presented the data. In fact, the supreme irony was that the first set links you provided in this thread were in full agreement with what I have said about reasons and numbers of abortions. The second set of data you presented was plain fraudulant. You did not even read what I wrote on that, just claimed it was "all politics".. not even recognizing that the only quotes I provided were from your own post that was supposed to be refuting my prior comments.

#2. The REASON why you don't find statistics on live abortions versus removal of dead fetusus prior to 3 months is because legally there is no definition of life prior to that point. Scientifically/medically, there is something like a heart beat on a sonogram, but there is not enough there to really constitute a human being. There is life, but not true human life, biologically. Religiously, some people consider it to be life.

#3. The Roman Catholic church's stance on insurance.
a. They are flat out refusing to cover a range of women's health care under the claim that birth control violates their religion. This is an extremely dangerous precedent. It is no different than anti-vaccination people denying coverage for childhood vaccinations because they think the vaccinations are linked to auatism or any number of issues that could be brought in for religious/fundamental values reasoning. You argued in favor of that, then claimed that my arguments were not valid because you personally are not anti-abortion.

#4. At a minimum, if you are going to present data, VERIFY them! It would have taken you a couple of minutes at most to find that the second set of data you provided was absolutely incorrect, that several of the sitations were actually blank referenced the data generally cited, and very much NOT giving the statistics you posted.

#5. You bring in this term "social reasons". It is a nonsense, undefined term. Everyone using it has a different definition, so to use it as some kind of fundament of argument.. may be a good lawyering tactic, but is not real reasoned debate. For the record, I consider only pressure from family/ religious issues and perhaps (but only perhaps) to be true social concerns. You don't find statistics on that.

#5.

[PLAYER57832]

For nightstrike, etc:

The issue of life is nowhere near as simple as "oops, baby, inconvenient' versus "healthy live baby always welcome". Among those views almost never mentioned, many many religious views hold that a child is an incredible obligation and responsibility. You don't just give birth, you have a duty to ensure that the child grows up to be a "good" human being who will contribute to society. We HAVE, as a society rejected the idea that children have to be physically "perfect". We don't sterilize the mentally incompetent or euthanize infants born with "deformities" any longer (though those were practices in the past). BUT.. to go from that an into this idea that if a child is simply breathing.. whether they have a brain, have any real function or not; that even issues like severe pain and trauma are just to be ignored if there is "life".. well, the truth is that a LOT of people just plain say "no"..a nd I mean people all along the political spectrum. Further, for the far right, inclulding the Roman Catholic church in particular, to take these types of stances and then NOT support full and complete medical care for all, etc.. is repugnant.

Similarly, though most of you keep saying I don't know what I am talking about, the ability to have children in the future is veyr much a part of why women might decide to abort. That does not get highlighted in those statistics because it is not a medical or "objective" decision AND becuase very often it is part of a complex mix. The data collectors want to find "the" reason or "the primary reason". They dislike "it was a mixture of many things". Except in real life, this is a decision that almost no one makes lightly or for just one or two simple reasons.

Even in my case, when I was fully sure that the baby was dead, I still had worries of "what if there is a mistake". I had seen the sonograms (multiple ones), etc. In the end, it was knowing that having the operation would be my best, perhaps only chance of having kids in the future that decided me. That and, yes, the fact that if I had to wait for a "natural" miscarriage, it would have meant not working for several days, a HUGE bloody mess and potentially complications that would have meant being hospitalized on an emergency basis. Instead, I had a quick, hospital procedure... and then found that about 1/3 of the women I know (not just my friends, I mean all the women I know) suddenly came out of the woodwork with their stories.

Also, for the record, I am not "in favor of abortion". I am in favor of keeping it legal and safe. I am in favor of measure that will ensure it is rare, but NOT through draconian limits. I want good sex education in all schools, health care coverage, serious research into birth defect prevention and more general discussion on the "icky" and "touchy" issues such as how disabled a child is really justifiable, who pays for these kids, and the moral obligations of parents versus society.

[thegreekdog]

#1 the definition of abortion and valid statistics. Despite the many claims here, I HAVE presented the data. In fact, the supreme irony was that the first set links you provided in this thread were in full agreement with what I have said about reasons and numbers of abortions. The second set of data you presented was plain fraudulant. You did not even read what I wrote on that, just claimed it was "all politics".. not even recognizing that the only quotes I provided were from your own post that was supposed to be refuting my prior comments.

The first three links I provided were NOT in agreement with what you said about the reason and number of abortions. As I indicated previously, while the links did not provide numerical data, all the links indicated that "most" abortions were for social reasons or that the "most common" reason for an abortion was a social reason. The fourth link I provided as not fraudulent just because you claimed it to be fraudulent.

I read the entirety of your post and EVEN QUOTED YOUR OWN POST to demonstrate how you're incorrect.

#2. The REASON why you don't find statistics on live abortions versus removal of dead fetusus prior to 3 months is because legally there is no definition of life prior to that point. Scientifically/medically, there is something like a heart beat on a sonogram, but there is not enough there to really constitute a human being. There is life, but not true human life, biologically. Religiously, some people consider it to be life.

Correct. Abortions performed on dead fetuses are not in contention by anyone. I don't know any "pro-lifers" who suggest that dead fetuses should not be removed. Thus, I think it's a non-issue. You apparently do not.

#3. The Roman Catholic church's stance on insurance.
a. They are flat out refusing to cover a range of women's health care under the claim that birth control violates their religion. This is an extremely dangerous precedent. It is no different than anti-vaccination people denying coverage for childhood vaccinations because they think the vaccinations are linked to auatism or any number of issues that could be brought in for religious/fundamental values reasoning. You argued in favor of that, then claimed that my arguments were not valid because you personally are not anti-abortion.

This belongs in that other thread where people are arguing about non-issues. You know, the one where conservatives are arguing that the Catholic Church (of which none of them are members) should be exempt from the Affordable Care Act's requirement to provide coverage for birth control, even though the Catholic Church is exempt from the Affordable Care Act's requirement to provide coverage for birth control. You know, the one where liberals are arguing that the Catholic Church should be required to provide coverage for birth control, even though President Obama already exempted them. You know, that thread.

In any event, your analogy is completely misplaced. People who do not receive health insurance coverage from their employer for contraceptives may do any number of things to ensure they can get health insurance coverage for contraceptives: they could use their own money to purchase health insurance separately; they could use their own money to purchase contraceptives separately; they could not use contraceptives except for health issues (and then pay for it however they want); they could quit their job and go somewhere else. Children of parents who don't get vaccines don't have a recourse.

#4. At a minimum, if you are going to present data, VERIFY them! It would have taken you a couple of minutes at most to find that the second set of data you provided was absolutely incorrect, that several of the sitations were actually blank referenced the data generally cited, and very much NOT giving the statistics you posted.

I look at 12 websites. Twelve. They all said basically the same thing - the vast majority of abortions are done for social reasons. I posted links to four (three initially, then an additional website). So, either you can provide the links to refute my data (which you have absolutely NOT provided) or you can stop with this ridiculous nonsense.

#5. You bring in this term "social reasons". It is a nonsense, undefined term. Everyone using it has a different definition, so to use it as some kind of fundament of argument.. may be a good lawyering tactic, but is not real reasoned debate. For the record, I consider only pressure from family/ religious issues and perhaps (but only perhaps) to be true social concerns. You don't find statistics on that.

It means non-health reasons. Based on your definition of "social reasons," do you consider the following reasons to be social or non-social (i.e. health):

- Feels unready for child/responsibility
- Feels she can't afford a baby
- Has all the children she wants/other family responsibilities
- Relationship problem/single motherhood
- Feels she isn't mature enough
- Interference with education/career plans

To me, these are all non-health reasons. What do you think?

[Doc_Brown]

I think I may finally understand Player's logic:

• First trimester abortions are indistinguishable from miscarriages.
• Therefore, first trimester abortions shouldn't be considered elective, and the statistics about social reasons should (do?) only consider abortions after 3 months gestational age.
• A large majority of abortions happen in the first trimester.
• Thus, even if 90% of the abortions in the statistics are for social reasons, it's 90% of a small minority.

Player, can you confirm that this approximately summarizes what you're claiming?

The problem with this reasoning is that the first and second premises are seriously flawed, which means that the conclusion is unsupported. The listed statistics are for all abortions (again, I'm not including miscarriages, per my earlier statement), including first trimester. Elective abortions do happen in the first trimester for social reasons, and it is possible to know if the fetus is developing even without a heartbeat (we've had three healthy pregnancies and one miscarriage, so I have some personal experience here).