Legitimate Rape and Abortion- Republicans back-pedal

[Woodruff]

Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

Because the ends cannot justify the means, evil acts cannot be used to prevent evil acts.

Sure, they do!--but these reactionary acts are not considered evil. E.g.:

Were you in favor of invading Afghanistan?

Are you in favor of punishing criminals?

I think in both situations, a case can be made that it's not "evil" so much as "self defense". Especially regarding Afghanistan, but also regarding criminals.

Apparently, many pro-lifers aren't willing to commit to the demands of their position, so maybe they really aren't true believers in the positions which they espouse. It's seems to be "all bark, no bite."

That really does seem to be an unfair characterization, to me. Again, as you say, it comes down to the costs involved. Perhaps it's the same reason I boycott Wal-Mart, but nobody else?

[Symmetry]

Haha, well, I'll agree that this is an empirical matter. I could say that the burden of evidence rests on your shoulders, but then you'll cast that burden on me. Seeing that neither would be willing to carry out this research because the marginal benefits don't offset the marginal costs, then we're "justified" at writing this off as an impasse.

But hey, as long as you keep that doubt in your mind about your own argument, then I'm satisfied. Maybe you'll run into someone who knows more, but there's one problem:

Even if the data show that ALL unwilling parents produce kids who are ALL disadvantaged and will NEVER realize the same benefits of the advantaged kids due to this initial inequality, then there's still the problem of projecting historic data. It could be the case that one disadvantage kid realizes more benefits than X-amount of advantaged kids. You'd have to justify that eliminating this chance on an argument which isn't sound.

I'm pretty sure we can eliminate Akin's argument- that women can't get pregnant in the first place if they're "legitimately" raped.

Nice try to use "unwilling parent" as a substitute for "rape victim", but let's be clear about the rape part of this thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

If two wrongs don't make a right, then why opt for capital punishment or even invading Afghanistan?

The moral underpinings for capital punishment are complex and generally forgotten. Basically this is why the Catholic Church has insisted that if you have a society that can effectively imprision someone for life then capital punishment is not justified.

The moral underpinnings for invading Afghanistan is self defense and the just war theory.

Oh, so two wrongs do make a right, but you said that two wrongs don't make a right....

[BigBallinStalin]

Rehabilitation costs = costs of supporting that being.

Then the costs are kicked off to the organizations responsible for distributing children.

You're making an inequation then, if I'm understanding you correctly.

You seem to be trying to weigh only the costs of the abortion procedure vs. the costs of delivering the baby. You don't seem to want to weigh in the costs to society for supporting that baby after delivery (based on your second sentence there). Again, unless I'm misunderstanding you, so feel free to clarify.

Costs to society? What are those then? If society supposedly bears these costs, then how does every single person pay some fraction of this cost? Shall we project all future costs of every child? And what of the benefits?

Welfare costs, for instance. If a child is not aborted but instead is born into a welfare situation (yes, I realize not all are, but a significant portion are), then the welfare costs for that child are born by society. Or if they are not, then costs in crime and the like.

So abortions should be allowed for only people below the poverty line?
Or what? How does this concern about the costs to "society" play out?

Besides, your contentions cut into either side of abortion. "What are the long-term benefits of allowing all those millions of kids to live? Since we don't know, let's ignore the main issue..." Your quibbles seem irrelevant, and if they are irrelevant, they detract from the main issue.

Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.

Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).

The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?

Again, I don't believe the situation can be viewed in that manner. In fact, I would find it to be highly faulty, for the reasons I mentioned above regarding societal costs.

Your argument about social costs only focuses on a group of the many, so it's limited in critiquing my general position. The truth is that no one knows the future costs and benefits to whoever from allowing a fetus to develop or from terminating it. In the a priori this is unknown, so any argument about costs and benefits still hinges on this uncertainty, which is a huge problem if this cost-benefit argument is applied to the issue of abortion in today's world. Surely, you see this, right?

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, well, I'll agree that this is an empirical matter. I could say that the burden of evidence rests on your shoulders, but then you'll cast that burden on me. Seeing that neither would be willing to carry out this research because the marginal benefits don't offset the marginal costs, then we're "justified" at writing this off as an impasse.

But hey, as long as you keep that doubt in your mind about your own argument, then I'm satisfied. Maybe you'll run into someone who knows more, but there's one problem:

Even if the data show that ALL unwilling parents produce kids who are ALL disadvantaged and will NEVER realize the same benefits of the advantaged kids due to this initial inequality, then there's still the problem of projecting historic data. It could be the case that one disadvantage kid realizes more benefits than X-amount of advantaged kids. You'd have to justify that eliminating this chance on an argument which isn't sound.

I'm pretty sure we can eliminate Akin's argument- that women can't get pregnant in the first place if they're "legitimately" raped.

Nice try to use "unwilling parent" as a substitute for "rape victim", but let's be clear about the rape part of this thread.

Do try to keep up with Lootifer and I. It's embarrassing to point out how irrelevant your response is, and how much you clearly misunderstood our conversation.

Or wait, maybe you're trolling again? You've been dipping a bit much into Phattism as of late. Please see a CC doctor immediately. I recommend Saxitoxin. He may be curt, but he's a professional.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

Because the ends cannot justify the means, evil acts cannot be used to prevent evil acts.

Sure, they do!--but these reactionary acts are not considered evil. E.g.:

Were you in favor of invading Afghanistan?

Are you in favor of punishing criminals?

I think in both situations, a case can be made that it's not "evil" so much as "self defense". Especially regarding Afghanistan, but also regarding criminals.

Of course, and I'm glad you pointed it out. Defense from those who violate one's rights is justified, so my main point is that "two wrongs don't make a right" and "the ends don't justify the means" are obviously incorrect.

Apparently, many pro-lifers aren't willing to commit to the demands of their position, so maybe they really aren't true believers in the positions which they espouse. It's seems to be "all bark, no bite."

That really does seem to be an unfair characterization, to me. Again, as you say, it comes down to the costs involved. Perhaps it's the same reason I boycott Wal-Mart, but nobody else?

I'll admit that I'm pushing the bounds of their reasoning, but since life is sacred and since mass murder (or unjust killing, or however you wish to define the large amount of unjustified killings) is occurring, then obviously, something drastic should be done. --- IF of course one believes that the fetus is a human.


It's like watching a war where one's "fellow Americans" are being killed by pro-choicers. The reason why people don't jump to these extraordinary calls for direct action is revealing--especially if they support wars or self-defense.

[tzor]

The moral underpinnings for invading Afghanistan is self defense and the just war theory.

Oh, so two wrongs do make a right, but you said that two wrongs don't make a right....

I suspect that the moral underpinnings (and why it is not "two wrongs make a right") of the just war theory deserves its own thread.

[Symmetry]

Haha, well, I'll agree that this is an empirical matter. I could say that the burden of evidence rests on your shoulders, but then you'll cast that burden on me. Seeing that neither would be willing to carry out this research because the marginal benefits don't offset the marginal costs, then we're "justified" at writing this off as an impasse.

But hey, as long as you keep that doubt in your mind about your own argument, then I'm satisfied. Maybe you'll run into someone who knows more, but there's one problem:

Even if the data show that ALL unwilling parents produce kids who are ALL disadvantaged and will NEVER realize the same benefits of the advantaged kids due to this initial inequality, then there's still the problem of projecting historic data. It could be the case that one disadvantage kid realizes more benefits than X-amount of advantaged kids. You'd have to justify that eliminating this chance on an argument which isn't sound.

I'm pretty sure we can eliminate Akin's argument- that women can't get pregnant in the first place if they're "legitimately" raped.

Nice try to use "unwilling parent" as a substitute for "rape victim", but let's be clear about the rape part of this thread.

Do try to keep up with Lootifer and I. It's embarrassing to point out how irrelevant your response is, and how much you clearly misunderstood our conversation.

Or wait, maybe you're trolling again? You've been dipping a bit much into Phattism as of late. Please see a CC doctor immediately. I recommend Saxitoxin. He may be curt, but he's a professional.

Hmm- that's not much of an argument. Did you even have a legitimate point to start with? You're avoiding mentioning it.

But anyway, employing a euphemism like "unwilling parent" with regards to rape victims seems like a lazy attempt to remove the rape part from the argument, and to focus on abortion.

Bringing it back on topic ain't trolling.

[BigBallinStalin]

The moral underpinnings for invading Afghanistan is self defense and the just war theory.

Oh, so two wrongs do make a right, but you said that two wrongs don't make a right....

I suspect that the moral underpinnings (and why it is not "two wrongs make a right") of the just war theory deserves its own thread.

Just saying that "two wrongs don't make a right" and "the ends justify the means" are incorrect.

You're contradicting yourself, so you'll have to revise your position, or explain why your position still effectively counters the question:

"Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?"

With this question, the aggressive action is a form of punishment in response to the violations of others' rights (i.e. fetuses who are considered human). It's a form of self-defense, and since self-defense is justified, then why not in this case?

[SirSebstar]

I think the woman in the following story pretty much demonstrates the hypocracy here:
WARNING: NSFW, may contain shocking news
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/woman- ... baby-.aspx

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, well, I'll agree that this is an empirical matter. I could say that the burden of evidence rests on your shoulders, but then you'll cast that burden on me. Seeing that neither would be willing to carry out this research because the marginal benefits don't offset the marginal costs, then we're "justified" at writing this off as an impasse.

But hey, as long as you keep that doubt in your mind about your own argument, then I'm satisfied. Maybe you'll run into someone who knows more, but there's one problem:

Even if the data show that ALL unwilling parents produce kids who are ALL disadvantaged and will NEVER realize the same benefits of the advantaged kids due to this initial inequality, then there's still the problem of projecting historic data. It could be the case that one disadvantage kid realizes more benefits than X-amount of advantaged kids. You'd have to justify that eliminating this chance on an argument which isn't sound.

I'm pretty sure we can eliminate Akin's argument- that women can't get pregnant in the first place if they're "legitimately" raped.

Nice try to use "unwilling parent" as a substitute for "rape victim", but let's be clear about the rape part of this thread.

Do try to keep up with Lootifer and I. It's embarrassing to point out how irrelevant your response is, and how much you clearly misunderstood our conversation.

Or wait, maybe you're trolling again? You've been dipping a bit much into Phattism as of late. Please see a CC doctor immediately. I recommend Saxitoxin. He may be curt, but he's a professional.

Hmm- that's not much of an argument. Did you even have a legitimate point to start with? You're avoiding mentioning it.

But anyway, employing a euphemism like "unwilling parent" with regards to rape victims seems like a lazy attempt to remove the rape part from the argument, and to focus on abortion.

Bringing it back on topic ain't trolling.

Sym, if you want to understand my use of the phrase "unwilling parent," then you should reread my conversation with Lootifer from the beginning. I'm not here to hold your hand and copy-paste what Lootifer and I already discussed, so you can either reveal the gaps of your knowledge by doing your own work, or you can continue bickering with me about something which you've (accidentally) misconstrued.

If you do the former, you'll be rewarded with a fun picture.
If you do the latter, you'll be rightly ridiculed.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think the woman in the following story pretty much demonstrates the hypocracy here:
WARNING: NSFW, may contain shocking news
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/woman- ... baby-.aspx

Hypocracy, rule of the Hippos.

[Symmetry]

I think the woman in the following story pretty much demonstrates the hypocracy here:
WARNING: NSFW, may contain shocking news
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/woman- ... baby-.aspx

That just links to the front page of a Turkish daily English language newspaper. Unsurpringly BBS was shocked, clearly not having clicked on the link.

[Symmetry]

Here is the correct link for BBS to cry "hypocrisy" over (or "hypocracy" if you're BBS and feign anger at something you haven't read in terms you can't spell).

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/world-responds-to-story-of-women-who-murdered-her-rapist-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=29347&NewsCatID=341

[jonesthecurl]

Genocide:

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group

[Woodruff]

Rehabilitation costs = costs of supporting that being.

Then the costs are kicked off to the organizations responsible for distributing children.

You're making an inequation then, if I'm understanding you correctly.

You seem to be trying to weigh only the costs of the abortion procedure vs. the costs of delivering the baby. You don't seem to want to weigh in the costs to society for supporting that baby after delivery (based on your second sentence there). Again, unless I'm misunderstanding you, so feel free to clarify.

Costs to society? What are those then? If society supposedly bears these costs, then how does every single person pay some fraction of this cost? Shall we project all future costs of every child? And what of the benefits?

Welfare costs, for instance. If a child is not aborted but instead is born into a welfare situation (yes, I realize not all are, but a significant portion are), then the welfare costs for that child are born by society. Or if they are not, then costs in crime and the like.

So abortions should be allowed for only people below the poverty line?

Why are you trying to put words into my mouth instead of discussing this honestly? I'm simply saying that those ARE ABSOLUTELY costs that must be considered. To pretend that those costs don't exist is either dishonest or ignorant.

Or what? How does this concern about the costs to "society" play out?

Didn't I explain it? I'm not sure I understand your confusion.

Besides, your contentions cut into either side of abortion. "What are the long-term benefits of allowing all those millions of kids to live? Since we don't know, let's ignore the main issue..." Your quibbles seem irrelevant, and if they are irrelevant, they detract from the main issue.

Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.

Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).

The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?

Again, I don't believe the situation can be viewed in that manner. In fact, I would find it to be highly faulty, for the reasons I mentioned above regarding societal costs.

Your argument about social costs only focuses on a group of the many, so it's limited in critiquing my general position. The truth is that no one knows the future costs and benefits to whoever from allowing a fetus to develop or from terminating it. In the a priori this is unknown, so any argument about costs and benefits still hinges on this uncertainty, which is a huge problem if this cost-benefit argument is applied to the issue of abortion in today's world. Surely, you see this, right?

I see. So basically, you want to make up an unrealistic scenario because you have some predetermined point you want to make, rather than to gain information or have a good discussion. Well then carry on, I'll bow out.

[PLAYER57832]

That you don't want to make a distinction between a less than 3 month fetus, without sensation, etc... and with barely a 50/50 chance of becoming human, with intentional genocide in Africa speaks volumes.

Are we having a Biden moment Player? Where did you get that number from?

Its called science.
And it would be truly nice if you actually studied a bit of it before claiming to have the facts.

Miscarriage rates after three weeks is only 10%, never mind 3 months. Most miscarriages occur before the women even knows they are pregnant.

I would love to see where you get THOSE figures from.

I googled "how many pregnancies end in miscarriage" and wound up with 20 listings that ALL place the rate of miscarriages above 25% just on the first page. When something is cited by that many varied and credible sources, it does not need a citation. BUT.. if you want one, just google it yourself and pick your favorite. It is true that many miscarriages are thought to occur early, before a woman really knows she is pregnant, but you have to be a tad careful there in your definitions. Often times, the first time a woman knows she is pregnant is when she miscarries. A completely unknown miscarriage tends to just be considered the menstral cycle, perhaps a tad mis-timed, unless the woman in question is a very light bleeder.

At any rate, those figures are only of confirmed and reported miscarriages. The real rate is hard to determine because they mostly go unreported. In my case, I had 4. Only 3 were truly confirmed by my doctor (and one was legally classed as an "abortion" even though the child was absolutely dead prior -- surgary was suggested because at 11 weeks, there was potential for an rH reaction which would have made it impossible for me to ever have any future children). While the rate is debated, the true range is rarely reported by scientific studies as less than 30%. Some speculate the real rate is closer to 70%, though most credible sources put it at more like 50% chance of miscarriage prior to 3 months or roughly 30% chance of miscarriage from the time a woman begins to suspect a pregnancy. If you start from conception, the rate might be harder, but that gets into some tricky definitions. (Is a one day "miscarriage" really a miscarriage or just a mensus?)

The nervous system does develop around the 20th week, and research shows that the fetus can experience pain at this point, but this is well beyond 3 months.

Yes, exactly.

And so we compare it to "intentional genocide." In many parts of the world, abortion is the prefered form of genocide, and also gendercide.

Genocide is the killing of an entire ethnic group. Claiming abortion is "genocide" is an extreme distortion of both why abortions happen AND genocide.

The reason that term is used is specifically to avoid logic, to dissuade people from actually thinking. Hiding behind drastic terms means you don't have to think about all the messy details and real situations involved.

Oh, yeah, to dispute another figure thrown around... the percentage of women who have abortions who were using contraception at the time is a lot higher than you seem to think as well.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

CONTRACEPTIVE USE
• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

Actually, here I will save you some time, because here is a source likely MISQUOTED and MISREPORTED as making the 10% claim. Read it CAREFULLY, now..

Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.

see that 10-25% refers only to clinically confirmed pregnancies. Read further and you see they mention, as did I that a 50-75% figure is likely.. and note that this is actually from a pretty conservative source(as in not politically conservative, but tending away from extreme reports).

At any rate, the 30% figure I reported IS very well accepted. If you don't believe me, go ask your gynecologist.. oops, yeah.. you don't have one.

[PLAYER57832]

why are we americans even allowed to have an opinion about african genocides? it's their country, and they can do what they want with it! who are we to judge?

That you don't want to make a distinction between a less than 3 month fetus, without sensation, etc... and with barely a 50/50 chance of becoming human, with intentional genocide in Africa speaks volumes.

There IS room for debate, but distorting facts and saying "MY morals exceed yours" is NOT debating, it is bullying.

Other people have morals, religion and can think quite well. Who gives YOU the right to tell other people what to do, particularly when it IS their own body, their own health risk, their own potential child at risk here.

let me get this straight... you think that nobody is allowed to push their morals upon anyone else?

you realize that's what the purpose of government is, right?

Funny, and here I thought that government was supposed to protect freedom?

No, the purpose of government is to protect individuals from harm, to maintain a system of laws that can allow people to live together peacably. Sometimes that cooincides with morals, but only when they are universal and/or based on extreme evidence and necessity.

and yes, more people die from induced abortions than african genocides. i have no trouble comparing them.

Not really, john. Not when you eliminate those children who will not survive, those who could only possibly survive with very extreme medical intervention, etc.

Also, ask yourself this-- which is the greater harm. To not have a potential child, early when the child is really not formed yet and the chance of survival is, at best around 25-30% (and that is at best -- as noted earlier, the real rate is more like a 50% chance) OR to force a woman to bear a child she does not want? Some of those women will "rise to the occasion" and take care of themselves during pregnancy, go on to do well by their kids. However, picking out those ideals as if that is what happens all the time is very, very condescending of the women having abortions. It assumes that these women have not really thought out their decisions, have no really good reasons for what they decide. It ignores whole swaths of reality.

Reality might mean anything from having a very dangerous job that will mean any child is at serious risk of serious problems (note that this is classified as "inconvenience" in the stats you present) to knowing that having a child will mean leaving a school program and almost certainly not returning, being hamstrung when looking for work (and not... the new move is "fiscal responsibility' -- so they cannot depend on support to have those kids, and even if they could its not a lifestyle most want to embrace truly). That is even without considering the impact to the father, who will ALSO be hamstrung for life with a payment that will continue even after he marries, has other kids.. until this child is 18. Adoption? If you trust other people to do right. Chances are if that were a truly viable option, the mother would have chosen it. I touch on a couple of issues, but definitely NOT the whole picture. The bottom line is its very easy to claim that you know, you get to decide and you can think better than all these women having abortions, you have better morals than they do.

If you want the TRUE reality of why abortion is necessary, go look at the state of social services -- oh yeah, another of those things that are bing cut left and right as "too expensive" and often "just encourage bad behavior".

AND.. then let's look at the other reality. The reality of what happened before Roe V Wade.

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

As said before, Roe vs Wade did not cause abortion. It just made them safely available in hospitals.

The time to prevent an abortion is before someone is even having sex. The way to prevent abortion is to make sure that no one who does not want to have a child gets pregnant. That requires education. Of course, education about sex is yet another of those topics that has been curtailed in the past few decades.

[tzor]

Miscarriage rates after three weeks is only 10%, never mind 3 months. Most miscarriages occur before the women even knows they are pregnant.

I would love to see where you get THOSE figures from.

I didn't include my research link? Miscarriage Probability

• 1-2 75% (this includes eggs that never grow past fertilization, and it would have been impossible to know you were pregnant; after implantation, which occurs 7-10 days after ovulation, the odds go down to 31%)
• 3-6 10% (after home urine test is positive at 14 days post ovulation when hCG levels reach 50-80)
• 6-12 5% (or less if heartbeat heard)
• 2nd trimester 3% (considered stillbirth after 20 weeks)
• 3rd trimester No longer considered miscarriage once fetus is beyond one pound (500 grams) around 24 weeks gestation. Stillbirth rate is 1%.

I think I got this History search down cold now!

[tzor]

As said before, Roe vs Wade did not cause abortion. It just made them safely available in hospitals.

I'm rolling on the floor with that one. Please check out this report where you can see that the majority of abortions are performed in clinics; very few abortions are performed in hospitals. Also check out causes of death; how many of those would be eliminated if the abortion was actually performed at a hospital, instead of at a clinic who doesn't want to admit mistakes and are often late in calling the ambulence to bring the woman to the hospital.

[Symmetry]

As said before, Roe vs Wade did not cause abortion. It just made them safely available in hospitals.

I'm rolling on the floor with that one. Please check out this report where you can see that the majority of abortions are performed in clinics; very few abortions are performed in hospitals. Also check out causes of death; how many of those would be eliminated if the abortion was actually performed at a hospital, instead of at a clinic who doesn't want to admit mistakes and are often late in calling the ambulence to bring the woman to the hospital.

Nasty little troll, aren't you. Taking a morning after pill doesn't require an ambulance or a hospital visit. The safe part in the rare cases that are necessary were made safe by Roe- abortions for medical need. Hence done by doctors, at hospitals.

[Night Strike]

As said before, Roe vs Wade did not cause abortion. It just made them safely available in hospitals.

I'm rolling on the floor with that one. Please check out this report where you can see that the majority of abortions are performed in clinics; very few abortions are performed in hospitals. Also check out causes of death; how many of those would be eliminated if the abortion was actually performed at a hospital, instead of at a clinic who doesn't want to admit mistakes and are often late in calling the ambulence to bring the woman to the hospital.

Nasty little troll, aren't you. Taking a morning after pill doesn't require an ambulance or a hospital visit. The safe part in the rare cases that are necessary were made safe by Roe- abortions for medical need. Hence done by doctors, at hospitals.

So you still believe the morning after pill is the only form of abortion?

How about this: I will support the morning after pill if you support banning all other forms of abortion (since you already believe they don't exist).

[Symmetry]

So you still believe the morning after pill is the only form of abortion?

How about this: I will support the morning after pill if you support banning all other forms of abortion (since you already believe they don't exist).

I do not, and have never even come close to suggesting that it is. Indeed, I've argued that I'm doubtful that it's a form of abortion at all.

But hey, it doesn't look as if you've let lack of logic and evidence stop you from posting nonsense yet.

[PLAYER57832]

Miscarriage rates after three weeks is only 10%, never mind 3 months. Most miscarriages occur before the women even knows they are pregnant.

I would love to see where you get THOSE figures from.

I didn't include my research link? Miscarriage Probability

• 1-2 75% (this includes eggs that never grow past fertilization, and it would have been impossible to know you were pregnant; after implantation, which occurs 7-10 days after ovulation, the odds go down to 31%)
• 3-6 10% (after home urine test is positive at 14 days post ovulation when hCG levels reach 50-80)
• 6-12 5% (or less if heartbeat heard)
• 2nd trimester 3% (considered stillbirth after 20 weeks)
• 3rd trimester No longer considered miscarriage once fetus is beyond one pound (500 grams) around 24 weeks gestation. Stillbirth rate is 1%.

I think I got this History search down cold now!

A chart with no references, no citations is an opinion piece, not science data.

Try again.....

[PLAYER57832]

As said before, Roe vs Wade did not cause abortion. It just made them safely available in hospitals.

I'm rolling on the floor with that one. Please check out this report where you can see that the majority of abortions are performed in clinics; very few abortions are performed in hospitals. Also check out causes of death; how many of those would be eliminated if the abortion was actually performed at a hospital, instead of at a clinic who doesn't want to admit mistakes and are often late in calling the ambulence to bring the woman to the hospital.

I see... and are you trying to deny that the intense pressure on facilities that offer abortion is not a major factor in that RECENT shift backward?

I am not going to click on a bunch of slides you decide to present. This is not a gross out contest, its a discussion. If you decide to quote some real data... go ahead, but based on EVERYTHING else you have presented, I can almost gaurantee the above is taken well out of context. (was it even from the US??)

[Edit.. yep, my summation was correct. your link doesn't really say what you claim it says]
Here, a real reference:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html