The Future of Abortion

[john9blue]

No, you made that claim. I don't agree its true, becuase many conservative parents today take the stance that they can and should controll their children's environment very closely.

i know. believe me, i know.

and i didn't make that claim. sorry if you misunderstood something i said.

You are advocating a policy change in government that will impact women very negatively. Claiming that you know better than women on this is pretty condescending.

this has nothing to do with me "knowing better than women". you realize there are pro-life women, right? i would agree with them about the issue. there are also pro-choice men. i believe that i know better than they do about the issue. it has nothing to do with the gender of the person i'm disagreeing with. you just happen to be female.

No dice, because you benefit from our society and all those things you put forward as "waste" -- like education, welfare, health care (note.. I realize you don't actually do that, this is a hypothetical, but I am responding in kind to your rant)

Exceot your styrofoam cups, etc very much DO impact me directly. Me having an abortion doesn't impact you.

yes it does. aren't you the one who keeps saying that educating people in our society ultimately benefits us, because it gives us informed voters and policy makers?

i will say the same thing: being pro-life ultimately benefits our entire society, because it facilitates the growth of our country, species, and civilization.

No, but nice try... and note that I was still able to answer every one of your supposed exaggerations anyway.

See, that is what real debates are about.. finding truth, not just pushing out what you think and declaring everyone else wrong.

The difference is that when I say you are wrong, it is because the science or other evidence shows it or becuase you are being inconsistant. In this case, there is a bit of both. Many people here are quite happy to argue "freedom", but seem to think that women making their own personal medical decisions is neither personal, nor about freedom. Yet, the truth is that no other issue has so influenced the RIGHTS of women, and the ability of women to do as they wish, than having control of our reproductive abilities.

You can hide behind whatever rhetoric you wish, but the bottom line is that without access to both birth control and SAFE abortions, women don't have anything close to freedom.

how is it unscientific to believe that a fetus should have human rights? you need to understand that, often, people's "freedoms" conflict with each other. i have the freedom to play the radio loudly, but my neighbors have the freedom to enjoy their night without being disturbed. their freedom trumps my freedom. similarly, the fetus' right to life (if it exists) trumps a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. also, if men could get pregnant, then i would say the same thing to them. this has nothing to do with "women being inferior" or any such nonsense.

[Symmetry]

how is it unscientific to believe that a fetus should have human rights?

If your argument is directly unscientific about what a fetus is, would be one. But we did this, and here you are again suggesting that there's nothing unscientific. If you want to argue on a different tack, and I can tell you how wrong you are to consider, or want to consider abortion as murder. Or try to get you to understand what genocide is again.

Doesn't seem to stick, though does it? Cause you'll always throw this stuff out at folk as if it were true.

[Lootifer]

this has nothing to do with me "knowing better than women". you realize there are pro-life women, right? i would agree with them about the issue. there are also pro-choice men. i believe that i know better than they do about the issue. it has nothing to do with the gender of the person i'm disagreeing with. you just happen to be female.

Bravo, would read again

i will say the same thing: being pro-life ultimately benefits our entire society, because it facilitates the growth of our country, species, and civilization.

I can just as blindly assert that being pro-choice ultimately benefits our entire society, because it facilitates the removal of potential children that are, on average (its a distribution), more likely to sit down the unproductive or less productive end of the bell curve. (see my earlier debate with BBS for my position here).

Personally I see this debate as unresolvable because the future is uncertain. Effectively comes down to belief.

how is it unscientific to believe that a fetus should have human rights? you need to understand that, often, people's "freedoms" conflict with each other. i have the freedom to play the radio loudly, but my neighbors have the freedom to enjoy their night without being disturbed. their freedom trumps my freedom. similarly, the fetus' right to life (if it exists) trumps a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. also, if men could get pregnant, then i would say the same thing to them. this has nothing to do with "women being inferior" or any such nonsense.

Must... not... get... into... pointless... and... boring... science... slash... belief... argument... GAAAAH...

[BigBallinStalin]

this has nothing to do with me "knowing better than women". you realize there are pro-life women, right? i would agree with them about the issue. there are also pro-choice men. i believe that i know better than they do about the issue. it has nothing to do with the gender of the person i'm disagreeing with. you just happen to be female.

Bravo, would read again

i will say the same thing: being pro-life ultimately benefits our entire society, because it facilitates the growth of our country, species, and civilization.

I can just as blindly assert that being pro-choice ultimately benefits our entire society, because it facilitates the removal of potential children that are, on average (its a distribution), more likely to sit down the unproductive or less productive end of the bell curve. (see my earlier debate with BBS for my position here).

Personally I see this debate as unresolvable because the future is uncertain. Effectively comes down to belief.

There was that study negatively (?) correlating abortion and crime rates, i.e. increased abortions in the 1960s/1970s marginally contributed to decreased crime roughly 20/30 years ago. (It's been awhile since I've read it).

[rdsrds2120]

this has nothing to do with me "knowing better than women". you realize there are pro-life women, right? i would agree with them about the issue. there are also pro-choice men. i believe that i know better than they do about the issue. it has nothing to do with the gender of the person i'm disagreeing with. you just happen to be female.

Bravo, would read again

i will say the same thing: being pro-life ultimately benefits our entire society, because it facilitates the growth of our country, species, and civilization.

I can just as blindly assert that being pro-choice ultimately benefits our entire society, because it facilitates the removal of potential children that are, on average (its a distribution), more likely to sit down the unproductive or less productive end of the bell curve. (see my earlier debate with BBS for my position here).

Personally I see this debate as unresolvable because the future is uncertain. Effectively comes down to belief.

There was that study negatively (?) correlating abortion and crime rates, i.e. increased abortions in the 1960s/1970s marginally contributed to decreased crime roughly 20/30 years ago. (It's been awhile since I've read it).

And that makes sense. With less unplanned parenthoods, there are less households living in poverty and less opportunities lost for the mother and/or father.

BMO

[PLAYER57832]

You are advocating a policy change in government that will impact women very negatively. Claiming that you know better than women on this is pretty condescending.

this has nothing to do with me "knowing better than women". you realize there are pro-life women, right? i would agree with them about the issue. there are also pro-choice men. i believe that i know better than they do about the issue. it has nothing to do with the gender of the person i'm disagreeing with. you just happen to be female.

Yes, it does. It has to do with whether you have the right and even enough knowledge to tell another human being what to do. In this case, ALL of those so impacted are women.

Do some women agree with you? Yes. They are also trying to tell other women what to do.

What makes this TRULY nasty is that most of you, yourself included (though you are far more educated than most in this) really do not get the full picture. That is, you have looked at some data and think that is enough to make a life-changing decision for another human being with very, very specific circumstances and concerns.

All your arguments amount to is you dislike this, you have religious reasons and so therefore its OK for you to say your morals exceed anyone elses -- and you can find plenty of people to agree, so you must be correct, never mind how misguided many of those people's arguments are (and I already said you are more consistant and informed than most).
Beyong that, most of those in favor of legal abortion dislike it & want to prevent it ( I would say "liking" abortion is pretty close to a definition of insanity) -- we just don't see laws that are necessarily draconian to be the answer!

No dice, because you benefit from our society and all those things you put forward as "waste" -- like education, welfare, health care (note.. I realize you don't actually do that, this is a hypothetical, but I am responding in kind to your rant)

Exceot your styrofoam cups, etc very much DO impact me directly. Me having an abortion doesn't impact you.

yes it does. aren't you the one who keeps saying that educating people in our society ultimately benefits us, because it gives us informed voters and policy makers?

And you wish to claim that children being aborted are all educable? That is plain patently false... and part of the heavy distortion.

See, contrary to what you like to assert, most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus with a truly great chance at a good life.

i will say the same thing: being pro-life ultimately benefits our entire society, because it facilitates the growth of our country, species, and civilization.

LOL, except the facts don't support your claim. Countries where women have access to a full range of healthcare options, including birth control and safe abortion services are more advanced and do far better than nations who limit the choices women can make.

That is pure statistics, not even getting into the morality of pushing your choices onto someone else being a fundamental opposition to one of the highest values in this country.. namely freedom.

No, but nice try... and note that I was still able to answer every one of your supposed exaggerations anyway.

See, that is what real debates are about.. finding truth, not just pushing out what you think and declaring everyone else wrong.

The difference is that when I say you are wrong, it is because the science or other evidence shows it or becuase you are being inconsistant. In this case, there is a bit of both. Many people here are quite happy to argue "freedom", but seem to think that women making their own personal medical decisions is neither personal, nor about freedom. Yet, the truth is that no other issue has so influenced the RIGHTS of women, and the ability of women to do as they wish, than having control of our reproductive abilities.

You can hide behind whatever rhetoric you wish, but the bottom line is that without access to both birth control and SAFE abortions, women don't have anything close to freedom.

how is it unscientific to believe that a fetus should have human rights?

Becuase a fetus is, by definition a potential human, not a human. AT some point, it becomes close enough to a human that it attains most of the rights of a born human, but we are talking about 3 months.. and very serious situations after that.

you need to understand that, often, people's "freedoms" conflict with each other. i have the freedom to play the radio loudly, but my neighbors have the freedom to enjoy their night without being disturbed. their freedom trumps my freedom.

Yes, and your right to dictate to ANY woman what she should do with her body is just nil... except in the nano land that wants to ignore virtually all pregnancy related statistics and just go straight to "conception=healthy bouncing baby".

You know, the worst thing that happens to anyone is not death.. it is lingering and torture.

similarly, the fetus' right to life (if it exists) trumps a woman's right to make her own medical decisions.

LOL, LOL, LOL
And you, who will NEVER have to face anything like that choice, who don't know what is happening in each woman's life, who cannot possibly take the time to understand why each woman might decide the best thing is not to carry a child.. YOU get to decide that over the woman who DOES understand all that?

Like I said.. pretty arrogant.

also, if men could get pregnant, then i would say the same thing to them. this has nothing to do with "women being inferior" or any such nonsense.

No, it just has to do with a decision that no man ever really has to make, but so many men seem to think they are oh so educated upon.

And you, by-the-way are no great speaker there. You yourself said some pretty condescending things in previous threads on this. Not as bad as many, but not great either. The problem here is that you CANNOT truly understand and walk in someone else's shoes unless you have been through this. You have not. You never will. You have no right to tell women who have how they ought to act, because you don't really know everything there is to know about the various situations.

To the point you do, OTHER steps are far, far more effective.. some women use abortions like birth control.. make birth control more readily available, beginning with increased education so that women who have decided to have sex AND decide they don't want kids can not get pregnant.

Women having sex too casually (don't even try to pretend this isn't a big part of the debate) -- don't agree with people's choices, you can educate and debate. But in our society, you don't get to dictate.

Women aborting because their children will have major health issues they plain don't feel they can handle-- how about not cutting welfare, food subsidies, healthcare coverage, etc, etc, etc.

ALSO, a big one you like to pretend just doesn't happen. While you can point to a few women convinced not to have an abortion who went on to successfull raise their healthy children, there are plenty who are truly NOT up to the job, who's children do not wind up happy and healthy. There is a far cry from convincing someone and FORCING someone. Children of women who were FORCED not to have an abortion do not, contrary to what you seem to think always have the greatest of lives. In fact, they often do not.

Like I have said before, death is not a terrible thing for a Christian, so why do you fight so strongly against death. The worst thing that might happen to these children is not to not be born, its to live... and suffer.

[thegreekdog]

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in abortion debates anymore, but Player your post is absurd.

In this case, ALL of those so impacted are women.

- Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Women having sex too casually (don't even try to pretend this isn't a big part of the debate) -- don't agree with people's choices, you can educate and debate. But in our society, you don't get to dictate.

- The government always dictates. Always. In everything. And the majority nearly always dictates to the rest.

most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus with a truly great chance at a good life.

- Completely incorrect and not based on any facts. You keep making this absurd claim and I keep providing you links. Where is your data that "most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus?"

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

wants to ignore virtually all pregnancy related statistics

- Yes, namely you.

[john9blue]

I can just as blindly assert that being pro-choice ultimately benefits our entire society, because it facilitates the removal of potential children that are, on average (its a distribution), more likely to sit down the unproductive or less productive end of the bell curve. (see my earlier debate with BBS for my position here).

Personally I see this debate as unresolvable because the future is uncertain. Effectively comes down to belief.

so would you agree that killing people on welfare would benefit society? do you view that as a potentially morally correct action? they are at the bottom end of the bell curve.

All your arguments amount to is you dislike this, you have religious reasons and so therefore its OK for you to say your morals exceed anyone elses -- and you can find plenty of people to agree, so you must be correct, never mind how misguided many of those people's arguments are (and I already said you are more consistant and informed than most).
Beyong that, most of those in favor of legal abortion dislike it & want to prevent it ( I would say "liking" abortion is pretty close to a definition of insanity) -- we just don't see laws that are necessarily draconian to be the answer!

if you think that my opposition to abortion is for "religious reasons" then you haven't been paying ANY attention at all. i considered not even responding to the rest of this post because clearly you have no clue what the f*ck my actual beliefs are.

Yes, it does. It has to do with whether you have the right and even enough knowledge to tell another human being what to do. In this case, ALL of those so impacted are women.

Do some women agree with you? Yes. They are also trying to tell other women what to do.

What makes this TRULY nasty is that most of you, yourself included (though you are far more educated than most in this) really do not get the full picture. That is, you have looked at some data and think that is enough to make a life-changing decision for another human being with very, very specific circumstances and concerns.

And you wish to claim that children being aborted are all educable? That is plain patently false... and part of the heavy distortion.

See, contrary to what you like to assert, most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus with a truly great chance at a good life.

i'll ask you the same question i asked loot. is it okay to kill people on welfare who are not educated and have no positive impact on society?

LOL, except the facts don't support your claim. Countries where women have access to a full range of healthcare options, including birth control and safe abortion services are more advanced and do far better than nations who limit the choices women can make.

That is pure statistics, not even getting into the morality of pushing your choices onto someone else being a fundamental opposition to one of the highest values in this country.. namely freedom.

correlation does not equal causation

Becuase a fetus is, by definition a potential human, not a human. AT some point, it becomes close enough to a human that it attains most of the rights of a born human, but we are talking about 3 months.. and very serious situations after that.

so killing a fetus is kinda bad? but not as bad as murder?

so how many fetus' lives, hypothetically, equal one fully grown human's life? how about aborting triplets? is that worse than a singe murder? is it even worse than being pregnant for 9 months?

LOL, LOL, LOL
And you, who will NEVER have to face anything like that choice, who don't know what is happening in each woman's life, who cannot possibly take the time to understand why each woman might decide the best thing is not to carry a child.. YOU get to decide that over the woman who DOES understand all that?

Like I said.. pretty arrogant.

No, it just has to do with a decision that no man ever really has to make, but so many men seem to think they are oh so educated upon.

And you, by-the-way are no great speaker there. You yourself said some pretty condescending things in previous threads on this. Not as bad as many, but not great either. The problem here is that you CANNOT truly understand and walk in someone else's shoes unless you have been through this. You have not. You never will. You have no right to tell women who have how they ought to act, because you don't really know everything there is to know about the various situations.

To the point you do, OTHER steps are far, far more effective.. some women use abortions like birth control.. make birth control more readily available, beginning with increased education so that women who have decided to have sex AND decide they don't want kids can not get pregnant.

Women having sex too casually (don't even try to pretend this isn't a big part of the debate) -- don't agree with people's choices, you can educate and debate. But in our society, you don't get to dictate.

Women aborting because their children will have major health issues they plain don't feel they can handle-- how about not cutting welfare, food subsidies, healthcare coverage, etc, etc, etc.

ALSO, a big one you like to pretend just doesn't happen. While you can point to a few women convinced not to have an abortion who went on to successfull raise their healthy children, there are plenty who are truly NOT up to the job, who's children do not wind up happy and healthy. There is a far cry from convincing someone and FORCING someone. Children of women who were FORCED not to have an abortion do not, contrary to what you seem to think always have the greatest of lives. In fact, they often do not.

Like I have said before, death is not a terrible thing for a Christian, so why do you fight so strongly against death. The worst thing that might happen to these children is not to not be born, its to live... and suffer.

yes, i do get to decide when murder is wrong, because i'm a human and i'd like other members of my species to survive. quit being sexist.

again, am i not qualified to condemn african genocides just because i don't live in africa? why does my lack of direct involvement prevent me from making a moral judgment? nobody ever answered this question.

[PLAYER57832]

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in abortion debates anymore, but Player your post is absurd.

In this case, ALL of those so impacted are women.

- Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Until men can get pregnant, this IS about women.

Women having sex too casually (don't even try to pretend this isn't a big part of the debate) -- don't agree with people's choices, you can educate and debate. But in our society, you don't get to dictate.

- The government always dictates. Always. In everything. And the majority nearly always dictates to the rest.

The government dictates freedom. This is oppression.

most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus with a truly great chance at a good life.

- Completely incorrect and not based on any facts. You keep making this absurd claim and I keep providing you links. Where is your data that "most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus?"
[[/quote] Actually, I did and have, INCLUDING the one you post here. You, to contrast posted "data" that was not even supported by the documents cited, never mind agreeing with other data http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
--

wants to ignore virtually all pregnancy related statistics

- Yes, namely you.[/quote]
Funny, coming from someone who posted a link I ALREADY POSTED.. .and who claimed to post refuting data, but instead posted at least one link that was just empty, with nothing to link to ... and another that had data that did not even agree with the papers it cited as proof.

You need to do more than just read the quick google synopse and think you understand the article

[thegreekdog]

Issue One: Abortion does not impact men.

The way I understand pregnancy is that a man and woman have sexual intercourse whereby the woman is impregnated by the man. The resulting zygote/fetus/pre-human is an amalgamation of the man and the woman. The woman carries the child to term (or not) and delivers the baby. When the baby is born it is the responsibility, generally, of both the father and the mother to care for the baby.

In a scenario where the man would not like to raise and care for the child and the woman does (or vice versa) how does abortion not also impact the man?

Issue Two: The government should not dictate what people can do with their own bodies

Government creates laws. Laws are created to protect people and property (ostensibly). Among the laws protecting people from themselves are laws against drug use, laws against suidice, laws against public intoxication, as well as any number of regulations regarding what kind of food and drink we can eat and when and what kinds of things we can do with and to our bodies. These laws and regulations are generally justified with a cost-benefit analysis or some sort of moral justification. For example, we cannot use drugs because drugs are bad. For example, we cannot drink soda in Philadelphia because soda is bad and healthcare costs from people who drink soda are bad. Most of these laws are only tangentially related to harming other people (for example, we cannot do drugs because that may cause us to harm others).

Restricting abortion is a law that would restrict what someone would do to their own body (and impacts a zygote/fetus/pre-human, but that's not what I am discussing here). Therefore, it is perfectly in light with many other laws and regulations we have in this country that deals with restricting what we can do with our own bodies.

Issue Three: Most abortions are to protect the woman

I linked to a study. Here are the statistics from the link. This wasn't a "quick google search that led to a conclusion." This is data. Numbers. Statistics.

Underlying Reasons for Abortion

This is for the United States only:

Wants to postpone childbearing - 25.5%
Wants no (more) children - 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby - 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job - 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy - 14.1%
Too young; parents or others object to pregnancy - 12.2%
Risk to maternal health - 2.8%
Risk to fetal health - 3.3%
Other - 2.1%

Of the reasons why women have abortions, health risks make up 6.1%. This is not "many." In fact, these are the smallest amounts of any other reasons.

[PLAYER57832]

Issue One: Abortion does not impact men.

The way I understand pregnancy is that a man and woman have sexual intercourse whereby the woman is impregnated by the man. The resulting zygote/fetus/pre-human is an amalgamation of the man and the woman. The woman carries the child to term (or not) and delivers the baby. When the baby is born it is the responsibility, generally, of both the father and the mother to care for the baby.

When born, but until born, it exists in the mother's body. Furthermore, at the time indicated, its truly up to the woman whether she even TELLS the man she is pregnant.

In a scenario where the man would not like to raise and care for the child and the woman does (or vice versa) how does abortion not also impact the man?

Working in an attorney's office, you ought to be pretty good at exact wording.

The issue of whether to abort a child in the first 3 months is up to a woman. Later, you are claiming that a man's imagined hope of a child is somehow balanced against a woman's real medical, experiential choices AND her hopes of a child and/or other type of life.

Also, do remember that this whole discussion emerged from whether a women should have the right to abort after a rape.... and the purely esoteric debate (for which I took the "devil's advocate" position that a woman might well have reasons to wish to not have a part rapist/part her child living).

Issue Two: The government should not dictate what people can do with their own bodies

Government creates laws. Laws are created to protect people and property (ostensibly). Among the laws protecting people from themselves are laws against drug use, laws against suidice, laws against public intoxication, as well as any number of regulations regarding what kind of food and drink we can eat and when and what kinds of things we can do with and to our bodies. These laws and regulations are generally justified with a cost-benefit analysis or some sort of moral justification. For example, we cannot use drugs because drugs are bad. For example, we cannot drink soda in Philadelphia because soda is bad and healthcare costs from people who drink soda are bad. Most of these laws are only tangentially related to harming other people (for example, we cannot do drugs because that may cause us to harm others).

Restricting abortion is a law that would restrict what someone would do to their own body (and impacts a zygote/fetus/pre-human, but that's not what I am discussing here). Therefore, it is perfectly in light with many other laws and regulations we have in this country that deals with restricting what we can do with our own bodies.

and yet....
forcing someone to take on a lifetime responsibility that involves a very real risk of death or physical trauma (that is medical-ease for injury), not to mention fiscal/emotional and physical responsibility for life... you think that equates to telling someone not to eat so much fat that they have illness and we have to pay for their medical care?

Issue Three: Most abortions are to protect the woman

I linked to a study. Here are the statistics from the link. This wasn't a "quick google search that led to a conclusion." This is data. Numbers. Statistics.

Excpet, that is not what I said, in that context.

The reasons are multiple.. and I ALSO linked that study earlier.

Underlying Reasons for Abortion

This is for the United States only:

Wants to postpone childbearing - 25.5%
Wants no (more) children - 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby - 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job - 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy - 14.1%
Too young; parents or others object to pregnancy - 12.2%
Risk to maternal health - 2.8%
Risk to fetal health - 3.3%
Other - 2.1%

Of the reasons why women have abortions, health risks make up 6.1%. This is not "many." In fact, these are the smallest amounts of any other reasons.

EXCEPT.. I never limited my discussion to life threatening health risks. Further, you need to look into how those figures were achieved. Like I said, I not only read, but cited that study AND many others earlier. I believe I even mentioned you specifically in that post....
For example, "cannot afford", "wants no more children", "too young", etc can all include very serious situations, not just what you wish to call "spurious choices". Facing the fact that having a child will mean giving up a career (and no.. don't try to tell ME about how easy it is to just go back into the field, or to take another occupation. I am not working in a cafeteria because it was my favorite job choice. Fact is, I had kids and THAT is a big part of why I am where I am now!!!!). But, like I said, you have to read the full article .. and you could have paid attention the time I posted a link to that very article.

**** However, let me clarify one thing. I used data in other datas as my source. I did cite them earlier, and explained what they said.

[thegreekdog]

So, let me make sure I get it straight. It's hard to figure out all your qualifiers.

(1) Abortion doesn't affect men - If a woman is impregnated by a man and she has an abortion, the man no longer has a child. How does this not affect the man? The baby is not born; the man doesn't have a child. That's affects the man. I'm not saying a man's "want for a child" outweighs a woman's right to choose. I'm saying... again... and in big type... ABORTION AFFECTS MEN.

(2) Government doesn't tell people what to do - I'm glad you agree with me that government does people what to do. You have the wherewithal to pick and choose what you think the government should dictate to us.

(3) You did. You said, literally, "most women have abortions for health reasons." That is not correct.

[PLAYER57832]

So, let me make sure I get it straight. It's hard to figure out all your qualifiers.

(1) Abortion doesn't affect men - If a woman is impregnated by a man and she has an abortion, the man no longer has a child. How does this not affect the man? The baby is not born; the man doesn't have a child. That's affects the man. I'm not saying a man's "want for a child" outweighs a woman's right to choose. I'm saying... again... and in big type... ABORTION AFFECTS MEN.

No. I said that limiting abortions, particularly as discussed when I made that statement is about women, not men. Denying women the right to make that decision IS about women, not men.

(2) Government doesn't tell people what to do - I'm glad you agree with me that government does people what to do. You have the wherewithal to pick and choose what you think the government should dictate to us.

Funny.
Again, try some context. Nightstrike, you keep trying to assert that mandating insurance coverage is some big moral violation of employers rights. I say that is a plain ludicrous assertion, the person being insured, NOT the employer is the important person. And, the employer is only paying a portion of the insurance and does so because health coverage overall is considered important enough that it has been mandated (but let me say, I have long argued that insurance should not be through employers at all!).

Tellling a women she cannot have an abortion requires her to get into some VERY personal and VERY detailed issues. Its not your business, or Nightstrikes or her employers or anyone else's business, except her doctor.

(3) You did. You said, literally, "most women have abortions for health reasons." That is not correct.

First, it would be nice if you quoted what I actually said instead of paraphrasing.
There are 2 reasons why you have not proven me wrong:
#1 you are looking at only one study. I looked at many, and CITED them, earlier. You may LIKE this report more, but that doesn't make it more valid than other studies.
#2 Even this study does not contradict what I said as much as you think, when you go down into how that data was accumulated. Health reasons, by my definition, means not just that there might be a problem with the fetus, but that she has concerns for herself.

I wish I had time to go dig all this up AGAIN, but right now, I don't.

[thegreekdog]

Wheeee! Round and round we go (again).

I understand that perhaps you were thinking something different than what you wrote, but this is what you've typed. As I am not a mind-reader, I can only argue with what you type.

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in abortion debates anymore, but Player your post is absurd.

In this case, ALL of those so impacted are women.

- Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Women having sex too casually (don't even try to pretend this isn't a big part of the debate) -- don't agree with people's choices, you can educate and debate. But in our society, you don't get to dictate.

- The government always dictates. Always. In everything. And the majority nearly always dictates to the rest.

most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus with a truly great chance at a good life.

- Completely incorrect and not based on any facts. You keep making this absurd claim and I keep providing you links. Where is your data that "most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus?"

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

wants to ignore virtually all pregnancy related statistics

- Yes, namely you.

[PLAYER57832]

Wheeee! Round and round we go (again).

I understand that perhaps you were thinking something different than what you wrote, but this is what you've typed. As I am not a mind-reader, I can only argue with what you type.

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in abortion debates anymore, but Player your post is absurd.

In this case, ALL of those so impacted are women.

- Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Women having sex too casually (don't even try to pretend this isn't a big part of the debate) -- don't agree with people's choices, you can educate and debate. But in our society, you don't get to dictate.

- The government always dictates. Always. In everything. And the majority nearly always dictates to the rest.

most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus with a truly great chance at a good life.

- Completely incorrect and not based on any facts. You keep making this absurd claim and I keep providing you links. Where is your data that "most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus?"

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

wants to ignore virtually all pregnancy related statistics

- Yes, namely you.

Yeah.... forget that I provided a whole series of links, forget that most of that discussion had to do with women who were raped and other specific situations, forget most of the context.....

Just pick out a few key phrases and pretend that you are actually debating something. MUCH easier than really paying attention and bothering to actually understand any opposing position.

[thegreekdog]

Wheeee! Round and round we go (again).

I understand that perhaps you were thinking something different than what you wrote, but this is what you've typed. As I am not a mind-reader, I can only argue with what you type.

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in abortion debates anymore, but Player your post is absurd.

In this case, ALL of those so impacted are women.

- Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Women having sex too casually (don't even try to pretend this isn't a big part of the debate) -- don't agree with people's choices, you can educate and debate. But in our society, you don't get to dictate.

- The government always dictates. Always. In everything. And the majority nearly always dictates to the rest.

most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus with a truly great chance at a good life.

- Completely incorrect and not based on any facts. You keep making this absurd claim and I keep providing you links. Where is your data that "most abortions are not of truly healthy fetus?"

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

wants to ignore virtually all pregnancy related statistics

- Yes, namely you.

Yeah.... forget that I provided a whole series of links, forget that most of that discussion had to do with women who were raped and other specific situations, forget most of the context.....

Just pick out a few key phrases and pretend that you are actually debating something. MUCH easier than really paying attention and bothering to actually understand any opposing position.

I'm not debating anything. There is nothing to debate. You are incorrect. To put it into context, I'm pro-choice (when it comes to government regulation over abortion) and I'm STILL criticizing the way you argue. You continue to make blanket statements without qualifiers or evidence, pass them off as fact, and denigrate those who do present you facts by saying "you just don't understand." That's not how to have an effective discussion. I think you're forgetting the context.

[tzor]

Do you really want to perpetuate the genes of a rapist?

Don't scare me like that. You're better than spouting off some eugenist cow manure about how "rape" is somehow "genetic." And that they have to be removed form the gene pool.

Genes don't rape people! People rape people! Genes are innocent!

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not debating anything. There is nothing to debate. You are incorrect. To put it into context, I'm pro-choice (when it comes to government regulation over abortion) and I'm STILL criticizing the way you argue. You continue to make blanket statements without qualifiers or evidence, pass them off as fact, and denigrate those who do present you facts by saying "you just don't understand." That's not how to have an effective discussion. I think you're forgetting the context.

No, in fact I very much HAVE provided evidence.. actually cited the very article you claimed provided proof what I was saying was wrong.. but you choose to ignore that, come in late in the discussion,and pick out a few phrases said in a specific context to a specific line of debate and start criticizing.

Its not my "style" to which you object, its my content.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not debating anything. There is nothing to debate. You are incorrect. To put it into context, I'm pro-choice (when it comes to government regulation over abortion) and I'm STILL criticizing the way you argue. You continue to make blanket statements without qualifiers or evidence, pass them off as fact, and denigrate those who do present you facts by saying "you just don't understand." That's not how to have an effective discussion. I think you're forgetting the context.

No, in fact I very much HAVE provided evidence.. actually cited the very article you claimed provided proof what I was saying was wrong.. but you choose to ignore that, come in late in the discussion,and pick out a few phrases said in a specific context to a specific line of debate and start criticizing.

But yeah. go ahead and pretend you are being effective. You are. Just not honest.

No, see here is what you do. You have some point you are trying to make (men want to force women not to have abortions; it's about controlling a woman's body). In order to make that point, you have some preconceived notions (most women have abortions when the baby is unhealthy or when it is unhealthy for the woman to have the baby). And in order to support your point, you either don't provide evidence or provide evidence incorrectly (you link to a website that shows 6% of women have abortions for health reasons and 94% have abortions for non-health reasons).

On the other hand, I'm not making any judgment calls. I don't believe the government should tell women what to do with respect to abortion, regardless of the underlying reason for the abortion. The statistics matter little to me except that they don't prove your point at all.