A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[koshergrl]

Nor do conservatives have such low regard for women who legally obtain abortion as the left...we do not assume they will go ahead and break the law if it is illegal. We trust they are reasonable people who will adhere to the law, and not seek illegal abortions.

We think more highly of the poor and minority populations than you do, apparently.

 

[LaterTrader]

You idiot, do you know what Guttmacher's is?

I know and have supplied them with data. What have YOU done?

By the way, your statistics quoted, about 15 years out-of-date.

Did you bother to find out how many women die these days giving birth? Almost twice the incidence you cited for abortions, three times as much in some coutries. And many of their babies are born still-born.

 

[koshergrl]

Are you impaired? Because you seem to be.

Where are your stats? You keep whining about them, provide some.

 

[koshergrl]

You idiot, do you know what Guttmacher's is?

I know and have supplied them with data. What have YOU done?

By the way, your statistics quoted, about 15 years out-of-date.

Did you bother to find out how many women die these days giving birth? Almost twice the incidence you cited for abortions, three times as much in some coutries. And many of their babies are born still-born.

And the stats are the most recent that there are on the Guttmacher's site, which is the site that puts together the data from PP.

You must have missed the date...which was August 2011.

 

[LaterTrader]

Conservatives have never viewed the prevention of murder or other crime as "government interference".

Of course the left does.

Two false statements in a row. First, killing innocent people in Iraq with bombs was NEVER a problem with conservatives who voted for idiot Bush.

Second, "the left" tries to prevent crimes like abortion with sex education, condoms, pills, and, if all else fails, abortions over child abuse.

 

[koshergrl]

Like I said, best way in the world to attract ignorant crazies, yada yada.

 

[Valerie]

I think it's purely for selfish reasons for the most part.

If a person is selfish enough to kill her unborn child, do you really want her raising it?

Those aren't the only options, and never have been.

We as a society present them as the only options, however, and it's lying to do so.

Looking for a Nanny State, are you............?





And speaking of lying, why do you call pro-choice advocates "on the side of the butchers" and "pro-abortion"...............?

 

[koshergrl]

Because that's what you are. People who lie in order to make killing babies legal.

I've provided stats and facts, from the only site that has stats and facts, a pro-abortion site.

You all have provided nothing but lies and hysterical rantings.

I win.

 

[Valerie]

Because that's what you are. People who lie in order to make killing babies legal.

I've provided stats and facts, from the only site that has stats and facts, a pro-abortion site.

You all have provided nothing but lies and hysterical rantings.

I win.

You keep telling yourself that... You win a cupcake!

 

[koshergrl]

Thanks, I'll take it.

Still waiting for something that shows that 48 percent of all women who get partial birth abortions get them because their lives are in danger.

Also trying to figure out why the Guttmacher Institute uses stats that are 15 years out of date, and how that can be verified?

After all, they get their numbers straight from PP...why on earth are they so woefully old??

Hmmmm...

 

[LaterTrader]

Because that's what you are. People who lie in order to make killing babies legal.

I've provided stats and facts, from the only site that has stats and facts, a pro-abortion site.

You all have provided nothing but lies and hysterical rantings.

I win.

Actually, you LOSE! You quote mine, you make stuff up, use 15-20 year old statistics, and insult your opponent in debate. If I were a judge of a high school debate, that is what I would expect, and you would lose the debate.

Here's what you need to learn in your obviously educationally challenged life: You don't win debates on statisitics alone. You have to work any facts and statistics into a coherent argument pro or anti. You also have to use your argument IN CONTEXT, not blindly, or in general arguments for or against.

Your particular statistics could have been used to keep automobiles off the road. They are too broad, too general, too imprecise.

People die, some people die here, some people die THERE! The issue is what is the best, least offensive, most humane, and most reasonable, rational way to regulate the highways? Do we allow people to drive at 90 MPH, or do we restrict them all to 40 MPH?

At 40 MPH, hardly anybody dies driving. At 90 MPH, almost 1/3 of people die in a few years. Going further, using your level of imprecision, statistics that people die driving at 40-80 mph mean nothing.......we need a more precise instrument to determine what policy we should have on the roadways. Do we stop all people from driving? Do we only restrict men, women, (pregnant women?.... trying to keep your attention here!!)

About 1% of women who die on the roadways of America are PREGNANT! Should we have taken their driver's license away?

I do hope you take a college course in statistical analysis before you die.

Right now, your argument is as imprecise as this: people die on US highways, driving 90 MPH, therefore, we should stop all people from driving anywhere at any time.

 

[koshergrl]

Ok..again, please show me verification that the stats are 15 years out of date, and where to get more accurate numbers? Since these come straight from PP?

Not that you've shown they're 15 years out. But do go on .

And please show where you've gotten the stat that 48 percent of all partial birth abortions are performed to save the mother. You keep dodging that, as well.

Loon.

 

[koshergrl]

And if you don't acknowledge planned parenthood numbers one wonders where you propose we get the stats on abortions? You say you compile those numbers..where do you get them from?

 

[LaterTrader]

Ok..again, please show me verification that the stats are 15 years out of date, and where to get more accurate numbers? Since these come straight from PP?

Not that you've shown they're 15 years out. But do go on .

And please show where you've gotten the stat that 48 percent of all partial birth abortions are performed to save the mother. You keep dodging that, as well.

Loon.

do your own research, after you have taken a course in statistical analysis.

Google "partial birth abortions", and look for actual statistics, "threats to life of mother", statistics from 2000 and on. 49-50% were done because of a threat to the life of the mother, (of 2% of all abortions) so about 1% were because the life of the child was one of extreme suffering if viable out of womb. Try to do some honest research, and not rely upon 1990 worldwide statistics, stick with the USA, since you probably live here.

Be sure you have a degree in medicine first, know how the internal workings of a woman's body work when pregnant, and are an OB-GYN, so you know all the complications of pregnancy. Absent that, why would you consider yourself an "expert" on other women's lives?

'Partial-Birth Abortion:' Separating Fact from Spin : NPR

"But "partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one, and a highly confusing one at that, with both sides disagreeing even on how many procedures take place, at what point in pregnancy, and exactly which procedures the law actually bans.

So to better understand the facts behind the controversy, we asked NPR health correspondent Julie Rovner to explain the origins of both the name and the procedure.

Where does the term "partial-birth" abortion come from?

The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. Alternately known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal."

"Dilation and extraction abortions- an estimated total of 31 providers performed the procedure 2,200 times in 2000, and 0.17% of all abortions performed in that year used this method. "

REAL Statistics

 

[Valerie]

Why do women abort their babies?

I understand there may be an ample number of reasons, but what, in your opinion would be the concensus?

I think it's purely for selfish reasons for the most part.

Your thoughts.

usually it's because they are sluts !!

Hey, election time approaches again, people...




Time for phony "conservatives" to label pro-choice women selfish sluts, single mothers immoral bitches, poor people lazy bums, and gay people eeevil!!!

 

[koshergrl]

Ok..again, please show me verification that the stats are 15 years out of date, and where to get more accurate numbers? Since these come straight from PP?

Not that you've shown they're 15 years out. But do go on .

And please show where you've gotten the stat that 48 percent of all partial birth abortions are performed to save the mother. You keep dodging that, as well.

Loon.

do your own research, after you have taken a course in statistical analysis.

Google "partial birth abortions", and look for actual statistics, "threats to life of mother", statistics from 2000 and on. 49-50% were done because of a threat to the life of the mother, (of 2% of all abortions) so about 1% were because the life of the child was one of extreme suffering if viable out of womb. Try to do some honest research, and not rely upon 1990 worldwide statistics, stick with the USA, since you probably live here.

Be sure you have a degree in medicine first, know how the internal workings of a woman's body work when pregnant, and are an OB-GYN, so you know all the complications of pregnancy. Absent that, why would you consider yourself an "expert" on other women's lives?

'Partial-Birth Abortion:' Separating Fact from Spin : NPR

"But "partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one, and a highly confusing one at that, with both sides disagreeing even on how many procedures take place, at what point in pregnancy, and exactly which procedures the law actually bans.

So to better understand the facts behind the controversy, we asked NPR health correspondent Julie Rovner to explain the origins of both the name and the procedure.

Where does the term "partial-birth" abortion come from?

The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. Alternately known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal."

"Dilation and extraction abortions- an estimated total of 31 providers performed the procedure 2,200 times in 2000, and 0.17% of all abortions performed in that year used this method. "

REAL Statistics

Lol..you're an idiot.
Thanks for verifying that, at least.

 

[koshergrl]

thank you for admitting you think planned parenthood doesn't provide reliable stats, incidentally. I concurr.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Still waiting for something that shows that 48 percent of all women who get partial birth abortions get them because their lives are in danger.

And we’re still waiting for a response as to how exactly conservatives plan on ‘banning abortion,’ how this position doesn’t violate conservative ‘small government’ dogma, and provide case law in support of opposition to privacy rights:

A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus. A statute with this purpose is invalid because the means chosen by the State to further the interest in potential life must be calculated to inform the woman's free choice, not hinder it. And a statute which, while furthering the interest in potential life or some other valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman's choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

 

[koshergrl]

Already addressed.

Right to privacy doesn't trump the right to live. Murderers aren't guaranteed privacy to commit murder.

And it isn't considered "government interference" when it comes to protecting people from crime...it isn't government interference when the government inflicts punishment for theft, burglary, assault or murder. You seem not to understand the difference between anarchists and conservatives. Perhaps you should read up and save yourself further embarassment.

 

[LaterTrader]

Already addressed.

Right to privacy doesn't trump the right to live. Murderers aren't guaranteed privacy to commit murder.

And it isn't considered "government interference" when it comes to protecting people from crime...it isn't government interference when the government inflicts punishment for theft, burglary, assault or murder. You seem not to understand the difference between anarchists and conservatives. Perhaps you should read up and save yourself further embarassment.

Kosher girl, please learn how to post here. Post in response to someone's comments! Don't think ANYONE wants to read whatever you have to say, and whatever YOUR empty mind comes up with. We don't read your mind, and we know there's NOT much there to read, either, since you cannot seem to reply precisely to whatever post came before yours to which you wish to respond.

If you can state your total opposition to capital punishment, your opposition to all wars anywhere any time, we might think you are serious about being against crime and abortion. Otherwise, we know you are an overweight, 55 year old, probably a man, wanting to control other people's lives, never known an unwanted pregnancy. You think only YOUR opinions are important in the USA. How arrogant.