It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[sakinago]

Why would I respond to your issues? They’re all excuses not issues. Fetus is alive, you can’t change that no matter how many times you wish to. People are expected to be responsible for themselves correct?

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the **** did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What am I lying about? Point it out.

The causes of abortion are not using birth control when you should’ve. Using birth control means abortion is unecasary. Taking a pill once a day is not like trying to budget for your retirement. We could easily train pigeons to take a pill once a day, and that’s not even the easiest type of birth control to use. If you don’t want kids, and are having sex, use birth control. You won’t need an abortion. Ta-da problem solved.

 

[miketx]

 

[jc456]

Why would I respond to your issues? They’re all excuses not issues. Fetus is alive, you can’t change that no matter how many times you wish to. People are expected to be responsible for themselves correct?

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the **** did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What the fk is causes for abortion mean exactly? It means killing a living organism against its will.

 

[jc456]

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the **** did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What am I lying about? Point it out.

The causes of abortion are not using birth control when you should’ve. Using birth control means abortion is unecasary. Taking a pill once a day is not like trying to budget for your retirement. We could easily train pigeons to take a pill once a day, and that’s not even the easiest type of birth control to use. If you don’t want kids, and are having sex, use birth control. You won’t need an abortion. Ta-da problem solved.

Again, leftists have no respect for women

 

[jc456]

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the **** did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What the fk is causes for abortion mean exactly? It means killing a living organism against its will.

Yo can you hear a heartbeat? Hmmmm?

 

[buttercup]

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the **** did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What am I lying about? Point it out.

The causes of abortion are not using birth control when you should’ve. Using birth control means abortion is unecasary. Taking a pill once a day is not like trying to budget for your retirement. We could easily train pigeons to take a pill once a day, and that’s not even the easiest type of birth control to use. If you don’t want kids, and are having sex, use birth control. You won’t need an abortion. Ta-da problem solved.

Sorry to chime in here. I just wanted to say that although I agree with most of your posts, I don't think it's a good idea to put all your faith in birth control. Birth control fails, even in the best of times. And of course many young people who are irresponsible don't always use it properly, if at all. I think the problem is that young people have been receiving the wrong message… The message that it's perfectly acceptable to be sexually active even if you're nowhere near ready to be a parent. The unspoken message from proaborts is that sex and it's life giving potential are two completely separate things… and that is akin to encouraging kids to play Russian Roulette. It gives them a false sense of security, and then when the baby comes into the picture, they are shocked and act as if they don't know how it happened. It's as if people have brainwashed to think that sex is nothing but a recreational activity, completely forgetting that it is the act that brings about new human beings.

I highly recommend listening to this talk: http://jenniferfulwiler.com/wp-cont...ulwiler-pro-choice-to-pro-life-conversion.mp3 In fact, I wish everyone would listen to it. Because clearly what society has been doing for the last few decades is not working.

 

[sakinago]

I’ve already said before in this thread, on your first period, you send a form into government, what BC you want, gets delivered to your door (or procedure paid for) automatically. Then say bye bye to abortion.

The fact that it still will happen doesn’t make it less than a crime. You could say the exact same thing for murder. But it’s not going to be driven underground to a heavy degree at all. Rare cases here and there, for people that can afford it (it’s going to be stupid expensive, this isn’t Botox injections we’re talking about) and still stupid enough to not use BC. That’s a fair compromise, no excuse for abortion (we’ll allow the .00001% cases of incest and rape). Don’t start with the BC failure shit either, we’re talking 99.9% efficacy rates outside of non-chemical IUDs that are still very effective. (which just means legal lingo for covering our ass if you did not use correctly). If you’re worried about condoms breaking, use lube...way easier problem to solve than getting an abortion. Take your pills, get mirena, use a condom, they’re free and delivered to your door when you need them.

That is quite an unhinged rant that completely fails to address the issue that I raised and exposed your delusion that outlawing abortion will end abortion. It is not just about birth control either. To be clear, I am not "pro abortion" I am pro choice. There is a big difference.

My question to you was, and still is : Are you really pro life? Again, these are the questions that I asked which you avoided.

Do you support......

Meaningful and comprehensive sex education
Readily available and affordable birth control
Universal health care'
Affordable Housing
Nutritional programs such as food stamps'
Affordable pre school and day care
A living minimum wage
Laws against discrimination.

This is a test to prove that you are really pro life as opposed to being "pro fetus" like most of you hysterical anti abortion people are.

There’s nothing unhinged about what I said. Whenever you hear this type of ridiculous characterization, like “unhinged”, you know you’re hovering over the target, because someone sound in their beliefs doesn’t have to resort to tactics like that and the rest of your entire deflectionary, red herring response that followed. Your issues are putting the cart, and an entire engineless RV before the horse. Whether or not a fetus is human life takes priority over anything else...because if it is, abortion is killing human life. So, if it is killing, we need to stop it obviously. It’s like not including the people who stopped looking for work, or who work part time hoping for something better into the unemployment numbers (which we still do). You’re not addressing the issue at hand when you do that...except in this case it’s life and death.

I’ll answer your stupid, red herring questions once, then no more. This is the stupidest tactic I’ve ever heard of BTW, calling people who think a fetus is human life pro-death because they don’t 100% agree with Bernie Sanders. Outrageous, and you need to grow up and have an honest conversation for once. Anyway moving on.

Meaningful comprehensive sex education, yes. Where specifically does it fail now? And how would you improve it? I’m open to any suggestions.

Available and affordable BC. I just answered that, this will be me third time now. I’m all for government sending the pill straight to your door or paying for your IUD. All for free. Why you’d have to ask that again is beyond me, unless you don’t really listen, or read, and this is a cookie cutter response. It isn’t like it’s not readily available and un-affordable now. It might be one of the most available and affordable things out there. Coffee might have it beat, but not much else. Any place that sells aspirin (very affordable and available by any metric you want to use) will also sell condoms for cheaper. There’s still vending machines with condoms in ******* bathrooms, that’s pretty damn available. You can go to a pharmacy, any pharmacy, they’re everywhere, and pick up pills for 40 bucks I think. That’ll last you a month and is just about the same cost as using a condom every day. So what exactly is so unaffordable, and unavailable with birth control now?

I’m for universal health care, but that doesn’t mean what I’m guessing you think it means. We should go with the Swiss system, that also happens to be the best in the world, by far. Look it up, I’m sure you’re confusing universal with single payer. Single payer may be fine and dandy for the average person with a cold, or basically anything treatable by a general practitioner, but blows for anyone who needs specialized care. This is why virtually all the countries that have single payer systems, still have private health insurance industries for people who can afford it. If single payer was so wonderful, private insurance obviously would not be needed, and there wouldn’t be a two tier system. At best, socialism is the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Again this is when it is run effectively, with people who truly care. Sounds fine and dandy up until you realize that for the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people (utilitarianism), means that by necessity, you need to overlook the minority. The minority when it comes to healthcare are people who need specialized care. Something that the Swiss and US systems have the absolute best in world of, and something that’s pretty lacking in the countries with single payer systems, although you don’t hear too much complaint because it’s a minority. Moving on

Affordable housing. Even with our stupidly inflated housing prices, we have some of the most affordable housing out there. The average home size in America is 2500 sq ft. Contrast that to Europe, where the average is 900 sq ft. So do you want a government that’s already overextended that adds a trillion in debt a year, to make that an average of 3000 sq ft? They can’t cover the entitlements already in place, but sure let’s just give our children more debt, hopefully we’ll be dead by that time.

Pre school. Women gained the right to have full time jobs, now it’s expected of them to have full time jobs in our economy. They lost the right to stay at home with the kids. That’s the current state of affairs. Good for the 20% of women who want to work full time, really shitty for the other 20% who want to be housewives, and also difficult for the rest of the 60% in between who want to have plenty of family time, but want to work as well. If you want to put the financial burden of full time healthcare for free on everyone, it’s going to be really shitty for 80% of women paying for the 20% who want to work full time and have free daycare.

Food stamps already exist. They’re heavily used as well. Used in a way that suggest we never pulled out of the recession properly.

“Living minimum wage”. Show me an instance where this isn’t a job killer and I’ll be aboard. All that does is create less hires, and raises cost of goods. But yea, an 18 year old fry cook deserves 17$ an hour...no, what they need to do instead is get technical training for things like welding if college isn’t the best option for them. There’s tons of the technical jobs out there, but we send all our kids to college that maybe shouldn’t who’ll either drop out, choose a major for a career that doesn’t exist/disappearing, and then are saddled with debt, and go back to their minimum wage job. This is all a bit more nuanced, and a much more complex problem than a simple solution like “well just give them more money” can fix.

We already have laws against discrimination, so this is another idiotic topic that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or claims that anyone who doesn’t agree with Bernie 100% is pro-death. That’s about as silly as it gets. Can we talk about the real topic that actually involves potentially life and death decisions?

Thank you once again for clearly demonstrating that you are not prolife and in fact bend over backwards to find excuses to trash programs and policies that could and do actually make the lives of children better and encourage women to carry a child to term. ******* hypocrite!!

That’s more of what an “unhinged” response looks like. I laid out my reasons why I don’t agree with all your red herring solutions. Not in a complete way as possible, because I don’t want to spend that much effort on red herrings. You didn’t address any of those reasons, and skipped right on over into I’m a “******* hypocrite”.

What will help women have better lives for them and their children, is to use birth control, and wait to have kids when your ready. It helps if you have a dedicated partner to help out with kids too. That’s whats going to help the most, there’s a shit ton of evidence for that, outside of the obvious that is wait for kids when you’re ready, and two parents are better than one most of the time. Do you hear me calling you a hypocrite because I don’t hear you aspousing those views first? No. Because it’s a stupid and unfair line of reasoning. Just like it’s stupid to believe that government is able to cover for all the irresponsible choices people make in a way that actually addresses the root problem, or in a way that doesn’t cost the US witnin a decade triple the amount of money that’s actually circulating around the globe (that’s coming from Vox btw).

More than half of the women getting abortions are already married or cohabiting with the father in a committed relationship do that argument is also a red herring.

13% of the women profess to be evangelicals and 2/3 profess to be Christian of some denomination or other.

But fully 80% profess to be POOR.

So because HALF are at least cohabiting with the father...therefore my point about it being easier to raise a kid with two parents than it is with one is a red herring and is therefore false, got it. Even though that point about two parents was secondary to my main point, which was use birth control until you are ready for kids. And these points were in response to a red herring combined with a strawman that goes something like this, “you’re not allowed to talk about anything else in abortion, unless you talk about these secondary issues first that are basically Bernie’s talking points, and if you don’t profess that you agree with everything Bernie says, you want to see people die and are a hypocrite.”

And I’m apparently the intellectually dishonest one when the only response to the main issue, of is a fetus human life, if so, what to do about it, is the red herring combined with the straw man up above, and ONE single a priori fallacy that “it’s just different, because I say so.”

I’m going to have to create a new thread in CDZ or something, list all the logical fallacies with definitions and examples, and then prohibit them from use. That would wash away all the talking points from dragon lady and pp, don’t know if they’d have much to say without resorting to logical fallacies.

Speaking of fallacies, I love how you tried to claim my secondary point that was combined with a larger point in response to a red herring, was a red herring...and then proceeded to end your post with another red herring about religion that has zero to do with the topics being discussed. In this new thread Im gonna have to create a color coding, and then highlight all the logical fallacies I see in that color in quotes.

 

[sakinago]

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What am I lying about? Point it out.

The causes of abortion are not using birth control when you should’ve. Using birth control means abortion is unecasary. Taking a pill once a day is not like trying to budget for your retirement. We could easily train pigeons to take a pill once a day, and that’s not even the easiest type of birth control to use. If you don’t want kids, and are having sex, use birth control. You won’t need an abortion. Ta-da problem solved.

Sorry to chime in here. I just wanted to say that although I agree with most of your posts, I don't think it's a good idea to put all your faith in birth control. Birth control fails, even in the best of times. And of course many young people who are irresponsible don't always use it properly, if at all. I think the problem is that young people have been receiving the wrong message… The message that it's perfectly acceptable to be sexually active even if you're nowhere near ready to be a parent. The unspoken message from proaborts is that sex and it's life giving potential are two completely separate things… and that is akin to encouraging kids to play Russian Roulette. It gives them a false sense of security, and then when the baby comes into the picture, they are shocked and act as if they don't know how it happened. It's as if people have brainwashed to think that sex is nothing but a recreational activity, completely forgetting that it is the act that brings about new human beings.

I highly recommend listening to this talk: http://jenniferfulwiler.com/wp-cont...ulwiler-pro-choice-to-pro-life-conversion.mp3 In fact, I wish everyone would listen to it. Because clearly what society has been doing for the last few decades is not working.

I get what you’re saying, but BC failure still isn’t good enough argument. The only type of BC that fail when used properly are non-hormonal. We know hormonal bc is 100% effective because it’s essientially tricking your body into thinking your pregnant, and it’s impossible to become pregnant again once you are pregnant. Condoms can break, to stop that from happening, use lube, or what you should do (for you own greater sexual experience, and because you’ll save some money not using lube), more foreplay, successful foreplay that is. Get that motor warmed up before going pedal to the metal in the dead of winter.

If taking a pill once a day is too hard, or you’re a forgetful person, don’t trust yourself or whatever, get mirena. A one time gyno visit and you’re good for 5 years. No pills, waaaay less periods, nice and easy, won’t need tampons every month.

If you have some sort of clotting disorder, or vessel malformation, you’ll probably need to go non-hormonal. Condoms, or you can get a non-hormonal IUD that has something around a 90% efficacy rate, so just realize it’s pretty good, but you’re still at risk so track your ovulation, use condoms that week and you’ll be good.

You have to remember that the stats on BC not being 100% effective all come from self reporting to medical practictionors asking that question. People lie to medical staff all the time about their unhealthy habits. It’s sort of like students who get a bad grade, because they didn’t study all that much, but try to tell the teacher they studied for hours. They don’t want to seem irresponsible to “authority figures”, or even in front of peers for that matter. I’m an RN, I see it almost daily. And I always think to myself, “we both know I have these things called blood tests, that tell me you’re lying and you still are trying to get one past me?” Same is true for dentist or other not so common medical professionals. I myself probably lie about how often I floss, and I’m sure they think to themselves “yea ok, and I’m jimmy Carson”. So if someone is asked at planned parenthood getting an abortion consult, if they were on birth control, I’m sure there’s plenty who know full well they weren’t using any say, “oh totally, I dont know how this happened, maybe the condom broke?” (and I somehow didn’t feel the semen, or notice after it was removed) yada yada yada. And the rest used it improperly, didn’t take a pill once a day. Probably would of had to skip at least 2 days in a row, and just happen to have sex, during their ovulation, on that second day. I don’t even know how realistic that scenario is, I imagine it take longer for the corpus Luteum to open up again. Not sure about that.

If used correctly hormonal BC is 100% effective. And it’s not hard to use, a pill, a day, whatever time of the day. That’s about the most difficult version of hormonal BC to use.

 

[Dragonlady]

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the **** did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What am I lying about? Point it out.

The causes of abortion are not using birth control when you should’ve. Using birth control means abortion is unecasary. Taking a pill once a day is not like trying to budget for your retirement. We could easily train pigeons to take a pill once a day, and that’s not even the easiest type of birth control to use. If you don’t want kids, and are having sex, use birth control. You won’t need an abortion. Ta-da problem solved.

The notion that birth will stop all abortions is s lie. But right wingers are also opposed to birth control because it leads to “immoral behaviour”.

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the **** did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What the fk is causes for abortion mean exactly? It means killing a living organism against its will.

A fetus has no will.

For someone who purports to be a nurse, your knowledge of fetal development and the failure rate of birth control is less than that of a layman, and I do mean man. No woman is so ignorant of these things.

 

[sakinago]

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What am I lying about? Point it out.

The causes of abortion are not using birth control when you should’ve. Using birth control means abortion is unecasary. Taking a pill once a day is not like trying to budget for your retirement. We could easily train pigeons to take a pill once a day, and that’s not even the easiest type of birth control to use. If you don’t want kids, and are having sex, use birth control. You won’t need an abortion. Ta-da problem solved.

The notion that birth will stop all abortions is s lie. But right wingers are also opposed to birth control because it leads to “immoral behaviour”.

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What the fk is causes for abortion mean exactly? It means killing a living organism against its will.

A fetus has no will.

For someone who purports to be a nurse, your knowledge of fetal development and the failure rate of birth control is less than that of a layman, and I do mean man. No woman is so ignorant of these things.

I don’t know anyone whose opposed to birth control except maybe old school, hardcore Catholics, and there’s only like 5 of them left. The Catholic Church doesn’t even oppose birth control anymore. I can’t speak for them, they certainly don’t speak for me. And I’ve never heard any of those 5 people say they want to outlaw birth control...this is the part where I’d highlight your statement in whatever color represents a strawman argument in that new thread I really need to make. I don’t know what to tell you other than good luck finding those 5 people who want to outlaw birth control, because they probably don’t know how to use the internet, and go argue with them. I’m not your strawman, I’m actually the exact opposite of your strawman, because I’m all for birth control. Clap clap clap, great way to display that you’re intellectually dishonest.

A fetus has no will? How exactly do you know this? Is it part of an OB/GYN’s job description to give pep talks to fetuses so they don’t off themselves? What is “will” exactly? And is “will” what defines human life to you? Is “will” what gives us our rights? As long as nothing goes wrong, fetuses keep growing, I’d call that “will”. Do animals have “will”? Do newborns have “will”? Because they just seem to eat, piss, shit, and cry. According to atheist, there is no free will, so they’d disagree with your statement that “will” (whatever the hell that abstract term means in your fantasy world) is what defines human life, because we don’t have it. Go ahead and define “will” for us.

And you raging sexist. Listen to you, assuming that just because I’m an RN, I must be a women. Shame. I am a man, male nurse, murse, whatever you want to call me. When was fetal development ever brought up? I’ll answer that, never, at least not in any of the conversations I’ve participated in. And I can garuntee I know more about fetal development than someone who thinks that IQ can be lowered based on how much the mother wanted to have the child. I don’t work in obstetrics, not since clinicals when I was still in school, but I’m pretty confident I still have a leg up in that department over someone who thinks that improper usage of a product, equals a failure of that product. Would you call a taoster defective if you never plugged it in at all? No. So why is it when people don’t take their pills as prescribed, and they don’t get the desired effect, it’s ok to call the pills a “failure”? Pretty sure that’s on the person, not the pills. Your own article even says that yes, hormonal BC is 99.9% effective when taken properly...the most difficult form of hormonal birth control to use is the pill. All you have to do is take one a day. I’ve already stated that condoms can break, and already put out solutions to condoms breaking...lube up, the condom will work. So what did I say that’s false about birth control failure rates? Let’s hear it, you’re making these claims, time to back them up. Point out specifically where I am wrong on fetal development (hint: don’t wast your time on this, it was never discussed), and where I’m wrong on “failure” rates of birth control?

 

[buttercup]

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What am I lying about? Point it out.

The causes of abortion are not using birth control when you should’ve. Using birth control means abortion is unecasary. Taking a pill once a day is not like trying to budget for your retirement. We could easily train pigeons to take a pill once a day, and that’s not even the easiest type of birth control to use. If you don’t want kids, and are having sex, use birth control. You won’t need an abortion. Ta-da problem solved.

Sorry to chime in here. I just wanted to say that although I agree with most of your posts, I don't think it's a good idea to put all your faith in birth control. Birth control fails, even in the best of times. And of course many young people who are irresponsible don't always use it properly, if at all. I think the problem is that young people have been receiving the wrong message… The message that it's perfectly acceptable to be sexually active even if you're nowhere near ready to be a parent. The unspoken message from proaborts is that sex and it's life giving potential are two completely separate things… and that is akin to encouraging kids to play Russian Roulette. It gives them a false sense of security, and then when the baby comes into the picture, they are shocked and act as if they don't know how it happened. It's as if people have brainwashed to think that sex is nothing but a recreational activity, completely forgetting that it is the act that brings about new human beings.

I highly recommend listening to this talk: http://jenniferfulwiler.com/wp-cont...ulwiler-pro-choice-to-pro-life-conversion.mp3 In fact, I wish everyone would listen to it. Because clearly what society has been doing for the last few decades is not working.

I get what you’re saying, but BC failure still isn’t good enough argument. The only type of BC that fail when used properly are non-hormonal. We know hormonal bc is 100% effective because it’s essientially tricking your body into thinking your pregnant, and it’s impossible to become pregnant again once you are pregnant. Condoms can break, to stop that from happening, use lube, or what you should do (for you own greater sexual experience, and because you’ll save some money not using lube), more foreplay, successful foreplay that is. Get that motor warmed up before going pedal to the metal in the dead of winter.

If taking a pill once a day is too hard, or you’re a forgetful person, don’t trust yourself or whatever, get mirena. A one time gyno visit and you’re good for 5 years. No pills, waaaay less periods, nice and easy, won’t need tampons every month.

If you have some sort of clotting disorder, or vessel malformation, you’ll probably need to go non-hormonal. Condoms, or you can get a non-hormonal IUD that has something around a 90% efficacy rate, so just realize it’s pretty good, but you’re still at risk so track your ovulation, use condoms that week and you’ll be good.

You have to remember that the stats on BC not being 100% effective all come from self reporting to medical practictionors asking that question. People lie to medical staff all the time about their unhealthy habits. It’s sort of like students who get a bad grade, because they didn’t study all that much, but try to tell the teacher they studied for hours. They don’t want to seem irresponsible to “authority figures”, or even in front of peers for that matter. I’m an RN, I see it almost daily. And I always think to myself, “we both know I have these things called blood tests, that tell me you’re lying and you still are trying to get one past me?” Same is true for dentist or other not so common medical professionals. I myself probably lie about how often I floss, and I’m sure they think to themselves “yea ok, and I’m jimmy Carson”. So if someone is asked at planned parenthood getting an abortion consult, if they were on birth control, I’m sure there’s plenty who know full well they weren’t using any say, “oh totally, I dont know how this happened, maybe the condom broke?” (and I somehow didn’t feel the semen, or notice after it was removed) yada yada yada. And the rest used it improperly, didn’t take a pill once a day. Probably would of had to skip at least 2 days in a row, and just happen to have sex, during their ovulation, on that second day. I don’t even know how realistic that scenario is, I imagine it take longer for the corpus Luteum to open up again. Not sure about that.

If used correctly hormonal BC is 100% effective. And it’s not hard to use, a pill, a day, whatever time of the day. That’s about the most difficult version of hormonal BC to use.

You're talking about when it's used perfectly. That's the problem, many people don't use it perfectly. With the pill, it can be easy to skip a day, or whatever. We can't act as if birth control is the answer. I'm not against birth-control, but people who are not ready to face the consequences of sex shouldn't be encouraged to have sex. Like I said, when you have time, please listen to that audio I linked in my previous post. She explains it very well. She brings up things that I've never heard anyone say before on this issue, so please listen to it.

 

[jc456]

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What am I lying about? Point it out.

The causes of abortion are not using birth control when you should’ve. Using birth control means abortion is unecasary. Taking a pill once a day is not like trying to budget for your retirement. We could easily train pigeons to take a pill once a day, and that’s not even the easiest type of birth control to use. If you don’t want kids, and are having sex, use birth control. You won’t need an abortion. Ta-da problem solved.

The notion that birth will stop all abortions is s lie. But right wingers are also opposed to birth control because it leads to “immoral behaviour”.

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

I maintain that it is a strawman argument for the reasons stated. I moved on from the issue of what is life and when it begins because it is futile and we will never agree. In addition, no matter what is done, abortion will not be eradicated and in fact, there are indications that there will be more abortions if outlawed vs. if we implement the programs and policies that I suggested. It is just plain stupid to think that you can end abortion

My point is not a red herring because it relates directly to the issue of reducing abortion which is the only practical goal. However, you ******* hypocrites wont admin=t any of this and keep beating the pro fetus drum. Calling yourselves pro life is a sick joke.

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What the fk is causes for abortion mean exactly? It means killing a living organism against its will.

A fetus has no will.

For someone who purports to be a nurse, your knowledge of fetal development and the failure rate of birth control is less than that of a layman, and I do mean man. No woman is so ignorant of these things.

How do you know a fetus has no will? So babies have no will? Hmm then what does that mean? Adults must protect them.

 

[sakinago]

The only reason you skipped the issue because it “won’t be agreed upon”, is because it’s the issue the pro choice side doesn’t want to discuss or have an honest conversation about. There’s an absolute zero chance to come to any sort of agreement or understanding if one side keeps avoiding the topic. The fact that no one will ever change their minds so why bother is a total cop-out. I used to be pro-choice back in the day when I never really honestly considered the issue, that was up until I was challenged and didn’t have anything to answer that challenge. Here’s my point and case, I’m not going to agree with all of your solutions to help curb abortions, yet you want to debate that instead of the main point of abortion. So why aren’t you applying the same standard of “it won’t be agreed upon so why bother”, there? The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is because it is a very common red herring that also doubles as a strawman to demonize the other side at the same time in the “see you don’t agree with helping out people in the way I want too, therefore you’re actually pro-death.” Some of your solutions don’t even address curbing abortion at all. If people have more affordable housing, they’re going to have safer sex? If we raise minimum wage they’re going to start having safer sex? If they have Medicare for all they’re going to have safer sex? Maybe there’s a slight argument for that one.

And what evidence is there that abortions will increase if outlawed. Are you suggesting that women would get pregnant, find and pay top dollar to a doctor or other shady character willing to break the law to provide an abortion, out of protest to the abortion ban? Or will the ban somehow cause people to forget to use birth control, and have to again find and pay top dollar to shady “doctors” to preform an abortion. I don’t see any scenario where it would make sense banning abortion would somehow increase it. What seems more likely is that it’ll decrease abortions pretty significantly for a few reasons. It’s going to be illegal, so more people will probably get their shit together and actually use birth control because there’s no more “safety net” backup plan for them. Those who still are negligent in the use of BC, aren’t going to have the option to go to PP to get one, they’d have to look to these shady “doctors” and pay top dollar to get it taken care of in a seedy motel somewhere. Those reasons seem way more likely to be the case than whatever other scenario there’d be that’d somehow increase abortion.

You’re the one coming here and posting lies and then claiming the left won’t have an honest discussion.

You have yet to have an honest discussion about the causes of abortion, and you have consistently avoided the question of a woman’s right to security of person.

You push the fiction that immorality and hedonism are driving the abortion rate instead of poverty and lack of financial or job security for poor pregnant women.

The American abortion rate is a strong statement about the failure of public policy to protect the poorest and weakest in society. On that much we can agree. If public policy provided more protections and security for the living parents, there would be no need to protect the unborn.

What am I lying about? Point it out.

The causes of abortion are not using birth control when you should’ve. Using birth control means abortion is unecasary. Taking a pill once a day is not like trying to budget for your retirement. We could easily train pigeons to take a pill once a day, and that’s not even the easiest type of birth control to use. If you don’t want kids, and are having sex, use birth control. You won’t need an abortion. Ta-da problem solved.

Sorry to chime in here. I just wanted to say that although I agree with most of your posts, I don't think it's a good idea to put all your faith in birth control. Birth control fails, even in the best of times. And of course many young people who are irresponsible don't always use it properly, if at all. I think the problem is that young people have been receiving the wrong message… The message that it's perfectly acceptable to be sexually active even if you're nowhere near ready to be a parent. The unspoken message from proaborts is that sex and it's life giving potential are two completely separate things… and that is akin to encouraging kids to play Russian Roulette. It gives them a false sense of security, and then when the baby comes into the picture, they are shocked and act as if they don't know how it happened. It's as if people have brainwashed to think that sex is nothing but a recreational activity, completely forgetting that it is the act that brings about new human beings.

I highly recommend listening to this talk: http://jenniferfulwiler.com/wp-cont...ulwiler-pro-choice-to-pro-life-conversion.mp3 In fact, I wish everyone would listen to it. Because clearly what society has been doing for the last few decades is not working.

I get what you’re saying, but BC failure still isn’t good enough argument. The only type of BC that fail when used properly are non-hormonal. We know hormonal bc is 100% effective because it’s essientially tricking your body into thinking your pregnant, and it’s impossible to become pregnant again once you are pregnant. Condoms can break, to stop that from happening, use lube, or what you should do (for you own greater sexual experience, and because you’ll save some money not using lube), more foreplay, successful foreplay that is. Get that motor warmed up before going pedal to the metal in the dead of winter.

If taking a pill once a day is too hard, or you’re a forgetful person, don’t trust yourself or whatever, get mirena. A one time gyno visit and you’re good for 5 years. No pills, waaaay less periods, nice and easy, won’t need tampons every month.

If you have some sort of clotting disorder, or vessel malformation, you’ll probably need to go non-hormonal. Condoms, or you can get a non-hormonal IUD that has something around a 90% efficacy rate, so just realize it’s pretty good, but you’re still at risk so track your ovulation, use condoms that week and you’ll be good.

You have to remember that the stats on BC not being 100% effective all come from self reporting to medical practictionors asking that question. People lie to medical staff all the time about their unhealthy habits. It’s sort of like students who get a bad grade, because they didn’t study all that much, but try to tell the teacher they studied for hours. They don’t want to seem irresponsible to “authority figures”, or even in front of peers for that matter. I’m an RN, I see it almost daily. And I always think to myself, “we both know I have these things called blood tests, that tell me you’re lying and you still are trying to get one past me?” Same is true for dentist or other not so common medical professionals. I myself probably lie about how often I floss, and I’m sure they think to themselves “yea ok, and I’m jimmy Carson”. So if someone is asked at planned parenthood getting an abortion consult, if they were on birth control, I’m sure there’s plenty who know full well they weren’t using any say, “oh totally, I dont know how this happened, maybe the condom broke?” (and I somehow didn’t feel the semen, or notice after it was removed) yada yada yada. And the rest used it improperly, didn’t take a pill once a day. Probably would of had to skip at least 2 days in a row, and just happen to have sex, during their ovulation, on that second day. I don’t even know how realistic that scenario is, I imagine it take longer for the corpus Luteum to open up again. Not sure about that.

If used correctly hormonal BC is 100% effective. And it’s not hard to use, a pill, a day, whatever time of the day. That’s about the most difficult version of hormonal BC to use.

You're talking about when it's used perfectly. That's the problem, many people don't use it perfectly. With the pill, it can be easy to skip a day, or whatever. We can't act as if birth control is the answer. I'm not against birth-control, but people who are not ready to face the consequences of sex shouldn't be encouraged to have sex. Like I said, when you have time, please listen to that audio I linked in my previous post. She explains it very well. She brings up things that I've never heard anyone say before on this issue, so please listen to it.

There’s nothing to be done to stop people from making stupid decisions. No matter how minor the act, and how major the consequences. Nothing government can do, nothing society can do. It’s still going to happen. To what degree is the question. Like I said, if you can’t handle taking a single pill a day (if you truly can’t handle that easy step, then you can’t handle brushing your teeth at least once a day, and you probably have all sorts of other problems in your life from an extreme case of lack of discipline), then get mirena. It doesn’t get any easier than mirena. Go to the gyno once, and you’re good for 5 years, plus no period, win win. I 100% endorse Mirena over the pill. Sex is going to happen, sex has consequences. Those consequences are the absolute easiest thing to eliminate to make sure you don’t wind up down a path your not ready for. It requires the slightest modicum of responsibility for someone to ensure that they don’t have a baby when they don’t feel ready for it. In any other issue where the stakes are this high, and you could eliminate those stakes so incredibly ******* easy, we’d rightfully berate them for their stupidity if they failed to take a single pill a day, or not visit the gyno once for an IUD. I’m sorry, I give no leeway to people who can’t handle a single pill at day at the very least, just like I wouldn’t give leeway to someone who doesn’t brush their teeth and is surprised when they get 7 cavities.

So if this ladies thing is (while I’m sure I’d agree with everything she is saying), is that we can’t rely on a pill, that’s only taken once a day, that has a 99.9 efficacy rate...how on earth are we going to rely on those same people who can’t handle a single pill a day to not have sex when they aren’t ready for it? I think that’s highly unrealistic. What we should say is, “hey dumb dumb, come get this mirena, I’ll pay for this shit, it’ll buy you 5 years. It’ll make sure that you, the person who can’t handle a pill a day, also doesn’t have to handle a human being who is entirely dependent and shaped by them.”

Really the pro-life movement needs to start a chairty where we hand out mirenas like candy. Sign people up, drive them to the gyno, pay for it all, give them a gift card to the movies or some shit if they do it just to create an incentive. No, what’s better, have a mobile gyno, in an RV, offering free mirenas on the spot, and then give them a gift card. **** waiting for the government to do something they’ll never want to touch. Do that on a good enough scale, and abortion will be an after thought.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why, precisely, given that that IS the actual point of contention here?

That is not a point of contention. I doubt even the most ardent pro-choice advocate would argue that a fetus is not alive (or at least part of a living being). Instead, I think the points of contention would be whether a fetus is a person, or whether it is a separate being from the mother.

I would guess that the fetus being a separate living being is the point you are saying is in contention.

What else is it if it isn’t a separate living being? There’s no magic going on here, it’s living, it’s human, it’s separate. There’s no magical benchmark of “oh, exactly 22 weeks since conception, it’s now a living separate being.” We all know what happens, well, most should and those who don’t are willfully blind. It meets every threshold of the scientific definition of life. It’s not it’s mother, it’s not a tumor, it’s not an extra bag of skin, it has its own unique DNA. It’s not a fly, it’s not a horse, it’s not a sock, it’s not anything that’s not a human.

Person is an abstract term. What constitutes a “person”? Why are we basing what is and isn’t life on these abstract terms when we’ve had a functioning scientific definition of human life, and life in general, a long ass time ago?

Some argue that until a certain point of development, a fetus is still a part of the mother. At least, that is the impression I have gotten from a number of people in these sorts of arguments.

As far as what is a person, it is important in a Constitutional sense. The Constitution grants various rights and protections to persons, so determining what constitutes a person can be a very important consideration.

I don't want to argue the pros or cons of abortion. I'm trying to limit myself to very specific details; in this case, the idea that the important question is whether a fetus is alive. That is just an over-simplification of the question IMO. I prefer it to be clearer, as I don't think the vast majority of people, regardless of their opinions about abortion, would say that a fetus is made up of anything but living tissue. As I said, the argument would be whether the fetus is separate from the mother, or whether the fetus constitutes a person, and at what time those things occur.

I'm trying to have the question put forth as clearly as possible, I'm not answering the question. Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere.

Anyone who argues that a fetus is still part of his mother at ANY point is decades out-of-date scientifically, and should educate himself.

The Constitution doesn't actually have a damned thing to do with this, and never did. The REAL Constitution, that is, not the invented "living" Constitution that sprouts new "emanations" and "penumbras" every time you turn your back on it.

Why are you in a thread about abortion if you don't want to discuss the topic of abortion?

The question of whether or not a fetus is alive is not an over-simplification. It's the basic starting point that has to be established and acknowledged before you can discuss anything else. Abortion advocates always want to gloss past it so they don't ever have to state right out that they were wrong/lying on this subject since forever. Trying to "be clearer" without definitively answering that first question is nothing more than trying to AVOID that question and change the subject. I mean, look at you. You're trying to make it about this, that, and the other thing that allows you to slide right on by that fundamental question.

But okay, I can also answer all your other issues. A fetus is made up of living tissue, but that's a deflection, because "living tissue" is not the point. He is made up of living tissue, because he IS A LIVING ORGANISM, separate and distinct from all other living organisms, and all living organisms are made up - by definition - of living tissue. I am, you are, presumably even Cecile Richards is.

Not only is a fetus a living organism, distinct from the OTHER living organism which is his mother, he is a separate living organism from the moment of conception. There is no other point in time to which you can point with any level of scientific evidence and accuracy and say, "There. That is the moment when he became a separate organism, because XYZ."

"Personhood" is a bullshit, made-up concept which has no basis in scientific, medical fact. It is all about "feelz". There are hyper-emotional, hypo-intelligent dunderheads out there who will insist, with great passion, that their pets are "people". I can tell you that all three of my children were persons the whole time I carried them in my uterus, and with just as much conviction - although probably NOT the same level of desperation - as a woman heading into a Planned Parenthood will insist that her unborn offspring is NOT a person. Unless you have a scientific definition of "person", it all gets us exactly nowhere useful.

Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere because, like you, people refuse to answer the question so we can move forward on the same, settled footing together.

You are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that a fetus is not alive, nor that it is not a separate being. I've pointed out that the question "Is a fetus alive?" is different from the question "Is a fetus a separate living being?", just as it is different from the question "Is a fetus a person?". You may not see a distinction between the question of if a fetus is alive and if a fetus is a separate living being, but it exists. I think a subject as contentious as abortion would be best discussed or argued with very clearly defined points.

The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with the abortion debate? OK....

I can discuss abortion without arguing my position about it. Besides, I'll join in any thread I care to.

Of course personhood is not a scientific term. So what? Do you think the abortion debate is based solely on scientific knowledge?

I'm not trying to make anything about "this, that, and the other thing that allows (me) to slide right on by." I'm pointing out that JC456's comment that "there is but one question, is a fetus alive?" is not the only, or even an especially accurate, question. It's a minor point, but as I said, with an issue this contentious, clearly defined phrasing seems best.

I haven't refused to answer anything. I don't recall you actually asking me if a fetus is alive, but if you've been unable to figure it out from my posts, yes, I readily accept that it is.

You get that you're not the only pro-abortion person on this thread, right? And certainly not the only pro-abortion person debating this topic in America. When the statement was made that "Is a fetus alive?" was the first, most basic question that it all came down to, it was - brace yourself - NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. Whatever YOU do or don't accept or acknowledge, there are far too many people out there who flatly refuse to even admit this is a question; they want to skip right past it and pretend it doesn't exist.

So perhaps for you, the question that needs to be addressed is, "Why do I think the entire subject is about me?"

 

[Montrovant]

That is not a point of contention. I doubt even the most ardent pro-choice advocate would argue that a fetus is not alive (or at least part of a living being). Instead, I think the points of contention would be whether a fetus is a person, or whether it is a separate being from the mother.

I would guess that the fetus being a separate living being is the point you are saying is in contention.

What else is it if it isn’t a separate living being? There’s no magic going on here, it’s living, it’s human, it’s separate. There’s no magical benchmark of “oh, exactly 22 weeks since conception, it’s now a living separate being.” We all know what happens, well, most should and those who don’t are willfully blind. It meets every threshold of the scientific definition of life. It’s not it’s mother, it’s not a tumor, it’s not an extra bag of skin, it has its own unique DNA. It’s not a fly, it’s not a horse, it’s not a sock, it’s not anything that’s not a human.

Person is an abstract term. What constitutes a “person”? Why are we basing what is and isn’t life on these abstract terms when we’ve had a functioning scientific definition of human life, and life in general, a long ass time ago?

Some argue that until a certain point of development, a fetus is still a part of the mother. At least, that is the impression I have gotten from a number of people in these sorts of arguments.

As far as what is a person, it is important in a Constitutional sense. The Constitution grants various rights and protections to persons, so determining what constitutes a person can be a very important consideration.

I don't want to argue the pros or cons of abortion. I'm trying to limit myself to very specific details; in this case, the idea that the important question is whether a fetus is alive. That is just an over-simplification of the question IMO. I prefer it to be clearer, as I don't think the vast majority of people, regardless of their opinions about abortion, would say that a fetus is made up of anything but living tissue. As I said, the argument would be whether the fetus is separate from the mother, or whether the fetus constitutes a person, and at what time those things occur.

I'm trying to have the question put forth as clearly as possible, I'm not answering the question. Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere.

Anyone who argues that a fetus is still part of his mother at ANY point is decades out-of-date scientifically, and should educate himself.

The Constitution doesn't actually have a damned thing to do with this, and never did. The REAL Constitution, that is, not the invented "living" Constitution that sprouts new "emanations" and "penumbras" every time you turn your back on it.

Why are you in a thread about abortion if you don't want to discuss the topic of abortion?

The question of whether or not a fetus is alive is not an over-simplification. It's the basic starting point that has to be established and acknowledged before you can discuss anything else. Abortion advocates always want to gloss past it so they don't ever have to state right out that they were wrong/lying on this subject since forever. Trying to "be clearer" without definitively answering that first question is nothing more than trying to AVOID that question and change the subject. I mean, look at you. You're trying to make it about this, that, and the other thing that allows you to slide right on by that fundamental question.

But okay, I can also answer all your other issues. A fetus is made up of living tissue, but that's a deflection, because "living tissue" is not the point. He is made up of living tissue, because he IS A LIVING ORGANISM, separate and distinct from all other living organisms, and all living organisms are made up - by definition - of living tissue. I am, you are, presumably even Cecile Richards is.

Not only is a fetus a living organism, distinct from the OTHER living organism which is his mother, he is a separate living organism from the moment of conception. There is no other point in time to which you can point with any level of scientific evidence and accuracy and say, "There. That is the moment when he became a separate organism, because XYZ."

"Personhood" is a bullshit, made-up concept which has no basis in scientific, medical fact. It is all about "feelz". There are hyper-emotional, hypo-intelligent dunderheads out there who will insist, with great passion, that their pets are "people". I can tell you that all three of my children were persons the whole time I carried them in my uterus, and with just as much conviction - although probably NOT the same level of desperation - as a woman heading into a Planned Parenthood will insist that her unborn offspring is NOT a person. Unless you have a scientific definition of "person", it all gets us exactly nowhere useful.

Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere because, like you, people refuse to answer the question so we can move forward on the same, settled footing together.

You are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that a fetus is not alive, nor that it is not a separate being. I've pointed out that the question "Is a fetus alive?" is different from the question "Is a fetus a separate living being?", just as it is different from the question "Is a fetus a person?". You may not see a distinction between the question of if a fetus is alive and if a fetus is a separate living being, but it exists. I think a subject as contentious as abortion would be best discussed or argued with very clearly defined points.

The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with the abortion debate? OK....

I can discuss abortion without arguing my position about it. Besides, I'll join in any thread I care to.

Of course personhood is not a scientific term. So what? Do you think the abortion debate is based solely on scientific knowledge?

I'm not trying to make anything about "this, that, and the other thing that allows (me) to slide right on by." I'm pointing out that JC456's comment that "there is but one question, is a fetus alive?" is not the only, or even an especially accurate, question. It's a minor point, but as I said, with an issue this contentious, clearly defined phrasing seems best.

I haven't refused to answer anything. I don't recall you actually asking me if a fetus is alive, but if you've been unable to figure it out from my posts, yes, I readily accept that it is.

You get that you're not the only pro-abortion person on this thread, right? And certainly not the only pro-abortion person debating this topic in America. When the statement was made that "Is a fetus alive?" was the first, most basic question that it all came down to, it was - brace yourself - NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. Whatever YOU do or don't accept or acknowledge, there are far too many people out there who flatly refuse to even admit this is a question; they want to skip right past it and pretend it doesn't exist.

So perhaps for you, the question that needs to be addressed is, "Why do I think the entire subject is about me?"

You get that I, like you, and everyone else here, am just giving my opinion, right?

 

[LaDexter]

Hello...

The planet already has too many humans.

The Bible Thumper "plan" for that is to fill the planet with unwanted kids so that they can be exterminated to get the Earth's human population down to a manageable level...

PRO DEATH

If you aren't pro death now, you will be soon....

 

[Cecilie1200]

More than half of the women who have abortions in any given month are married or in a long term committed relationship. Are you seriously suggesting that married couples should forego sex unless they are prepared to give birth to a child they cannot afford to raise?

You don’t want people to have children they can’t afford. You don’t want to pay for income supports for poor families, or for their health care, or to educate their children.

You don’t want poor women to have job security if they become pregnant, nor do you want them to have maternity leave or subsidized health care.

But should a poor woman get pregnant with another child she cannot afford to raise, you want to make damn good and sure she pays dearly for having had sex, or having her birth control fail because she had a choice. She coulda kept her legs closed.

Lol
Not getting pregnant is extremely easy to do, it’s called responsibility. Most abortions are not a product of responsibility. No one should ever have to pay for someone else’s responsibility. So shut the **** up

What does a MAN know about getting pregnant or not getting pregnant. Is your period regular, do YOU tolerate strong hormones well? Do you have any allergies to latex, or the chemicals used in spermicides? Are you willing to take drugs which increase your risk of heart attack or cancer?

Go home Russian troll.

It's useless to talk about this subject with people who can't get pregnant and usually don't use any form of birth control.

You're right. Nothing's perfect. All forms of birth control have a failure rate. Mostly because we humans make mistakes.

Or things like doctors who don't tell their patients that the antibiotic they just prescribed them will make the pill ineffective. I know someone who got pregnant that way.

Even having a your tubes tied or a vasectomy isn't 100%.

When my oldest sister was doing her OB residency she had a patient who had her tubes tied. Her husband had a vasectomy. She ended up pregnant.

I had an assistant who had her tubes tied. She ended up pregnant.

An old boyfriend of mine sister in law had her tubes tied. She ended up pregnant.

Nothing is perfect. However something is better than nothing. Use birth control if you don't want to be pregnant.

I just worry about women. Women are going to end up dying and in prison. Women are going to have to endure investigations into a miscarriage. In just ectopic pregnancy alone, over 65 thousand American women would die a year if they're denied that abortion. No woman ever survives an ectopic pregnancy without an abortion. Whether it's done before the woman's life is put in jeopardy or when the woman is in an ER fighting for her life because she was denied that life saving abortion. No woman should have to die because her pregnancy went wrong and no woman should ever have to justify a miscarriage.

Well, lucky for you that I'M here, then, isn't it? Been pregnant three times, used hormonal birth control methods, and actually got pregnant with my last child not only while I was on the birth control, but also on the weekend that my menstrual period started. I was also 39 at the time, so I'm not sure the odds could have been longer for that pregnancy starting without duplicating the Virgin Birth. So whatcha got that's just too specific for everyone to understand?

According to Sakinago you could not possibly have gotten pregnant, but you were also stupid for having done so. She believes the pharmaceutical companies optimistic stats.

I have a very handsome one year old grandson conceived while my daughter was on the pill. They were planning on having another baby in a year so this was a little early.

No, I sincerely doubt Sakinago thinks I could not possibly have gotten pregnant, given that I did, in fact, get pregnant; and since I was married, employed, and fully cognizant of the possible consequences of having sex and fully willing to accept those consequences should they occur, I doubt he would consider me stupid for getting pregnant at all.

I believe the pharmaceutical companies' stats as well. 99.9% means exactly that: less than 100%, in other words. That .1% chance still has to be covered by personal responsibility. It's still stupid to pretend that sexual intercourse has been, or should be, completely divorced from its primary function of reproduction, and an intelligent person recognizes that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The day a law is filed supporting taking away any rights over a mans body from him
then you can talk to me about men making laws about a women's body.
Any one who thinks women are not smart & need men to make laws about women's body's
are the monsters.

My, you certainly do hate and revile men, don't you? They have therapy for that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thank you for that brilliant, thoughtful and informative commentary. As always, you excel in your boost the level of intellectual discourse to the highest level. We can all learn so much from you. God bless.

Now, perhaps you would like to comment on the issues that I raised that can actually reduce the demand for abortion. Please tell us more about how pro life you are .

Why would I respond to your issues? They’re all excuses not issues. Fetus is alive, you can’t change that no matter how many times you wish to. People are expected to be responsible for themselves correct?

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the **** did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

And I said personal fking responsibility!

Is a fetus live?

A fetus is alive. So is an ameba. Being alive does not make either a human being. You jackasses keep blathering about abortion being murder, but when children are subjected to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, and are made to live in squalor, that is also murder...just the slow kind

"Lots of things are alive. Look how clever I am to dismiss a fetus's humanity on the basis that LOTS of non-humans are alive! Just don't ask me to account for the fact that the fetus has all the classifiers of humanity as well, because I'm hoping no one notices while I run past that!"

Moron.

 

[jc456]

Thank you for that brilliant, thoughtful and informative commentary. As always, you excel in your boost the level of intellectual discourse to the highest level. We can all learn so much from you. God bless.

Now, perhaps you would like to comment on the issues that I raised that can actually reduce the demand for abortion. Please tell us more about how pro life you are .

Why would I respond to your issues? They’re all excuses not issues. Fetus is alive, you can’t change that no matter how many times you wish to. People are expected to be responsible for themselves correct?

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the **** did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

And I said personal fking responsibility!

Is a fetus live?

A fetus is alive. So is an ameba. Being alive does not make either a human being. You jackasses keep blathering about abortion being murder, but when children are subjected to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, and are made to live in squalor, that is also murder...just the slow kind

what does a fetus turn into? ameba? A tree? a cockroach? tell us what a human fetus turns into? tick tock.