It's a good thing that Roe v Wade occurred so that women dont have to go to this sort of back alley

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Kopikatsu:

Blade_125:

I haven't read through your previous posts, I just wanted to point out your error on sex being all about choice. Are you arguing that everyone should not have sex unless they want to start a family?

That's right. For the record, I'm not a hypocrite, either. I plan to do just that (and only that).

Then I applaud your choice and say good for you.

But do not judge others, as you are wrong to do so. Not only for the reasons already explained, but because not everyone is the same. I don't judge people who can't figure out calculus. Same deal here. Everyone has their own needs and desires and needs to live their own life. Who are any of us to judge.

Blade_125:
Looks like you both still need some education (and cosmo your condesending shtick doesn't work when you don't know what you are talking about.

Sexual gratification is not like deciding to go on a trip, or buying a luxery item. It is considered a basic human need. Right at the same level as food, clothing and shelter.

Would you both be willing to do me a favour. Google Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is something taught in post secondary schools, and discusses needs of a human fromt he most basic and up. Sexual release is right at the base. It is something all animals need and is evolutionary in nature (the stronger the desire for sex the more likely a species is to reproduce and survive).

So your argument is ignorant. While it is possible to resist this, it is not easy. Have either of you ever been in a situation where you gave in? If you were able to resist I am sure after you went home you.. relieved your tention.

So until you can come up with some other well documented research that contradicts this you are simply arguing from your own anectodal experience and what you think is logic. Arguing from ignorance is never the answer, adn I do hope you both take the time to read what I have suggested and become a little more educated.

So this Maslow guy was saying that sex is right up there with food clothing and shelter eh? Well, I guess I can see that. I mean just the other day I got a flyer in the mail asking me to donate money to charity that bought prostitutes for ugly people so they didn't have to go without. Every year the local public access television station here in town has a telethon where they ask for their viewers to come down to the station and service those who aren't as fortunate as the rest of us. Some of the stories they share on those telethons are just heartbreaking.

On a more serious note I find your lack of faith in your fellow man rather disappointing. You see I like to believe that people are a hair or two better than shit flinging monkeys and can actually display things like logical thought and willpower. For instance if I'm presented with an offer to make the beast with two backs with a lovely young lady I can assess the situation and deduce that if I should decide to do the horizontal mambo with said young lady there is a very real chance, despite whatever precautions we may take, that she could end up pregnant. For the sake of argument let's assume I don't wish to have a child. Well, at that point I can decline said young lady's offer and be on my way and like magic nobody gets pregnant.

I get it. There is a not small portion of the pro abortion crowd that throw up in their mouths a little when someone actually have the audacity to suggest that people be made to accept the consequences of their actions. One of the big consequences of sex is pregnancy. If two people are having sex there is a chance of pregnancy in the vast majority of cases. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences then maybe you aren't prepared to actually be out there having sex.

Not having sex isn't the end of the world I promise. People don't lose the will to live and shuffle off to something akin to an elephant graveyard so they can wait to die if they aren't getting busy every so many days. Hell, I managed not to stick my dick in anyone the entire four years I was in college because I wanted to focus on my studies and I sure as hell didn't want to end up with a baby. Sure I could have elected to be out there screwing anything with a willing orifice but I elected not to because I didn't want to deal with the consequences. Now either I'm some freak of nature that can go unnatural amounts of time without sex OR maybe, just maybe, people can indeed choose to act responsibly and choose to not have sex.

Super Not Cosmo:

So this Maslow guy was saying that sex is right up there with food clothing and shelter eh? Well, I guess I can see that. I mean just the other day I got a flyer in the mail asking me to donate money to charity that bought prostitutes for ugly people so they didn't have to go without. Every year the local public access television station here in town has a telethon where they ask for their viewers to come down to the station and service those who aren't as fortunate as the rest of us. Some of the stories they share on those telethons are just heartbreaking.

On a more serious note I find your lack of faith in your fellow man rather disappointing. You see I like to believe that people are a hair or two better than shit flinging monkeys and can actually display things like logical thought and willpower. For instance if I'm presented with an offer to make the beast with two backs with a lovely young lady I can assess the situation and deduce that if I should decide to do the horizontal mambo with said young lady there is a very real chance, despite whatever precautions we may take, that she could end up pregnant. For the sake of argument let's assume I don't wish to have a child. Well, at that point I can decline said young lady's offer and be on my way and like magic nobody gets pregnant.

I get it. There is a not small portion of the pro abortion crowd that throw up in their mouths a little when someone actually have the audacity to suggest that people be made to accept the consequences of their actions. One of the big consequences of sex is pregnancy. If two people are having sex there is a chance of pregnancy in the vast majority of cases. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences then maybe you aren't prepared to actually be out there having sex.

Not having sex isn't the end of the world I promise. People don't lose the will to live and shuffle off to something akin to an elephant graveyard so they can wait to die if they aren't getting busy every so many days. Hell, I managed not to stick my dick in anyone the entire four years I was in college because I wanted to focus on my studies and I sure as hell didn't want to end up with a baby. Sure I could have elected to be out there screwing anything with a willing orifice but I elected not to because I didn't want to deal with the consequences. Now either I'm some freak of nature that can go unnatural amounts of time without sex OR maybe, just maybe, people can indeed choose to act responsibly and choose to not have sex.

I'm probably alone in this, but I find it hilarious when someone very ignorant tries to sound intellectual and condescending. Granted I am laughing at the person, but still it gives me a good chuckle.

Moving on, to start off with you misunderstand the statement I was making with Maslow (not sure if it is deliberate or not). I am not saying that a person cannot make the choice to not have sex. I myself didn't lose my virginity until I was in my 20's (I think I was 24). Didn't mean I didn't have urges. Didn't mean I didn't deal with those urges in other ways. But I am not the populous at large and neither are you. Those choices are affected by education, drive, motivation, opportunity, and upbringing. You seem to be arguing free will compared to determinism, which in my mind is pointless as they are not mutually exclusive. Much of your upbringing is going to affect your choices in life. I'm willing to bet you were warned against having sex growing up (I know I was). So you should come down off your moral high horse and realize not everyone gets that ingrained into them (thankfully).

The unfortunate thing for you is that all your arguments come from a religious background, and as such conflict with your natural inclinations. You can argue all your like on those grounds, but reality speaks louder. We are animals, just with bigger brains. That does give us the ability to choose things beyond the very basic. It's hard for a starving man to ration food he comes across. An animal won't, but a human does have the ability to make that distinction. Doesn't mean they will though. Again, education, training, etc. Same goes with Sex.

But this all boils back to your belief that a fertilized egg suddenly has a soul, or at the very least can now be considered a full-fledged human. This is an ideological belief, and not grounded in reality. The very strange thing is that a girl having an abortion is as you put it taking responsibility.

You continue to try and slide the argument back this way, and yet it's stupid to as you have nothing to back it up but your belief.

This originally was a response to your belief that sex is all about choice, when the truth is it is not that simple. Life is not black and white.

Do yourself a favour and love yourself when you go home tonight. It will likely ease a lot of this tension you have.

Kopikatsu:

Seanchaidh:

That's just the point. Living creatures aren't designed at all. Well, not the ones we're talking about anyway. There is no greater being that gives purpose to our actions than ourselves, and, once again, our purposes for sex are usually not reproduction.

Er...yes, they are? Without reproduction, the species would die out in a single generation. It is the single most vital mechanic there is, right behind survival.

Vital to whom?

You seem to be confusing what I'm saying with religious dogma (specifically intelligent design and the like)

You said living organisms were designed. Now, that may just be a case of poor usage, but it illustrates your incomprehension of the subtleties. Evolution is a purposeless process. It has no intent. Traits do not have purposes: they just do things. Absolutely there are evolutionary explanations for a host of facts about our existence-- but there is no reason to treat these explanations as if they are somehow more important than our own desires. And that is what you are attempting to do, whether you'll recognize it or not.

, but I'm talking about grade school biology. These are all concepts you should have learned already. Natural selection and evolution shape and craft living beings. Those that survive to reproduce are the ones that are most fit for survival. In the Arctic, dogs with thicker and whiter coats tend to outlive the ones that have neither warmth nor camouflage, thus ensuring the continuation of the species. Peacocks with the brightest colors are the ones who have their mating rituals accepted, and so their chicks end up having brighter colors, perpetuating the cycle. And so on.

Nothing about any of that implies purpose. The simple fact of the matter is that sex does X, Y, and Z. That's the biology. Your ideology leads you to conclude that "the purpose" of sex is just one of those-- and one of the less probable outcomes for any given encounter at that.

Kopikatsu:

So here's a question for the people that're 'pro-choice'. In the case of abortion being used as birth control, why was having sex not considered to be the vital choice? The biological function of sex is reproduction. If you have sex, even if you use a contraceptive (of which none are 100% effective), how can you be surprised that a pregnancy results from it? Would the logical thing be to not have sex if you don't want a child? (That goes for both genders).

An abortion is a way to relieve one's responsibility for their own actions, which is a worrying trend that shows up in many fields. It's essentially butchering a child because the parent(s) don't feel like living up to what they've done.

This......

Super Not Cosmo:

Now again I have to say that this isn't something I'm 100% on but, the last time I checked which admittedly has been a while, women didn't just up and become pregnant like they catch the flu. You don't work a shitty 80 hour week at work then come down with a bad case of pregnancy out of thin air. I suppose there are those rare cases of miraculous conception ever few thousand years or so when some unlucky lady gets knocked up with the son of God and all but that's just splitting hairs.

There are very specific ways women can live with the peace of mind of not having to fear becoming pregnant. The most guaranteed way is to not have sex. I know that's a crazy notion. I know that 11 Commandment carried down from on high on a separate, lesser known, stone tablet gave women the right to have sex free of any consequences what-so-ever. However, if you are that opposed to becoming pregnant not having sex is a sure fire way to keep it from happening.

The thing is if you are having sex you face becoming pregnant. I'm pretty sure they ended the government conspiracy to keep this knowledge from the masses. I suppose there might be a certain subset of women that are out there having sex who are still of the belief that babies are delivered via stork or cabbage patch or something but I'd estimate they are in the minority by now.

So seeing most women have discovered the once tightly guarded secret of how babies are made it always amazes me when this attitude of "Poor me. I got pregnant through no fault of my own and there was no way at all I could have avoided this and it's just soooo unfair that there are people out there that expect me to live with the consequences of my actions" pops up. And that's the thing actions have consequences. If a woman is so opposed to becoming pregnant then maybe she shouldn't be having sex. I know, I know me and my radical ideas.

.......This...........

Kopikatsu:

Blade_125:

I haven't read through your previous posts, I just wanted to point out your error on sex being all about choice. Are you arguing that everyone should not have sex unless they want to start a family?

That's right. For the record, I'm not a hypocrite, either. I plan to do just that (and only that).

.......This........

Super Not Cosmo:

So this Maslow guy was saying that sex is right up there with food clothing and shelter eh? Well, I guess I can see that. I mean just the other day I got a flyer in the mail asking me to donate money to charity that bought prostitutes for ugly people so they didn't have to go without. Every year the local public access television station here in town has a telethon where they ask for their viewers to come down to the station and service those who aren't as fortunate as the rest of us. Some of the stories they share on those telethons are just heartbreaking.

On a more serious note I find your lack of faith in your fellow man rather disappointing. You see I like to believe that people are a hair or two better than shit flinging monkeys and can actually display things like logical thought and willpower. For instance if I'm presented with an offer to make the beast with two backs with a lovely young lady I can assess the situation and deduce that if I should decide to do the horizontal mambo with said young lady there is a very real chance, despite whatever precautions we may take, that she could end up pregnant. For the sake of argument let's assume I don't wish to have a child. Well, at that point I can decline said young lady's offer and be on my way and like magic nobody gets pregnant.

I get it. There is a not small portion of the pro abortion crowd that throw up in their mouths a little when someone actually have the audacity to suggest that people be made to accept the consequences of their actions. One of the big consequences of sex is pregnancy. If two people are having sex there is a chance of pregnancy in the vast majority of cases. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences then maybe you aren't prepared to actually be out there having sex.

Not having sex isn't the end of the world I promise. People don't lose the will to live and shuffle off to something akin to an elephant graveyard so they can wait to die if they aren't getting busy every so many days. Hell, I managed not to stick my dick in anyone the entire four years I was in college because I wanted to focus on my studies and I sure as hell didn't want to end up with a baby. Sure I could have elected to be out there screwing anything with a willing orifice but I elected not to because I didn't want to deal with the consequences. Now either I'm some freak of nature that can go unnatural amounts of time without sex OR maybe, just maybe, people can indeed choose to act responsibly and choose to not have sex.

...........And This sum up my views rather well. And thats as much as I am getting into it right now. If you need me, I will be gathering flame shields for the coming battle.

Kopikatsu:
snip

Okay. 1) you quoted the wrong person in the first part.

2)They deal with it by terminating the pregnancy, so no problem there.

3) The thing about AIDS didnt have anything to do with what we were talking about.

Kopikatsu:
(Not that I agree with the analogy because all analogies are conceptually flawed)

Analogies are useful tools to try to enhance understanding. Whilst it is true they tend to have some conceptual differences, it is unfortunate that so many people would rather miss the point by staring at the conceptual difference than the relevant parallel. Frequently, it's little more than an ugly fudge by the intellectually dishonest acting in denial that they've logically had their arse kicked.

And I'm not really sure how you're comparing a condom and a system to prevent a catastrophic meltdown that could potentially kill a great number of people and render the surrounding area uninhabitable for decades. But as I said, analogies are a pointless form of argument because they're inherently flawed.

The point is that there is no need to introduce the idea of a "vital choice" which must be clung to however it works out. We can in fact put in multiple layers of choice, safeties, contingencies, and so on.

The advantage of contraception specifically is that if we've learnt anything from history, it's that people will have sex for fun. Thousands of years of societal (mostly religiously based) disapprobation has been an abject failure at stopping them. They've fucked for fun in marriage, out of marriage, committed adultery, despite STD risks, despite being unable to support resultant children, and so on.

Who on earth thinks that they are going manage to persuade people not to have sex for fun after millennia of not managing to? Far better to roll with the world as it actually is and give people the means and independence to manage their own sexual habits.

In any case, you're arguing semantics. As my situation as hypothetical (and as stated as such), your objections do not apply. Had I provided hard numbers and stated 'This many people are sexually active using this form of contraception' as a fact, then your statement would be applicable. But as I did not, they do not.

Arguing semantics? Surely not.

I was demonstrating that your mathematical calculation is essentially gibberish. If you want to make up a hypothetical scenario that has no useful application to the real world, why even make the hypothetical scenario?

Jayemsal:

lowhat:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Interesting how America was sold on rhetoric that claimed that only making abortion legal and easily available would get rid of the supposedly widespread risk represented by women going to back alley abortion clinics(loaded misnomer if there ever was one), yet here we are in 2013 and only when the adult woman dies does this sort on Mengele-esque doctor have to face the music.

Hell, we have a president who sees nothing wrong with allowing quacks like Gosnell to continue their butchery even after the "clump of cells" has left the womb and is no longer oppressing the poor, victimized mother with its presence inside her. After all, it's much better that society turns a blind eye to what people like Gosnell do than to force women to be "punished with a baby".

The only solace to be had here is that by aborting 60 million and having to replace them with Latin American immigrants to maintain age cohorts capable of keeping the many government Ponzi schemes solvent, the sort of sick society that views licensing people like Gosnell as "progress" has sown the seeds of its own destruction.

Stop it, just stop.

This man was NOT a liscensed doctor. He was doing HORRIBLE things to both women and the potential human beings being aborted, more often than not, his procedures were completely illegal. THIS IS NOT HOW ABORTIONS HAPPEN. This guy was associated with drug dealers and his waiting room was covered in shit and blood. This man is not a doctor, and he does not represent them. This is a horrible person who was stopped, NOTHING MORE.

He was a licensed doctor. For over 30 years, IIRC. The only difference between this guy and other abortionists, is that this guy took abortion to its logical conclusion, instead of stopping at the arbitrary barrier imposed by the law.

lowhat:
He was a licensed doctor. For over 30 years, IIRC. The only difference between this guy and other abortionists, is that this guy took abortion to its logical conclusion, instead of stopping at the arbitrary barrier imposed by the law.

Abortion is a procedure or event. Its material conclusion is the termination of a pregnancy. It doesn't have a "logical" conclusion because it is not a set of premises.

Seanchaidh:

lowhat:
He was a licensed doctor. For over 30 years, IIRC. The only difference between this guy and other abortionists, is that this guy took abortion to its logical conclusion, instead of stopping at the arbitrary barrier imposed by the law.

Abortion is a procedure or event. Its material conclusion is the termination of a pregnancy. It doesn't have a "logical" conclusion because it is not a set of premises.

A: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
B: Kermit Gosnell did nothing except terminate pregnancies.

Conclusion: Kermit Gosnell did nothing which should be regarded as immoral in a society that views abortion as morally acceptable.

lowhat:

Seanchaidh:

lowhat:
He was a licensed doctor. For over 30 years, IIRC. The only difference between this guy and other abortionists, is that this guy took abortion to its logical conclusion, instead of stopping at the arbitrary barrier imposed by the law.

Abortion is a procedure or event. Its material conclusion is the termination of a pregnancy. It doesn't have a "logical" conclusion because it is not a set of premises.

A: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
B: Kermit Gosnell did nothing except terminate pregnancies.

Conclusion: Kermit Gosnell did nothing which should be regarded as immoral in a society that views abortion as morally acceptable.

If you want to simplify it then yes. Your conclusion is correct. But it tends to get more complicated when you add in all the ethical stuff like at what point the fetus becomes sentient and not allowed to be removed.

lowhat:

Seanchaidh:

lowhat:
He was a licensed doctor. For over 30 years, IIRC. The only difference between this guy and other abortionists, is that this guy took abortion to its logical conclusion, instead of stopping at the arbitrary barrier imposed by the law.

Abortion is a procedure or event. Its material conclusion is the termination of a pregnancy. It doesn't have a "logical" conclusion because it is not a set of premises.

A: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
B: Kermit Gosnell did nothing except terminate pregnancies.

Conclusion: Kermit Gosnell did nothing which should be regarded as immoral in a society that views abortion as morally acceptable.

B is false. Gosnell and his staff did plenty of relevant things other than terminate pregnancies. One can see this even with just a cursory glance at the USA Today article you provided.

lowhat:

Seanchaidh:

lowhat:
He was a licensed doctor. For over 30 years, IIRC. The only difference between this guy and other abortionists, is that this guy took abortion to its logical conclusion, instead of stopping at the arbitrary barrier imposed by the law.

Abortion is a procedure or event. Its material conclusion is the termination of a pregnancy. It doesn't have a "logical" conclusion because it is not a set of premises.

A: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus has meaningful brain activity.

Fixed that for you. The around 25 weeks deadline exists because before that there is no meaningful brain activity. It is anything but arbitrary.

lowhat:

Jayemsal:

lowhat:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Interesting how America was sold on rhetoric that claimed that only making abortion legal and easily available would get rid of the supposedly widespread risk represented by women going to back alley abortion clinics(loaded misnomer if there ever was one), yet here we are in 2013 and only when the adult woman dies does this sort on Mengele-esque doctor have to face the music.

Hell, we have a president who sees nothing wrong with allowing quacks like Gosnell to continue their butchery even after the "clump of cells" has left the womb and is no longer oppressing the poor, victimized mother with its presence inside her. After all, it's much better that society turns a blind eye to what people like Gosnell do than to force women to be "punished with a baby".

The only solace to be had here is that by aborting 60 million and having to replace them with Latin American immigrants to maintain age cohorts capable of keeping the many government Ponzi schemes solvent, the sort of sick society that views licensing people like Gosnell as "progress" has sown the seeds of its own destruction.

Stop it, just stop.

This man was NOT a liscensed doctor. He was doing HORRIBLE things to both women and the potential human beings being aborted, more often than not, his procedures were completely illegal. THIS IS NOT HOW ABORTIONS HAPPEN. This guy was associated with drug dealers and his waiting room was covered in shit and blood. This man is not a doctor, and he does not represent them. This is a horrible person who was stopped, NOTHING MORE.

He was a licensed doctor. For over 30 years, IIRC. The only difference between this guy and other abortionists, is that this guy took abortion to its logical conclusion, instead of stopping at the arbitrary barrier imposed by the law.

No...

the fact of the matter is, this guy was responsible for killing birthed children, and a grown woman. He was operating outside the law, and dealing drugs.

He does not represent doctors as a whole.

Abortion is not this terrible thing you seem to think it is.

Shadowstar38:

lowhat:

Seanchaidh:

Abortion is a procedure or event. Its material conclusion is the termination of a pregnancy. It doesn't have a "logical" conclusion because it is not a set of premises.

A: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
B: Kermit Gosnell did nothing except terminate pregnancies.

Conclusion: Kermit Gosnell did nothing which should be regarded as immoral in a society that views abortion as morally acceptable.

If you want to simplify it then yes. Your conclusion is correct. But it tends to get more complicated when you add in all the ethical stuff like at what point the fetus becomes sentient and not allowed to be removed.

WRONG actually.

He murdered a woman, he had live birthed children (9 months) killed upon birth, he was a drug dealer.

He did plenty of things to be regarded as morally unacceptable.

Interesting how lowhat doesnt care about the murdered woman, and focuses entirely upon abortion as a whole.

Jayemsal:

Shadowstar38:

lowhat:

A: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
B: Kermit Gosnell did nothing except terminate pregnancies.

Conclusion: Kermit Gosnell did nothing which should be regarded as immoral in a society that views abortion as morally acceptable.

If you want to simplify it then yes. Your conclusion is correct. But it tends to get more complicated when you add in all the ethical stuff like at what point the fetus becomes sentient and not allowed to be removed.

WRONG actually.

He murdered a woman, he had live birthed children (9 months) killed upon birth, he was a drug dealer.

He did plenty of things to be regarded as morally unacceptable.

Interesting how lowhat doesnt care about the murdered woman, and focuses entirely upon abortion as a whole.

Everyone knows life stops at birth.

Jayemsal:

lowhat:

Jayemsal:

Stop it, just stop.

This man was NOT a liscensed doctor. He was doing HORRIBLE things to both women and the potential human beings being aborted, more often than not, his procedures were completely illegal. THIS IS NOT HOW ABORTIONS HAPPEN. This guy was associated with drug dealers and his waiting room was covered in shit and blood. This man is not a doctor, and he does not represent them. This is a horrible person who was stopped, NOTHING MORE.

He was a licensed doctor. For over 30 years, IIRC. The only difference between this guy and other abortionists, is that this guy took abortion to its logical conclusion, instead of stopping at the arbitrary barrier imposed by the law.

No...

the fact of the matter is, this guy was responsible for killing birthed children, and a grown woman. He was operating outside the law, and dealing drugs.

He does not represent doctors as a whole.

Abortion is not this terrible thing you seem to think it is.

He was responsible for finishing failed abortions after the child survived abortion attempt #1, something that the president of the country doesn't have a problem with, as evidenced by his voting record. If he hadn't killed a woman, he would have just been another late-term abortion provider, providing something that many, if not most, abortion supporters think is a woman's right.

lowhat:
[quote="Jayemsal" post="528.405712.16899710"]

He was responsible for finishing failed abortions after the child survived abortion attempt #1, something that the president of the country doesn't have a problem with, as evidenced by his voting record. If he hadn't killed a woman, he would have just been another late-term abortion provider, providing something that many, if not most, abortion supporters think is a woman's right.

The supreme court and every state has laws against late term abortion. I believe the state with the latest abortion date is 24 weeks or so. Anything beyond that is illegal unless it's for the health of the mother. If it's not for the health of the mother a doctor will lose his license and probably get criminal charges. In fact there is a federal law against the abortion acts this doctor was performing.

Another thing to add, "Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2009 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2009 took place early in gestation: 91.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation, and of the abortions performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation, 69.8% were performed at ≤ 8 weeks' gestation. In 2009, 16.5% of all abortions were medical abortions."

"Compared with 2008, the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2009 decreased 5% and the abortion ratio decreased 2%. The change from 2008 to 2009 represented the largest single year decrease in the total number and rate of reported abortions for the entire period from 2000 to 2009. Additionally, from 2000 to 2009 the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 6%, 7%, and 8%, respectively, to the lowest levels for this entire period."

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm

92% occur far before the cut off line of viability. And abortion is on the decline.

lowhat:
Conclusion: Kermit Gosnell did nothing which should be regarded as immoral in a society that views abortion as morally acceptable.

You're completely ignoring the main thrust of the pro-choice side: Developmental stages matter. We don't buy into the black-and-white argumentation that a lot of pro-life folks like to throw around about zygotes being people. What Gosnell did should absolutely be viewed as immoral in a pro-choice society, because abortions differ depending on the stage of the pregnancy. So don't act like you are speaking for pro-choice people here when you're clearly strawmanning their position. Following your logic, there's no difference between removing a sapling from the earth and cutting down a tree.

lowhat:
If he hadn't killed a woman,

lowhat:

Conclusion: Kermit Gosnell did nothing which should be regarded as immoral in a society that views abortion as morally acceptable.

I think those two statements side by side speak volumes.

Skeleon:
Developmental stages matter.

Indeed.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked