Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[NYcarbineer]

The same way threatening to lock me up if I shoot you in the face makes things better

Should all homicide be legal, or only killing people you don't want alive?

So taking RU486 to terminate a pregnancy is no different than shooting someone in the face?

Really?

Your position is extremist. Do you accept that?

 

[AllieBaba]

or they would kill themselves, or do something that would kill the baby.
In a perfect world your theory would work.

I'm glad to know that you think women being too pig-stupid to have a sense of self-preservation is a major problem in America.

I'm not glad to know you haven't an ounce of compassion in your entire body. It saddens me.

I know. Compassion for babies is soooo misplaced! They're worthless and therefore not worthy of compassion.

 

[JBeukema]

If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth.

 

[Gadawg73]

"You are for abortion because you want babies dead" is the argument I hear here.

"You are for decriminalizing of drugs because you want drug users dead" is the same thing.
"You are for alcohol and tobacco legal because you want drinkers and smokers dead"

You folks are eat up with the DUMBASS.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Last I checked the CDC got their numbers from Gottmacher.

No, they don't. They get their health statistics from state and local health departments.

Ok, Cecilie...look at the reference list on their report:

"
References

1. Smith JC. Abortion surveillance report, hospital abortions, annual summary 1969. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, National Communicable Disease Center; 1970.
2. CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2005. MMWR 2008;57(No. SS-13).
3. Henshaw SK, Kost K. Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute; 2008. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/23/TrendsWomenAbortions-wTables.pdf . Accessed November 10, 2010.
4. Jones RK, Kost K, Singh S, Henshaw SK, Finer LB. Trends in abortion in the United States. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009;52:119--29.
5. Ventura SJ, Abma JC, Mosher WD, Henshaw SK. Estimated pregnancy rates by outcome for the United States, 1990--2005: an update. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;58(4).
6. Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SC, Abma JC, Henshaw S. Trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcome: estimates for the United States, 1976--1996. Vital Health Stat 2000;21(56).
7. Henshaw SK, Kost K. Abortion patients in 1994--1995: characteristics and contraceptive use. Fam Plann Perspect 1996;28:140--7, 58
8. Henshaw SK, Silverman J. The characteristics and prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. Fam Plann Perspect 1988;20:158--68.
9. Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000--2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:226--35.
10. Jones RK, Finer LB, Singh S. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf . Accessed November 10, 2010.
11. Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2011;43:41-50.
12. CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2006. MMWR 2009;58(No. SS-8).
13. CDC. Abortion surveillance, 1981. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, CDC; 1985.
14. Guttmacher Institute. State policies in brief: abortion reporting requirements. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.com/statecenter/spibs/spib_ARR.pdf . Accessed November 10, 2010. "

Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2007

So as you see, the CDC gets many if not most of its numbers from Gottmacher.

Thank you. Thank you. Flowers are not necessary.

Without reading the entire report, which I don't have time to do right now, I have no idea what specific statements were made to which those footnotes relate. However, if you look on the very first page, you see this:

Description of System: Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). This information is provided voluntarily. For 2007, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For the purpose of trend analysis, data were evaluated from the 45 areas that reported data every year during the preceding decade (1998--2007). Abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) were calculated using census and natality data, respectively.

(emphasis mine)

I prefer chocolates to flowers, thanks.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, they don't. They get their health statistics from state and local health departments.

Ok, Cecilie...look at the reference list on their report:

"
References

1. Smith JC. Abortion surveillance report, hospital abortions, annual summary 1969. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, National Communicable Disease Center; 1970.
2. CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2005. MMWR 2008;57(No. SS-13).
3. Henshaw SK, Kost K. Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute; 2008. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/23/TrendsWomenAbortions-wTables.pdf . Accessed November 10, 2010.
4. Jones RK, Kost K, Singh S, Henshaw SK, Finer LB. Trends in abortion in the United States. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009;52:119--29.
5. Ventura SJ, Abma JC, Mosher WD, Henshaw SK. Estimated pregnancy rates by outcome for the United States, 1990--2005: an update. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;58(4).
6. Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SC, Abma JC, Henshaw S. Trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcome: estimates for the United States, 1976--1996. Vital Health Stat 2000;21(56).
7. Henshaw SK, Kost K. Abortion patients in 1994--1995: characteristics and contraceptive use. Fam Plann Perspect 1996;28:140--7, 58
8. Henshaw SK, Silverman J. The characteristics and prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. Fam Plann Perspect 1988;20:158--68.
9. Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000--2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:226--35.
10. Jones RK, Finer LB, Singh S. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf . Accessed November 10, 2010.
11. Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2011;43:41-50.
12. CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2006. MMWR 2009;58(No. SS-8).
13. CDC. Abortion surveillance, 1981. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, CDC; 1985.
14. Guttmacher Institute. State policies in brief: abortion reporting requirements. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.com/statecenter/spibs/spib_ARR.pdf . Accessed November 10, 2010. "

Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2007

So as you see, the CDC gets many if not most of its numbers from Gottmacher.

Thank you. Thank you. Flowers are not necessary.

Without reading the entire report, which I don't have time to do right now, I have no idea what specific statements were made to which those footnotes relate. However, if you look on the very first page, you see this:

Description of System: Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). This information is provided voluntarily. For 2007, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For the purpose of trend analysis, data were evaluated from the 45 areas that reported data every year during the preceding decade (1998--2007). Abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) were calculated using census and natality data, respectively.

(emphasis mine)

I prefer chocolates to flowers, thanks.

Read it. They get stats from a tiny number of clinics and is voluntary. They cite Gottmacher REPEATEDLY in their report.

Chocolates.
And flowers...I like daffodils this time of the year.

 

[Cecilie1200]

or they would kill themselves, or do something that would kill the baby.
In a perfect world your theory would work.

I'm glad to know that you think women being too pig-stupid to have a sense of self-preservation is a major problem in America.

It has nothing to do with being pig stupid. You also shouldn't judge people you know nothing about. You only know the numbers, and what you believe, you don't know why someone had abortion. Statistics are just statistics.

It doesn't matter why they had an abortion. All I need to know is that women are, by and large, intelligent human beings with a healthy sense of self-preservation and the basic common sense to act upon it. The number of women in this country stupid and self-destructive enough to stick the legendary and apocryphal coat hanger up their coochies is too vanishingly small to be making public policy on.

And by the way, that tiny number of ignorant, crazy bitches would inevitably kill themselves in some OTHER inane and stupid way, because they're no brighter about any OTHER life choices, either. So there you go.

 

[Anguille]

I'm glad to know that you think women being too pig-stupid to have a sense of self-preservation is a major problem in America.

I'm not glad to know you haven't an ounce of compassion in your entire body. It saddens me.

I know. Compassion for babies is soooo misplaced! They're worthless and therefore not worthy of compassion.

Honestly, what would you know about compassion? You and So Silly have got to be the bitterest broads on these boards. No offence.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not glad to know you haven't an ounce of compassion in your entire body. It saddens me.

I know. Compassion for babies is soooo misplaced! They're worthless and therefore not worthy of compassion.

Honestly, what would you know about compassion? You and So Silly have got to be the bitterest broads on these boards. No offence.

Anguille, honey, don't you think you might be projecting...just a....eeensy weensy bit? Hmm? Just a smidge?

 

[AllieBaba]

And of course my definition of compassion is almost, by definition, somebss.ody who feels a sense of obligation to those beings who are less fortunate or unable to protect themselves.

So if it's uncompassionate to feel pity for the vulnerable, then uncompassionate I am, I guess.

Tell us what you do for a living, Ang. Have you chosen to work with those less fortunate and subsequently earn a meager living? Have you followed a more lucrative path that insulates you from the suffering of others? Or do you just hate everyone?

 

[Anguille]

I think I hit a nerve with Allie. LOL!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ok, Cecilie...look at the reference list on their report:

"
References

1. Smith JC. Abortion surveillance report, hospital abortions, annual summary 1969. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, National Communicable Disease Center; 1970.
2. CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2005. MMWR 2008;57(No. SS-13).
3. Henshaw SK, Kost K. Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute; 2008. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/23/TrendsWomenAbortions-wTables.pdf . Accessed November 10, 2010.
4. Jones RK, Kost K, Singh S, Henshaw SK, Finer LB. Trends in abortion in the United States. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009;52:119--29.
5. Ventura SJ, Abma JC, Mosher WD, Henshaw SK. Estimated pregnancy rates by outcome for the United States, 1990--2005: an update. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;58(4).
6. Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SC, Abma JC, Henshaw S. Trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcome: estimates for the United States, 1976--1996. Vital Health Stat 2000;21(56).
7. Henshaw SK, Kost K. Abortion patients in 1994--1995: characteristics and contraceptive use. Fam Plann Perspect 1996;28:140--7, 58
8. Henshaw SK, Silverman J. The characteristics and prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. Fam Plann Perspect 1988;20:158--68.
9. Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000--2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:226--35.
10. Jones RK, Finer LB, Singh S. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf . Accessed November 10, 2010.
11. Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2011;43:41-50.
12. CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2006. MMWR 2009;58(No. SS-8).
13. CDC. Abortion surveillance, 1981. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, CDC; 1985.
14. Guttmacher Institute. State policies in brief: abortion reporting requirements. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.com/statecenter/spibs/spib_ARR.pdf . Accessed November 10, 2010. "

Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2007

So as you see, the CDC gets many if not most of its numbers from Gottmacher.

Thank you. Thank you. Flowers are not necessary.

Without reading the entire report, which I don't have time to do right now, I have no idea what specific statements were made to which those footnotes relate. However, if you look on the very first page, you see this:

Description of System: Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). This information is provided voluntarily. For 2007, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For the purpose of trend analysis, data were evaluated from the 45 areas that reported data every year during the preceding decade (1998--2007). Abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) were calculated using census and natality data, respectively.

(emphasis mine)

I prefer chocolates to flowers, thanks.

Read it. They get stats from a tiny number of clinics and is voluntary. They cite Gottmacher REPEATEDLY in their report.

Chocolates.
And flowers...I like daffodils this time of the year.

It is, indeed, voluntary. Nevertheless, that IS still where they get their stats. If you continue to read their paper, you will see that they clearly TELL you that repeatedly. Further on, they give a more detailed description of their system, and it says, again:

Each year, CDC requests tabulated data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City) to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining abortions in the United States.

. . .

In most states, collection of abortion data is facilitated by the legal requirement for hospitals, facilities, and physicians to report abortions to a central health agency (14). These central health agencies voluntarily provide CDC the aggregate numbers for the abortion data they have collected (15).

Furthermore, if you actually go through and READ the footnoted passages that reference the Guttmacher Institute, you will see that they are NOT being referenced as the primary source of abortion statistics. They are being referenced as corroboration of the CDC's primary statistics, derived from separate sources. Essentially, they are saying, "See? Other people are getting the same numbers with THEIR methods, so ours are probably accurate."

So once again, the CDC does not get its statistics from the Guttmacher Institute. They get them from state government agencies, and COMPARE them with the numbers the Guttmacher Institute gets from its sources.

 

[Immanuel]

I think I hit a nerve with Allie. LOL!

I think you are good at hitting nerves. In fact, I think you practice at it daily.

edit: In fact, you use me for practice quite often.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

I think I hit a nerve with Allie. LOL!

I think you are good at hitting nerves. In fact, I think you practice at it daily.

edit: In fact, you use me for practice quite often.

Immie

But you know I only do it out of love.

 

[Immanuel]

I think I hit a nerve with Allie. LOL!

I think you are good at hitting nerves. In fact, I think you practice at it daily.

edit: In fact, you use me for practice quite often.

Immie

But you know I only do it out of love.

Of course I do.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

Are we to believe 1/4 pregnancies are due to rape or incest or present a mortal danger to the mother?

We set out to determine the number of known pregnancies in 2003. We say "known" because some pregnancies end due to natural causes at a very early stage, often before the woman even realizes she is pregnant. CDC only offers statistics for fetal deaths beginning at a fetal age of 20 weeks, so that’s the parameter we’ll use in our calculations.

To calculate the number of known pregnancies, we added together three figures: the number of live births, the number of fetal deaths (these include natural miscarriages and stillbirths), and the number of abortions. Here’s the data for 2003:

Live births: 4,090,007
Fetal deaths: 25,653
Abortions: 1,250,000

Total known pregnancies: 5,365,660

So abortions account for 23.2 percent of all known pregnancies.

source

 

[Grace]

Its late. Im tired. And Im an idiot for coming back in this thread. But, instead of farting rainbows and unicorns out my ass, Im just gonna spit it out.

Im fucking TIRED of reading the INCONVENIENCE card about why SOME women opt to have an abortion. ITS NOT AN INCONFUCKINGVENIENCE. Its a HORRIBLE decision to FUCKING make to remove a baby from ones womb. IT ISNT FUCKING EASY. Calling those that do such a thing is just as bad as calling Nam Vets Baby Killers and spitting in their face when they came home. SOMETIMES SHIT HAPPENS.
A baby growing in a womb NOT ASKED FOR (and YES WE KNOW WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS YOU FUCKTARDS) and PLANTED THERE AGAINST OUR WILL whether its from a family member or a stranger is most assuredly considered to carry full term then placing it up for adoption..along with the mental anguish the HOST has to deal with deciding what is best for the HOST AND the baby itself.

So...you finger wagglers who whine and bitch and fucking moan about those who make that decision and call them baby killers and offer all kinds of FUCKING reasons WHY we should carry such a burden for NINE FUCKING MONTHS can KISS MY FUCKING ASS.

This pisses me off no end and Im fed up with it. Thats what I get for being bored and wandering back in here. Entirely my fault. But at least I said what I fucking felt like saying for fucking once.

You think it should go full term? Then YOU pay for the shrink during those nine months, YOU pay the hospital bills and YOU take the kid when its born. Otherwise, STFU.

 

[Grace]

Now that I spilled my guts in extreme anger..a first for me since being here..I extend my apologies and will return to full fluff mode. ONCE IM COOLED OFF. But for now...this subject SUCKS.

 

[Immanuel]

Its late. Im tired. And Im an idiot for coming back in this thread. But, instead of farting rainbows and unicorns out my ass, Im just gonna spit it out.

Im fucking TIRED of reading the INCONVENIENCE card about why SOME women opt to have an abortion. ITS NOT AN INCONFUCKINGVENIENCE. Its a HORRIBLE decision to FUCKING make to remove a baby from ones womb. IT ISNT FUCKING EASY. Calling those that do such a thing is just as bad as calling Nam Vets Baby Killers and spitting in their face when they came home. SOMETIMES SHIT HAPPENS.
A baby growing in a womb NOT ASKED FOR (and YES WE KNOW WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS YOU FUCKTARDS) and PLANTED THERE AGAINST OUR WILL whether its from a family member or a stranger is most assuredly considered to carry full term then placing it up for adoption..along with the mental anguish the HOST has to deal with deciding what is best for the HOST AND the baby itself.

So...you finger wagglers who whine and bitch and fucking moan about those who make that decision and call them baby killers and offer all kinds of FUCKING reasons WHY we should carry such a burden for NINE FUCKING MONTHS can KISS MY FUCKING ASS.

This pisses me off no end and Im fed up with it. Thats what I get for being bored and wandering back in here. Entirely my fault. But at least I said what I fucking felt like saying for fucking once.

You think it should go full term? Then YOU pay for the shrink during those nine months, YOU pay the hospital bills and YOU take the kid when its born. Otherwise, STFU.

My Dear Gracie,

Perhaps you should read those slides from Alan Guttmacher that have been provided in several threads by yours truly. One of those slides shows the primary reasons that women choose to have abortions. Ninety three percent of the primary reasons are for convenience sake. That in no way implies that the decision was easy to make. It simply means that the woman chose to have an abortion because she didn't feel like having a baby at that particular time. That means the abortion was chosen for convenience sake.

Three percent were for fetal abnormalities.
Three percent were for the health of the mother.
One percent due to rape or incest.
Another four percent for reasons given as "other".

Here is a link to the slides:

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

I think I hit a nerve with Allie. LOL!

I always find it irritating when people who advocate for the slaughter of children call those who believe in protecting the vulnerable "non-compassionate".