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

[Ravi]

Jeesh...Buttemia is still here making an ass of himself?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well I can't do much if you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Allie, one of the rare posters on this board who thinks her prediction of what a potential future would bring is a fact.

I don't even think Miss Cleo does that.

 

[JBeukema]

What's amazing to me is that people apply selective logic when it comes to abortion. They rationalize baby killing.

Hypo #1:
You've got a revolver with 6 chambers. 3 chambers have bullets in them. 3 don't. Would you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger?

Hypo #2
You have a fetus that's 1 week old in your belly. You can't afford to be a parent. Would you have an abortion?

In both hypotheticals, you have no concrete way of knowing whether your actions will result in murder.

If it's a revolver, you can see what chambers have rounds in them

And i have a guarantee in the second scenario, both legally and morally.

So what's the difference? In the first hypo, most people wouldn't take the chance with their own life. In the second, they rationalize that it "might not be murder because we don't really know."

It ends a life. That is a simple scientific fact. Legally, it is not murder. Morally, it is also not 'murder', because there is no individual in existence to be harmed.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, you've drunk the abortion Kool Aid and liked it, I see. You're so convinced that women are too stupid to function without having their uteruses scraped regularly that you're willing to throw the babies out with the dishwater, literally.

The thing is, it's not just the unborn babies that are hurt. It's the living breathing babies that are being abused, and whose abusers are being protected by PP, who are also being hurt. They are hurt by the fact that when we allow the slaughter of innocents, we in turn devalue ALL innocents. If an unborn baby is worth nothing, a 12 year old isn't worth much more. If we protect the people who get these young people pregnant, we are promoting child abuse.

You are so off-base that it is not even funny.

I would be right there beside you, if your hypothesis had even an inkling of reality to it. Instead you live in a fantasy world that says, "people are moral individuals and will never break the law. If the law says abortions are illegal then women won't have abortions".

Well, Allie, my friend, women were getting abortions before abortion was legal in the same percentages before it was legal as they are now. The only difference is today they can claim it as a Constitutional Right whereas before they had to hide the fact that they underwent an abortion. You seem to believe that on January 23, 1973 women suddenly began having abortions because it was legal now. The sad fact is that they were having abortions before 1/23/73 but they were doing it illegally and not reporting it. Doctors didn't start doing abortion on 1/23/73. They were doing it before, but they were not reporting it and they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.

Beyond that... it is also a fact that overturning Roe today would not suddenly make abortion illegal. It would simply revert it to the states and most likely the majority of states would still allow legal abortions in almost every case. So, your little fantasy accomplishes zilch.

Question: is reducing the number of abortions as important to you as winning the political point?

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.

 

[Immanuel]

they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.

Should I have included: "pun intended" in that post?

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

Immie, you've drunk the abortion Kool Aid and liked it, I see. You're so convinced that women are too stupid to function without having their uteruses scraped regularly that you're willing to throw the babies out with the dishwater, literally.

The thing is, it's not just the unborn babies that are hurt. It's the living breathing babies that are being abused, and whose abusers are being protected by PP, who are also being hurt. They are hurt by the fact that when we allow the slaughter of innocents, we in turn devalue ALL innocents. If an unborn baby is worth nothing, a 12 year old isn't worth much more. If we protect the people who get these young people pregnant, we are promoting child abuse.

You are so off-base that it is not even funny.

I would be right there beside you, if your hypothesis had even an inkling of reality to it. Instead you live in a fantasy world that says, "people are moral individuals and will never break the law. If the law says abortions are illegal then women won't have abortions".

Well, Allie, my friend, women were getting abortions before abortion was legal in the same percentages before it was legal as they are now. The only difference is today they can claim it as a Constitutional Right whereas before they had to hide the fact that they underwent an abortion. You seem to believe that on January 23, 1973 women suddenly began having abortions because it was legal now. The sad fact is that they were having abortions before 1/23/73 but they were doing it illegally and not reporting it. Doctors didn't start doing abortion on 1/23/73. They were doing it before, but they were not reporting it and they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.

Beyond that... it is also a fact that overturning Roe today would not suddenly make abortion illegal. It would simply revert it to the states and most likely the majority of states would still allow legal abortions in almost every case. So, your little fantasy accomplishes zilch.

Question: is reducing the number of abortions as important to you as winning the political point?

Immie

Of course. And I know that eliminating the abortion industry, with all of it's promotion, political clout, and money will reduce abortions. The facts support that, and I'm a fact person.

 

[Vanquish]

What's amazing to me is that people apply selective logic when it comes to abortion. They rationalize baby killing.

Hypo #1:
You've got a revolver with 6 chambers. 3 chambers have bullets in them. 3 don't. Would you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger?

Hypo #2
You have a fetus that's 1 week old in your belly. You can't afford to be a parent. Would you have an abortion?

In both hypotheticals, you have no concrete way of knowing whether your actions will result in murder.

If it's a revolver, you can see what chambers have rounds in them

And i have a guarantee in the second scenario, both legally and morally.

So what's the difference? In the first hypo, most people wouldn't take the chance with their own life. In the second, they rationalize that it "might not be murder because we don't really know."

It ends a life. That is a simple scientific fact. Legally, it is not murder. Morally, it is also not 'murder', because there is no individual in existence to be harmed.

Ok Mr. Cute. Way to be cheeky.

Assuming you're not looking at the chambers, and knowing you'd have a 50 50 result. Don't be obtuse.

And yes, it is murder. It's an innocent life that you're ending. It's not legally justified.

That being said, you've come further out than most pro-death people. At least you're admitting that you're ending a life. Most wont even do that.

And that's my point - if you cant be absolutely certain that you're doing the right or wrong thing...why take the chance?

 

[AllieBaba]

" This study by John R. Lott Jr. and John Whitley of the American Enterprise Institute shows that not only did abortion not decrease crime rates, but it actually increased murder rates by 7 percent in the U.S.
By improving upon the methods used by Levitt, Lott and Whitley illustrated “a strong consistent positive relationship between abortion and murder.” More simply said, they found that when abortion increases, murder increases as well. According to their estimates, the legalization of abortion resulted in about 700 more murders per year by 1998—a 7.2 percent increase.
How do Lott and Whitley explain their correlation?
Where Levitt assumed abortion would decrease the number of unwanted children and therefore reduce crime, Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.
Combine this with the fact that young males born out-of-wedlock (wanted or not) are disproportionately responsible for violent crimes, and you have a national increase in murders. “[T]he net effect [of the legalization of abortion],” Lott and Whitely concluded, “appears to be a reduction in human capital and an increase in crime.”
This correlation surely does not make abortion any more reprehensible than it already is, but it definitely shoots down the argument that legal abortion improves outcomes for those children who do survive."

Research shows: Abortion increases crime rate « The United Families International Blog

 

[AllieBaba]

" This study by John R. Lott Jr. and John Whitley of the American Enterprise Institute shows that not only did abortion not decrease crime rates, but it actually increased murder rates by 7 percent in the U.S.
By improving upon the methods used by Levitt, Lott and Whitley illustrated “a strong consistent positive relationship between abortion and murder.” More simply said, they found that when abortion increases, murder increases as well. According to their estimates, the legalization of abortion resulted in about 700 more murders per year by 1998—a 7.2 percent increase.
How do Lott and Whitley explain their correlation?
Where Levitt assumed abortion would decrease the number of unwanted children and therefore reduce crime, Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.
Combine this with the fact that young males born out-of-wedlock (wanted or not) are disproportionately responsible for violent crimes, and you have a national increase in murders. “[T]he net effect [of the legalization of abortion],” Lott and Whitely concluded, “appears to be a reduction in human capital and an increase in crime.”
This correlation surely does not make abortion any more reprehensible than it already is, but it definitely shoots down the argument that legal abortion improves outcomes for those children who do survive."

Research shows: Abortion increases crime rate « The United Families International Blog

 

[AllieBaba]

Did Legalizing Abortion Cut Crime? The Levitt Freakonomics theory critically analyzed. Additional analysis and data by Steve Sailer.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, you've drunk the abortion Kool Aid and liked it, I see. You're so convinced that women are too stupid to function without having their uteruses scraped regularly that you're willing to throw the babies out with the dishwater, literally.

The thing is, it's not just the unborn babies that are hurt. It's the living breathing babies that are being abused, and whose abusers are being protected by PP, who are also being hurt. They are hurt by the fact that when we allow the slaughter of innocents, we in turn devalue ALL innocents. If an unborn baby is worth nothing, a 12 year old isn't worth much more. If we protect the people who get these young people pregnant, we are promoting child abuse.

You are so off-base that it is not even funny.

I would be right there beside you, if your hypothesis had even an inkling of reality to it. Instead you live in a fantasy world that says, "people are moral individuals and will never break the law. If the law says abortions are illegal then women won't have abortions".

Well, Allie, my friend, women were getting abortions before abortion was legal in the same percentages before it was legal as they are now. The only difference is today they can claim it as a Constitutional Right whereas before they had to hide the fact that they underwent an abortion. You seem to believe that on January 23, 1973 women suddenly began having abortions because it was legal now. The sad fact is that they were having abortions before 1/23/73 but they were doing it illegally and not reporting it. Doctors didn't start doing abortion on 1/23/73. They were doing it before, but they were not reporting it and they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.

Beyond that... it is also a fact that overturning Roe today would not suddenly make abortion illegal. It would simply revert it to the states and most likely the majority of states would still allow legal abortions in almost every case. So, your little fantasy accomplishes zilch.

Question: is reducing the number of abortions as important to you as winning the political point?

Immie

Of course. And I know that eliminating the abortion industry, with all of it's promotion, political clout, and money will reduce abortions. The facts support that, and I'm a fact person.

Unfortunately, overturning Roe will not eliminate the industry.

Immie

 

[beowolfe]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.*

Okay. Then remove it from the pregnant woman and lets see how it does.

 

[AllieBaba]

You are so off-base that it is not even funny.

I would be right there beside you, if your hypothesis had even an inkling of reality to it. Instead you live in a fantasy world that says, "people are moral individuals and will never break the law. If the law says abortions are illegal then women won't have abortions".

Well, Allie, my friend, women were getting abortions before abortion was legal in the same percentages before it was legal as they are now. The only difference is today they can claim it as a Constitutional Right whereas before they had to hide the fact that they underwent an abortion. You seem to believe that on January 23, 1973 women suddenly began having abortions because it was legal now. The sad fact is that they were having abortions before 1/23/73 but they were doing it illegally and not reporting it. Doctors didn't start doing abortion on 1/23/73. They were doing it before, but they were not reporting it and they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.

Beyond that... it is also a fact that overturning Roe today would not suddenly make abortion illegal. It would simply revert it to the states and most likely the majority of states would still allow legal abortions in almost every case. So, your little fantasy accomplishes zilch.

Question: is reducing the number of abortions as important to you as winning the political point?

Immie

Of course. And I know that eliminating the abortion industry, with all of it's promotion, political clout, and money will reduce abortions. The facts support that, and I'm a fact person.

Unfortunately, overturning Roe will not eliminate the industry.

Immie

That's idiotic. Of course it will. Those who are really committed to killing babies will go back underground and operate as the criminals they are.

You think they aren't sick fuckers now? They are. You're just giving them a pass and throwing money at them.

 

[Immanuel]

Of course. And I know that eliminating the abortion industry, with all of it's promotion, political clout, and money will reduce abortions. The facts support that, and I'm a fact person.

Unfortunately, overturning Roe will not eliminate the industry.

Immie

That's idiotic. Of course it will. Those who are really committed to killing babies will go back underground and operate as the criminals they are.

You think they aren't sick fuckers now? They are. You're just giving them a pass and throwing money at them.

You are back in your fantasy world.

Overturning Roe will simply send the issue back to the states, most of which will still allow most abortions. You have accomplished zilch. The best you could do would be to sit upon your high horse after this happened and claim victory because the number of reported abortions had declined. In the meantime... babies would still be dieing.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

And yes, it is murder. It's an innocent life that you're ending. It's not legally justified.

You appeal to the Law. The Law says that abortion in th first trimester is legal.

if you cant be absolutely certain that you're doing the right or wrong thing...why take the chance?

Some things are neither right nor wrong. Is picking your nose right or wrong? Ir moving a bouquet of flowers from the kitchen or the den right or wrong? Or do they have no moral implications?

 

[JBeukema]

Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.

Yes. Because they take more chances.

The stats are what they are. Illegitimate births jumped and bounded upwards the second abortion became legal.

 

[JBeukema]

Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.

Yes. Because they take more chances.

The stats are what they are. Illegitimate births jumped and bounded upwards the second abortion became legal.

As a result of Roe v Wade, or as a result of the same sociological factors that lead to Roe v. Wade?

One would think that if someone toolk more risks due to RvW, as opposed to as a result of the same social changes that led to it,they'd be inclined to make use of an abortionist if a pregnancy resulted.

It seems more plausible to my mind that the two matters are actually the result of the same underlying social factors (see: libertinism), which would explain both the rates of sex and pregnancy outside marriage as well as an increase in the abortion rate.

We agree on the correlation, but I'm not seeing causation. I'm seeing a common cause.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes. Because they take more chances.

The stats are what they are. Illegitimate births jumped and bounded upwards the second abortion became legal.

As a result of Roe v Wade, or as a result of the same sociological factors that lead to Roe v. Wade?

One would think that if someone toolk more risks due to RvW, as opposed to as a result of the same social changes that led to it,they'd be inclined to make use of an abortionist if a pregnancy resulted.

It seems more plausible to my mind that the two matters are actually the result of the same underlying social factors (see: libertinism), which would explain both the rates of sex and pregnancy outside marriage as well as an increase in the abortion rate.

We agree on the correlation, but I'm not seeing causation. I'm seeing a common cause.

More people did take risks...and more people did use abortionists. But more people also had babies, because the very same people who peddle legal abortion also peddle sex to a whole population of people who should probably not be having sex. They removed the stigma of illegitimate birth, removed the stigma of abortion, promote the shit out of both..and look what happens.