Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

[Removable Mind]

sure, sure.. there is only black and white, no grey....said every zealot, ever.

If you make an argument about the best way to cook cherry pies inside the "Law and Order" forum. If all in that forum sticks to the thread topics, chances are you'll find it difficult to encourage posters to offer counter arguments. Why?

There are no mutual elements involved between the two topic domains from which arguments can be made.

The very same can be said for pro-life and pro-choice arguments. The primary arguments for pro-life don't remotely resemble pro-choice arguments.

 

[Fletch]

If you make an argument about the best way to cook cherry pies inside the "Law and Order" forum. If all in that forum sticks to the thread topics, chances are you'll find it difficult to encourage posters to offer counter arguments. Why?

There are no mutual elements involved between the two topic domains from which arguments can be made.

The very same can be said for pro-life and pro-choice arguments. The primary arguments for pro-life don't remotely resemble pro-choice arguments.

So a person who supports abortion prior to (say) 20 weeks and opposes it thereafter is pro-life or pro-abortion?

 

[Removable Mind]

So a person who supports abortion prior to (say) 20 weeks and opposes it thereafter is pro-life or pro-abortion?

Now you're talking about a pro-life argument - not pro-choice.

Please define "pro-abortion".

 

[Fletch]

Now you're talking about a pro-life argument - not pro-choice.

Please define "pro-abortion".

So I am pro-life then?

 

[Removable Mind]

So I am pro-life then?

Don't know??? Define "pro-abortion".

 

[Fletch]

Don't know??? Define "pro-abortion".

So you agree then that two options don't quite work.

 

[Removable Mind]

So you agree then that two options don't quite work.

Ummmmm.....not sure. Define "pro-abortion". :shrug:

 

[Fletch]

Ummmmm.....not sure. Define "pro-abortion". :shrug:

I thought you were sure. Now you are not.

 

[Removable Mind]

I thought you were sure. Now you are not.

What's important is that you're sure. I'm pro-choice. I don't ponder your original post.

 

[Fletch]

What's important is that you're sure. I'm pro-choice. I don't ponder your original post.

Im not sure. It is you who claims that everyone fits nicely into one of two boxes. Well then, into which box do I fit?

 

[Removable Mind]

Im not sure. It is you who claims that everyone fits nicely into one of two boxes. Well then, into which box do I fit?

Pretty much. Based on your first reply to me about the 20 week and under folks - they have something in common with the purely pro-choice argument.

In other words, not believing in 20 week plus abortions doesn't undermine the purity of the pro-choice argument.

 

[AGENT J]

Well, you certainly can say things this crazy, but it doesn't make them true.

link, proof, facts?

 

[AGENT J]

Again, you can say crazy and delusional things all you want, and boy do you ever do so. Doesn't change anything outside your own mind. The facts are not disputable, and you haven't disputed anything.

links? proof? facts?
so far you havent present any . . not even ONE lol

 

[HonestJoe]

2.) I agree it seems sensationalized some but what would be the better headline and why is that deserving of a hack title since thats what media does . . i would think hack should be saved for activity outside the norm

I guess it depends on what we're calling a "good" headline. Something along the lines of "New survey results on abortion opinions published" would be accurate but not very eye-catching. That's really the difficulty. The media in general is about selling products and so the choice of stories and the manner in which they're reported are influenced by that to a greater or lesser extent. That's never going to change so it's important people understand and acknowledge that and differentiate between the reporting and the facts behind it.

3.) so you want a poll, or more less not a poll but an articles that focuses on what your feelings are rather than the information they were trying to collect? that seems silly and not what polls are about at all. That also doesnt seem like scientific legitimacy at all either

I've no issue with most of the questions they ask (though the pro-choice/pro-life one is political and arguably does more harm that good). It's all good data for social science, political science and policy makers. I don't think these results alone are actually news though. Note that this has nothing to do with my opinions on the subject (which I've deliberately not stated and are complex anyway), it's about how the media handles science and a general lack of awareness or understanding among the consuming public.

The worst thing is that Gallup is by far on of the more reliable and trusted sources so the fact they so easily drift in to tabloidism goes to show how ingrained the problem is.

 

[Peter King]

So, they hate the unborn so much they don't care if they're violently killed - yup, that's a pro-abort.

Nonsense, utter nonsense. This has nothing to do with hatred, often it is a choice out of love, love for the family/children that are already there or out of love for the ZEF because the pregnant woman knows she has nothing to give to the ZEF.

Also, not violent, not killing, not pro-abort. It is aborting and it is pro-choice. And legal and early abortions (which is the kind that almost always takes place) is not a violent act at all. And even if it were violent (and I do not agree with that), how would a ZEF know that? It is no brain to process pain, it has no reference to know that it is pain and according to the available knowledge we have, a fetus is unable to detect pain from a sensory point of view at the moment most abortions take place.

 

[Peter King]

Right, so pro-abortion. No misleading nonsense - like everything else you said - needed.

No, you do not have the right to change the definition (as you claimed that I had been doing) because she is pro-choice.

 

[Peter King]

Well, you certainly can say things this crazy, but it doesn't make them true.

Luckily for me I do not say crazy things when abortion/pro-choice is concerned. And also, they are true.

 

[JayDubya]

Nonsense, utter nonsense.

Yes, your claims are utter nonsense.

This has nothing to do with hatred, often it is a choice out of love... love for the family/children that are already there or out of love for the ZEF

More nonsense... yes, yes, tell me about loving homicides. This is the craziest thing you've said yet.

You even included a hateful slur to put a pin on it and confirm your own bigotry.

Also, not violent, not killing, not pro-abort.

Lie, lie, and lie, indisputably. Completely wrong and self-deluded on all counts.

 

[Peter King]

Again, you can say crazy and delusional things all you want, and boy do you ever do so. Doesn't change anything outside your own mind. The facts are not disputable, and Thyou haven't disputed anything.

You can offer simple contradiction, and boy do you ever do so, but simple contradiction isn't an argument, especially when what you're trying to contradict is reality.

the problem you have is that I do not say crazy/delusional things.

I don't know where you get all this nonsense, but you have literally nothing to support such a statement.

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And there you go more proof that what you claim is nonsense.

 

[JayDubya]

And there you go more proof that what you claim is nonsense.

Yes, yes, please pretend I wasn't referring to your stupid "something you want to deny women" crack.


A libertarian is not a might-makes-right anarchist. Even a minarchist libertarian state has a night watchman to deal with aggression and violence.

In a civilized society, personal liberty does not or should not extend to killing other human beings in cold blood. Personal freedom of choice is important, but it does not extend to aggressive acts taken against others.

 

[Peter King]

Yes, your claims are utter nonsense.

actually not, my claims are truthful.

More nonsense... yes, yes, tell me about loving homicides. This is the craziest thing you've said yet.

You even included a hateful slur to put a pin on it and confirm your own bigotry.

No, nobody loves homicides. I do know people who love to make something that is not a homicide into a homicide (or claim that something is a homicide when it clearly is not), does that count? Maybe you know that person too.

Choosing to have an abortion is not a choice of hate, often it is a choice made from love and a sense of reality in which they care so much for the kids they already have or for the potential child they could have, to realize that sometimes less is more and that abortion is a kinder/better/more love felt choice that having a child/yet another child.

And as sad, I don't do/say crazy or make hateful slurs, sorry but that is a total and utter/complete lie.

Lie, lie, and lie, indisputably. Completely wrong and self-deluded on all counts.

Really, how violent is it to abort a sesame seed collection of cells? Sorry, but not wrong or a lie.

 

[Peter King]

Yes, yes, please pretend I wasn't referring to your stupid "something you want to deny women" crack.


A libertarian is not a might-makes-right anarchist. Even a minarchist libertarian state has a night watchman to deal with aggression and violence.

In a civilized society, personal liberty does not or should not extend to killing other human beings in cold blood. Personal freedom of choice is important, but it does not extend to aggressive acts taken against others.

You mean the absolutely correct statement that the anti-choice crowd wants to deny women something that they are constitutionally guaranteed to?

And I don't have to pretend. Maybe you should make yourself more clear. And does not matter, your understanding from libertarianism seems to be faulty (as you want to deny women their liberty) and your comment that you do not want to deny women anything is obviously also untrue.

You do want to stop abortion? Rights? Something they are legally entitled to? That would mean you want to deny women the right to choose.

 

[AGENT J]

I guess it depends on what we're calling a "good" headline. Something along the lines of "New survey results on abortion opinions published" would be accurate but not very eye-catching. That's really the difficulty. The media in general is about selling products and so the choice of stories and the manner in which they're reported are influenced by that to a greater or lesser extent. That's never going to change so it's important people understand and acknowledge that and differentiate between the reporting and the facts behind it.

I've no issue with most of the questions they ask (though the pro-choice/pro-life one is political and arguably does more harm that good). It's all good data for social science, political science and policy makers. I don't think these results alone are actually news though. Note that this has nothing to do with my opinions on the subject (which I've deliberately not stated and are complex anyway), it's about how the media handles science and a general lack of awareness or understanding among the consuming public.

The worst thing is that Gallup is by far on of the more reliable and trusted sources so the fact they so easily drift in to tabloidism goes to show how ingrained the problem is.

hmmm I agree with that I m just falling short of seeing any outrage or even discourse with the OP and actual Gallup poll . . . I dont see the tabloidism of the OP or actual link (not sub links or ads)
maybe its because I simply dont but in to the sensationalized parts and I just look at the poll for what it is. Just a poll on the questions asked and the results actually dont shock me going off my real life interactions with people.
I do get what you mean now though and where you are coming from, good answer

 

[JayDubya]

You mean the absolutely correct statement that the anti-choice crowd wants to deny women something that they are constitutionally guaranteed to?

Yes, that would be the abjectly retarded lie in question that pro-aborts like you tell yourself, that there is a constitutional right to kill your own kid.

There is no such right and never could be, not even with a ratified amendment.

 

[Peter King]

Yes, that would be the abjectly retarded lie in question that pro-aborts like you tell yourself, that there is a constitutional right to kill your own kid.

There is no such right and never could be, not even with a ratified amendment.

Well, still not any untruth in what I said, even though you are still unable to make a point without passive aggressive language. Is your position so weak that you cannot make your point without it?

Roe v. Wade, the right of women to have an abortion is guaranteed under the constitution according to the 9 biggest constitutional experts (and the only one who can decide whether or not something is constitutional or not).