Conservative refuse to admit these facts are true

[weaver2]

I didn't say I thought anything. You talk to me with googling something I googled it I looked at sources that I viewed as trustworthy. If you want me to read something that will change all of history then present it.
sucks for you cuz I'm going to keep talking about how Margaret Singer was a white supremacist and that seems to trip your trigger.

I really am not interested in playing your games.

 

[CLAX1911]

I really am not interested in playing your games.

I'm sorry you can't rationalize your position but go ahead and walk away. It's what I expected from the very beginning

 

[weaver2]

Actually, as you noted, there is a dearth of info about that; which I find odd. The info is probably somewhere. Where? is the mystery.Its an interesting question. Recalling, all I have read in the past is/seems to be anecdotal; not enough to do analysis. I have that hard copy note in front of me for a reminder to be on the watch for that data and will let you know if I find anything that even might be of some type of value. Have a great day W !

I've located two used books at a reasonable price on Amazon that may give sourced information on welfare:
"In the shadow of the poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America"by Katz and "From Poor Law to Welfare State", by Trattner. Awaiting arrival from Amazon. There was another book that discussed the legislative history but a used paperback was $38 and a hard back in good condition was $188. !!!!!

 

[RetiredUSN]

These are true facts about abortion. Why won't pro-life advocates admit they are true?

*95% of women did the right thing by getting an abortion
Five years after abortion, nearly all women say it was the right decision, even those who struggled to make the decision supported the abortion years later.
*Anti-abortion women are the largest % of women getting abortions:
The majority of abortion patients indicated a religious affiliation: Seventeen percent identified as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Roman Catholic, while 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients did not identify with any religion. The proportion of women who identified as mainline Protestant declined by 24% since 2008, whereas the proportion with no affiliation increased by 38%�.
*Women who get abortions are responsible people:
85% of the women getting abortions have either part-time or full=time jobs.
45% are married or in stable relationships
59.3% have one or more children already
42.4% are aged 25 to 35
64% have attended college or have have a degree
66% plan to have children when they are financially able to provide necessities for them, and/or in a supportive relationship with a partner so their children will have two parents
64 % are using birth control: (rhythm and withdrawal are not considered birth control because their failure rate is so high).
*Women get abortions for very good reasons
The family can't financially support a child at this time.
The woman has responsibilities to work, parents, school or other children.
“I am too immature to raise a child�
Denying abortion in cases of unwanted pregnancies creates children that grow up with huge social problems.
*Conservatives created the marriage destroying legislation of aid to single mothers only.

Oops! We’re lost. | UC San Francisco
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/140517NCJRS.pdf
Females in the US Workforce
Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008 | Guttmacher Institute
Aid to Families with Dependent Children - Wikipedia

Get a freaking clue.

A good many Conservatives could give a flying **** about abortion either way.

 

[Fishking]

I am telling the truth, there is little interest in what happens to the child after it is born.

I'm pretty sure the same people would be upset if the children were being killed by their mothers after they are born as well.

 

[Fishking]

These are true facts about abortion. Why won't pro-life advocates admit they are true?

*95% of women did the right thing by getting an abortion
Five years after abortion, nearly all women say it was the right decision, even those who struggled to make the decision supported the abortion years later.
*Anti-abortion women are the largest % of women getting abortions:
The majority of abortion patients indicated a religious affiliation: Seventeen percent identified as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Roman Catholic, while 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients did not identify with any religion. The proportion of women who identified as mainline Protestant declined by 24% since 2008, whereas the proportion with no affiliation increased by 38%�.
*Women who get abortions are responsible people:
85% of the women getting abortions have either part-time or full=time jobs.
45% are married or in stable relationships
59.3% have one or more children already
42.4% are aged 25 to 35
64% have attended college or have have a degree
66% plan to have children when they are financially able to provide necessities for them, and/or in a supportive relationship with a partner so their children will have two parents
64 % are using birth control: (rhythm and withdrawal are not considered birth control because their failure rate is so high).
*Women get abortions for very good reasons
The family can't financially support a child at this time.
The woman has responsibilities to work, parents, school or other children.
“I am too immature to raise a child�
Denying abortion in cases of unwanted pregnancies creates children that grow up with huge social problems.
*Conservatives created the marriage destroying legislation of aid to single mothers only.

Oops! We’re lost. | UC San Francisco
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/140517NCJRS.pdf
Females in the US Workforce
Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008 | Guttmacher Institute
Aid to Families with Dependent Children - Wikipedia

So am I to assume you're full on into eugenics?

 

[COTO]

Like I said......

My two posts are a response to your question in the OP. To state the point more directly: I'm a pro-life advocate; I don't dispute any of the statistics in the OP. I do, however, reject your supposition that a fundamentally evil act such as murder or abortion can be morally justified by how people feel about it, how many of them attend church or hold down jobs, how many half-measures they took to avoid it, or how necessary or responsible they felt it was at the time.

Frankly, if the facts swung the other way and we found that every abortion was performed on a whim by a jobless, irreligious, childless mother who used no birth control and deeply regretted the decision, I don't see you suddenly flipping sides on the issue either. If this is so, it should be clear to you why none of the statistics in the OP are relevant to the issue of moral justification, and consequently why you're wasting your time defending abortion on such a basis.

 

[weaver2]

So am I to assume you're full on into eugenics

I never thought of abortion in relation to eugenics but in a way it is a vehicle for the original purpose of eugenics: the improvement of the physical and mental strength mankind. A bit of history: In the US and England drinking was heavy and alcoholism was rampant as was poverty, ill health and mental retardation in the mid 19th century. The discovery of genes and gene manipulation to improve plant and animal stock was seen as a way to promote a mentally and physically stronger human race and reduce poverty. The connection between heavy drinking and mental retardation and birth defects has not been made. Reducing alcoholism would probably have improved health and eugenics wouldn't have degenerated into the horror it did.

The women who abort do not want a child. No matter what your personal feelings are about abortion it is a statistical fact that unwanted children usually remain in poverty for the rest of their lives, become homeless, addicted, criminal, mentally unstable, and/or jobless. These children go on to perpetuate their tragic lives in the next generation. What most people don't know is that later when the family becomes stable and economically able to raise a child 60% of the women that aborted welcomed a child and raised it in circumstances that promoted mental and physical. So yes, in a way abortion promotes what eugenics originally tried to do, improve the human race.

 

[weaver2]

My two posts are a response to your question in the OP. To state the point more directly: I'm a pro-life advocate; I don't dispute any of the statistics in the OP. I do, however, reject your supposition that a fundamentally evil act such as murder or abortion can be morally justified by how people feel about it, how many of them attend church or hold down jobs, how many half-measures they took to avoid it, or how necessary or responsible they felt it was at the time.

Frankly, if the facts swung the other way and we found that every abortion was performed on a whim by a jobless, irreligious, childless mother who used no birth control and deeply regretted the decision, I don't see you suddenly flipping sides on the issue either. If this is so, it should be clear to you why none of the statistics in the OP are relevant to the issue of moral justification, and consequently why you're wasting your time defending abortion on such a basis.

This OP is not defending abortion. It is not establishing morality. It is simply stating a fact. Anti-abortion advocates do not acknowledge as real, true, factual, from reliable surveys or studies any of those facts. You say you believe them but all your actions say otherwise.

 

[weaver2]

Frankly, if the facts swung the other way and we found that every abortion was performed on a whim by a jobless, irreligious, childless mother who used no birth control and deeply regretted the decision, I don't see you suddenly flipping sides on the issue either. If this is so, it should be clear to you why none of the statistics in the OP are relevant to the issue of moral justification, and consequently why you're wasting your time defending abortion on such a basis.

You are right. I would still be pro-choice and for legal abortions. Frankly, anyone that wants to make sure that an irresponsible, thoughtless, careless, undisciplined, jobless woman carries a pregnancy to term is living proof that the reason for being against abortion has nothing to do with saving unborn babies. Forcing a woman like that to give birth smacks of vindictive hating.You need to take a serious look at why you are against abortion. Screeching, "murderers" at pro-choice women is just a tactic to convince yourself your motives are pure. They aren't.

 

[Fishking]

I never thought of abortion in relation to eugenics but in a way it is a vehicle for the original purpose of eugenics: the improvement of the physical and mental strength mankind. A bit of history: In the US and England drinking was heavy and alcoholism was rampant as was poverty, ill health and mental retardation in the mid 19th century. The discovery of genes and gene manipulation to improve plant and animal stock was seen as a way to promote a mentally and physically stronger human race and reduce poverty. The connection between heavy drinking and mental retardation and birth defects has not been made. Reducing alcoholism would probably have improved health and eugenics wouldn't have degenerated into the horror it did.

The women who abort do not want a child. No matter what your personal feelings are about abortion it is a statistical fact that unwanted children usually remain in poverty for the rest of their lives, become homeless, addicted, criminal, mentally unstable, and/or jobless. These children go on to perpetuate their tragic lives in the next generation. What most people don't know is that later when the family becomes stable and economically able to raise a child 60% of the women that aborted welcomed a child and raised it in circumstances that promoted mental and physical. So yes, in a way abortion promotes what eugenics originally tried to do, improve the human race.

Right...just eugenics talk. Margaret Sanger was into that. Much easier to get rid of undesirables early before it gets more complicated, right?

 

[weaver2]

Right...just eugenics talk. Margaret Sanger was into that. Much easier to get rid of undesirables early before it gets more complicated, right?

I'm sorry that was your interpretation.

 

[COTO]

This OP is not defending abortion. It is not establishing morality. It is simply stating a fact.

Uh huh.

You are right. I would still be pro-choice and for legal abortions. Frankly, anyone that wants to make sure that an irresponsible, thoughtless, careless, undisciplined, jobless woman carries a pregnancy to term is living proof that the reason for being against abortion has nothing to do with saving unborn babies. Forcing a woman like that to give birth smacks of vindictive hating.

If you believe irresponsible, thoughtless, careless, undisciplined, jobless women are excellent candidates for having abortions, why are you going out of your way to persuade us that women who have abortions are responsible, thoughtful, careful, disciplined, employed, and religious?

You're like the salesman who can't make up his mind whether the vacuum cleaner he's selling is great because it's cheap, simple, and idiot-proof or because it's expensive, sophisticated, and feature-loaded. So he claims both are true and hopes customers are too dumb to notice.

Maybe you can't decide because you're just selling a really crummy vacuum cleaner.

 

[weaver2]

Uh huh. If you believe irresponsible, thoughtless, careless, undisciplined, jobless women are excellent candidates for having abortions, why are you going out of your way to persuade us that women who have abortions are responsible, thoughtful, careful, disciplined, employed, and religious?

The irresponsible, thoughtless, careless, undisciplined, jobless women was your discussion point not mine. She doesn't have anything to do with the OP.

 

[COTO]

The irresponsible, thoughtless, careless, undisciplined, jobless women was your discussion point not mine. She doesn't have anything to do with the OP.

You're missing my central point.

In the OP, you give us a statistics dump, clearly trying to sell abortion as something that employed, religious, responsible women do. However, your later posts clearly support the position that the morality/immorality of abortion has nothing to do with whether a woman is employed, religious, or responsible.

I and every pro-lifer I know personally hold the same position. Good is good, evil is evil, and neither good nor evil are determined by whether the people practicing them are employed, religious, and/or responsible. This is the reason I initially parodied the OP. I wanted to satirize the absurdity of the belief that factors like employment, religiousness, personal regret, etc. would affect any rational reader's view on good and evil.

If you acknowledge this, it follows that you're wasting your time in this thread. You're arguing a moot point.

I don't understand the psychology that drives you. I've seen you practically living in the Abortion sub-forum for 16 months (and who knows how long before that), beating your head bloody against the wall, regurgitating the same arguments with the same small group of people hundreds of times. In the few instances I've engaged you, you seem to acknowledge you're trying to squeeze blood from a stone.

Furthermore, whenever I've said, "No, actually, what I believe is..." to explain why your criticisms are inaccurate or irrelevant, you proceed to totally ignore my stated beliefs and argue against some pro-life straw man you've set up.

In short, you seem to be urgently motivated to promote and defend abortion (more generally, the right to abortion), but you don't act in the way a rational individual genuinely interested in understanding and persuading anti-abortionists would act. This whole thread--the entire premise--is an ideal case in point.

It's your life to waste, but...

 

[weaver2]

You're missing my central point.

In the OP, you give us a statistics dump, clearly trying to sell abortion as something that employed, religious, responsible women do. However, your later posts clearly support the position that the morality/immorality of abortion has nothing to do with whether a woman is employed, religious, or responsible.

I and every pro-lifer I know personally hold the same position. Good is good, evil is evil, and neither good nor evil are determined by whether the people practicing them are employed, religious, and/or responsible. This is the reason I initially parodied the OP. I wanted to satirize the absurdity of the belief that factors like employment, religiousness, personal regret, etc. would affect any rational reader's view on good and evil.

If you acknowledge this, it follows that you're wasting your time in this thread. You're arguing a moot point.

I don't understand the psychology that drives you. I've seen you practically living in the Abortion sub-forum for 16 months (and who knows how long before that), beating your head bloody against the wall, regurgitating the same arguments with the same small group of people hundreds of times. In the few instances I've engaged you, you seem to acknowledge you're trying to squeeze blood from a stone.

Furthermore, whenever I've said, "No, actually, what I believe is..." to explain why your criticisms are inaccurate or irrelevant, you proceed to totally ignore my stated beliefs and argue against some pro-life straw man you've set up.

In short, you seem to be urgently motivated to promote and defend abortion (more generally, the right to abortion), but you don't act in the way a rational individual genuinely interested in understanding and persuading anti-abortionists would act. This whole thread--the entire premise--is an ideal case in point.It's your life to waste, but...

LOL. Such an ardent follower!!!!! However, had you read the posts I respond to you would understand rather than advocating abortion I am refuting untrue statements or outright lies about abortion, women, statistics, Sanger, history and totally asinine interpretation of the Bible, the law, the Constitution, pro-choice and morality.

You have mistakenly read my refutation of the same illogical or untrue statements from yet another anti-abortion advocate as "regurgitating the same arguments" in support of abortion. I am not for abortion. I am for honesty in a discussion about a very private decision women make about their lives and the lives of their family.

You have understood one thing correctly. I have ignored your stated beliefs as they pertain to women and abortion because they are either dishonest or untrue. Which is the theme of my OP: anti-abortion conservatives refuse to believe sourced facts about almost all issues dealing with legal abortion.

 

[weaver2]

These are true facts about abortion. Why won't pro-life advocates admit they are true?

*95% of women did the right thing by getting an abortion
Five years after abortion, nearly all women say it was the right decision, even those who struggled to make the decision supported the abortion years later.
*Anti-abortion women are the largest % of women getting abortions:
The majority of abortion patients indicated a religious affiliation: Seventeen percent identified as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Roman Catholic, while 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients did not identify with any religion. The proportion of women who identified as mainline Protestant declined by 24% since 2008, whereas the proportion with no affiliation increased by 38%�.
*Women who get abortions are responsible people:
85% of the women getting abortions have either part-time or full=time jobs.
45% are married or in stable relationships
59.3% have one or more children already
42.4% are aged 25 to 35
64% have attended college or have have a degree
66% plan to have children when they are financially able to provide necessities for them, and/or in a supportive relationship with a partner so their children will have two parents
64 % are using birth control: (rhythm and withdrawal are not considered birth control because their failure rate is so high).
*Women get abortions for very good reasons
The family can't financially support a child at this time.
The woman has responsibilities to work, parents, school or other children.
“I am too immature to raise a child�
Denying abortion in cases of unwanted pregnancies creates children that grow up with huge social problems.
*Conservatives created the marriage destroying legislation of aid to single mothers only.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/140517NCJRS.pdf
Females in the US Workforce
Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008 | Guttmacher Institute
Aid to Families with Dependent Children - Wikipedia

If you don't think these facts are true refute the fact with sourced material. Don't start in with the whining that I am immoral or that I'm setting up a straw man or that abortion is murder or women are irresponsible or fetuses have a right to life or I don't listen to your arguments or any of the other deflections used to avoid an honest discussion about legal abortion.

 

[COTO]

I am refuting untrue statements or outright lies about abortion, women, statistics, Sanger, history...

Supposing this is true, what possible purpose does it serve except to promote and defend abortion?

Or I'll put it differently: What is the difference between you and somebody who vehemently promotes and defends abortion?

I am not for abortion. I am for honesty in a discussion about a very private decision women make about their lives and the lives of their family.

Hence if I posit that abortion is morally tantamount to murder, you have no objection to this position?

Or do you construe your objections as "honesty", "refuting untrue statements", etc. rather than support for abortion?

You have understood one thing correctly. I have ignored your stated beliefs as they pertain to women and abortion.

One of the many reasons you're constantly at war with straw men and your arguments lack persuasiveness.

Which is the theme of my OP: anti-abortion conservatives refuse to believe sourced facts about almost all issues dealing with legal abortion.

I'm an anti-abortion conservative, and I don't dispute any of the stats in the OP. How does this fit with your hypothesis?

 

[weaver2]

Get a freaking clue. A good many Conservatives could give a flying **** about abortion either way.

Un-ruffle your feathers. I was addressing the OP to anti-abortion conservatives not conservatives.

 

[weaver2]

Supposing this is true, what possible purpose does it serve except to promote and defend abortion?Or I'll put it differently: What is the difference between you and somebody who vehemently promotes and defends abortion?

. Why should a lie stand unchallenged? Why should those trying to legislate away women's the right to make decisions about her private life be the only voice heard. Why should facts be prohibited and propaganda allowed?

Hence if I posit that abortion is morally tantamount to murder, you have no objection to this position?

I have no objection to what you choose to believe. You have a right to believe what seems best to you. However, calling women murderers isn't honest. Abortion is murder only in your belief system.

I'm an anti-abortion conservative, and I don't dispute any of the stats in the OP. How does this fit with your hypothesis?

I do not post hypotheses. I post facts.

 

[COTO]

Why should a lie stand unchallenged? Why should those trying to legislate away women's the right to make decisions about her private life be the only voice heard. Why should facts be prohibited and propaganda allowed?

Because, if you're not a supporter and defender of abortion as you contend, none of these things matter to you. They concern an act on which you've taken no moral position, like whether Jupiter is better than Mars, or Brazilians are better soccer players than Spaniards.

I have no objection to what you choose to believe. You have a right to believe what seems best to you. However, calling women murderers isn't honest. Abortion is murder only in your belief system.

You clearly do object to my beliefs, and to my supposition that they're morally founded. Furthermore, you're confused about the definition of "honesty". You should accuse me of dishonesty only if you're reasonably convinced I don't genuinely believe abortion is tantamount to murder.

I do not post hypotheses. I post facts.

You post both.

The OP contains statistics. Those are facts.

The OP also contains statements such as "women did the right thing by getting an abortion", "women get abortions for very good reasons". These are opinions, i.e. subjective interpretations of the facts.

Finally, the OP contains rhetorical questions such as "Why won't pro-life advocates admit they are true?". This question is founded on the hypothesis (presumption) that pro-life advocates don't admit the statistics are true. A hypothesis may turn out to be completely correct, partially correct, or completely incorrect. The hypothesis in the OP is at least partly incorrect because I've told you plainly on two occasions now that I'm a pro-life advocate and I don't dispute the statistics in the OP.

I'd an appreciate an answer to the questions in my previous post:

What is the difference between you and somebody who vehemently promotes and defends abortion?

How do you reconcile my accepting your statististics with your hypothesis that pro-life advocates won't admit the statistics are true?

 

[weaver2]

Because, if you're not a supporter and defender of abortion as you contend, none of these things matter to you. They concern an act on which you've taken no moral position, like whether Jupiter is better than Mars, or Brazilians are better soccer players than Spaniards.


You clearly do object to my beliefs, and to my supposition that they're morally founded. Furthermore, you're confused about the definition of "honesty". You should accuse me of dishonesty only if you're reasonably convinced I don't genuinely believe abortion is tantamount to murder.


You post both.

The OP contains statistics. Those are facts.

The OP also contains statements such as "women did the right thing by getting an abortion", "women get abortions for very good reasons". These are opinions, i.e. subjective interpretations of the facts.

Finally, the OP contains rhetorical questions such as "Why won't pro-life advocates admit they are true?". This question is founded on the hypothesis (presumption) that pro-life advocates don't admit the statistics are true. A hypothesis may turn out to be completely correct, partially correct, or completely incorrect. The hypothesis in the OP is at least partly incorrect because I've told you plainly on two occasions now that I'm a pro-life advocate and I don't dispute the statistics in the OP.

I'd an appreciate an answer to the questions in my previous post:

What is the difference between you and somebody who vehemently promotes and defends abortion?

How do you reconcile my accepting your statististics with your hypothesis that pro-life advocates won't admit the statistics are true?

I'll answer later. I have a previous engagement.

 

[weaver2]

Because, if you're not a supporter and defender of abortion as you contend, none of these things matter to you. They concern an act on which you've taken no moral position, like whether Jupiter is better than Mars, or Brazilians are better soccer players than Spaniards.

Are you talking about this OP or all 16 months of all my posts? This OP has no moral position. It is simply a statement that anti-abortion advocates do not believe the posted facts and a question: why don't they?

You clearly do object to my beliefs, and to my supposition that they're morally founded. Furthermore, you're confused about the definition of "honesty". You should accuse me of dishonesty only if you're reasonably convinced I don't genuinely believe abortion is tantamount to murder.

I believe you think abortion is murder. That's your right. But just because you believe it is so doesn't make it murder. The fact is abortion is a legal medical procedure. The exact point when someone becomes dishonest because they believe something is a fact when it clearly isn't is easily determined: will you insist that a person getting an abortion is a legally and morally a murderer deserving of legal punishment when that person is your wife, daughter or granddaughter.

The OP also contains statements such as "women did the right thing by getting an abortion", "women get abortions for very good reasons". These are opinions, i.e. subjective interpretations of the facts.

Possibly, but the evidence that women who get abortions are responsible people not sluts, whores, immoral leg spreaders, selfish party goers, randy teens, etc is pretty strong.

Finally, the OP contains rhetorical questions such as "Why won't pro-life advocates admit they are true?". This question is founded on the hypothesis (presumption) that pro-life advocates don't admit the statistics are true. A hypothesis may turn out to be completely correct, partially correct, or completely incorrect. The hypothesis in the OP is at least partly incorrect because I've told you plainly on two occasions now that I'm a pro-life advocate and I don't dispute the statistics in the OP.

Look up the words rhetorical, hypothesis and dispute.

What is the difference between you and somebody who vehemently promotes and defends abortion?

. You tell me. I don't know anyone that promotes abortion.

How do you reconcile my accepting your statististics with your hypothesis that pro-life advocates won't admit the statistics are true?

I haven't proposed a hypothesis. I'm quite certain that when someone says abortion is murder they ignore any proof that it is not murder and may actually be the most responsible thing a woman and her family can do when faced giving birth to an unwanted child that they cannot support.

Here's a question for you. Why do you ignore the importance of the lives of the woman and her family?

 

[SmartCat]

Simply amazing how you can support killing unborn babies as a good thing. "All Lives Matter" even the unborn.

Do you believe in socialized medicine? If you do not you do not believe that all lives matter, only the lives of those who can finance their health coverage.

 

[COTO]

Are you talking about this OP or all 16 months of all my posts? This OP has no moral position.

If there are readers dense enough to believe this, I assure you I'm not one them.

will you insist that a person getting an abortion is a legally and morally a murderer deserving of legal punishment when that person is your wife, daughter or granddaughter.

Yes, of course. If a law exists, it must apply universally and fairly.

Possibly, but the evidence that women who get abortions are responsible people not sluts, whores, immoral leg spreaders, selfish party goers, randy teens, etc is pretty strong.

All irrelevant, unless you're going on record that only "responsible people, not sluts, whores, immoral leg spreaders, selfish party goers, randy teens, etc." should be able to abort their offspring.

I don't know anyone that promotes abortion.

And yet you can't answer a simple question about what the difference is between you and somebody who promotes and defends abortion.

Not three lines after you wrote the above, you praise abortion with the claim that it "may actually be the most responsible thing a woman and her family can do". In what universe is this not promotion and defense of abortion?

In the OP, you bend over backwards to sell women who abort as upstanding, responsible people. Again: In what universe is this not promotion and defense of abortion?

If your thinking is that you're not "promoting and defending" abortion because you don't believe it's the right choice unconditionally, 100% of the time, this is like claiming that doctors don't "promote and defend" vaccination because they don't believe vaccination is the right choice unconditionally, 100% of the time. It's simply not a logical argument.

What's more, you've worked 10x harder to sell abortion on DP than any doctor has worked to sell the public on vaccination, hence the claim that you're neither a promoter nor defender is even more absurd in your case.

I haven't proposed a hypothesis. I'm quite certain that when someone says abortion is murder they ignore any proof that it is not murder and may actually be the most responsible thing a woman and her family can do when faced giving birth to an unwanted child that they cannot support.

Your hypothesis concerns the beliefs of pro-lifers, not the morality of abortion.

"Proof that [abortion] is not murder" only constitutes "proof" by your subjective standard, and your supposition that abortion "may actually be the most responsible thing a woman and her family can do" rests immutably on the false presumption that it isn't murder.

Here's a question for you. Why do you ignore the importance of the lives of the woman and her family?

I don't, and I've explained why in three previous debates.

Yet another reason why I claimed in #665 that "you don't act in the way a rational individual genuinely interested in understanding and persuading anti-abortionists would act": you don't remember who you've debated, what you've asked them, and how they replied--even after multiple engagements.