• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hello My Name is Lisa

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Navy Pride said:
It is easy to explain........Pro choice does not sound as bad as pro abortion but the fact remains both want to kill innocent babies in the womb.........
Your claim is as much a lie now as the first time you spewed it.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
So your position is that abortion should be outlawed for all cases except for rape, "health concerns" etc... as a form of punishment for the woman?
That has now been shown the general sentiemtn on this board. See here for details where this has been made clear:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6031
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
Just because you choose to ignore the facts (steen and company) doesn't mean an argument is devoid of them.
What facts are ignored here, other than those the prolifers are ignoring?
JP's story, although moderately incoherent and thickly coated in pro-life rhetoric, tries to adress the underlying paradoxes of why parental notification is required in virtually every situation involving minors; except abortion (in certain states and circumstances).
It was emotional hyperbole, nothing else. That is an ineffective way of communicating anything.
An abortion is a potentially deadly medical procedure
No, it isn't. No more than other medical procedures. For that matter, taking antibiotics is deadly to the live cells of the bacteria.
and as such should not be openly accessable to minors without the consent of their legal guardians. If the law requires a plastic surgeon to recieve parental consent before giving little Susy her new breast implants, then the same should go for the abortionist who plans on sucking the life out of little Susy's uterus.

Medical ethics are universal and bi-passing parental notification in the case of abortion does not have the best interests of its patient in mind, on the contrary, its only concern is that of a political lobby i.e. the pro-choice movement, thus making it dangerous and immoral.

This has nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice. It's about medical ethics.
And medical ethics dictate a kid notifying her violent rapist daddy that she is going to abort the product of his incest? Yeah, what a great way of legislating family communication :roll:
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, it isn't.

Good point. Bravo.

Anyway, abortion carries with it the risk of a perforated uterus, perforated bowel or bladder, septic shock, sterility, and death. Which is an undisputed medical fact, so, therefor, you are completely wrong, and as such makes this a medical ethics debate, not a pro-life/pro-choice debate.

No more than other medical procedures.

Stitches.

For that matter, taking antibiotics is deadly to the live cells of the bacteria.

First of all it's quite obvious that antibiotics are deadly to bacteria since the sole purpose of antibiotics is to kill bacteria. Secondly, the removal of deadly microbs from the immune system is in no way detrimental to one's health.

Therefor I would like to state that your little "point" about antibiotics killing bacteria is totally irrelevant in every way possible. So completely and totally irrelevant that I cannot even begin to comprehend how you could formulate such an inapplicable opinion and that your addled brain actually thought it was in some way valid.

Does it just suck being you?

And medical ethics dictate a kid notifying her violent rapist daddy that she is going to abort the product of his incest?

Let's think about this for a moment, shall we? Don't you think an abortion would be in the best interests of the rapist father since it would eliminate any evidence of his crimes? I don't think a father rapes his daughter in order to produce an incestual love-child.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
Anyway, abortion carries with it the risk of a perforated uterus, perforated bowel or bladder, septic shock, sterility, and death. Which is an undisputed medical fact, so, therefor, you are completely wrong, and as such makes this a medical ethics debate, not a pro-life/pro-choice debate.
Interesting claim. It happens that abortion is the safest surgical procedure. and that the mortality is 15 times higher from giving birth.

So so when we talk medical ethics and safety, we need to discuss why we don't want EVERYBODY to abort.

So what was it you were saying we are talking about?
First of all it's quite obvious that antibiotics are deadly to bacteria since the sole purpose of antibiotics is to kill bacteria.
Exactly.
Secondly, the removal of deadly microbs from the immune system is in no way detrimental to one's health.
So you ARE talking about what is lethal to the woman, right? In that case we should talk about making women abort instead of giving birth, as the mortality from giving birth is MUCH HIGHER than from abortions.
Therefor I would like to state that your little "point" about antibiotics killing bacteria is totally irrelevant in every way possible.
No, you talked about lethality, and as lethality is almost a non-issue in abortions, the only thing you could be talking about was the expected outcome of the procedure.
So completely and totally irrelevant that I cannot even begin to comprehend how you could formulate such an inapplicable opinion and that your addled brain actually thought it was in some way valid.
I am sorry that your cognitive ability is so limited that you are unable to connections that are clear to everybody else. You know:
Does it just suck being you?
Let's think about this for a moment, shall we? Don't you think an abortion would be in the best interests of the rapist father since it would eliminate any evidence of his crimes?
It wouldn't. The girl having an abortion and simply doing DNA on the products of conception deals with that. In the meanwhile, the daily raping of her body is eliminated, she is freed.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Steen says"Interesting claim. It happens that abortion is the safest surgical procedure. and that the mortality is 15 times higher from giving birth.

Wrong! Buzzzz Beep Beep Wow It takes two hands to handle a whopper. steen I like the graphs. I know you will complain about the source you use yours I'll use mine.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/stakes.htm
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Steen said:
"Interesting claim. It happens that abortion is the safest surgical procedure. and that the mortality is 15 times higher from giving birth.
Wrong! Buzzzz Beep Beep Wow It takes two hands to handle a whopper. steen I like the graphs. I know you will complain about the source you use yours I'll use mine.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/stakes.htm
A finnish source. MMRW shows the death from abortion IN THE US as 3-12 yearly (of about 1 mill abortions) and death from birth as 300-550 yearly (of about 4.5 mill births.) Giving birth is MUCH MORE lethal than having an abortion.

I shall reference the source when I get home.

I shall also try to verify the claims you made by looking at the actual article. Often prolifers will distort data and lie about it to make their claims. That's why I don't rely on the prolife pro-lie sites byt go with the actual science.
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Interesting claim.

It's not a "claim". It's an undisputed medical fact. If you get an abortion, a potentially deadly surgical procedure, then you run the risk of a perforated uterus, perforated bowel or bladder, septic shock, sterility, and death. This is not debatable.

It happens that abortion is the safest surgical procedure.

Prove it. I happen to know this is not true, but the onus is not on me to disprove unsubstaniated claims. Provide some kind of study or article (not from one of your pro-choice websites) that would back up this statement.

and that the mortality is 15 times higher from giving birth.

Once again you must prove this, unless you expect me to take your word for it.

So so when we talk medical ethics and safety, we need to discuss why we don't want EVERYBODY to abort.

Because that's retarded and the human species would go extinct.

So what was it you were saying we are talking about?

That you don't know anything about medicine, biology, statistical analysis, or debate.


So, what's your point goof-ball.

So you ARE talking about what is lethal to the woman, right?

No, I'm talking about parental consent being universal within medicine as it pertains to minors. You choose to make it specifically about women and your silly pro-choice agenda.

In that case we should talk about making women abort instead of giving birth

No, we really shouldn't because it makes absolutely no sense and is based upon your unsubstaniated claims that abortion is the safest medical procedure and so on and so forth.

as the mortality from giving birth is MUCH HIGHER than from abortions.

Prove it.

No, you talked about lethality, and as lethality is almost a non-issue in abortions, the only thing you could be talking about was the expected outcome of the procedure.

Let me explain something to you, abortion is a dangerous medical procedure to humans, taking antibiotics is not; pending allerigic reaction or abuse. Furthermore, whether or not antibiotics is more or less dangerous than abortion is totally irrelevant because antibiotics not only require a prescription, but a doctor is also required by law to recieve the consent or supervision of a minor's parents if said doctor wishes to prescribe them in the first place.

It wouldn't. The girl having an abortion and simply doing DNA on the products of conception deals with that. In the meanwhile, the daily raping of her body is eliminated, she is freed.

It's statements like these that make me ask myself why I even bother with you...

The girl having an abortion and simply doing DNA on the products of conception deals with that

You seem to think that getting an abortion is the only method this hypothetical girl has of stopping her father from raping her. Sorry, she could just as easily go to the police, or a neighbor, or a teacher, or child services.

The only problem with that is she's too scared and brain-washed by her rapist daddy to do any of these things. So, what in that puny little brain of yours makes you think she's just going to waltz into an abortion clinic, unbeknownst to her rapist father, and ask for an abortion and a paternity test?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
It's not a "claim". It's an undisputed medical fact. If you get an abortion, a potentially deadly surgical procedure, then you run the risk of a perforated uterus, perforated bowel or bladder, septic shock, sterility, and death. This is not debatable.
It is ALSO A FACT that other surgical procedures are more unsafe, and that giving birth is MUCH MORE unsafe.
Prove it. I happen to know this is not true, but the onus is not on me to disprove unsubstaniated claims. Provide some kind of study or article (not from one of your pro-choice websites) that would back up this statement.
I use scientific sites, not prochoice sites.
http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/MJM/issues/v08n02/crossroads/82157.pdf
When abortion is provided by trained
medical professionals, it is one of the safest surgical
procedures (2, 10). In the United States, the death rate
from abortions is less than 0.6 per 100,000 procedures
(7, 12).
2. Stewart F, Darney P. Abortion: Teaching why as well as how.
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 35(1): 37-39;
2003.
7. Sharing responsibility: Women, society and abortion worldwide.
Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1999.
10. Safe abortion: Technical and policy guidance for health systems.
World Health Organization, 2003.
12. Unsafe abortion: Global and regional estimates of incidence of
a mortality due to unsafe abortion with a listing of available
country data - Third edition. World Health Organization, 1997.

http://www.gfmer.ch/Books/Reproductive_health/Induced_abortion.html
While induced abortion is one of the safest surgical interventions in countries where the procedure is legal and appropriate services are widely available, the risk of suffering serious complications and perhaps death is considerable where the operation is performed by an unqualified abortionist under unhygienic conditions.
Royston, E., and Armstrong, S. (1989): Preventing maternal deaths. World Health Organization, Geneva.


Keder LM. (2003). Best practices in surgical abortion. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 189: 418–422.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact1.htm#risks

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/wars/faqs.html
(scroll to bottom)

So what FACT was it you "knew" was not true? Seems that what you "know" is unrelated to reality. next time you make claims like that, it would help your credibility if you actually had checked the claim ahead of time instead of spewing falsehoods.

Once again you must prove this, unless you expect me to take your word for it.
Quite. Likewise for your claims.
Because that's retarded and the human species would go extinct.
Ah, so now women have to be forced to give birth to keep the human species alive? You are getting more and more oppressive of women, aren't you?
That you don't know anything about medicine, biology, statistical analysis, or debate.
Ah, another lying ad hominem. No surprise there.
as the mortality from giving birth is MUCH HIGHER than from abortions.
Prove it.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm
"In 2000 (the most recent year for which data are available), 11 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. No deaths were associated with known illegal abortion. "

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Products&Pubs/DatatoAction/pdf/rhow11.pdf
"Each year, 300–500 pregnancy-related deaths*
are reported in the United States. This number
represents outcomes of only the most severe of
pregnancy-related complications. For every
pregnancy-related death, >3,600 admissions to
hospitals are for pregnancy-related complications
not associated with delivery."


You were saying?
Let me explain something to you, abortion is a dangerous medical procedure to humans,
but safer than other surgical procedures and certainly safer than giving birth as the evidence just showed you. You don't WANT this to be true as it robs you of a favorite, but false prolife argument. That is not my concern. That you would rather spew a falsehood than be honest about your claims, is disturbing, not unexpected per my experience with prolifers, and not my concern.
taking antibiotics is not; pending allerigic reaction or abuse.
And liver damage. And kidney damage. And bone density depletion. And bone marrow depletion. You were saying? Oh, wait, that was just another "but I want this to be true" prolife unsubstantiated claim, wasn't it?
Furthermore, whether or not antibiotics is more or less dangerous than abortion is totally irrelevant because antibiotics not only require a prescription, but a doctor is also required by law to recieve the consent or supervision of a minor's parents if said doctor wishes to prescribe them in the first place.
It is not irrelevant to the lying claims presented here about how abortion supposedly is 'unsafe, a claim now thoroughly disproved.
You seem to think that getting an abortion is the only method this hypothetical girl has of stopping her father from raping her.
Nope, I have not uttered any such sentiment. It was the prolife claim that she couldn't have the abortion because she then couldn't prove that she was being raped by her father. It is prolife's false claim that is in question here.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Hello My Name is Lisa
By Proudly Pro Life JP Freeman

Hello my name is Lisa I am thirteen years old. I live in New Jersey with my Mom and Dad. Mom & Dad love me but they just wouldn’t understand why I am here. Oh here is an abortion clinic I have been here before. Bill my boy friend (He is 25 and says age does not matter) dropped me off and gave me the money for my second abortion. You see they do not have parental notification in NJ, So Bill will not get in any trouble because my parents won’t know I am pregnant. I am so happy that the Pro-Choice groups and women’s organizations such as NOW and Unplanned Parenthood have protected my right to have an abortion without my parents knowledge. They have also protected Bill who says age does not matter. I have to go now the doctor is ready. Before I go in the nurse ask me if I have the Money payment must be made before the service is rendered. Iam lucky Bill has money; He gave me the cash. The door shuts the suction machine winds and another life has been destroyed. Or is it two lives? This is the Horror of Abortion.

Moral of the story: stupid, skanky pubescent girls and their dodgy "boyfriends" should never breed.

I'm 17. I'm bloody well old enough to decide for myself regarding medical matters.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
vergiss said:
Moral of the story: stupid, skanky pubescent girls and their dodgy "boyfriends" should never breed.

I'm 17. I'm bloody well old enough to decide for myself regarding medical matters.

Spoken Like a true Teenager. If you ask your Mom & Dad would they agree with you? By not telling someone you put yourself in danger as their could be internal bleeding, infection and other issues you might mistake as normal.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
These stories, while touching, I think belong on a pro-life forum cause they're neither fair nor factual.

They do inspire debate. You responded.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,450
Reaction score
3,842
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
They do inspire debate. You responded.


But....you didnt...........


tecoyah said:
Hello, my name is Lisa I am thirteen years old. I live in New Jersey with my Mom and Dad. Mom & Dad love me but they just wouldn’t understand why I am here. Oh here is an Alley in the City and I have been here before. Bill my boyfriend (He is 25 and says age does not matter) dropped me off and gave me the money for my second abortion. You see they do not have parental notification in NJ, So Bill will not get in any trouble because my parents won’t know I am pregnant. I am so happy that the Pro-Life groups and Christian organizations such as Falwells and Fundamentalists have removed my right to have an abortion without my parents knowledge. They have also protected Bill who says age does not matter. I have to go now the Guy with the coat hanger is ready. Before I go in the guy will ask me if I have the Money, payment must be made before the service is rendered. Iam lucky Bill has money; He gave me the cash. The gate to the dumpsters shuts the metal probe used to rip my insides apart winds and another life has been destroyed. Or is it two lives? This is the Horror of Abortion.

Lisa was later found two blocks away.....her blood crimson on the snow. She was not murdered, as she had no choice but to see this man, Whoever he was. Lisas Parents were notified....if a bit too late.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
tecoyah said:

But....you didnt...........
That would be against prolife style, actually respond to issues raised about their claims.
 

Aurora151989

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Messages
265
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
That would be against prolife style, actually respond to issues raised about their claims.


I suppose i am prolife as i believe only in abortions to save the mother. I believe i respond to issues raised about my claims.
 

Aurora151989

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Messages
265
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:

not sure how to respond but here goes

exhibit a: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6742983/ mother had preeclampsia

now this one makes no sense to me... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7830099/ ultrasound raised concerns that kalea would die in utero, so they take her out? she died 3 days later :(

exhibit b: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5748130/ again preeclampsia


and an article on preeclampsia http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4112077/
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Aurora151989 said:
not sure how to respond but here goes

exhibit a: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6742983/ mother had preeclampsia

now this one makes no sense to me... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7830099/ ultrasound raised concerns that kalea would die in utero, so they take her out? she died 3 days later :(

exhibit b: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5748130/ again preeclampsia


and an article on preeclampsia http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4112077/
Ah, but abortion of viable fetuses where the mom's life is NOT in danger, when do they happen? or are you saying that these abortions shouldn't happen?

(Perhaps we should leave this in the other tread?
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Spoken Like a true Teenager. If you ask your Mom & Dad would they agree with you? By not telling someone you put yourself in danger as their could be internal bleeding, infection and other issues you might mistake as normal.

Actually, according to Australian law, I am old enough to make my own medical decisions. In less time than the human gestation period, I will turn 18 and be allowed to vote, drink, get married and do whatever I want. Are you suggesting on the day of my 18th birthday I'll suddenly get this magical ability which I lacked beforehand to decide what is best for me? Also, what idiotic teenager would mistake haemorraging or infection as "normal"?

I have a "story" for you: Anna, the 16-year-old daughter of Jehovah's Witnesses. She's due to have a major operation that will probably require a blood transfusion. Without that transfusion, she will die. However, her parents don't care - they'll withhold consent for the transfusion based on religious beliefs. On the other hand, Anna doesn't want to die and would like the transfusion to be performed.

Whose choice is it now, hmm?
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It is ALSO A FACT that other surgical procedures are more unsafe

It's also a fact that surgical procedures, regardless of their relative safety, still require the consent and supervision of a minor's legal guardians in order for surgeons to preform said procedures.

and that giving birth is MUCH MORE unsafe

You have yet to prove this.

I use scientific sites, not prochoice sites.
http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/MJM/is...oads/82157.pdf
When abortion is provided by trained
medical professionals, it is one of the safest surgical
procedures (2, 10). In the United States, the death rate
from abortions is less than 0.6 per 100,000 procedures
(7, 12).

That still fails to prove this claim in anyway...

It happens that abortion is the safest surgical procedure.

You've proven that abortion is relatively safe, but you still fail to adress the fact that countless surgical procedures, such as a biopsy for instance, are still safer, and still require the consent and supervision of the minor's guardians.

While induced abortion is one of the safest surgical interventions in countries where the procedure is legal and appropriate services are widely available

It doesn't help your position when you cite a source that disproves your crazy notions. Abortion, although one of the safest surgical procedures, is not the safest as you previously claimed.

the risk of suffering serious complications and perhaps death is considerable where the operation is performed by an unqualified abortionist under unhygienic conditions.

Excellent point! This is exactly why parental consent should be required. Not only because it is universal within medicine, but because it serves the best interests of its patient. A minor seeking an abortion isn't going to possess the means or the capicity to distinguish between qualified and unqualified abortionists, legitimate or illegitimate practices and methods, sanitary or unsanitary, sanctioned or unsanctioned, ect.

Minors and medical proffessionals must inform the legal guardians of said minor in order to protect them from this kind of advantageous scenario in which minors are manipulated and decieved into recieving dangerous or unnessary operations by underqualified practitioners.

Once again, this is not about pro-choice and pro-life. It's about medical ethics and the protection of minors.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm
"In 2000 (the most recent year for which data are available), 11 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. No deaths were associated with known illegal abortion. "

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealt...pdf/rhow11.pdf
"Each year, 300–500 pregnancy-related deaths*
are reported in the United States. This number
represents outcomes of only the most severe of
pregnancy-related complications. For every
pregnancy-related death, >3,600 admissions to
hospitals are for pregnancy-related complications
not associated with delivery."

You were saying?

You work at a school right? Go to Statistics 101 because you obviously require some assisstance. Besides, I prefer statistics that are more comprehensive, up to date, specific, and that can be elaborated on by the poster.

I'll just save you some time by giving you the real figures...

Out of 854,122 legal abortions in 2002, twenty-two women died as a result of this procedure. According to these statistics compiled by the Center for Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics, a woman has a 0.0026 percent chance of dying from an abortion.

Out of 4,021,726 live births in 2002, 335 women died as a result of maternal complications, excluding deaths resulting from an abortion. According to these statistics compiled by the Center for Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics a woman has 0.0083 percent chance of dying from giving birth.

According to these results a woman is three times more likely to die from giving birth than when getting an abortion, not fifteen times more likely, as claimed by steen.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm#tab1

but safer than other surgical procedures

You claimed it was the safest, and it happens to be irrelevant anyway since surgery requires a surgeon to recieve parental consent prior to operation, or run the risk of losing their lisence and being sued.

and certainly safer than giving birth as the evidence just showed you. You don't WANT this to be true as it robs you of a favorite, but false prolife argument.

Once again, I'm not debating as a pro-lifer, but a proponant of medical ethics. You're the one who's making this into a political debate, just like your constituency turns medical ethics into a political stomping grounds.

That is not my concern. That you would rather spew a falsehood than be honest about your claims, is disturbing, not unexpected per my experience with prolifers, and not my concern.

You really like the words, "spew and falsehood" don't you? Or is your vocabulary really that limited? I'm assuming it's the latter.

And liver damage. And kidney damage. And bone density depletion. And bone marrow depletion. You were saying? Oh, wait, that was just another "but I want this to be true" prolife unsubstantiated claim, wasn't it?

I couldn't find anything that substaniated this claim. Regardless, this debate isn't about antibiotics since they too require a prescription and parental consent, therefor making any point of your's moot.

It is not irrelevant to the lying claims presented here about how abortion supposedly is 'unsafe, a claim now thoroughly disproved.

Too bad I never claimed that abortion was "unsafe". What I actually said was that abortion is "a potentially deadly surgical procedure". And since in 2002 twenty-two women died from getting abortions this confirms that abortion is indeed a potentially deadly medical procedure.

Putting words into my mouth and calling me a liar? Typical steen.

Nope, I have not uttered any such sentiment. It was the prolife claim that she couldn't have the abortion because she then couldn't prove that she was being raped by her father. It is prolife's false claim that is in question here.

There you go again, attributing me to statements that were made by some other pro-lifer. Contrary to what you think, steen, pro-lifers are not a singular entity.

Learn how to debate. I would be very grateful.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
You've proven that abortion is relatively safe, but you still fail to adress the fact that countless surgical procedures, such as a biopsy for instance, are still safer, and still require the consent and supervision of the minor's guardians.
Jenss H. Malchow H. Hoensch H. [Small bowel biopsy as a cause of pseudomonas aeruginosa septicemia in a patient with intestinal lymphoma? (author's transl)]. [German] [Case Reports. Journal Article] Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie. 17(4):231-5, 1979 Apr.
A patient with intestinal lymphoma developed a gram-negative septicemia 48 hours following a peroral biopsy of the small intestine.....

Mugica J. Almosni M. Leroy M. Bisson A. Rollin G. Felgeres A. [Fatal hemorrhagic accident caused by bronchial punch biopsy of a microchemodectoma]. [French] [Case Reports. Letter] Nouvelle Presse Medicale. 7(16):1410, 1978 Apr 22.

Greenwood SM. Leffler CT. Minkowitz S. The increased mortality rate of open liver biopsy in alcoholic hepatitis. [Journal Article] Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics. 134(4):600-4, 1972 Apr.

Lindner H. [Fatal incidents in percutaneous liver biopsy using the Menghini needle]. [German] [Journal Article] Acta Hepato-Splenologica. 15(3):177-85, 1968 May-Jun.
It doesn't help your position when you cite a source that disproves your crazy notions. Abortion, although one of the safest surgical procedures, is not the safest as you previously claimed.
What was your evidence for this?
You work at a school right?
Nope.
Go to Statistics 101 because you obviously require some assisstance. Besides, I prefer statistics that are more comprehensive, up to date, specific, and that can be elaborated on by the poster.

I'll just save you some time by giving you the real figures...

Out of 854,122 legal abortions in 2002, twenty-two women died as a result of this procedure.
Actually, the tale is listed on page 100 of the report in your first link. The 2002 CDC report lists the 22 for this category: Pregnancy with abortive outcome. That is a medical definition meaning pregnancy with any loss of pregnancy before 20 weeks. 12 of these are listed as ectopic pregnancies. Are you going to claim them as mortality from the surgical procedure we know as abortion? Of course not, so right there your claim is off. Another 2 deaths are from "spontaneous abortion." One is listed as "medical abortion," and 7 are listed as "Other and unspecified pregnancy with abortive outcome." So we only for sure know of one death,
According to these statistics compiled by the Center for Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics, a woman has a 0.0026 percent chance of dying from an abortion.
Nope, this is the death from "Pregnancy with abortive outcome." The one death from a medical abortion leaves your number as 0.00018
Out of 4,021,726 live births in 2002, 335 women died as a result of maternal complications, excluding deaths resulting from an abortion. According to these statistics compiled by the Center for Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics a woman has 0.0083 percent chance of dying from giving birth.
It seems roughly correct, so I am not going to double-check.
According to these results a woman is three times more likely to die from giving birth than when getting an abortion, not fifteen times more likely, as claimed by steen.
Rather, they are 3 times as likely to die from birth than from "Pregnancy with abortive outcome." Unfortunately for you, things like death from ectopic pregnancy are calculated into both of the data normally, so when you exclude the ectopic pregnancy (per excluding deaths from "abortion" (namely your "22"), then you are under representing the number. So now I do have to go back and revisit your number. For sure, we need to add the 14 deaths from the "abortive outcome" in ectopic pregnancy and spontaneous abortion. That puts your number at 349 women dying and thus the risk at 0.0086 Now, 0.0086/0.00018=47.7 So in 2002, the number is actually much higher than normal, leaving pregnancy almost 48 times more dangerous than an abortion.

(Now, if you insist on squeezing the other 7 deaths into the elective abortion category, the numbers are 0.0086/0.0032=26.9 That still leaves pregnancy 27 times as dangerous as an elective abortion).

Now, what was it you said about statistics? One requirement is that you know what the numbers actually mean, including what an 'abortion" means in medical terminology (namely a pregnancy loss before 20 weeks for any reason).

Now, what I have showed here is that your claim is false, and that giving birth is MUCH MORE UNSAFE than having an elective abortion. Anywhere from 27-48 times as lethal, in fact.

SO what was it you were saying about safety?
By deliberately or ignorantly using flawed and misleading statistics?
You really like the words, "spew and falsehood" don't you? Or is your vocabulary really that limited? I'm assuming it's the latter.
rather, I call it as I see it. When I se prolifers spew falsehoods, then they get called on it. Are you saying that I should let prolifers get away with spewing falsehoods, that they only can make their claims if their lies are not challenged? Rather, that should give you pause as to the validity of the prolife arguments.
And liver damage. And kidney damage. And bone density depletion. And bone marrow depletion. You were saying? Oh, wait, that was just another "but I want this to be true" prolife unsubstantiated claim, wasn't it?
I couldn't find anything that substaniated this claim.
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec17/ch192/ch192a.html
Common side effects of antibiotics include upset stomach, diarrhea, and, in women, vaginal yeast infections. Some side effects are more severe and, depending on the antibiotic, may disrupt the function of the kidneys, liver, bone marrow, or other organs. Blood tests are used to monitor such adverse reactions.
Too bad I never claimed that abortion was "unsafe". What I actually said was that abortion is "a potentially deadly surgical procedure". And since in 2002 twenty-two women died from getting abortions this confirms that abortion is indeed a potentially deadly medical procedure.
Ah, but your number does not match reality, as f.ex. more than half of these women died from ectopic pregnancy or spontaneous abortion. That you don't know what "abortion" means in medical terminology is not my fault.
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I see you convienantly neglected to adress the following points...


It's also a fact that surgical procedures, regardless of their relative safety, still require the consent and supervision of a minor's legal guardians in order for surgeons to preform said procedures.


That still fails to prove this claim in anyway...

It happens that abortion is the safest surgical procedure.

Excellent point! This is exactly why parental consent should be required. Not only because it is universal within medicine, but because it serves the best interests of its patient. A minor seeking an abortion isn't going to possess the means or the capicity to distinguish between qualified and unqualified abortionists, legitimate or illegitimate practices and methods, sanitary or unsanitary, sanctioned or unsanctioned, ect.

Minors and medical proffessionals must inform the legal guardians of said minor in order to protect them from this kind of advantageous scenario in which minors are manipulated and decieved into recieving dangerous or unnessary operations by underqualified practitioners.

Once again, this is not about pro-choice and pro-life. It's about medical ethics and the protection of minors.

You claimed it was the safest, and it happens to be irrelevant anyway since surgery requires a surgeon to recieve parental consent prior to operation, or run the risk of losing their lisence and being sued.

There you go again, attributing me to statements that were made by some other pro-lifer. Contrary to what you think, steen, pro-lifers are not a singular entity.

Either your attention span is that of a nat's of your just skipping the posts most damaging to your position. Once again I'm going to assume it's the latter.

Respond to these and I will respond in kind. Untill then you still have plenty of food left on your plate...or have you bit off more than you can chew?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
I see you convienantly neglected to adress the following points...
I see you convienantly neglected to adress my entire post :2razz:
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I see you convienantly neglected to adress my entire post

You are seriously handicapped.

I believe I explained this well enough with the following statement...

Respond to these and I will respond in kind.

You can't fail to adress several points within a post and then expect me to continue the debate as if nothing had happened. That's how a debate works. Once I make a statement the onus falls on you to rebutt or concede said points. Failing to adress them is tad amount to a concession.

I'm fully aware that you adressed specific points within my post, the ones you found most advantageous to your position, but you can't expect me to form a reasonable rebuttal when you've changed the context and vantage point of our debate by dismissing several key points I've made. You are attempting to redirect and redefine the nature of the debate, a common tactic used by those who find themselves on the losing end of an argument.

Once you adress the entirety of my post I will make an attempted rebuttal of all your points, or I will concede if I find a rebuttal to be unfeasible.

Sincerely,
The highschool debate team.
 
Top Bottom