- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 4,081
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Upper Midwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Your claim is as much a lie now as the first time you spewed it.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.........
That has now been shown the general sentiemtn on this board. See here for details where this has been made clear: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?
What facts are ignored here, other than those the prolifers are ignoring?Ethereal said:Just because you choose to ignore the facts (steen and company) doesn't mean an argument is devoid of them.
It was emotional hyperbole, nothing else. That is an ineffective way of communicating anything.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).
No, it isn't. No more than other medical procedures. For that matter, taking antibiotics is deadly to the live cells of the bacteria.An abortion is a potentially deadly medical procedure
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: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.
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 medical ethics dictate a kid notifying her violent rapist daddy that she is going to abort the product of his incest?
Interesting claim. It happens that abortion is the safest surgical procedure. and that the mortality is 15 times higher from giving birth.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.
Exactly.First of all it's quite obvious that antibiotics are deadly to bacteria since the sole purpose of antibiotics is to kill bacteria.
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.Secondly, the removal of deadly microbs from the immune system is in no way detrimental to one's health.
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.Therefor I would like to state that your little "point" about antibiotics killing bacteria is totally irrelevant in every way possible.
I am sorry that your cognitive ability is so limited that you are unable to connections that are clear to everybody else. You know: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.
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.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?
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.Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said: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.Steen said:"Interesting claim. It happens that abortion is the safest surgical procedure. and that the mortality is 15 times higher from giving birth.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/stakes.htm
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?
Exactly.
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.
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.
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.
The girl having an abortion and simply doing DNA on the products of conception deals with that
It is ALSO A FACT that other surgical procedures are more unsafe, and that giving birth is MUCH MORE unsafe.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.
I use scientific sites, not prochoice sites.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.
Quite. Likewise for your claims.Once again you must prove this, unless you expect me to take your word for it.
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?Because that's retarded and the human species would go extinct.
Ah, another lying ad hominem. No surprise there.That you don't know anything about medicine, biology, statistical analysis, or debate.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htmProve it.as the mortality from giving birth is MUCH HIGHER than from abortions.
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.Let me explain something to you, abortion is a dangerous medical procedure to humans,
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?taking antibiotics is not; pending allerigic reaction or abuse.
It is not irrelevant to the lying claims presented here about how abortion supposedly is 'unsafe, a claim now thoroughly disproved.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.
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.You seem to think that getting an abortion is the only method this hypothetical girl has of stopping her father from raping her.
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.
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.
FinnMacCool said:These stories, while touching, I think belong on a pro-life forum cause they're neither fair nor factual.
exactly! :ytProudly Pro Life JP Freem said:They do inspire debate. You responded.
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:They do inspire debate. You responded.
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.
That would be against prolife style, actually respond to issues raised about their claims.tecoyah said:
But....you didnt...........
steen said:That would be against prolife style, actually respond to issues raised about their claims.
Good. Here is one you missed:Aurora151989 said: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.
steen said:
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?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/
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.
It is ALSO A FACT that other surgical procedures are more unsafe
and that giving birth is MUCH MORE unsafe
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).
It happens that abortion is the safest surgical procedure.
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.
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?
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.
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?
It is not irrelevant to the lying claims presented here about how abortion supposedly is 'unsafe, a claim now thoroughly disproved.
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.
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.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.
What was your evidence for this?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.
Nope.You work at a school right?
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,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.
Nope, this is the death from "Pregnancy with abortive outcome." The one death from a medical abortion leaves your number as 0.00018According 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.
It seems roughly correct, so I am not going to double-check.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.
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.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.
By deliberately or ignorantly using flawed and misleading statistics?http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm#tab1
Once again, I'm not debating as a pro-lifer, but a proponant of medical ethics.
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.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.
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec17/ch192/ch192a.htmlI couldn't find anything that substaniated this claim.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?
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.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.
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.
I see you convienantly neglected to adress my entire post :2razz:Ethereal said:I see you convienantly neglected to adress the following points...
I see you convienantly neglected to adress my entire post
Respond to these and I will respond in kind.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?