My thoughts exactly

[Teatime]

You pulled that strawman clearly out of your ass.
Now you're trying to save face.

If I'm guilty of a strawman then it's OP who needs to argue it because only OP can clarify what OP was trying to say.

 

[quip]

If I'm guilty of a strawman then it's OP who needs to argue it because only OP can clarify what OP was trying to say.

Ok let's ask @Hari Seldon himself.

 

[Hari Seldon]

OPs meme refers to the former, read his posts to me in this thread, he doesn't think anyone should be reading anonymous data.

That's not true. As statistical data with the approval of the patient I'm fine with that. Will help provide economic assistance, birth control, medical insurance etc. Reducing abortion with positive incentives is a good thing. It's a medical procedure and should be private like HIPPA requires. Cons want to go as far as track menstrual cycles and restrict travel etc. Politicians should not be making life changing medical decisions that's for sure. Preventing 12 year olds from reading certain books but forcing them to give birth is a disgrace.

 

[Teatime]

That's not true. As statistical data with the approval of the patient I'm fine with that. Will help provide economic assistance, birth control, medical insurance etc. Reducing abortion with positive incentives is a good thing. It's a medical procedure and should be private like HIPPA requires. Cons want to go as far as track menstrual cycles and restrict travel etc. Politicians should not be making life changing medical decisions that's for sure. Preventing 12 year olds from reading certain books but forcing them to give birth is a disgrace.

Your OP doesn't say this. You mock statistical data akin to what we find at Guttmacher. Your OP sends the message that we shouldn't be allowed to know anonyms statistical data collected by reputable institutions.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Your OP doesn't say this. You mock statistical data akin to what we find at Guttmacher. Your OP sends the message that we shouldn't be allowed to know anonyms statistical data collected by reputable institutions.

Only to you.

 

[Teatime]

Only to you.

Clearly not. You haven't been reading the thread.

 

[Teatime]

As statistical data with the approval of the patient I'm fine with that.

Your OP says statistical data is "nobody's business". Clearly your OP does not say what you are saying now. Please stop moving the goal posts.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Your OP says statistical data is "nobody's business". Clearly your OP does not say what you are saying now. Please stop moving the goal posts.

It does? Show me.

 

[Lursa]

It means I'm not hiding. Not only are you not fact checking for yourself, but you're using emotive language.

I havent seen every post. And if your position isnt evident in your overall posting, it often means you are not fully committed to it or want to focus on it. Instead, people often focus on semantics or tangential arguments.

Sorry, I'm being nit-picky, I just dont really understand why people often keep debating...on incidentals. Why bother?

 

[Lursa]

I would never want to stop people from having sex.
Sex is the dessert of life.
I raised both my children with this concept. Prohibition of thought never works. Ever.
Instead - you use common sense and inform the young.

It is the same with alcohol as an example. Teens are fascinated with it. They so much want to "act older" - but they have no inhibitions. So they drink till they are drunk over and over. And many are killed themselves, and kill others.
Instead - introduce alcohol when they are well before that stage. I did with my children at 12. Talked about how much better a pleasant buzz is than getting shit faced drunk. Both of them never drank much at all as teenagers. It was not a big deal to them, and peer pressure didn't work because I taught them about that as well.

And yet common sense can also be applied when accidental pregnancies occur. If you cannot raise a kid, if you would lose your job or not finish your education (investing in your place in society serves all society), if you'd be risking an income and providing for other dependents, etc etc etc...it's common sense and responsible to not produce another kid requiring taxpayer $$ to assist in raising it, and dumping it in a pool of ~100,000 kids already waiting to be adopted.

You dont compound mistakes with more mistakes. That's not common sense. Why isnt abortion the answer if that is the best choice for that woman? It can be very responsible.

 

[Lursa]

Abortion is not the answer in dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Education and common sense - IS.

And yet you ignored this...while discussing "common sense."

So what you are doing in denying women abortions is creating single mothers. Just let me know that you realize that, OK? You are creating the very thing that you are sitting there typing away at, denigrating...and yet would deny them the means to avoid it. ​

​

The right blames many of society's ills on single mothers...and yet here you are, proposing foisting more on society More illogic.​

Where is the "common sense" here? How do you justify the state deliberately creating more single mothers (by removing their choice)?

 

[Lursa]

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I disagree.

Why should an adult's decision for an abortion or vasectomy be subject to public opinion? That's exactly what "the states should decide" is about. Not the safety of the procedure...we're discussing the public deciding for strangers if they are entitled to a much safer procedure than pregnancy/childbirth...judging and choosing life-changing, even life-ending risks for strangers. Taking a stranger's consent to their own life, body, health, self-determination, etc away from them. In America, we only do this when people commit crimes.

Again, what other medical procedures do the public vote on access to for strangers? You may be pro-choice but I dont understand why you believe it should be public policy to regulate its access?

I would also hope that any anti-abortion voters would answer this as well.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And yet common sense can also be applied when accidental pregnancies occur. If you cannot raise a kid, if you would lose your job or not finish your education (investing in your place in society serves all society), if you'd be risking an income and providing for other dependents, etc etc etc...it's common sense and responsible to not produce another kid requiring taxpayer $$ to assist in raising it, and dumping it in a pool of ~100,000 kids already waiting to be adopted.

You dont compound mistakes with more mistakes. That's not common sense. Why isnt abortion the answer if that is the best choice for that woman? It can be very responsible.

Accidental pregnancy is a misnomer. It is a myth,
No one accidently has sex.
And to clarify, I am not 100% against abortion. I am not. The obvious if the mother's life is at risk, the result of rape or incest. Also if it is a girl under 18 - they should be given some latitude. No sense ruining her life. I have a daughter.
But abortion as birth control should never-ever-ever be paid for by tax dollars in any way shape or form.

 

[Lursa]

Accidental pregnancy is a misnomer. It is a myth,
No one accidently has sex.

Responsible sex is sex using birth control. And yes, accidental pregnancies do occur. Consensual sex is a normal, healthy part of life...there's no reason anyone shouldnt enjoy it responsibly and then be penalized if there are accidents.

We dont deny skiers or drivers the safest medical treatment when they have accidents, do we? Those are also normal activities. Why should we when there's an accidental pregnancy?

And to clarify, I am not 100% against abortion. I am not. The obvious if the mother's life is at risk, the result of rape or incest. Also if it is a girl under 18 - they should be given some latitude. No sense ruining her life. I have a daughter.

Why is it acceptable in cases of rape or incest? What about the development or humanity of the unborn is different in those pregnancies?

Any pregnancy and its consequences and risks can ruin a woman's life. Every single one risks her life...and harms her and her health. And that 9 months can ruin the entire rest of her life. It's not up to strangers or the state to pretend they know about her life and judge what she must risk.

But abortion as birth control should never-ever-ever be paid for by tax dollars in any way shape or form.

It's not birth control. And it's not paid for by taxes. That's manipulative rhetoric. And...it also certainly has nothing to do with the humanity of the unborn...only punishing women. That dehumanizes both.

 

[Gordy327]

Accidental pregnancy is a misnomer. It is a myth,

So if someone uses birth control and it fails, the resulting pregnancy is not an accident?

No one accidently has sex.

Irrelevant.

And to clarify, I am not 100% against abortion. I am not. The obvious if the mother's life is at risk, the result of rape or incest. Also if it is a girl under 18 - they should be given some latitude. No sense ruining her life. I have a daughter.

What does it matter what the circumstances are? If a woman determines her life might be ruined by pregnancy/birth, then why should she not be given the same consideration?

But abortion as birth control should never-ever-ever be paid for by tax dollars in any way shape or form.

It's not, per the Hyde Amendment.

 

[weaver2]

Accidental pregnancy is a misnomer. It is a myth,
No one accidently has sex.

Right, all sex is carefully planned for; nobody ever got carried away in the moment.

And to clarify, I am not 100% against abortion. I am not. The obvious if the mother's life is at risk, the result of rape or incest. Also if it is a girl under 18 - they should be given some latitude. No sense ruining her life. I have a daughter.
But abortion as birth control should never-ever-ever be paid for by tax dollars in any way shape or form.

Fine, then honestly recognize the real problem:

The great majority (75%) of women that get abortions live near, at or below the poverty line and because of the cost do not have access to the most effective contraceptives, the IUD and hormone injections or implants. Some do not even have access to birth control pills. Many are low wage workers with limited health insurance that doesn't cover LARCs (Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives) because these businesses have been allowed by the SC to call IUDs and hormone implants abortifacients, proclaim they are aborting a baby and refuse to provide coverage based on their religious objections.

Compounding the problem are regligious organizations that have lobbied and gotten federal government funding for Abstinence Only sex -ed programs again mostly in poor schools. It has been porven that these programs increase the teen pregnancy rate. The federal goverernment does not fund medically based, honest, realistic sex-ed.

It's a Catch 22 set up for 75% of women. Effective contraceptives that women control are unavailable, sex education is non-existant or Abstinence Only, clinics that provided information, education and contraceptives have been closed, men control contraception and women are denied abortions on the religious grounds that woman are just using abortion as birth control and should be punished by making then give birth.

States that have banned abortion are already beginning to see the results and incrased infant and maternal death rate. Increases in poverty, domestic abuse violence to spouses partners and children and an increase in sexual abuse in children have been predicted.

I'm assuming that nobody states that what they want is increased family and child violence or dead infants and mothers, but that's what restricting insurance, contraceptinves, education and banning abortions is accomplishing. Is that what you want?

 

[btthegreat]

I'm generaly opposed to plastic surgery on children when there's no medical need. There's a growing voice in America advocating letting boys chose for themselves when they turn 18. There are pros and cons on both sides of keeping the forskin and having it removed.

I thin you used the wrong word in an earlier post. You mean circumcision ( foreskin removal), not a vasectomy. Vasectomy is the male sterility procedure

 

[Teatime]

I thin you used the wrong word in an earlier post. You mean circumcision ( foreskin removal), not a vasectomy. Vasectomy is the male sterility procedure

You're right, I did. I apologize.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I'm pro-choice

No you're not.

 

[Teatime]

Why should an adult's decision for an abortion...be subject to public opinion?

Some consider it murder.

Again, what other medical procedures do the public vote on access to for strangers?

Gender-affirming hormone treatment for minors, prisoners, and illegal immigrants has been in the news.

You may be pro-choice but I dont understand why you believe it should be public policy to regulate its access?

I don't know how to answer that question. I simply accept that this is a topic we tend to need to vote on and I go from there.

 

[Lursa]

Some consider it murder.

Why should those that dont be forced to submit to their belief?

Gender-affirming hormone treatment for minors, prisoners, and illegal immigrants has been in the news.

Are they? Where is this being voted on? And that issue is regarding $$$ for the prisoners and immigrants, who's paying for it.

As for kids, where is that being voted on? Where are they taking that out of parental consent/hands?

I don't know how to answer that question. I simply accept that this is a topic we tend to need to vote on and I go from there.

And I have asked why you accept it's ok for strangers to vote on what happens to a woman's body, health, the risks to her life every day, and the demand to produce another unwanted life without her consent?

 

[Teatime]

Why should those that dont be forced to submit to their belief?

You're asking me why we shouldn't let people murder? you and I agree that elective abortion is not murder, but to those who think it is, preventing murder is a core universal function of all societies who ever existed.

Are they? Where is this being voted on? And that issue is regarding $$$ for the prisoners and immigrants, who's paying for it.

As for kids, where is that being voted on? Where are they taking that out of parental consent/hands?

Google Search

www.google.com

And I have asked why you accept it's ok for strangers to vote on what happens to a woman's body, health, the risks to her life every day, and the demand to produce another unwanted life without her consent?

So you're asking me why it's ok to accept it, not why it should continue.

Accepting a bad experience, is a good experience. The meaning of life is to learn to dance in the rain.

 

[Lursa]

You're asking me why we shouldn't let people murder? you and I agree that elective abortion is not murder, but to those who think it is, preventing murder is a core universal function of all societies who ever existed.

Nope, that's not what I wrote. Please address what I wrote. "Why should those that dont be forced to submit to their belief (what they consider)?" As in why should women be forced to submit to the fact they consider abortion murder? It's not...in every state a woman can induce her own abortion or go to another state and have one and she will not be charged with murder.

So...their 'consideration' needs to be justified somehow...right?

Google Search

www.google.com

Quotes please, I'm not doing it for you.

So you're asking me why it's ok to accept it, not why it should continue.

If it's not ok, why would you accept it? IMO, I respect not "accepting" something personally...it's when you'll vote to impose something on others you cant or wont justify legally or morally...that's the debate IMO.

If you are really pro-choice, you are making some odd posts.

Accepting a bad experience, is a good experience. The meaning of life is to learn to dance in the rain.

Non-responsive.

 

[Teatime]

Nope, that's not what I wrote. Please address what I wrote.

Then I don't understand what you wrote. Would you minde rewording the question, please?

Quotes please, I'm not doing it for you.

I said it's in the news, that's what the link shows. I didn't express an opinion or make an argument on those topics so there's nothing that needs to be quoted.

If it's not ok, why would you accept it?

Because I can't change it. People are going to keep abortion in the public eye whether or not we like it.

 

[Lursa]

Then I don't understand what you wrote. Would you minde rewording the question, please?

Please see my edits.

I said it's in the news, that's what the link shows. I didn't express an opinion or make an argument on those topics so there's nothing that needs to be quoted.

And I wrote the issue isnt about who's paying for those procedures. In the US, taxpayers dont pay for abortions.

If you want to validate the one about minors, it's up to you to present it.

Because I can't change it. People are going to keep abortion in the public eye whether or not we like it.

Then why bother appearing like you are debating it? Black civil rights and Jim Crow were "in the public eye" for 100 yrs after the civil war. Seems like it was worth debating and changing.