• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432:673:895]

Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Describing a situation as a "nightmare" isn't the same as having nightmares.
Yea, and sarcasm is not something you understand either.

Somehow I missed the hysteria.
Gee, what a surprise...

Also your addressing her points.
She did not have any just ignorant hysteria.
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

She had a crappy, stupid doctor that killed her. Abortionists kill their patients as a matter of course..both children and mothers.

Then they lie about it, and hide it, and falsify medical records. All while taking lots and lots of money from the poor, desperate women they claim they are *helping*.

Speaking of lies.....
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

He said, and I quote,



I criticized the statement "Just having a law against something doesn't prevent it from happening."
Yes you did by labeling it as too general, that is the lie.
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Yes you did by labeling it as too general, that is the lie.

"Just having a law against something doesn't prevent it from happening," is not a statement specific to abortion. If it is not specific, it is general. It is a general argument against any law... provided that said law cannot magically prevent anyone from breaking itself.


If you see the word abortion somewhere in that sentence which we have now quoted multiple times (and you have claimed does not exist), please seek medical help, as you would be showing the symptom of hallucinations.
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432:673]

" Thirty-eight percent of maternal deaths were unreported on death certificates. Half or more deaths were unreported for women who were undelivered at the time of death, experienced a fetal death or therapeutic abortion, died more than a week after delivery, or died as a result of a cardiovascular disorder."

"Studies have shown that physicians completing death certificates after a maternal death fail to report that the woman was pregnant or had a recent pregnancy in 50% or more of these cases.1–3 Because a history of pregnancy must be recorded on a death certificate for a death to be coded as resulting from a maternal cause, these deaths are not included in the calculation of maternal mortality rates. This leads to an underestimation of the problem of maternal mortality on both the state and national levels because death certificate data collected by states are used to compute maternal mortality rates for the nation."

In other words. We don't know how many are dying, but we can rest assured that there are a LOT more dying than what are actually reported.

Underreporting of Maternal Deaths on Death Certificates and the Magnitude of the Problem of Maternal Mortality
 
Last edited:
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Yeah, abortion on demand definitely kills people.

Though most pro-death zealots like to pretend that the poor minority women and their children that are killed aren't DESERVING of personhood...

Gosnell's "House of Horrors" Abortion Equipment Shown to Public | NBC 10 Philadelphia

What Gosnell did was ILLEGAL, it had nothing to do with legal abortion. Of course, anti-woman zealots don't care and have no problem lying and making it like he's the norm among abortion providers.....
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

and making it like he's the norm among abortion providers.....

There's no significant difference between Gosnell and his peers.

anti-woman zealots

:roll:

Next time, just type "derp." It's fewer keystrokes and it gets the same point across.
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Are you suggesting that ALL the statistical data regarding abortion in the USofA is a lie?

And that YOU know the real truth?????

Please - provide us with the data that supports "your truth". I'll wait.

In the mean time, please read this and tell us all how it's all a lie based on a secret desire to kill women.

CDC - Data and Statistics - Reproductive Health

The majority of abortions in 2010 took place early in gestation: 91.9% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, and of the abortions performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, 71.7% were performed at ≤ 8 weeks’ gestation.

Induced Abortion in the United States

89% occur in first 12 weeks
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

"Just having a law against something doesn't prevent it from happening," is not a statement specific to abortion.
True then again that is not what he said is it, so why the dishonest tirade? Is your reading comprehension so bad?

For the record AGAIN he said: "Simply making abortion illegal does not end abortion." Have someone explain that to you along with the fact that is is very specific and not a general statement.
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432:673]

And I have to say..only an idiot would maintain that we need more non-regulated abortion based on the *fact* that in the past lots of women died as a result of non-regulated abortions, lol.

Yet that is what the pro-abortion zealots maintain. We need legalized, non-regulated abortions because abortion is dangerous!
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Are you suggesting that ALL the statistical data regarding abortion in the USofA is a lie?

And that YOU know the real truth?????

Please - provide us with the data that supports "your truth". I'll wait.

In the mean time, please read this and tell us all how it's all a lie based on a secret desire to kill women.

CDC - Data and Statistics - Reproductive Health



Induced Abortion in the United States

You do realize that the CDC, Guttmacher's, PP and the Kinsey Institute trade directors back and forth all the time, do you not?

Not?

I take it not.
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

You do realize that the CDC, Guttmacher's, PP and the Kinsey Institute trade directors back and forth all the time, do you not?

Not?

I take it not.

Geee.....I notice not a single link to any data to support your claims.

Should I be shocked?

:roll:
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Yes, it is.
Why continue lying about it? He said: "Simply making abortion illegal does not end abortion." It is specific NOT general as you misrepresented it.
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Gee...what links have you provided?

I've provided links to support every claim I've made.

My question was..did you not know that the CDC/Kinsey Inst./PP and Guttmacher's trade directors back and forth in a manner eerily reminiscent of the Pharoah's strategy of marrying siblings to one another to reduce conflict?

I take it your answer is..."No".
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Why continue

Why am I continuing to point out that someone who said something objectively actually said it when it's on the same ****ing page of this same thread you're in now, same day as the post in question,and I've quoted it directly multiple times with a hyperlink to the statement in which he said exactly that and you continue to call me a liar despite the fact that I have demonstrated you are the one being false, deliberately?

I do this to demonstrate that you are deliberately being false, of course.

Why do you continue? Well the answer is I don't know why you're continuing to troll.
 
Last edited:
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Why am I continuing to point out that someone who said something objectively actually said it when it's on the same ****ing page of this same thread you're in now, same day as the post in question,and I've quoted it directly multiple times with a hyperlink to the statement in which he said exactly that and you continue to call me a liar despite the fact that I have demonstrated you are the one being false, deliberately?

I do this to demonstrate that you are deliberately being false, of course.

Why do you continue? Well the answer is I don't know why you're continuing to troll. I just wish we didn't have to suffer it.
Well then stop posting lies.
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

So who here knew that Alan Guttmacher founded planned parenthood?

I'm sure you see no problem with gleaning *statistics* that justify the existence and minimalize the accountability of PP from...Guttmachers.....
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Why am I continuing to point out that someone who said something objectively actually said it when it's on the same ****ing page of this same thread you're in now, same day as the post in question,and I've quoted it directly multiple times with a hyperlink to the statement in which he said exactly that and you continue to call me a liar despite the fact that I have demonstrated you are the one being false, deliberately?

I do this to demonstrate that you are deliberately being false, of course.

Why do you continue? Well the answer is I don't know why you're continuing to troll.

Well then stop posting lies.

Moderator's Warning:
Ok, this back and forth has been going on long enough and it's now come to an end. Please move on folks. And no one else should pick up their discussion.
 
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

So who here knew that Alan Guttmacher founded planned parenthood?

I'm sure you see no problem with gleaning *statistics* that justify the existence and minimalize the accountability of PP from...Guttmachers.....

Guttmacher did NOT found Planned Parenthood. He was a president of that organization. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger. And frankly, it's unbelievably sexist of you to say Guttmacher founded a major international organization that was actually founded by a woman.

Responsible pro-lifers know perfectly well that Guttmacher's statistics on abortion are reliable. They don't justify the existence of PP. PP began as a family planning non-profit which emphasized contraception.

Sanger did not approve of abortion, because in her time, abortion was very dangerous for women. Legal induced abortion did not reach the point of being as safe as childbirth until about 1948. However, after that, it became safer at a faster rate than childbirth and finally way outpaced it. Sanger thus built PP around contraceptive knowledge and access.

Until the end of the 1960s, that's what PP was, an organization distributing information about contraception and providing access to it. But when the US government became concerned about the need for access to affordable health care in the late 1960s, it decided to make a deal with PP to provide other kinds of health services and it offered PP funds from Title X for those services, which were considered medical. It made this deal because PP had a broad network of PP offices all over the US, including in rural areas.

That was the beginning of PP receiving government funds, before which it had not received any. It was also the beginning of PP providing such medical services as testing for STDs and some other kinds of medical health care. This is why PP became a set of clinics rather than offices.

Since women often patronized PP everywhere, as contraceptive knowledge and access were popular, and for women sexual health was especially important and related to pregnancy and childbirth, many low-income women even relied on PP for their health care in general. The services PP offered increased in variety and included services for men. PP got funds for these from Title X because of the deal.

When abortion became legal in 1973, PP decided to include abortion as an alternative in its family planning synthesis, and abortion services, too, though it has only offered first trimester abortions and has not offered such services at all of its clinics.


PP is a great organization in all of its current functions, its original one, the one it agreed to in a deal with the federal government which served that government's public health care aims, not PPs, and the abortion provision function. Because PP does not perform any abortions beyond the first trimester and it has the capacity to refer clients to clinics and doctors able to handle more complicated abortions, people who have abortions at PP almost never have complications. PPs are virtually all well-managed and do not violate laws or regulations, because they are very experienced.

If the government funding goes away, PP will just cut back on the services for which that funding was intended, namely, STD test, cancer screenings, and all sorts of other medical services. It will go back to being what it originally was, a purely privately funded family planning organization offering family planning info and low cost contraception as well as medical referral services. However, that doesn't mean it will stop providing abortion services, which are paid for only by private contributions (often earmarked for these services by contributors).

The notion that abortion is PP's big business is incorrect. It grew into the giant international organization that it became by providing good family planning into and low-cost contraception, and it expanded to providing other medical services than abortion at the request of the federal government.

Your open ignorance of PP and Guttmacher is what inspired me to write this post. You can find this information just by googling PP and reading its history on a wiki.
 
Last edited:
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Meh, my bad.

I should have asked "Did you know that the founder of the Guttmacher Institute was one of the early Planned Parenthood presidents?"

And then continued yada yada about it being an incestuous group of organizations, that switch directors and *founders* out like a 70's swinger's club switches wives.
 
Last edited:
Re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

I shall once again cite my oft-cited 1 Rule of Messageboard Posting:

If the first line of a post is an obvious and deliberate untruth or prevarication; do not bother with the rest.

So I'm sorry, your huge blathering goes unrequited because I don't waste time on people who are so committed that they will knowingly...tweak and/or obscure...the truth.

Yet rather than post something factual in rebuttal, supported by a hyperlink or two, as you've been asked to do at least once, you'll just post about how you don't bother to post to stuff you believe to be untrue?????

You've lost so much credibility it's beyond funny.
 
My point being..you drink the koolaid (as you obviously have...gallons and cisterns of it) about abortion based on what these organizations say about it, you are a sad, sad tool.
 
My point being..you drink the koolaid (as you obviously have...gallons and cisterns of it) about abortion based on what these organizations say about it, you are a sad, sad tool.


Your point being that you have a very strong religious belief, and there's no facts, data, or real truth that can sway your religious belief.

So therefore you mock that which doesn't support your religious belief.

I think that pretty much NAILS your point.

Choice allows you to have that belief. Choice supports that belief as long as you don't try to force others to follow it.
Choice says you believe whatever you want to believe and we won't force you to act otherwise.

Choice is actually your friend.

It's just unfortunate that your religion blinds you to that fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom