Want to reduce the number of abortions? Here's how:

[steen]

As for the rest of this tread;

VAGUE (1) "responsibility" is to take charge of your own situation. That is done by ANY decision the woman makes. (2)If YOU don't want to pay for others "screwup" you sure have no intput in telling them what to do. (3) The guy has rights when HE is pregnant, when it is HIS body that has to provide the bodily resources. (4) It's nice that the "State" will help during the pregnancy, but that doesn't help any AFTER birth. (5) The Fascists found great delight in having the state involved in people's private, personal lives. Is that what you are advocating?

BLOGGER (1)The "purpose" of sex is to have sex, nothing else. (2) Your broad generalizations merely makes your claims invalid.

EVERYBODY PL You all seem to have forgotten that the only way to reduce the number of abortions is done when you make it worth the woman's while to not abort. Punitive restrictions just mean that you want HER to carry the bburden for your wishes. It is time for you to carry the burden yourself. YOU have to make it worth her while, you have to start providing the help she feels she needs to not abort. Anything else (incl. everything about PL of today) is just hypocricy.

 

[jimmyjack]

Well, THAT is interesting. That means that a hydatidiform mole is an individual. And it means that when DNA mutates into new cells, then they are individual (ie. tumors)

Individuality is a physical existence. DNA is merely proteins and sugars. Individual DNA doesn't cause individuality in cells plugged into the woman's circulatory system any more than the liver is an individual.

So, Can you can distinguish a mole from a foetus?

Now, does the mole have a beating heart too?

 

[steen]

So, Can you can distinguish a mole from a foetus?

At the time of the fetal stage, certainly.

Now, does the mole have a beating heart too?

It often have cardiac muscle cells if that is what you are asking.

Now, are you saying that abortions before you can distinguish between a hydatidiform mole and an embryo are OK?

 

[jimmyjack]

At the time of the fetal stage, certainly.

Good, so we can distinguishing it, therefore your point is lame.

It often have cardiac muscle cells if that is what you are asking.
Now, are you saying that abortions before you can distinguish between a hydatidiform mole and an embryo are OK?

No, I said: does it have a beating heart?

 

[steen]

Good, so we can distinguishing it, therefore your point is lame.

At the fetal stage, yes. So you are OK with abortions before that time, of course.

No, I said: does it have a beating heart?

So?

 

[vergiss]

Many aborted foetuses don't have beating hearts, either. Hey, does that mean people having heart transplants or with artificial hearts aren't alive? :shock:

 

[jimmyjack]

Many aborted foetuses don't have beating hearts, either. Hey, does that mean people having heart transplants or with artificial hearts aren't alive? :shock:

Good point, even more reason not to abort.

 

[vergiss]

So tell me, exactly - if it's human from conception, how can once human become two or more?

 

[steen]

Good point, even more reason not to abort.

People having artificial hearts are a reason to not abort?

Jimmy, are you right in the head? Your drivel makes less and less sense. Your logic is drifting into Lose Associations quite rapidly.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Well, THAT is interesting. That means that a hydatidiform mole is an individual. And it means that when DNA mutates into new cells, then they are individual (ie. tumors)

Given any amount of time, a hydatidiform mole will never ever develop into an individual. Given time, a fetus will.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

What this thread should be addressing is reducing the proportion of births of babies that will be of little or no worth to humanity.Instead the modern egalitarian world places all babies to be of "equal worth".A mistake that is costing humanity dearly.
We need a return to good old fashioned eugenics.

 

[steen]

Given any amount of time, a hydatidiform mole will never ever develop into an individual. Given time, a fetus will.

Yeah? So? Given time, I die. So?

What does a future potential have to do with current form? The FACT is that the criteria that PL are setting up here for something that shouldn't be aborted is also including the hydatidiform mole. Does that mean that we can't remove them?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Yeah? So? Given time, I die. So?

I'm not nearly as concerned with your death as I am your life.

What does a future potential have to do with current form?

It's more than a potential don't you think?

The FACT is that the criteria that PL are setting up here for something that shouldn't be aborted is also including the hydatidiform mole. Does that mean that we can't remove them?

My criteria is: Is it going to think?

 

[jimmyjack]

Yeah? So? Given time, I die. So?

What does a future potential have to do with current form? The FACT is that the criteria that PL are setting up here for something that shouldn't be aborted is also including the hydatidiform mole. Does that mean that we can't remove them?

Your death would come to a natural end, with a great elation, especially from me; the foetus dies through intervention, with guilt and sorrow.

 

[steen]

I'm not nearly as concerned with your death as I am your life.

Yes, the future is less important than the now. The future is discounted. Exactly my point.

It's more than a potential don't you think?

Nope.

My criteria is: Is it going to think?

Well, here is one for you. Why are you ignoring the one who already thinks? Yeah, you kind of forgot about her, didn't you. In your fervor to push the Holy fetus, you forgot that you are trampling on the woman.

 

[steen]

Your death would come to a natural end, with a great elation, especially from me

No surprise there. PL have often wished me dead. Guess you are only pre-born-pro-life.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Yes, the future is less important than the now. The future is discounted. Exactly my point.

Where did you get that? Life is more important than death.

Nope.

It's not just a potential. It's a certainty.

Well, here is one for you. Why are you ignoring the one who already thinks?

Because that one already had the oppritunity to think, and chose not to.

Yeah, you kind of forgot about her, didn't you. In your fervor to push the Holy fetus, you forgot that you are trampling on the woman.

Don't make me out to be some knee jerk christian-conservative. I am neither. It is not my intention to "trample on the woman," but to see that PERSON(penis of no penis) inside of this particular woman is not trampled on.

 

[steen]

Where did you get that? Life is more important than death.

Life is current, death is future, yes. Just like with the fetus, the current potential is not the future actualization.

Which, of course, STILL is irrelevant WRT abortion.

It's not just a potential. It's a certainty.

So a miscarried or aborted embryo will grow to be an old geezer. Sure, whatever.

Because that one already had the oppritunity to think, and chose not to.

And what is your evidence for that, other than that you were engaged in hate mongering?

Don't make me out to be some knee jerk christian-conservative. I am neither.

You sure sound like it. You know, "walk like a duck, quack like a duck.."

It is not my intention to "trample on the woman,"

Yet that is exactly what you are doing, removing her right to control her own body, a right you insist on for yourself. Sorry, but never mind how you package it, you still sound misogynistic.

but to see that PERSON(penis of no penis) inside of this particular woman is not trampled on.

But there is no "person" inside the woman. See RvW, Sec.IX.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Life is current, death is future, yes. Just like with the fetus, the current potential is not the future actualization.

I'm more inclined to see life as the future rather than death.

Which, of course, STILL is irrelevant WRT abortion.

What is WRT?

So a miscarried or aborted embryo will grow to be an old geezer. Sure, whatever.

And the span of the "old geezer's" life is infinite potential.

And what is your evidence for that, other than that you were engaged in hate mongering?

Contraceptives.

Where do you see hate mongering?

You sure sound like it. You know, "walk like a duck, quack like a duck.."

I'm not a duck either.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing, removing her right to control her own body, a right you insist on for yourself. Sorry, but never mind how you package it, you still sound misogynistic.

She has the right to every thing that happens in her body. Such as the chemical effects that accompany birth controld pills. If a woman AND A MAN decide to forgo responsibility before intercourse, that is the CHOICE they have made. As a mother, the woman has two bodies for which she has to be responsible for. The father is as well just as responsible. Responsible is the key word.

 

[steen]

I'm more inclined to see life as the future rather than death.

But in the future, you are dead, while now in the present, you are alive. Did that escape your attention?

What is WRT?

"With regard to." Let me repost: "Which [the status of the embryo/fetus], of course, STILL is irrelevant With regard to abortion."

And the span of the "old geezer's" life is infinite potential.

But is ONLY potential until/if it is actualized.

Contraceptives.

How is that evidence of the womna not thinking? Last CDC study shows almost 60% of those seeking abortions as having used contraception. Yeah, they weren't thinking, were they?

Where do you see hate mongering?

Against the woman.

I'm not a duck either.

And yet, the walk and the talk....

She has the right to every thing that happens in her body. Such as the chemical effects that accompany birth controld pills. If a woman AND A MAN decide to forgo responsibility before intercourse, that is the CHOICE they have made.

In their having sex, yes, and there are risks associated, risks she can deal with as she sees fit, as it is still HER body.

As a mother, the woman has two bodies for which she has to be responsible for.

Well, WHEN she becomes a mother, at birth, yes that is true. So?

The father is as well just as responsible. Responsible is the key word.

And by goplly, if they are "irresponsible" you are going to tech them a lesson. Yes, I know all about how prolifers want to interject themselves, their personal morals and the Government into other people's private lives. BUTT OUT!

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

But in the future, you are dead, while now in the present, you are alive. Did that escape your attention?

The future will have nothing to do with my death, but rather with another's life.

But is ONLY potential until/if it is actualized.

But is only potential if left alone from scrapers, tongs, and/or vaccums.

How is that evidence of the womna not thinking? Last CDC study shows almost 60% of those seeking abortions as having used contraception. Yeah, they weren't thinking, were they?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

Not all of them.

A reduction in the number of unintended pregnancies, and thus in the number of abortions, will require adapting complex strategies. In a study of abortion patients conducted during 2000--2001, a total of 54% of patients reported that they were using contraception during the month they became pregnant. However, their use of contraception might have been inconsistent or incorrect (18). In 1995, the year for which the most recent National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) data are available, approximately 29% of sexually active U.S. women who used only oral contraceptives for birth control reported that they had missed a birth-control pill more than once during the 3 months before their NSFG interview. In addition, approximately 33% of U.S. women who were using only coitus-dependent contraceptive methods†† during the 3 months before the interview used these methods inconsistently (9). Coverage of reversible contraception has increased substantially since 1993 (64) although gaps in coverage remain substantial. Education regarding abstinence and contraceptive use and practices, combined with access to and education regarding safe, effective, contraception and family planning services, might help reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and, therefore, the number of legal induced abortions in the United States (65--67).

Against the woman.

I don't hate women. I'm rather quite fond of them, I might add.

And yet, the walk and the talk....

I can't walk, I was paralyzed when I was eleven. Nah... I'm just kidding, I can walk.

In their having sex, yes, and there are risks associated, risks she can deal with as she sees fit, as it is still HER body.

She knew the risks and she should have been prepared to deal with the possible consequences.

Well, WHEN she becomes a mother, at birth, yes that is true. So?

When your pregnant woman has quite a few respsonsibilities just as a mother does.

And by goplly, if they are "irresponsible" you are going to tech them a lesson. Yes, I know all about how prolifers want to interject themselves, their personal morals and the Government into other people's private lives.

I'm not going to teach them a lesson, it wasn't my decision to force someone to be irresponsibly sexually active.

 

[steen]

The future will have nothing to do with my death, but rather with another's life.

But not for you.

But is only potential if left alone from scrapers, tongs, and/or vaccums.

It is potential in all cases. The word you are looking for is "actualized."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

Not all of them.

A reduction in the number of unintended pregnancies, and thus in the number of abortions, will require adapting complex strategies. In a study of abortion patients conducted during 2000--2001, a total of 54% of patients reported that they were using contraception during the month they became pregnant.

Ah, so the number went down by 4%. Should we blame that on Bush's silly idea of "abstinence-only" causing kids to not know about the proper way of using contraception? Yeah, the number of abortions have gone up during Bush as well, right!

That shows how importnat GOOD sex-ed is. And as you indeed points out:

Education regarding abstinence and contraceptive use and practices, combined with access to and education regarding safe, effective, contraception and family planning services, might help reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and, therefore, the number of legal induced abortions in the United States (65--67).

Exactly. PC has looked at that for years, but instead, we get nitwit prolifers who oppose contraception and fundies why think sex-ed is bad, and finally conservative, selfish sociopaths who believe that funding anything is evil. Often all of these are the same person.

I don't hate women. I'm rather quite fond of them, I might add.

Except that you want to control their pregnancy.

She knew the risks and she should have been prepared to deal with the possible consequences.

She is, f.ex. through solving the problem through an abortion. That very much is to deal with the consequenses.

When your pregnant woman has quite a few respsonsibilities just as a mother does.

But she doesn't.

I'm not going to teach them a lesson, it wasn't my decision to force someone to be irresponsibly sexually active.

And neither is it your decision what they do if they are pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[vergiss]

I'm not going to teach them a lesson, it wasn't my decision to force someone to be irresponsibly sexually active.

What if they were respnsibly sexually active?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

But not for you.

The future, as far ahead as we are talking has very little to do with me or any other dead man for that matter.

Ah, so the number went down by 4%. Should we blame that on Bush's silly idea of "abstinence-only" causing kids to not know about the proper way of using contraception? Yeah, the number of abortions have gone up during Bush as well, right!

?

That shows how importnat GOOD sex-ed is. And as you indeed points out:

Exactly. PC has looked at that for years, but instead, we get nitwit prolifers who oppose contraception and fundies why think sex-ed is bad, and finally conservative, selfish sociopaths who believe that funding anything is evil. Often all of these are the same person.

I believe in more education about contraceptives.

Except that you want to control their pregnancy.

Quite the opposite. I want her and her partner to control her(their) pregnancy.

She is, f.ex. through solving the problem through an abortion. That very much is to deal with the consequenses.

I don't see that as dealing with the consequences and being responsible. "Oops, there's a baby developing inside me because I made a mistake." That's a pretty big oops and terminating that developing life is, in my eyes, wrong.

But she doesn't.

?

And neither is it your decision what they do if they are pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.

I'm not the one making the decision. I think it is a decision one should not be able to make within the law.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

What if they were respnsibly sexually active?

The chances are strongly in their favor that they do not have to make any decision at all about abortion.