Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
601

Kneed: [quote]Oleena wrote:
Answer the questions: do you believe women are born with less control over their choice to have children and when than men?

No, I never implied any such thing. [/quote]

Do you really not understand how stating that a woman who is raped had to bear the child is the same thing as stating that women are born with less control over their choice to have children than a man, since men do not face this problem of having the choice to have children physically forced on them?

I’m patient, but you’ve continuously displayed a lack of reasoning skills.

Why would you assume that I meant that they were deconditioned BEFORE the rape transpired by the wording I used? This has to be about the 5th time you’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying in such a way that only reading comprehension can be at fault.

Also, because my statistics are old doesn’t mean that today’s figures are less, but it does mean that those figures were true within our lifetime. As for your statistic, it was clearly made up. Find newer statistics from a census source, if you feel so inclined. It doesn’t really matter. The point is, it’s larger than 1%. However, that really has nothing to do with the question I asked.

Do you believe women are naturally born with less right to a decision regarding when to have children than men are considering they can’t know whether or not they will be raped? Thus, they have less control over their reproducing destiny than a man does his?

602

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Basically what you’re saying is that women are naturally born with less control over their destiny than men are.

Unlike a man, by your reasoning, a woman is not always allowed to choose when she has a child by trying to refrain from sex. If she’s raped, she loses control over her future in addition to those moments that she was forced to give up control over her body.

Thus, men are given control over their own destiny as to when they have children, but women are not in the case that they’re raped.[/quote]

Men are more likely to develop prostate cancer.

Boo-hoo.

603

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Thus, men are given control over their own destiny as to when they have children, but women are not in the case that they’re raped.[/quote]

Men have no control over their destiny, then, when they are raped and develop AIDS and anal warts as a consequence of the rape?

604

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Thus, men are given control over their own destiny as to when they have children, but women are not in the case that they’re raped.[/quote]

Men have no control over their destiny, then, when they are raped and develop AIDS and anal warts as a consequence of the rape?[/quote]

I am saying you believe women have less control than men regarding the reproduction of children. It appears you realize that’s what you’re saying. I was just trying to clear that up.

Also, I like how you just compared a developing child to anal warts and AIDs. At least you’re honest.

605

[quote]gerby wrote:
I didn’t forget anything, nor did I indicate whether I supported abortion. I only made points about which to think, and I didn’t even bring religion into it. “Pro choicers” always try to obscure the argument by bringing something up that isn’t there, which is why “Joe the Plumber” is a douchebag because Obama wants to “spread the wealth” (after all, he had overdue library books).

Scientifically speaking, an embryo is alive immediately following conception and before it attaches to the wall of the uterus. An embryo also contains every chromosome that it will ever have. It is, in fact, human. It is alive (no debate) it is human (no debate) but somehow there is still debate as to whether it is a human life. Ok, I get it.

Liberals and “pro choicers” are starting to lose that debate, but as I’ve said this isn’t the only debate. I’d rather they just be honest and say, “yes, abortion terminates a human life, which is bad, but so are the alternatives and therefore we’re keeping it legal.” Then the “pro lifers” and the “pro choicers” could just agree to disagree, and the voting public could decide in some sort of, I don’t know, democratic vote thing (if those still exist).
[/quote]

This will never happen (in the US) because the pro-choicers intrinsically know exactly which side of the debate the majority of Americans would come down on if they dropped all of the rhetoric and said what they really know to be true.

606

So I answer YOUR question and where are the responses regarding my own questions? The numbers in relation to the events of today can NOT be had because of privacy laws, in case you were curious. Yet we can dance with your figures if you wish.

This was number 3 on my attempt to find numbers for you.

In fact I will be more than happy to address your points when you tell me how this justifies the whole population having access to abortion, at the rates seen today.

In addition you might work at your editing abilities. With your number of posts I would hope you can figure a logical process out, oh wait . . . .

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Kneed: [quote]Oleena wrote:
Answer the questions: do you believe women are born with less control over their choice to have children and when than men?

No, I never implied any such thing. [/quote]

Do you really not understand how stating that a woman who is raped had to bear the child is the same thing as stating that women are born with less control over their choice to have children than a man, since men do not face this problem of having the choice to have children physically forced on them?

I’m patient, but you’ve continuously displayed a lack of reasoning skills.

Why would you assume that I meant that they were deconditioned BEFORE the rape transpired by the wording I used? This has to be about the 5th time you’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying in such a way that only reading comprehension can be at fault.

Also, because my statistics are old doesn’t mean that today’s figures are less, but it does mean that those figures were true within our lifetime. As for your statistic, it was clearly made up. Find newer statistics from a census source, if you feel so inclined. It doesn’t really matter. The point is, it’s larger than 1%. However, that really has nothing to do with the question I asked.

Do you believe women are naturally born with less right to a decision regarding when to have children than men are considering they can’t know whether or not they will be raped? Thus, they have less control over their reproducing destiny than a man does his?[/quote]

607

[quote]Oleena wrote:

15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12.3

[/quote]

You should look up the statistics for the aborted kids. They are even younger than that.

608

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Thus, men are given control over their own destiny as to when they have children, but women are not in the case that they’re raped.[/quote]

Men have no control over their destiny, then, when they are raped and develop AIDS and anal warts as a consequence of the rape?[/quote]

I am saying you believe women have less control than men regarding the reproduction of children. It appears you realize that’s what you’re saying. I was just trying to clear that up.

Also, I like how you just compared a developing child to anal warts and AIDs. At least you’re honest. [/quote]

At least I don’t want to rip it limb from limb.

Women have less control over something is a valid argument for snuffing out life how? Please explain.

609

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Brother Chris needs no help, but please visit a country very close to your side of the globe and tell me they suffer from any problems which you speak of. There is a law in place which allows for ZERO abortions.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

  1. Education and availability/development of contraception will be what ends the need for abortion.[/quote]
    Says only YOU. If the procedure is not available I fail to see how this is a problem?

Again says only YOU.

So we should be all about instant gratification? That I guarantee will end in a glorious route, one which has never been seen before.

Only because you have some serious skillz Mak.
[/quote]

Again, no offers of a realistic solution.

610

In case it actually needs to be said, banning abortion will not make it go away. You will simply force it underground, and even if it is out of sight, it is still there - now much more unsafe.

Offer me a realistic solution.

People wonder why I don’t take these discussions seriously? Because it always devolves into this. Without fail. Moral conjecture with no attempts at a resolution.

“I’m right!”

“No, I’m right!”

Or, how about we provide this and this and potentially eliminate the need for this? No! We must argue pointlessly about how our collective penises are bigger than yours!

Actually… maybe a fresh start is needed here.

611

I thought this was interesting

612

Bringing an end to abortion is NOT a solution per YOU. Any actual figures to back your claim? Nope, thought as such. lol

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Again, no offers of a realistic solution.[/quote]

613

I feel no need to compensate, however I can not make a stance to help you.

Yet you talk

[quote]Makavali wrote:
… about how our collective penises are bigger than yours! …[/quote]
Like I dare refute a stance you provide.

614

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
I thought this was interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect[/quote]

Make sure and do your due diligence:

My own response is chiefly that I find the argument incomplete… For instance, the biggest drop in fertility in the U.S. came with the advent of the Pill in the mid-1960â??s. The Pill allowed lots of women who would otherwise have become pregnant not to become pregnant because they were poor, or didnâ??t want a child, or lived in an environment where it was hard to raise children. But the fertility drop caused by the Pill didnâ??t lead to a decrease in crime eighteen years later. In fact, that generation saw a massive increase in crime. The advent of abortion in the early 1970â??s, meanwhile, caused a far, far smaller drop in U.S. fertility butâ??Levitt arguesâ??that drop is consistent with a fall in crime. In other words, the unwanted children whose births were prevented by the Pill would not have gone to become criminals. But unwanted children whose births were prevented by abortion would have gone on become criminals. Why is this? I can think of some hypotheses. But they are just that: hypotheses. I would have been a lot happier with Freakonomics if the crime chapter had been twice as longâ??and spent more time explaining just what is so peculiar, in terms of crime rates, about births prevented by abortion.

and

…Itâ??s here, though, where I think Levittâ??s argument is a bit unfair. Levitt concludes that there are three factors that matter the most in the crime dropâ??abortion, high rates of imprisonment of young men, and increased number of police officers. The last of these three factors he glosses over pretty quickly. But I think thatâ??s a mistake, because what is increased police presence? Well, having more police on the streets than before means that law enforcement can be more aggressive and pro-active. It means officers can do a lot better job getting guns off the streets. It means that they can be much more vigilant than before. It means that they have the time and resources to start cracking down on the kinds of seemingly minor “lifestyle” crimes than might have gone ignored before. The kinds of things that I argue were so important in responding a civil environment in New York Stateâ??the crackdowns on graffiti and public urination and panhandling and turnstile jumping in the subway systemâ??are all the kinds of things that police departments can do when they have more officers on the streets.

615

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I feel no need to compensate, however I can not make a stance to help you.

Yet you talk

[quote]Makavali wrote:
… about how our collective penises are bigger than yours! …[/quote]
Like I dare refute a stance you provide.
[/quote]

Except you refute nothing. Just like you solve nothing.

616

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Again, you are misreading. Whether on purpose or not I still cannot tell.
[/quote]

Okay, then I’ll ask the question which you answered with this answer again. When is it okay to kill an unborn child? Is it before it can live outside the womb assisted by technology?

617

[quote]Makavali wrote:
And yet your hangups are relevant because they stifle your own goals. You asked me what I was saying and now you try to merge it with what you previously thought I was saying? I’m not making this unclear.

  1. Education and availability/development of contraception will be what ends the need for abortion.
  2. Your willingness to stifle availability/development of contraception due to religious reasons is contrary to the goal above.
  3. For all the hand-wringing and moral debate, I have yet to see a viable solution put forward by you for this conundrum that would be realistic given the human condition and our desire to have sex.

Clear?[/quote]

Not having sex is realistic, people have done it for centuries and they all had desires to have sex. It is realistic to deny your urges.

618

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Thus, men are given control over their own destiny as to when they have children, but women are not in the case that they’re raped.[/quote]

Men have no control over their destiny, then, when they are raped and develop AIDS and anal warts as a consequence of the rape?[/quote]

I am saying you believe women have less control than men regarding the reproduction of children. It appears you realize that’s what you’re saying. I was just trying to clear that up.

Also, I like how you just compared a developing child to anal warts and AIDs. At least you’re honest. [/quote]

Why is it not different if you would like to explain it to us, you seemed to imply having a child would be a burden worth killing to get rid of, so what is the difference?

619

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
And yet your hangups are relevant because they stifle your own goals. You asked me what I was saying and now you try to merge it with what you previously thought I was saying? I’m not making this unclear.

  1. Education and availability/development of contraception will be what ends the need for abortion.
  2. Your willingness to stifle availability/development of contraception due to religious reasons is contrary to the goal above.
  3. For all the hand-wringing and moral debate, I have yet to see a viable solution put forward by you for this conundrum that would be realistic given the human condition and our desire to have sex.

Clear?[/quote]

Not having sex is realistic, people have done it for centuries and they all had desires to have sex. It is realistic to deny your urges.[/quote]

It is realistic for a handful of people to deny their urges, it is NOT realistic to expect it from everyone.

620

[quote]Makavali wrote:
In case it actually needs to be said, banning abortion will not make it go away. You will simply force it underground, and even if it is out of sight, it is still there - now much more unsafe.[/quote]

This can be said for any number of crimes. It’s not really a good solution if abortion is morally wrong.