Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A point to consider , I woman gets pregnant and knows after the baby is born she will not receive one dime from Dad. She is poor and uneducated and works at Walmart . The baby will live in poverty and unless the child is gifted way beyond the norm. it will remain in poverty .

There are some cases where there is no bright spot in life . I personally feel blessed that I am not in these predicaments but I am not so naive to believe that situations exist that make it nonviable to have a child

We have a portion of Government that wants to be punitive for any one that is not all about Jesus . [/quote]

I’m not sure what half of what you just wrote is even about, but imo a life (be it a tough one or not) is ALWAYS better than NO life.

182

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I thought everyone hated the government on here?? [/quote]

How I feel about the government is immaterial. I took an oath, as I know you did as well, to uphold and defend the Constitution. I have never rescinded that oath, nor is it contingent on who occupies the seats of power.

The Constitution is silent on the subject of any god-given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The words “god” or “creator” do not appear anywhere in the document. We just assume that all rights not specified as belonging to the federal government belong to the states, and by extension the people, as guaranteed by the 10th amendment.

But again, who is guaranteed ANY rights according to the constitution? Well, the people, of course. But which people? Only the citizens? Or everyone in the United States? Let us say that not only US citizens are guaranteed rights under the constitution, but that citizens of all nations have equal protection under US law.

What is a citizen? How does one become a citizen of any nation?

Try to answer that question without using the word “born”.

The unborn have no rights. They are citizens of no country. Nobody will issue a fetus a passport. They are not considered persons under the law. You may not like it, but this is the legal reality in this country right now. If you want to change the law, then you will need to speak to someone who can either write a new law, amending the constitution to include the unborn into the umbrella of equal protection, or else speak to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution so that the People also includes those who haven’t quite made it out of the birth canal.

This is why I said that the burden of proof is on the antiabortionists. If you want the law changed, you will have to prove why it should be.
[/quote]

Burden of proof is such a highly misunderstood thing. The moral\ ethical burden of proof is on the pro-abortionist to prove that the human life inside the uterus is not a human being when there is no scientific or objective proof that it is not.

The law already accepts that the child in utero is a human in many cases as in the case of Kermit Gosnell and Scott Peterson are in prison for murder of unborn babies.
The legal precedent is there already. Both of the above cases the individuals were tried and convicted in court of murder of unborn children.[/quote]

Then you need to go and lobby congress to support Rand Paul’s fetal rights bill, which would effectively confer “personhood” and citizenship on all embryos at the moment of conception.

Of course, that would mean that all an illegal alien would have to do is get knocked up on US soil and bam! Her fetus has automatic US citizenship. She couldn’t be deported, because you can’t deport an innocent US citizen, which would by biological fact be an integral part of her body.

Have fun with that. [/quote]

I am not sure what the hell you are talking about. I am not aware of Rand Paul’s bill and I am not sure what it has to do with my stance at all.
Personhood is a very arbitrary thing without a clear definition. One could argue that born human beings of any age lack ‘personhood’ depending one what’s included in the definition.
I am simply saying that the living being inside a womb is a complete, separate living human being. That based on that alone, said being should not be killed unless it is a danger to another human being, a.k.a. Mom.
The only right I am concerned about for the living human being is the right to live. [/quote]

You need to keep up with current events.

Considering that the crux of Roe v Wade is that the Supreme Court ruled that fetuses are not persons, and therefore have no rights under the 14th amendment, it might behoove you to care.

183

If Black Slavery was still in fashion, would we still accept it and justify as well just because it was ''legal"?

184

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The only right I am concerned about for the living human being is the right to live. [/quote]

I tried to travel down this road, apparently this right doesn’t exist. [/quote]

the point not mentioned is it is living at the mothers expense and no one else’s
[/quote]

So is a 5 month old.

Edit: The mohter also helped put it there. 99.99% of the time with consent. [/quote]

A 5 year old can go live with Dad or aunt Susie or worse case the State
[/quote]

So can an unborn baby 7 months into gestation. [/quote]

FTR, most pro abortion people are only for the first trimester except for the obvious cases where the mothers life is in danger. This is assuming there was no legal reason preventing them doing it in that time period.

185

[quote]Karado wrote:
If Black Slavery was still in fashion, would we still accept it and justify as well just because it was ''legal"?
[/quote]

It is legal, under the 13th Amendment. We justify it because the black slaves are in custody in federal, state and private prisons.

186

Legal in the 13th Amendment present day for all races colors and creeds only if punished under a Court of Law
with due process, (sans the little known post ‘9-11’ Laws where you have NO due process, eg. Jose Padilla).

The unfair justice system and lopsided Black Incarceration/Slavery in our Country is a whole other issue.

187

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The only right I am concerned about for the living human being is the right to live. [/quote]

I tried to travel down this road, apparently this right doesn’t exist. [/quote]

the point not mentioned is it is living at the mothers expense and no one else’s
[/quote]

So is a 5 month old.

Edit: The mohter also helped put it there. 99.99% of the time with consent. [/quote]

A 5 year old can go live with Dad or aunt Susie or worse case the State
[/quote]

So can an unborn baby 7 months into gestation. [/quote]

FTR, most pro abortion people are only for the first trimester except for the obvious cases where the mothers life is in danger. This is assuming there was no legal reason preventing them doing it in that time period.[/quote]

I’m sure most do, I don’t think Pitt does.

188

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]
Nope, that’s utter bullshit.

It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.

Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.

Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?

You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.

The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.

You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.[/quote]

Technically speaking, if it is a parasite before birth it is still a parasite after birth until some indeterminate age where it can find food for itself so youre wrong there. Also technically speaking the greatest genocidal casualty lists are owned by atheists in charge of gov’t, so youre wrong on the numbers there too.

But I’ll give you points for the epic rant.

189

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]
Nope, that’s utter bullshit.

It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.

Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.

Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?

You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.

The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.

You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.[/quote]

Technically speaking, if it is a parasite before birth it is still a parasite after birth until some indeterminate age where it can find food for itself so youre wrong there. Also technically speaking the greatest genocidal casualty lists are owned by atheists in charge of gov’t, so youre wrong on the numbers there too.

But I’ll give you points for the epic rant.[/quote]
Minus points for being a douche though…

190

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
lol on the graph fail.

The peak closing of clinics correlates very well with the teen pregnancy drops. You illustrated kneedraggers point to the T.[/quote]

What?

From 1990 to 1996, the number of PP clinics in the United States rose from about 880 to 936. Concurrently, the teen pregnancy rate fell from 120 to 100 (per thousand).

Again, the number of PP clinics rose and fell and rose and fell and this is not reflected in the teen pregnancy rate even slightly.

The study cited in the OP is about as shoddy as this kind of thing can get.[/quote]

overall trend is down. curve fit that bitch.[/quote]

Not in the years that correspond with the teen pregnancy-rate graph. The overall trend is effectively static. A net change of essentially nothing.

And even if the two were both trending down overall, this would say exactly nothing about correlation. If statistically significant, sustained peaks and valleys don’t match up, then you’re fighting an uphill battle trying to tell anyone that correlation is present.

Alright, I’m done arguing over statistics and graphs. If you can look at those two data visualizations and see correlation, then you need to reevaluate your understanding of basic mathematics, or the bias-blindness which allows you to ignore your intelligence–because I know for a fact that I’m arguing with intelligent people here–and instead conclude what you’d like to conclude. Also, I consider a math debate to be over once Dr. Matt weighs in on it, which he has.

Next time, let’s argue about the quadratic equation.[/quote]

Incorrect. You can make a correlation with anything that has a commonality with another. In this case the common thread is a downward trend. To show that the two data sets do not correlate you have to show they have nothing in common.
The correlation may be low, but it’s still there based on that very small amount of data which objectively we don’t even know to be accurate.[/quote]

You are incorrect. A correlation is a statistical measure that indicates the extent to which two variables co-fluctuate. Direct correlation inplies both co-rise and co-fall. Absent one of these, and assuming that the rises and falls were statistically significant–which they were–you’re grasping at straws that aren’t there when you start averring correlation.

The fluctuations of the PP clinic set of data have exactly no analogous fluctuations in the teen-pregnancy-rate set of data. If the two were correlated, a statistically significant and sustained rise in one of them would coincide with a statistically significant and sustained rise in the other. It doesn’t.

If one variable trends up and down alike, in effectively equal doses over a given amount of time, and the other trends only and almost perfectly uniformly down over that same given amount of time, they are not correlated over that given amount of time.

I urge you to consider this: you are essentially defining correlation as “well they both ended up below where they started, no matter how they got there and no matter that one fell by a statistically minute downtick while the other nosedived.” This is meaningless and not correlation. Want to know why? Because, by that standard, any two variables, any two sets of data no matter how disparate or different or baldly unrelated, are correlated, either directly or inversely. Number of left-handed rodeo-clowns and number of abortions in the United States? Correlated. Average penis size of Senegalese ranchers and average height of German street performers since 1900? Correlated. All correlated, either directly or inversely. Cause look–one ended up, the other ended up. One ended down, the other ended down. One ended up, the other ended down. Correlation.

No. It has been explained again and again that those two graphs do not betray the rudest outline of a correlative relationship. This is manifestly clear in that their fluctuations do not match up, match-up of fluctuations being the very definition of correlation.

“The correlation may be low”–when you said they were correlated, you were saying that the correlation was high. If the fluctuations do not match up, we say that they are not correlated. If they do match up, we say that they are correlated.[/quote]

Sigh…
The fluctuations do not have to match up 1:1 for there to be a correlation. One can fluctuate and the other not so long as they are trending the same way.
For instance, if you had leukemia and were trending towards remission, your white blood cell count can still fluctuate into a range indicative of untreated leukemia, but so long as the overall trend is downward, it can be correlated to overall remission, even with fluctuations.
Fluctuations in the Sun’s temperature does not correlate with the Earth temperature fluctuations 1:1, but the source of most of the Earth’s heat is still the sun.

One actually would not expect the data not to fluctuate over time. Even with the fluctuations the data is still trending downwards as the other is trending downwards.[/quote]

pat, I like you and I agree with a lot of things you have had to say on these boards. But you are fundamentally, FACTUALLY wrong here. Totally wrong. smh has explained it, flipcollar has explained it (& I believe he works in some capacity with statistical correlations iirc), and Dr. Matt has told you you were 100% wrong–and I KNOW he works with statistics and analysis on a daily basis in a detailed manner.

You are too intelligent to be misunderstanding this. You are clinging to this argument in an attempt to save face maybe, I don’t know. What I do know is that you are not in fact saving face at all, because it is manifestly apparent that you are wrong here. not only that but you are attempting to move the goal posts from what you were originally implying to what you now say you were implying when it was quite apparent you were arguing for a significant correlation and were implying causation as well. PLEASE just admit you are wrong, because I’m another guy who works with correlation and some statistics on a regular basis in analytical chemistry and I too am now telling you, you are wrong.

191

[quote]Karado wrote:
Legal in the 13th Amendment present day for all races colors and creeds only if punished under a Court of Law
with due process, (sans the little known post ‘9-11’ Laws where you have NO due process, eg. Jose Padilla).

The unfair justice system and lopsided Black Incarceration/Slavery in our Country is a whole other issue.[/quote]

If you correct for single mammahood, the incareceration rates are about the same racial wise.

192

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Also technically speaking the greatest genocidal casualty lists are owned by atheists in charge of gov’t, so youre wrong on the numbers there too.[/quote]

Well, we’ve covered this ground before. The greatest genocides of the 20th century were perpetrated by a phony Catholic pagan, an Orthodox Christian seminary student, and a cultural Taoist. It’s popular to think of them as atheists for the purposes of making a political statement, but it’s a bit obfuscatory. I’ve said it on another thread, but Hitler, Stalin and Mao all used the symbology and psychology of religion just as effectively as any legitimate Commander of the Faithful.

Be that as it may, by far the greatest casualty lists in history were owned by the Mongols, and by the Chinese of the Ming and Qing dynasties, with Tamerlane making a respectable show of it. The Mongols worshipped the “Great Sky God”, Tamerlane was a Muslim, and the Chinese worshipped ancestral spirits. Atheism as we would understand it is a very recent phenomenon outside of Greece and Rome, and even there, then as now, atheists in power were pretty quiet about it, for fear of offending the superstitious peasant soldiers they presumed to command.

193

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]
Nope, that’s utter bullshit.

It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.

Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.

Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?

You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.

The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.

You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.[/quote]

  1. It’s not a parasite at 3 days old?

  2. I did not bring religion up. My arguments have all been based on Life & Liberty. Maybe they’re ooff or out right wrong, but they still have zero to do with religion.

  3. War & Abortion are two different things.

  4. You are a moron.[/quote]
    Apparently I’m a moron who’s a lot smarter than you, these things happen often.

No, it’s not a parasite at 3 days old because it is able at the very least, to breathe for itself. It’s not fully independent, but it no longer fits the bill of being a parasite.

You’re making statements about organisms having a right to life, war and abortion are both dealing with the same idea. If you can’t connect the dots, you’re as retarded at Tiribulus, Pat and Maddox.

194

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Are these correlated? Statistics give Apple vs S&P 500 perfectly correlated with a Beta of 1.0

Just because a chart does not look correlated does not mean it is not.

Now I am not smart enough to do the statistical analasis of the two charts to state whether they are correlated or not.

[/quote]

Yes you are smart enough. The amount of depth we’re looking for here can be got at with the eyeball. We’re not authoring research papers here. It is pretty damn clear that those two lines in the picture you posted could be linked by an inversely correlative relationship. And it is even clearer that the two lines in the two graphs that I proffered early on in this thread are moving with absolutely no regard for each other, i.e. that they are not correlated either directly or inversely in any way.[/quote]

The two lines were not inversely correlated. A beta of 1.0 is perfectly correlated. Inversely or negatively correlated is a -1.0 Beta.
[/quote]

Where are you getting that Apple had a beta of 1.0 from Nov. 2012 to Oct. 2013?

Edit: anyway, that graph means nothing to me. I can’t plot the points in a chart and there is an unmanageable number of them anyway. Beta is calculated retroactively, right? So what was it for those exact dates? That chart is hieroglyphs whereas the graphs on the first page is See Spot Run. Can correlation exist over the long term even when it appears not to in the short run? Yes, it can. But that isn’t the argument here. The argument here is inductive: do those two graphs imply a correlative relationship between the data they respectively represent? And the answer is absolutely not. This is not the same as saying that if you were to wait until the year 2400 and plot 450 years worth of this data, you would not see a correlative relationship. This is saying that none can be averred from what we’ve seen.[/quote]

Based on what you posted, they are correlative. Both trending downward over the same period of time is a correlation. It doesn’t speak to the nature of the correlation or how much correlation, just that one exists. It may be a minute correlation, but still it is one.[/quote]

Unfortunately for your argument, you’ve been making a causal argument that as the clinics close, the rates of abortion go down.

You’re par for the course of Christianity. No-one’s ever accused Christians of being capable of objectively looking at the available evidence and making a rational conclusion.

195

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]
Nope, that’s utter bullshit.

It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.

Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.

Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?

You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.

The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.

You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.[/quote]

Technically speaking, if it is a parasite before birth it is still a parasite after birth until some indeterminate age where it can find food for itself so youre wrong there. Also technically speaking the greatest genocidal casualty lists are owned by atheists in charge of gov’t, so youre wrong on the numbers there too.

But I’ll give you points for the epic rant.[/quote]

It’s going to depend on how you qualify the slaughter. If it’s a % of populace, or total number slain.

It’s not a parasite once born, as it can breathe and shit for itself. I’m not making an argument that it’s not dependent upon the parents for survival, but it’s no longer reliant on a single entity for survival.

196

Sadly that’s correct Varq, and don’t get me started on the obvious Vatican and Washington D.C.
obvious, plain as day Architectual/Pagan tribute to ‘‘Osiris’’ Layout … Our Foundations are not ‘‘Christian’’
…44 of 56 signers of The Declaration Of Independence were High Ranking Freemasons, etc.

197

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]
Nope, that’s utter bullshit.

It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.

Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.

Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?

You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.

The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.

You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.[/quote]

Technically speaking, if it is a parasite before birth it is still a parasite after birth until some indeterminate age where it can find food for itself so youre wrong there. Also technically speaking the greatest genocidal casualty lists are owned by atheists in charge of gov’t, so youre wrong on the numbers there too.

But I’ll give you points for the epic rant.[/quote]

It’s not a parasite once born, as it can breathe and shit for itself. I’m not making an argument that it’s not dependent upon the parents for survival, but it’s no longer reliant on a single entity for survival.
[/quote]

Well, environmental proximity aside, if its a single mother it is still dependent on that one single entity for sustenance. Particularly before the advent of baby formula when all you had was the real stuff. More importantly though, a baby can breathe on its own for some time (weeks) before the time labor is naturally occurring. If it is taken out of the womb before natural labor occurs it can breathe without an intubation or respirator; subsequently, I would submit that your criteria of being able to breathe on its own is arbitrary at best. Further, there are parasites that live on the outside of their host’s body and can excrete waste on their own as . I would tend to hold that being inside thewoman is also an arbitrary criterion for parasitism, leaving aside the fact that parasites are separate species from their host organisms.

198

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]
Nope, that’s utter bullshit.

It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.

Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.

Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?

You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.

The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.

You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.[/quote]

Technically speaking, if it is a parasite before birth it is still a parasite after birth until some indeterminate age where it can find food for itself so youre wrong there. Also technically speaking the greatest genocidal casualty lists are owned by atheists in charge of gov’t, so youre wrong on the numbers there too.

But I’ll give you points for the epic rant.[/quote]

It’s not a parasite once born, as it can breathe and shit for itself. I’m not making an argument that it’s not dependent upon the parents for survival, but it’s no longer reliant on a single entity for survival.
[/quote]

Well, environmental proximity aside, if its a single mother it is still dependent on that one single entity for sustenance. Particularly before the advent of baby formula when all you had was the real stuff. More importantly though, a baby can breathe on its own for some time (weeks) before the time labor is naturally occurring. If it is taken out of the womb before natural labor occurs it can breathe without an intubation or respirator; subsequently, I submit that your criteria of being able to breathe on its own is arbitrary at best.[/quote]

I agree. But I’m not really claiming that abortion until the date of birth is either desirable or positive.

What I do know is that the empowerment of women, both in terms of giving the members of our species the right to determine what is best for them, and making sure that they do truly exist on an equal footing relies almost exclusively on giving them the ability to control their own fertility.

Religious nutjobs are always trying to claw back control over individuals and to impose their own idiocy, based on a cult of human sacrifice, upon others.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you don’t want to do it, no one is forcing you.

I also find it amusing that the majority of the idiots who support making abortion illegal also support the death penalty.

199

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]
Nope, that’s utter bullshit.

It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.

Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.

Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?

You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.

The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.

You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.[/quote]

  1. It’s not a parasite at 3 days old?

  2. I did not bring religion up. My arguments have all been based on Life & Liberty. Maybe they’re ooff or out right wrong, but they still have zero to do with religion.

  3. War & Abortion are two different things.

  4. You are a moron.[/quote]
    Apparently I’m a moron who’s a lot smarter than you, these things happen often.

No, it’s not a parasite at 3 days old because it is able at the very least, to breathe for itself. It’s not fully independent, but it no longer fits the bill of being a parasite.

You’re making statements about organisms having a right to life, war and abortion are both dealing with the same idea. If you can’t connect the dots, you’re as retarded at Tiribulus, Pat and Maddox.
[/quote]

Lol, okay boss. War and abortion are the same thing, again lol.

Lofuckinl that you think an unborn baby is a parasite… That sir is pretty fucking retarded.

200

[quote]
What I do know is that the empowerment of women, both in terms of giving the members of our species the right to determine what is best for them, and making sure that they do truly exist on an equal footing relies almost exclusively on giving them the ability to control their own fertility.[/quote]

Except you don’t need a “right of abortion” to do that.

I have no issue with women making their own decisions about their own bodies. But in the case of abortion, they are making a (quite radical) decision about someone else’s body too.

[quote]
The simple fact of the matter is that if you don’t want to do it, no one is forcing you.[/quote]

You could say the same thing about each and every crime in existence. That’s not how you will prove that abortion shouldn’t be a crime.

[quote]
I also find it amusing that the majority of the idiots who support making abortion illegal also support the death penalty.[/quote]

For the record i’m a “pro-lifer” who do not support the death penalty.
But i can still see that this is a non-sequitur.