I Have Been Saying

[GMDino]

(12-09-2016, 03:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is saying that you assume the risk.

I understand that.  I just don't think (personally) that agreeing for one thing means I agree to accept any and all possible outcomes.

I'm not trying to change your mind.  I know you what you say you believe about equal rights to the fetus/baby.  I'm just wondering if that line of thought works.

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-09-2016, 03:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What I have noticed about most Pro-Choice people, is that your biggest argument is for those that are raped or incest was involved.

Do you know that less that 1% of all abortions involved rape victims?
I have stated over and over that abortion should be allowed if someone was raped.

Well technically, Incest can be consensual, and if it's between consensual 2 adults then why do you care? What they do in their bed is their business is it not? That's the message you've been telling right wingers for years about same-sex marriage, but that's another argument for another thread.

Now if it was incest was not consensual then it would fall under rape. Which again, I have stated over and over that abortion should be allowed.

I'm sure that most right wingers are fine with abortion due to rape. So it's really not a valid part of your argument anymore.

2012 is the latest information for me to pull from:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e

A total of 699,202 abortions were reported to CDC for 2012


Seems to me that this is the normal ratio of abortions for several years running:
95% of abortions are done as birth control, 1% are done because of rape/incest, 1% because of fetal abnormalities, and 3% due to the mother's health problems.

95% 664,242 from Birth Control
3% 20,976 from mother's health problems
1% 6,992 Rape/incest
1% 6,992 fetal abnormalities

Now of that, I am fine with aborting for the 5% reasons. No problems there for me or most right wingers either, so toss them out.

How do we deal with the 95%.

Right wingers just wrote a law that makes no exceptions for rape. So... argument = valid.

This is how they think. And is why I think they have no business telling a woman what she can and cant do with her body.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 04:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: I understand that.  I just don't think (personally) that agreeing for one thing means I agree to accept any and all possible outcomes.

I'm not trying to change your mind.  I know you what you say you believe about equal rights to the fetus/baby.  I'm just wondering if that line of thought works.

When you choose to skydive, are you consenting to die?

of course you hope it doesn't happen; you just accept you are willing to accept the concequences for the thrill.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 04:09 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Right wingers just wrote a law that makes no exceptions for rape. So... argument = valid.

This is how they think. And is why I think they have no business telling a woman what she can and cant do with her body.

Well if it's a law; it must be right.

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-09-2016, 04:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well if it's a law; it must be right.

That will be up to Donald Trump. 

[GMDino]

(12-09-2016, 04:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When you choose to skydive, are you consenting to die?

of course you hope it doesn't happen; you just accept you are willing to accept the concequences for the thrill.

But in that example I'm still only responsible for my own actions.


If I live near an airport am I accepting the consequences if a skydiver falls on me and kills me?

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 04:44 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: That will be up to Donald Trump. 

Agreed and if SCOTUS reverses Roe V. Wade, nobody can say it's wrong because SCOTUS says it's right.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 05:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: But in that example I'm still only responsible for my own actions.


If I live near an airport am I accepting the consequences if a skydiver falls on me and kills me?

I'm not sure who ele's actions you are responsible for if you agree to participate in the activity that creates life. I guess I'm just not seeing the relevance of your hypothetical.

If you went to watch the skydiving event you are.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

If a man and a woman decide to get in their cars and wreck into each other, both are responsible for their actions equally.

What Fred is saying is that the woman gets to decide what happens in that situation and can remove all blame off of herself if they both decides to wreck their cars.

[Belsnickel]

Oh look, this argument again.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-09-2016, 03:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What I have noticed about most Pro-Choice people, is that your biggest argument is for those that are raped or incest was involved.

Incorrect.  The problem with your argument is that most Pro-Choice people are in favor of individual "choice." The reason is even in the term you used.  That's what is known as "self-explanatory."  Or as stated by the LIbertarian Party platform, "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

What I have noticed is that most "Anti-Abortion" proponents incorrectly identify fertilization as the "beginning" of life.  I've already pointed out your incorrect understanding of a life cycle with the chicken-egg paradox.  Oogenesis has to occur before fertilization.  A living single celled spermatoza, a living signle celled ovum, and a living single celled zygote the moment after fertilization are all "life."  The difference is in the ploidy.  But, the religious right only wants to recognize a zygote as "life" and dismiss the other two as "just a cell" while accusing their opponents of treating the zygote as "just a cell."  If the spermatozoa or the ovum aren't alive, guess what happens?  Nothing.  Fertilization doesn't occur.  "Life" is a prerequisite for fertilization to occur so life can "begin" at fertilization, but if the gametes aren't already alive (e.g. "life") then "life" can't "begin."  If NASA found a single celled alien gamete on a distant planet the headline would read, "ALIEN LIFE FOUND!"

Quote:Do you know that less that 1% of all abortions involved rape victims?
I have stated over and over that abortion should be allowed if someone was raped.

Well technically, Incest can be consensual, and if it's between consensual 2 adults then why do you care? What they do in their bed is their business is it not? That's the message you've been telling right wingers for years about same-sex marriage, but that's another argument for another thread.

Now if it was incest was not consensual then it would fall under rape. Which again, I have stated over and over that abortion should be allowed.

I'm sure that most right wingers are fine with abortion due to rape. So it's really not a valid part of your argument anymore.

2012 is the latest information for me to pull from:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e

A total of 699,202 abortions were reported to CDC for 2012


Seems to me that this is the normal ratio of abortions for several years running:
95% of abortions are done as birth control, 1% are done because of rape/incest, 1% because of fetal abnormalities, and 3% due to the mother's health problems.

95% 664,242 from Birth Control
3% 20,976 from mother's health problems
1% 6,992 Rape/incest
1% 6,992 fetal abnormalities

Now of that, I am fine with aborting for the 5% reasons. No problems there for me or most right wingers either, so toss them out.

I didn't see that in the CDC link.

Quote:How do we deal with the 95%.

We?  You gotta mouse in your pocket or are you the Abortion Czar?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-09-2016, 03:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the Supreme Court we will see how that plays out in the future, but if they change; I assume you will admit my stance is correct.

He didn't force her against her will to participate in the activity that can lead to life.

I've always found the assertion that the woman has the say simply because of her sex to be discriminatory; but, perhaps you are more open to "middle ground" than I.

That is at best, a gross misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's ruling.  Or a deliberate misrepresentation.  It is not a question of sex discrimination, it is a question of undue burden.  

[Rotobeast]

(12-09-2016, 06:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Incorrect.  The problem with your argument is that most Pro-Choice people are in favor of individual "choice." The reason is even in the term you used.  That's what is known as "self-explanatory."  Or as stated by the LIbertarian Party platform, "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Yeah, I think I'm pretty much in line with the party.

I used to be closer to Pro-Life, but re-evaluated my position by stepping back and looking at the bigger picture.
I still abhor the idea of a life taken, but I'm willing to accept it in a mathematical sense.
We are overpopulating the planet and resources will eventually run out.
Abortion (and homosexuality, to some extent) contribute to the longevity of the human race on this planet.
That is a purely mathematical thought, devoid of emotion.
I will concede that the possibility exists that an aborted child could have grown to become a scientist that saves the human race from an extinction level virus or something, but one can only make assumptions.

So, that's how I convince myself it's somewhat ok.
I still feel dirty, but I can accept it.

[*Nately120*]

I have to wonder what the USA would be like if the 40 million plus fetuses/babies/people/special snowflakes that were aborted were NOT aborted. Of course not all of them would still be alive, but you have to wonder how an extra 12 or so percent of the population increase would affect things.

I don't think Donald Trump would have won the presidency, but I'm just going on the stereotype that minorities and the lower class are the ones aborting themselves out of overruning things.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The Left should want abortion illegal since most abortion is that off the lower class/minorities which happens to be the Lefts voting base. If only they weren't those pesky black folk though so the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Did I do that right?

[JustWinBaby]

Didn't read the thread....

Did I miss a non-procreative masturbation fest?

[fredtoast]

(12-09-2016, 03:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've always found the assertion that the woman has the say simply because of her sex to be discriminatory;

That is because you do not understand the law.

Both men and women have 100% right to make decisions about their own bodies.  Everyone is treated equally.  Basically what you want to do is give men a right to control a woman's body in a way that a women can never have over a man, and THAT would be discrimnatory.




  

[fredtoast]

Here is a situation where I have to admit that I was wrong. I got sidetracked on the whole "assuminmg the risk" argument. The fact is that when a couple has sex they do assume the risk that the woman could get pregnant. But since the woman is the only one that can get pregnant she is the only one who has a right to terminate the pregnancy.

Once technology reaches the point that a fetus can be gestated without using the woman's body then the woman could be subject to being fionancially responsible for the child the same way as the man is.

The law should be that every person has control over their own body. Changing the law now would give the man control over the womans body. The principleof law should not chaneg. It just has to wait for technology to cathc up.

The interesting thjing is that this argument is usually brought up by the anti-abortion crowd, yet they still would not support the decision to have an abortion even if both parties agreed. This is an entirely different issue, and is actually just a red-herring in any discussion about outlawing abortion.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2016, 01:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is a situation where I have to admit that I was wrong.  I got sidetracked on the whole "assuminmg the risk" argument.  The fact is that when a couple has sex they do assume the risk that the woman could get pregnant.  But since the woman is the only one that can get pregnant she is the only one who has a right to terminate the pregnancy.

Once technology reaches the point that a fetus can be gestated without using the woman's body then the woman could be subject to being fionancially responsible for the child the same way as the man is.  

The law should be that every person has control over their own body.  Changing the law now would give the man control over the womans body.  The principleof law should not chaneg.  It just has to wait for technology to cathc up.

The interesting thjing is that this argument is usually brought up by the anti-abortion crowd, yet they still would not support the decision to have an abortion even if both parties agreed.  This is an entirely different issue, and is actually just a red-herring in any discussion about outlawing abortion.

So then the man is taking the risk that he might get the woman pregnant and have no say in what happens to the fetus AND might be held financially responsible for the next 18 years.

That's the risk HE takes.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2016, 07:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The female might also be financially responsible for the next 18 years.

The law gives both parties control over their own bodies.  That is the way it has to work.  You can't give the man control over the woman's body.  That would not be fair.

I know you see the current law as unfair.  But changing the law to make it unfair for the woman does not fix anything.

Actually I do not find it unfair.  I am anti-abortion but do not get to make the choice for any woman.

I was just agreeing with you and making it clear that the man also agrees to certain risks...he just can't control the woman's choice.