12-09-2016, 06:49 PM
(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?