Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[_Simpson_ 250]

Joefail:

QUOTE

Rape, Incest, and life of the mother account for less than 1% of all abortions. So that argument = FAIL

You're the one bringing it up with statistics. Show us the meat.

Regardless of the exact stats we all know that the numbers are very low and to try and make a agrument for abortion on this alone isnt going to get much support.

And I am not arguing with that.

I know your not, but I just didn't see the point in calling out Joe on the exact statistics when we know the numbers are small and hardly a argument for abortion. I don't think you would and never have I heard you use this as a argument.

[_Simpson_ 250]

That isn't what was being claimed.

The rate doesnt change, that is what the survey is claiming, and Ireland was used as a example. People there will still have options but to say there will not be less abortions taking place is ridiculous.

I think you ought to read the article again.

Is your angle have something to do with how contraceptives play a part in this?

[HAL 9000 96]

Joefail:

QUOTE

Rape, Incest, and life of the mother account for less than 1% of all abortions. So that argument = FAIL

You're the one bringing it up with statistics. Show us the meat.

Regardless of the exact stats we all know that the numbers are very low and to try and make a agrument for abortion on this alone isnt going to get much support.

And I am not arguing with that.

I know your not, but I just didn't see the point in calling out Joe on the exact statistics when we know the numbers are small and hardly a argument for abortion. I don't think you would and never have I heard you use this as a argument.

Joe has a hard time accepting that it isn't his right to impose his beliefs upon others. Using the left hand side of the normal distribution to argue, in ANY way against the rest of the curve, is ridiculous.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That isn't what was being claimed.

The rate doesnt change, that is what the survey is claiming, and Ireland was used as a example. People there will still have options but to say there will not be less abortions taking place is ridiculous.

I think you ought to read the article again.

Is your angle have something to do with how contraceptives play a part in this?

I think you need to read the article again.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[_Simpson_ 250]

Whom else would it affect? A fetus isn't exactly a viable individual. The sperm donor/father? Sure- and I think it would be logical to argue that things could be clarified where the sperm donor could be liberated of all responsibility (including right to custody later on). Which would address Joe's incongruous daddy-support obligation.

So yeah, that's huge.

Viable individual?, not sure exactly what you mean by that but what changes after the child is born. The child is still just as dependent on mother.

Edited October 14, 2009 by _Simpson_

[Peikko 1,575]

Simpson, did you even try to imagine the fetus as the nonviable twin of Siamese twins? Unless you can truly understand what is meant by 'viable' you are simply going to chase your own tail.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[HAL 9000 96]

Whom else would it affect? A fetus isn't exactly a viable individual. The sperm donor/father? Sure- and I think it would be logical to argue that things could be clarified where the sperm donor could be liberated of all responsibility (including right to custody later on). Which would address Joe's incongruous daddy-support obligation.

So yeah, that's huge.

Viable individual?, not sure exactly what you mean by that but what changes after the child is born. The child is still just as dependent on mother.

Joe was instructed to check out the definition of viability. So are you at this point.

Particularly, the difference between prenatal and postnatal viability- the dependence is biologically different and yes, the baby can go to 7-11 for its food after birth... J/K- but it can receive nutrition from other places. Joe is merely being unsurprisingly obtuse.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Simpson, did you even try to imagine the fetus as the nonviable twin of Siamese twins? Unless you can truly understand what is meant by 'viable' you are simply going to chase your own tail.

Why we will never see eye to eye is because of the way you view a fetus, for some reason the value goes up tremendously after birth, I dont work like that and wont fall for some technicallity. I believe the fetus should be protected prior to birth as long as it doesnt put the mothers life in danger.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

None of this changes the fact that the father doesn't and shouldn't have any claim over the woman's body during gestation.

If she chooses to get an abortion, he's got to live with it.

[HAL 9000 96]

As long as your views don't impinge upon those that wish to terminate their pregnancy within a reasonable time period, so be it. In the technicality is where that is defined, and viability is what defines that technicality.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

No because Len likely did her homework and would know that knowledge does not emanate from a teacher, but rather is facilitated (or impeded) by such an individual. Len would likely correct the teacher. Something that is apparently clear you did not when you were indoctrinated with ignorance.

Uh... Vygotski, I likey constructivism

A baby is a baby no matter what you want to call it. Abortion stops a beating heart. Plain and simple.

[HAL 9000 96]

Pounding on those keys are we?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Joefail:

QUOTE

Rape, Incest, and life of the mother account for less than 1% of all abortions. So that argument = FAIL

You're the one bringing it up with statistics. Show us the meat.

Regardless of the exact stats we all know that the numbers are very low and to try and make a agrument for abortion on this alone isnt going to get much support.

And I am not arguing with that.

I know your not, but I just didn't see the point in calling out Joe on the exact statistics when we know the numbers are small and hardly a argument for abortion. I don't think you would and never have I heard you use this as a argument.

Joe has a hard time accepting that it isn't his right to impose his beliefs upon others. Using the left hand side of the normal distribution to argue, in ANY way against the rest of the curve, is ridiculous.

How is opposing murdering the innocent "imposing my views"?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You do like your hysteria, don't you Joe?

Every post full of loaded language.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Whom else would it affect? A fetus isn't exactly a viable individual. The sperm donor/father? Sure- and I think it would be logical to argue that things could be clarified where the sperm donor could be liberated of all responsibility (including right to custody later on). Which would address Joe's incongruous daddy-support obligation.

So yeah, that's huge.

Viable individual?, not sure exactly what you mean by that but what changes after the child is born. The child is still just as dependent on mother.

Joe was instructed to check out the definition of viability. So are you at this point.

Particularly, the difference between prenatal and postnatal viability- the dependence is biologically different and yes, the baby can go to 7-11 for its food after birth... J/K- but it can receive nutrition from other places. Joe is merely being unsurprisingly obtuse.

Its still a baby, just one that is more dependent. The terminology was invented to make libs like you feel good about murder.