Planned Parenthood II

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

Jajajaja, I know you were talking directly with pat. I just believe you were missing his points. Even if the abortion rate fell through the floor tomorrow, that number would be too high. [b]One child slaughtered through an abortion is ONE innocent child too many!

Also, history will illuminate the truth about abortion, hence why I brought genocides and slavery up.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Every single abortion slaughters an innocent child, in their first home. Abortion is not just a social issue but an ethical one as well. The full impact of the atrocious actions will not be seen until much later, very similar to the holocaust of the Jews, the genocides of history and slavery.

I refuse to sit idly by and watch people openly killing of faultless children.

You misunderstand. I was replying to pats comment about Polio and trying to help him understand why ratios are important. Then you come along talking about genocide and slavery.[/quote]

22

Already addressed pittbull, review the original PP thread.

The STAGE of the chicken is important. A chicken is an egg, a dead chicken, or a chick, the stages are all still chickens.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Every single abortion slaughters an innocent child, in their first home. Abortion is not just a social issue but an ethical one as well. The full impact of the atrocious actions will not be seen until much later, very similar to the holocaust of the Jews, the genocides of history and slavery.

I refuse to sit idly by and watch people openly killing of faultless children.

You still haven’t told me why this is not a chicken
[/quote]
edited with is

23

What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?

24

More than one sperm and an egg are needed to qualify as a person.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Two humans at the egg and sperm stage, or a human egg and a human sperm?[/quote]

25

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Every single abortion slaughters an innocent child, in their first home. Abortion is not just a social issue but an ethical one as well. The full impact of the atrocious actions will not be seen until much later, very similar to the holocaust of the Jews, the genocides of history and slavery.

I refuse to sit idly by and watch people openly killing of faultless children.

You misunderstand. I was replying to pats comment about Polio and trying to help him understand why ratios are important. Then you come along talking about genocide and slavery.[/quote]

Ratios are not important. Raw numbers are. Would the holocaust be any less horrible if there were more Jews in the Germany at the time, but the same number murdered?

Second of all. All the charts and graphs failed to show that the any decline in abortion was due to the availability of birth control. That was the point. Not reductions in abortions, reductions in abortion due to the availability and use of birth control. This was not demonstrated.
Perhaps the reduction was due to increased conscience and awareness that the reality of abortion is murder and people no longer want to be a part of this silent holocaust.
[/quote]

Also, why did you mention a decline in abortion in the graph if rations are unimportant to you (which is what the graph is showing). If all those graphs are unimportant to you so why mention them?[/quote]

I did not introduce the graphs, charts, etc. I am responding to the introduction of them.
The original argument by somebody was that if effective birth control was made available to the gen pop, then abortions would naturally drop as a result. My counter claim was/ is that effective birth control in recent times, has never been more available, accessible, affordable than it is now yet there is not a statistically significant drop in the amount of abortions (as a result of the availability of birth control).
I did make a mistake in not specifying the part in parenthesis. I assumed people understood that part in parenthesis without having to unpack it specifically in the course of this discussion.
Clearly, for the pro-aborts to salvage any portion of their desire to end human life at will, they will split any hair they can, even if it’s merely semantics designed to disparage their opponent, even if it will do nothing to actually support the pro-abortion stance.
And I am not against data. I will gladly accept data that shows directly the correlation between the availability of effective contraception and a reduction in abortion to the exception of other factors. I will not only accept the data, but happily concede the point. Because more important than my internet ego, is anything that significantly reduces abortions.

26

819×460 61.7 KB

[quote]Bismark wrote:
pat wrote:

I am not concerned with ratios I am concerned with numbers.

If polio kills 1.2 million people a year and the population increase by 50%, does it make polio any less of a killer? The answer is no.

“Compared with 2010, the total NUMBER and rate of reported abortions for 2011 decreased 5%, and the abortion ratio decreased 4%. Additionally, from 2002 to 2011 the NUMBER, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 13%, 14%, and 12%, respectively.”

http://www.cdc.gov/...lth/data_stats/

Your unsubstantiated thesis is bunk.[/quote]

Your link is bunk as it results in this:
“We are sorry, the page you are looking for was not found.”

Secondly, I didn’t make a ‘thesis’ hence it could not be bunk.
Thirdly, what you have to show is that the availability of effective birth control is the causal factor (in as much as can be determined by correlation), to the exception of all other variables, for this reduction.

Nevertheless, whatever the reason, I am happy that fewer people have killed their children in the past few years. But unless the sole reason for this reduction is the wider availability or effective birth control, then you don’t have a point. You just have a broken link.

28

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Every single abortion slaughters an innocent child, in their first home. Abortion is not just a social issue but an ethical one as well. The full impact of the atrocious actions will not be seen until much later, very similar to the holocaust of the Jews, the genocides of history and slavery.

I refuse to sit idly by and watch people openly killing of faultless children.

You misunderstand. I was replying to pats comment about Polio and trying to help him understand why ratios are important. Then you come along talking about genocide and slavery.[/quote]

Here ya go, stats:
Show me where in the stats where birth control is mentioned as a contributing factor in the reduction of abortions?

Go on. Because what I said is that there is no correlation between the increase in acceptance and affordability of birth control and the abortion rate. There are stats that indicate a slight decline in abortion, but no where does it say that it is due to the increase in acceptance and affordability of birth control.
It’s amazing that you can use charts and graphs and government data and still manage to talk out of your ass.[/quote]

The lead author of a Guttmacher Institute study on abortion rates in the United States notes that “the decline in abortions coincided with a steep national drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates. Contraceptive use improved during this period, as more women and couples were using highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD.”

[/quote]

And where did you obtain this info? I will accept it if you provide the link. It’s rather unusual that you did not in this case.
The attached fact sheet does not mention the above quote.

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Further, IUD is a controversial contraception as it’s method of action is that of an abortifacient. It does not prevent fertilization, it prevents implantation.

29

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Every single abortion slaughters an innocent child, in their first home. Abortion is not just a social issue but an ethical one as well. The full impact of the atrocious actions will not be seen until much later, very similar to the holocaust of the Jews, the genocides of history and slavery.

I refuse to sit idly by and watch people openly killing of faultless children.

You misunderstand. I was replying to pats comment about Polio and trying to help him understand why ratios are important. Then you come along talking about genocide and slavery.[/quote]

Ratios are not important. Raw numbers are. Would the holocaust be any less horrible if there were more Jews in the Germany at the time, but the same number murdered?

Second of all. All the charts and graphs failed to show that the any decline in abortion was due to the availability of birth control. That was the point. Not reductions in abortions, reductions in abortion due to the availability and use of birth control. This was not demonstrated.
Perhaps the reduction was due to increased conscience and awareness that the reality of abortion is murder and people no longer want to be a part of this silent holocaust.
[/quote]

Genocide? Holocaust? Why do these discussions inevitably devolve into histrionic red herrings? Abortion is not an institution. It is not systemic. Rather, it is an individual level medical decision. US law holds that neither the patient nor the doctor are engaged in murder. Rather than emotively deriding a legitimate medical practice as a capital crime, abortion opponents should address the demand for abortion by advocating for improved sexual education and subsidized contraceptives. Attempts to affect the supply side of abortion are doomed to end in abject failure.[/quote]

Don’t accuse me of logical fallacies if you do not understand their meaning. I was not diverting the conversation towards the holocaust. I was making an analogy.
The analogy being that something horrible happening to a subset of a population does not become less horrible simply because the over all population increases, while the numbers of victims of a horrible act does not increase proportionally.

A red herring is a diversionary tactic designed to change the focus of the conversation. If I were trying to divert the conversation toward the holocaust rather than abortion, then I would be committing a red herring.

[i]"RED HERRING
Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, smokescreen, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation, judgmental language [form of])

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument."[/i]

Now you can accuse me of histrionics, if you believe that the holocaust is a significantly worse event or act, than abortion. Now while abortion is not genocidal in nature, the casualty rate is actually much higher. Because both abortion and the holocaust had the ultimate goal of terminating human life en masse, hence, I don’t consider the analogy a stretch at all.
Most people who are honest about what abortion is, do not consider such a comparison a stretch.

30

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Every single abortion slaughters an innocent child, in their first home. Abortion is not just a social issue but an ethical one as well. The full impact of the atrocious actions will not be seen until much later, very similar to the holocaust of the Jews, the genocides of history and slavery.

I refuse to sit idly by and watch people openly killing of faultless children.

You misunderstand. I was replying to pats comment about Polio and trying to help him understand why ratios are important. Then you come along talking about genocide and slavery.[/quote]

Here ya go, stats:
Show me where in the stats where birth control is mentioned as a contributing factor in the reduction of abortions?

Go on. Because what I said is that there is no correlation between the increase in acceptance and affordability of birth control and the abortion rate. There are stats that indicate a slight decline in abortion, but no where does it say that it is due to the increase in acceptance and affordability of birth control.
It’s amazing that you can use charts and graphs and government data and still manage to talk out of your ass.[/quote]

The lead author of a Guttmacher Institute study on abortion rates in the United States notes that “the decline in abortions coincided with a steep national drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates. Contraceptive use improved during this period, as more women and couples were using highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD.”

[/quote]

Here is what the Guttmacher Institute does say on the matter:

“In seven countriesâ??Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Turkey, Tunisia and Switzerlandâ??abortion incidence declined as prevalence of modern contraceptive use rose. In six othersâ??Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Koreaâ??levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously. In all six of these countries, however, overall levels of fertility were falling during the period studied. After fertility levels stabilized in several of the countries that had shown simultaneous rises in contraception and abortion, contraceptive use continued to increase and abortion rates fell. The most clear-cut example of this trend is the Republic of Korea.”

So does contraception reduce abortion? The results are not clear. It seems in poorer countries the answer is yes. In our civilized western culture, instances show a simultaneous increase of abortion and contraception.

Based on this information, one cannot conclude that in general contraception reduces abortions. Socio-economic conditions, fertility, and culture also play a role. So contraception alone is not the answer.

31

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ratios are not important. Raw numbers are. Would the holocaust be any less horrible if there were more Jews in the Germany at the time, but the same number murdered?
[/quote]

It would be less horrible but that is a bad example since there was so many to begin with and it was a one time event vs a disease which is more of a constant rate we can measure the rate of year by year for a long period of time.

[quote]pat wrote:
Second of all. All the charts and graphs failed to show that the any decline in abortion was due to the availability of birth control. That was the point. Not reductions in abortions, reductions in abortion due to the availability and use of birth control. This was not demonstrated.
Perhaps the reduction was due to increased conscience and awareness that the reality of abortion is murder and people no longer want to be a part of this silent holocaust.
[/quote]

Bismark answered this one already

Abortion acceptance has not really changed either, if anything its arguably more accepted these days. Did you hear about that shout your abortion thing recently on social media?[/quote]

Shout your abortion? Are you proud of it? Did you shout yours?

32

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

…Nevertheless, whatever the reason, I am happy that fewer people have killed their children in the past few years.

[/quote]

But he can’t be because that means more inner city teenagers have been inconvenienced. Inconvenience trumps life of the innocent.

Knsap can’t either because that means more children will now be raised in “non-optimal” environments.[/quote]

Yeah, we should terminate people who are inconvenient and those who live in non-optimal environments, why stop at babies?
It seems to me astounding the lengths people will go to, to support something so despicable and who’s stark reality is so blatantly evident I don’t think you have a choice but to be stupid or evil to defend it.

I have said it many times and I will stand by it, though I will probably be long dead before I am proven right. Hwill judge us as harshly or more so, as we judge the evil of slavery now. Either this will be the case, or mankind will slant towards being mostly evil.

33

Pro-death people will ALWAYS ignore this simple fact. All birth control, save condoms or diphrams, are abortifacient. If fertilization never took place, the methods would never fail.

34

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Attempts to affect the supply side of abortion are doomed to end in abject failure.[/quote]

It’s funny that because you can’t get the point you think it will end in failure…

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Abortion acceptance has not really changed either, if anything its arguably more accepted these days. [/quote]

Horse shit.

Prolife is up 10% in 20 years. You’re making up nonsense.

35

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Two humans at the egg and sperm stage, or a human egg and a human sperm?[/quote]

Wow, for a smart person, which you are, you sure like to hang around in pittbull level idiocy when it comes to this topic.

You project like a mother too.

36

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Attempts to affect the supply side of abortion are doomed to end in abject failure.[/quote]

It’s funny that because you can’t get the point you think it will end in failure…

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Abortion acceptance has not really changed either, if anything its arguably more accepted these days. [/quote]

Horse shit.

Prolife is up 10% in 20 years. You’re making up nonsense. [/quote]

If that’s all the info you got from the inconclusive graph, you are a perfect example of confirmation bias.

  • Pro choice has been higher a majority of the time, by far
  • Pro life is down 6% in just 4 years
  • And most importantly, in any of the last 30 years about 80% support abortion in at least some cases, maybe they aren’t so pro life after all?
37

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ratios are not important. Raw numbers are. Would the holocaust be any less horrible if there were more Jews in the Germany at the time, but the same number murdered?
[/quote]

It would be less horrible but that is a bad example since there was so many to begin with and it was a one time event vs a disease which is more of a constant rate we can measure the rate of year by year for a long period of time.

[quote]pat wrote:
Second of all. All the charts and graphs failed to show that the any decline in abortion was due to the availability of birth control. That was the point. Not reductions in abortions, reductions in abortion due to the availability and use of birth control. This was not demonstrated.
Perhaps the reduction was due to increased conscience and awareness that the reality of abortion is murder and people no longer want to be a part of this silent holocaust.
[/quote]

Bismark answered this one already

Abortion acceptance has not really changed either, if anything its arguably more accepted these days. Did you hear about that shout your abortion thing recently on social media?[/quote]

Shout your abortion? Are you proud of it? Did you shout yours?[/quote]

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23shoutyourabortion

38

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Attempts to affect the supply side of abortion are doomed to end in abject failure.[/quote]

It’s funny that because you can’t get the point you think it will end in failure…

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Abortion acceptance has not really changed either, if anything its arguably more accepted these days. [/quote]

Horse shit.

Prolife is up 10% in 20 years. You’re making up nonsense. [/quote]

If that’s all the info you got from the inconclusive graph, you are a perfect example of confirmation bias.

  • Pro choice has been higher a majority of the time, by far
  • Pro life is down 6% in just 4 years
  • And most importantly, in any of the last 30 years about 80% support abortion in at least some cases, maybe they aren’t so pro life after all?[/quote]

Tells me I have confirmation bias, ignores the parts of the graph that don’t suit his narrative. lmao.

Good luck with that shit homie.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

  • Pro choice has been higher a majority of the time, by far[/quote]

Okay? You’re claim, that is still very wrong was “if anything its arguably more accepted these days.” Funny you ignore the parts of the graph that clearly point out you’re wrong, and project your “confirmation bias” on me.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

  • Pro life is down 6% in just 4 years[/quote]

20 year trend > 4 year trend. But you know, keep on projecting.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

  • And most importantly, in any of the last 30 years about 80% support abortion in at least some cases, maybe they aren’t so pro life after all?[/quote]

And most importantly, you claimed “if anything its arguably more accepted these days.” Nothing in the above quote supports that. It’s completely irrelevant.

Fuck. If a single one of you pro-aborts could graduate from Pitttbull’s Dipshit Elementary school that would be great.

39

Pro-choice 1996 = 56%
Pro-choice 2015 = 50%
Result, 6% reduction in pro-aborts

Pro-life 1996 = 33%
Pro-life 2015 = 44%
Result, 11% increase in pro-life

Andy’s conclusion? “It’s inconclusive, a whole bunch of irrelevant shit, and you have confirmation bias”.

Classic case of projection. Text book.

40

[quote]Blowharder wrote:
One human legally aborted in these united states of America, a real, honest to goodness (now dead) human being or an inconvenient to an inner city teenager blob of tissue? [/quote]

I have to say bullshit , PROOF , How do you know that was not a miscarriage ?