Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

NightlyPoe said:
collint0101 said:

Your definition of life sounds very grounded in religion with no real scientific backing

As I said to the other poster, science has very little to do with this.  It's an ethical question.  Science can help (as I just demonstrated by providing an accurate distinguishing feature between gametes and zygotes that would label one as a unique organism and the other not), but there is no science that provides a dispositive answer.

For the record, I am not a part of any organized religion.  You have merely shown a bias.  Someone disagrees with you on abortion, you automatically dismiss them as religious and anti-science.

You may not be religious but you're still using their arguments. You're trying to turn feelings and morals into black and white principles and it just doesn't work like that. People and society are way too complex to say everything that happens after the sperm meets the egg is human life and to terminate that would be murder. 



Around the Network
collint0101 said:
NightlyPoe said:

As I said to the other poster, science has very little to do with this.  It's an ethical question.  Science can help (as I just demonstrated by providing an accurate distinguishing feature between gametes and zygotes that would label one as a unique organism and the other not), but there is no science that provides a dispositive answer.

For the record, I am not a part of any organized religion.  You have merely shown a bias.  Someone disagrees with you on abortion, you automatically dismiss them as religious and anti-science.

You may not be religious but you're still using their arguments. You're trying to turn feelings and morals into black and white principles and it just doesn't work like that. People and society are way too complex to say everything that happens after the sperm meets the egg is human life and to terminate that would be murder. 

We have laws for many things that are black and white principles, most having to do with matters orders of magnitude more trivial than life and death.  Yes, people and society are complex, but that doesn't mean we don't have a rule book.

There's simply nothing uniquely religious about saying that a homicide is unjust and should be outlawed.



Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

I never said the interviewer was a lefty, but the way he was questioning Ben was in opposition to him and he was acting like many of the lefties do, which would be why Ben acted and responded like he did. A conservative there is also not the same as a conservative in America either.

Below...

You're always pointing out my devotion to the right. I wonder why people take sides when they show they aren't bound to either, yet you do everything to ignore that fact and put a label on them.

It's not easy to have a meaningful conversation with someone when they are pretending to be something they're not wouldn't you say? Just like trying to have a meaningful conversation when you're constantly being portrayed as something you're not?

I have no clue what you are, what I do know is that for you labels means everything.  Everyone is a lefty this or conservative that.  And since you chose the word Lefty all the time but denote the right as conservative, I have to wonder about your choice of words.  You may believe you are in the middle or whatever but usually people never know they show themselves the longer you converse with them.  I never called you left, right, middle conservative liberal or any such thing, instead I let you show me who you are and you have never let me down.

As for the interviewer, you didn't have to say what he was, you jumped at the chance to label him because he was giving Ben what usually Ben gives to people he consider as liberals.  You got on your high horse jumping at the chance and fell into the trap the same way Ben did.  The interviewer wasn't acting as something he was not, instead he was challenging Ben on who he is trying to portray in his book compared to the statements he has made in the past.  

Well how do we humans converse if we don't put words and meanings to anything? I could use the word liberal from now on instead of lefty, but what about the liberals or libertarians, etc, who insist they are so different that they do not wish to be clumped in with the rest who have strayed so far to the left of center? Minority rules? If you 'let me' show you who I am, and I do and never let you down apparently, then you must know what I am, otherwise your statement makes no sense. If you know what I am and say I'm always an apologist, then who is it I am always apologizing for? Didn't you start out by saying you have no clue what I am?

Didn't I already point out in the last post that I didn't describe the interviewer as a lefty? So I somehow labeled him without actually labeling him? Did I or didn't I? Do you know what I'm about or don't you? If the interviewer was acting like a typical conservative Ben wouldn't have gone on the offensive. Since you're all about past instances to prove present points, where has Ben acted in this manner towards a typical conservative before? And no, the far right doesn't count. Again, a typical UK or EU conservative is not the same thing as a typical American conservative. Chips or gift doesn't mean the same thing over there as they do in America.

Just so I'm clear here. The 'conservative' interviewer is allowed to take an opposing position to 'push Ben into a corner' and make him show his 'true colors', and that's totally legit and is what happened, with no other potential reasoning, and yet the conversation we're having right now couldn't be the same, considering my initial point favored the interviewer? How sure are you?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

collint0101 said:
jason1637 said:

Well none is saying they have to provide for the child. Just be a decent eneough human being to let them live.

That actually sounds terrible. Life is one thing but quality of life is another and fact of the matter is our society is unfortunately unwilling to put systems in place to better the lives of these children after they're born. Like I've said probably 3 other times before this I don't like abortion but unless we see a huge political push to guarantee a decent standard of living for these children I'm going to remain pro choice because often times the alternative is crime, poverty, overburdened foster care, ect. Pro life is only concerned about whether or not a child is born but I doubt anyone here can find a pro life group that's also pushing for parental guidance classes or increased maternity leave

So you're pro choice beacause you're worried about their quality of life? That's like saying we should end thir lifes because they are gonna be poor. Why not whipe out the homeless while you're at it?





Around the Network

I want to run down some misconceptions of abortion:

1.)  No one likes abortion.  Women aren't being forced by Democrats/planned parenthood, to have an abortion.  They are making an incredibly difficult decision.  

2.)  Illegalizing abortion does not lead to a decline in abortion rates.  https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/new-report-highlights-worldwide-variations-abortion-incidence-and-safety

In areas of the world where abortion is legal, abortion rates are actually slightly lower but mostly the same.  Countries where abortion is illegal have another problem, they are more likely to get botched abortions.  In total, abortion being legalized helps the mothers, and it doesn't help the fetus in either case.  In other words, abortion being legal helps more people. 

3.)  What does lead to a decrease in abortions, is free disbursement of contraception, particularly to lower income people who otherwise have trouble affording it.



the-pi-guy said:

I want to run down some misconceptions of abortion:

1.)  No one likes abortion.  Women aren't being forced by Democrats/planned parenthood, to have an abortion.  They are making an incredibly difficult decision.  

2.)  Illegalizing abortion does not lead to a decline in abortion rates.  https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/new-report-highlights-worldwide-variations-abortion-incidence-and-safety

In areas of the world where abortion is legal, abortion rates are actually slightly lower but mostly the same.  Countries where abortion is illegal have another problem, they are more likely to get botched abortions.  In total, abortion being legalized helps the mothers, and it doesn't help the fetus in either case.  In other words, abortion being legal helps more people. 

3.)  What does lead to a decrease in abortions, is free disbursement of contraception, particularly to lower income people who otherwise have trouble affording it.

1.  Depends on the woman.  It also depends on what's being sold at the moment.  There is a movement to normalize abortion to just being a thing.

2.  Then why did the abortion rate skyrocket after Roe in the United States?  The statistics you provide have do not adjust for anything and are a good example of lying with statistics, namely by ignoring that correlation does not imply causation.  Furthermore, the conclusions are just opinions.

3.  That's a separate topic.

Above all, homicide of the innocent should be banned.



NightlyPoe said:

1.  Depends on the woman.  It also depends on what's being sold at the moment.  There is a movement to normalize abortion to just being a thing.

2.  Then why did the abortion rate skyrocket after Roe in the United States?  The statistics you provide have do not adjust for anything and are a good example of lying with statistics, namely by ignoring that correlation does not imply causation.  Furthermore, the conclusions are just opinions.

3.  That's a separate topic.

Above all, homicide of the innocent should be banned.

Could you post the source for your pre-Roe v Wade statistics?



jason1637 said:
collint0101 said:

That actually sounds terrible. Life is one thing but quality of life is another and fact of the matter is our society is unfortunately unwilling to put systems in place to better the lives of these children after they're born. Like I've said probably 3 other times before this I don't like abortion but unless we see a huge political push to guarantee a decent standard of living for these children I'm going to remain pro choice because often times the alternative is crime, poverty, overburdened foster care, ect. Pro life is only concerned about whether or not a child is born but I doubt anyone here can find a pro life group that's also pushing for parental guidance classes or increased maternity leave

So you're pro choice beacause you're worried about their quality of life? That's like saying we should end thir lifes because they are gonna be poor. Why not whipe out the homeless while you're at it?

Because I feel that when the baby is in the womb it's the mother's decision. I trust the mother to decide whether or not that are capable of raising that child 



NightlyPoe said:

1.  Depends on the woman.  It also depends on what's being sold at the moment.  There is a movement to normalize abortion to just being a thing.

2.  Then why did the abortion rate skyrocket after Roe in the United States?  The statistics you provide have do not adjust for anything and are a good example of lying with statistics, namely by ignoring that correlation does not imply causation.  Furthermore, the conclusions are just opinions.

3.  That's a separate topic.

Above all, homicide of the innocent should be banned.

1.  Yes, and I was less careful here than in the other thread.  There are certainly some women who find it easier than others.  

2.  They didn't.  https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2003/01/public-health-impact-legal-abortion-30-years-later

"Before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, data on abortion in the United States were scarce. In 1955, experts had estimated, on the basis of qualitative assumptions, that 200,000-1,200,000 illegal abortions were performed each year.1 Despite its wide range, this estimate remained the most reliable indicator of the magnitude of induced abortion for many years. In 1967, researchers confirmed this estimate by extrapolating data from a randomized-response survey conducted in North Carolina: They concluded that a total of 800,000 induced (mostly illegal) abortions were performed nationally each year."

The only correlation that is being shown here is that illegalized abortion does not correlate with lower rates of abortion.  That correlation is important.

These are the statistics that were found by the CDC, they only include legal abortions.  

1970 193,491

1971 485,816

1972 586,760

1973 615,831

1974 763,476

1975 854,853

1976 988,267

1977 950,675

1978 1,157,776


Factor in population increases, and now counting some 800,000 abortions to be legal, whereas before they wouldn't be counted, and the rate increased, but it did not "skyrocket".  These rates are very consistent with the number of illegal abortions that were taking place well before Roe vs Wade.  

3. How is reducing the number of abortions through contraception an unrelated topic to a discussion about abortion?  It is literally a win-win.  Stop killing unborn babies, and continue letting women maintain control of their own bodies.