"I accuse that woman there of having had an abortion!!!"

I think that Angelfire place is an Anti-Choice site so that's probably why they lied...and bumped it up a bit...

 

Thank you. Even that sounds too high. If 43% of American women have had an abortion, this country is in worse shape than I thought. What a humiliating statistic.

 

There was no "at least" in that 30% stat. but I admire you for "giving" on that one... since you were totally pwned by it.

ffs...

 

Yeah, they love to come up with the worst stats they can find, no matter how wrong or outdated.
Otherwise they have nothing to back their silly claims.

Even the 30% is just a prediction.

 

Lol.. ffs... Angelfire is an outdated web hosting site where you can type up blogs. They aren't "Anti" anything.

The information that someone posted there, like that of Granny's, is just completely wrong... by a longshot.

So if you say "Angelfire" lied..... what does that say about Granny ?

 

If it's true that half of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned, and half of the unplanned pregnancies are aborted, you're going to get a fairly large percentage of women who have had an abortion.

 

What you found (30%) was a PREDICTION based on 2008 rates.

"In 2008, of women ages 40-55, about 40% have had abortions in their lifetimes."
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/uslifetimeab.html

 

OK, back to the Off Topic topic.....so you have %30 of women who don't give a rat's patoot if you have no respect for them....gee, where's your trophy?

 

Let's see.... 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned... and 50% of them are aborts.

That would be 25%.

I'm not sure which stats you are going to use... you're all over the place.

I'm not arguing the numbers..... I just knew yours were wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Was there a reason you needed to repeat what I've said ?

 

You have a serious habit of claiming people say things they haven't said.

I respect women who have had abortions.
Nowhere have I said otherwise.

Twisting this into some sort of goal of mine is just stupid. Sure, it'll get "liked" by other simpletons, but it's stupid none-the-less.

I said I respect women more, when they choose not to. I never said I don't respect those who have.

Now... twist that as you have everything else.......zzzz

 

Great OP....you got one poster who doesn't know what hypothetical means and one who hasn't read the OP but whines on Off Topic anyway...

I think that's a win for YOU!

 

No, I don't have to twist it, it's been pretty well mangled by you......but it does help you to avoid addressing the actual TOPIC of this thread which you seem to be terrified of or you would address it......and what don't you get about how women do NOT care if they have any increment of any size of your respect or not....

 

Yet you have.... 3 times.

So far.

 

You are arguing the numbers, but in an apples and oranges kind of way. The percentage of all women who have had abortions doesn't equal the percentage of pregnant women who choose abortion each year.

You posted a prediction based on the 2008 rate. The question asked the percentage of women who have had abortions, not an estimate of women who will have abortions.

 

and what don't you get about how women do NOT care if they have any increment of any size of your respect or not.... ....I adore how you keep avoiding that fact,...

 

Let's see, 25% of pregnancies are aborted in one year, next year a different 25% of pregnancies are aborted, the next year.....So over the course of the 30+ years of reproductive life of women, a goodly number will have one or more abortions. Somewhere between 30% and 43%.

 

All I did was correct the number. And that number is the same stat Granny posted.

Apples vs. oranges doesn't apply here.

Actually, there was no question.

Granny posted predictions based on 1992 rates, so I gave her relevant info she could start posting instead.

I said it was a prediction, and my link showed that it was based on 2008 rates.

Still not sure what part of that you didn't get.

 

This is what you said:

If you want to start arguing one year vs. another, you shouldn't have stated "half of all pregnancies in this country".

But ok... you move the goalposts (shocker).

The only credible number is between 0% and 100% of all women will have an abortion.. this year... ever... whichever you choose to argue (this time).

You posted a bad prediction, I posted a more accurate prediction. I'm not sure why you want to keep arguing about it.

 

Why's that? - you've said yourself that you're pro-choice

The only legitimate concern over abortion is whether or not it's murder - as I outlined in my other thread, the the only relevant issue is when life begins. Personally I'd say the best definition is when the fetus develops a brain and has its own sentience - because that's the definition that we seem to use to distinguish human and animal life (which has rights) versus plant life (which has no rights). Going by "life" in the most broad definition would even include sperm cells

So if "human life" isn't the real issue, then it's only an issue to elitists, or people who want to generate a moral panic over nonsensical tabloid crap.

 

I think what might be meant by "humiliating statistic" is that nearly half (although that number has been shown to be quite false) of American women are using abortion as a form of birth control. Taking away the few who abort due to health risks that leaves a large number who use it to end inconvenient pregnancies.

If one is on the side of not ending a baby's life... then that is a terrible number.

If one doesn't see it as a life, or doesn't care if it's a life, then the number shouldn't matter to them.

 

During what stage of the pregnancy?

...and what's the problem with that? Biologically an embryo a day after conception doesn't have a brain, so it doesn't yet meet the criteria of sentient life - so murder's a non-issue from a biological standpoint. If the issue is just "sex"... well this isn't Saudi Arabia

Life has a concrete biological definition, it's not determined on the whim of one person or another

If a member of PETA sees a cow as deserving of the same rights as a human then they're free to abstain from eating meat, but their view that 'meat is murder' isn't factually supported

 

So how many people who visit a neighbours house are prosecuted for burglary? There are processes involved that delineate burglary from other acts - with abortion the lines are a lot less clear

- - - Updated - - -

I would LOVE to see you validate that statistic - and I am betting that you cannot

The charge that women use abortion as birth control makes no sense, physically, economically or even socially but it comes up time and again

 

You are misinterpreting - it is half the UNWANTED or unplanned pregnancies

If there were a cheap, reliable and assured method of birth control we would see the number of abortions drop - as it is they have been falling over the last few decades

 

Everyone wants a lower number. The difference is in how each side tries to achieve that. One side wants government regulation of women's bodies (which has been shown ineffective for reducing abortions). The other side wants free and easily accessible contraception and comprehensive sex education, (the policies that have been shown to work).

 

Isn't "immoral perverted" redundant? How can something be "moral perverted"?

As I've mentioned before, the sex obsessed/repressed crowd's really doing the right wing no favor - if they spend this much time thinking about other people having sex then I think they'd be more at home just moving to Saudi Arabia where they'll find plenty of other sexually repressed people to share their views - and the rest of us can concentrate on real issues