The End of Abortion in America is Coming Soon Part 2

Speaking of "dodge" that's exactly what you're doing;
dodge-ing my request to provide a major news source for the story.

 

Around 14.8% of abortions were done on married women in 2011 or if you prefer, 179,430 abortions for the year 2011 were performed on married women.

29.2% of abortions were performed on women co-habiting with a male partner .. not really the basis of a promiscuous lifestyle, so all in all around 44% of abortions in 2011 were performed on women who were married or co-habiting.

no, but very close to it only 7% short of being in the majority.

Imposable to tell as records are not kept of how many unwanted pregnancies went to full term.

Convenience as you define it, not as others do. I personally do not find having an abortion because you simply cannot afford to feed another child "convenience"

That is not your decision to make.

Why, because you say so?

Then support having contraception free at source instead of the safest being priced out their reach, and BTW you do know that the majority of doctors will refuse to carry out a tubal litigation on young women don't you and again the cost can be above what some can afford.

Do you know that the long term cost of providing free IUD's is LESS than providing free condoms, and far safer?

 

How did you come to be an expert on abortion?

 

It's called an education and research .. you should try it sometime. BTW I am not an expert.

I also write poetry, build computers for disabled people using a system that allows control via specialized cameras that track eye movement and have a more than passing interest in mistranslations of the bible (OT & NT)

 

In the first sentence you acknowledge being an expert, and in the second sentence you deny it.

That's nice. But abortion is your first and foremost passion isn't it? What is it about abortion that fascinates you? Theory or procedure?

 

Is it possible in any of those cases to save the life of the mother and they baby? Yes, of course it is. It is not an either or situation. Fetuses don't make threats. Abortions are always a bad thing.

It was not a strawman, it was demonstrating absurdity. Some people show an amazing ability to be completely dispassionate in the face of loss.

Never happens to a woman who is not pregnant.

I'd like to agree with you on that point. We are becoming quite a heartless society. There are many people that do not value human life in this world. Ditto to you on the confirmation bias.

How do I know what?

I'll disagree. And yes, there are lots of cases where young women have committed suicide after being shamed on social media.

How about just a wee bit of time teaching them morality?

Who is denying comprehensive sex education? Promiscuity is not a form of comprehensive sex education.

Huh? I still don't know what you mean. They have a name for people that do what?

This is why conversing with you can be so difficult. You are a contrarian. Even when I tell you we agree, you insist we disagree.

 

I don't have a major news source for the story.

 

You said married. You didn't say married or cohabiting. Move the goalposts much?

100 - 14.8 = 85.2% Not married.

Because it's immoral.

What is the long term cost if it is free in both cases? There is no such thing as a free lunch. Maybe they could use two or three methods.

 

Abortion bans are worse. Not only do they not result in fewer abortions, they increase maternal death rates and suicides, criminalize women and deny them their human rights and dignity.

 

Because if you ban abortions you obviously will no doubt end up with more abortions paradoxically speaking.

Abortions increase the death rate among fetuses and deny them human rights and dignity. There is nothing dignifying about violating a woman's womb forcibly with foreign objects and stripping out her offspring in a violent and bloody extrusion of her fetus.

 

Bolded, mine

Yup, that 's why women should be free to have a choice......NOTHING, including giving birth, should be FORCIBLY done top a woman...

 

Nature forces a woman to give birth. That is how we all were born.

 

That's a distortion of my words, and there is no paradox because studies and empirical evidence have shown that banning abortion doesn't affect abortion rates.

Legal abortion does not increase the death rate of fetuses. See above. You want to grant fetuses a right to life sustained at the expense of someone's body, health and life. No human being has that right.

The same kind of description could apply to almost any surgery. Medical procedures are not degrading UNLESS they are forced on someone.

 

No, we are all born because a woman chooses to give birth.

 

You are 0 for 3 in the "Great comebacks" department.

- - - Updated - - -

Make that 0 for 4.

 

Humans alter/stop "nature" all the time........no reason they can't with pregnancy


Why are you avoiding this :
Yup, that 's why women should be free to have a choice......NOTHING, including giving birth, should be FORCIBLY done to a woman...

 

That's your rebuttal?

 

YAY ABORTION!

 

Looks like he finally admitted he has no rebuttal ......

 

Because they don't want to be sued for libel/slander.

 

How is printing the results of government audit libelous/slanderous?

 

Same here. I was anti choice until I watched a friend almost die from an illegal abortion.

Very telling that some anti choicers are bitter that we are well informed, isn't it?

 

You're being disingenuous.

 

The requirement of an intent, which is what a threat is, is not required in order for a person to defend their bodies, only that their body is in the process of being injured .. research your laws and look up voluntary and involuntary acts.

It is a strawman .. Can liberals never acknowledge that losing a child in utero is a sad thing? Or do liberals cheer when women have miscarriages? you already know the answers to both of these, yet persist in creating strawman questions as this is the only way you can "defend" your ideology.

Now of course you are attempting to move the goalposts, the subject being abortion which of course does not happen if there is no pregnancy .. so the question remains "how the hell does she know that her pregnancy could end up in a life threatening situation to her?"

THat is nothing more than your opinion, one you are entitled to . .strange that conditions for the vast majority of people have improved over the last 100 years and yet you seem to be under some illusion that we are becoming a heartless society. You value human life no more or less than any other person, the value of human life is only as much as another places upon it and as to the confirmation bias you project to me, when was the last time you used non-biased places to get your evidence (when you bother to produce it that is), I use non-biased evidence all the time.

Stop trying to act dim (or is it really an act), you know the question being asked, instead you try to evade it. You claim that only a pregnant woman can know, you have also claimed that an abortion "is never good, and that it has mental consequences " .. so how do you know these things if "Only a pregnant woman can really know what it is like mentally to terminate the life of their child.", how do you know an abortion is "never good" and that it "has mental consequences"?

Then prove it, as there have been lots of cases you should have no problem providing links to them .. please do so.

How do you know I wouldn't .. reading minds again I see

You are .. you don't even have a clue what comprehensive sex education is, and yes your assertion of " it is a possibility that a woman can be put into increased dangers because they put themselves into situations by being promiscuous. " is an assumption.

Yet again with the dim act, it doesn't fool anybody.

People who demean something because of it's extreme nature or rarity and then use the same extreme or rare type of argument to support their own ideology .. the word starts with 'H' BTW.

we have had discussions in sex education before and no we don't agree on it, so unless you can show where we agree on sex education your comment is incorrect.

 

Except that I didn't say married, suggest you try to keep up with who said what.

Hmm .. so you are asserting that the 29.2% of women co-habitaing who have abortions are being promiscuous are you?

says who .. you, where is your justification for proclaiming it to be immoral, show me where it is "not conforming to accepted standards of morality" given that the accepted standards of morality are fluid.

I never said there was such a thing as a free lunch.

Average cost of a condom is $0.67 (based on a box of 24 - the individual cost increases for lower volume) and is a single use
Average cost of a IUD is $500 (ranges from $210-800 without insurance and included IUD, insertion and pre-insertion checks) lasts on average 10 years

The average American has sex 113 times per year

Average cost of condoms over a 10 year period assuming one is used every time 0.67 x 113 x 10 = $757.10

IUD means over a $200 average saving over the lifetime of the device.

Typical usage failure of condoms = 18%
Typical usage failure rate of IUD = 0.8%

IUD has a 17.2% lower typical usage failure rate .. or if you prefer 17.2 less unintended pregnancies out of every 100 instances of sexual intercourse.

This of course does not include the welfare cost to the state of any child conceived via contraception failure or the cost of a child in care.

That would only increase the cost.