Abortion FOUR TIMES DEADLIER Than Childbirth!

You are indeed bizarre…..absolutely bizarre

 

Then you would also support rape…right? Slavery? In fact you would just about support anything as long as it felt good…right? Narcissism……common characteristic of pro-choicer. Its only about them…their free choice to follow their immoral lifestyles. They don't know truth….don't want to know it. They simply do not care…..killing a nine month old in the womb…for them would be less worse than killing an ant on the street. They seek power…the power in this case for women…to be able to kill.

They are anti-life….they are judgmental…..they are illogical…..they don't stand on the truth…..they champion deviancy. And this affects their entire worldview..
To stupid to know that all these make up their own religion….because it takes faith to fall for all the crap they spew.

 

If you want to bring the experts opinion in I would be glad to lets see the organizations that support the use of Condoms to stop the spread of STI's shall we

American Academy of Pediatrics

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

American Medical Association

American Nurses Association

American Psychological Association

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Institute of Medicine

National Institutes of Health

World Health Organization

Should we continue down this road and actually use quotes and medical facts?

 

Again I don't like people assigning things to me, the beginning of all bad arguments start with someone bringing up Hitler and assigning it to the opposition. You don't have to like me I really couldn't care less you don't even have to respect my opinion though saying Mother Teresa was less than perfect is an understatement at least with Hitler people know he was a horrible human being.

Though back on to the original argument, "science says a human life starts at conception" I don't think anyone denies it's a life in the biological sense though of course it depends how you are defining human if you are talking about DNA you are correct and I dot think anyone can deny that but people often link Human DNA with a human being which is not the case as how we define a human being is by personhood the act of being or consciousness.

I am assuming you are referring to the latter as if you were putting forward the former then you've got a lot of life protecting to do as by that definition every cell in our body is a life and I can't see many people protesting every surgical procedure as it will damage a cell. If you are saying a fertilized egg is a person you would have to show some evidence of consciousness and awareness as most neuroscientists would admit everything we are comes from our brains through this we develop a consciousness. Showing a zygot has this would require a lot of evidence though I would concede that the fetus would develop consciousness sometime in the womb when this is is debatable but it does normally fall on after 24 weeks as far as the consensus goes anyway.

I would ask to keep your religious beliefs out of it and just focus on the science because your personal beliefs in a God mean little to me and I have little to no interest in debating about one.

 

Really? What is a human that thou art mindful of him





http://medchrome.com/medical-cases/a-case-review-antepartum-hemorrhage/
http://www.spponline.org/workshops/conmal/congenital10.htm

 

The research you quote shows that sometimes condoms work if used properly. In the real world, however, sexual partners often do not use condoms correctly when they bother to use them at all. Moreover condom use sometimes lead to "risk compensation" - individuals who use condoms feel invulnerable and engage in risky behavior.

Christians are certainly unable to prevent people from using condoms, which are readily available all over the world. Christians often call for monogamy, which is a great way of stopping AIDS.

quote: Consider this fact: In every African country in which HIV infections have declined, this decline has been associated with a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting more than one sex partner over the course of a year – which is exactly what fidelity programs promote. The same association with HIV decline cannot be said for condom use, coverage of HIV testing, treatment for curable sexually transmitted infections, provision of antiretroviral drugs, or any other intervention or behavior. The other behavior that has often been associated with a decline in HIV prevalence is a decrease in premarital sex among young people.

LINK

 

I don't know what your point is showing all those deformed babies.

Are you trying to convince us that you have mental health issues? I think we are all convinced. Is this some kind of twisted cry for help?

 

1) You provide no evidence for your statement. 2) Even if true this would only mean that global elites are bent on eliminating certain inconvenient populations: the poor and People of Color. Are you an apologist for elite racists? Are you happy to see the upper class try to exterminate the poor instead of offering them justice?

Let's examine the facts:

quote: This view is echoed by Helen Epstein, specialist in public health in developing countries and consultant to Human Rights Watch. In a 2008 letter to UNAIDS she bemoans the disconnect between on-the-ground research about condoms and UN reports: “I seem to recall UNAIDS documents attributing the decline in HIV infections in US gay men to the rise of ‘the condom culture’. In fact, modeling studies by Martina Morris and behavioural surveys carried out across the US show that partner reduction was dramatic during the 1980s, when HIV decline among gays was the steepest. The “condom culture” emerged only later. I can provide many references on this, on request.” She goes on to say, “Condom use alone may have protected many individuals, but has not – in the absence of partner reduction – shown a strong epidemiological effect, anywhere. One may not like this fact, but it is true.”[7]

quote: The trouble with condoms is that they have the effect of giving users a false sense of security which results in disinhibition, that is, users indulge in greater risk taking which eventually negates any protective effects of the condom. According to Potts et al., “When most transmission occurs within more regular and, typically, concurrent partnerships, consistent condom use is exceedingly difficult to maintain.” 9] James Shelton of the Bureau for Global Health, USAID, in Washington DC puts it this way: “Many people dislike using them (especially in regular relationships), protection is imperfect, use is often irregular, and condoms seem to foster disinhibition, in which people engage in risky sex either with condoms or with the intention of using condoms.”[10]

LINK for both quotes

 

I guess it's about time I post another pic of a big ol' penis in this thread since rules of propriety have been thrown out the window.

Most of you would be interested to see what one more than an inch long looks like, huh?

 

So only those humans with "consciousness" have rights? So some handicapped people have no rights? You want to deprive humans of fundamental rights based on this impossibly vague concept?! Really?

 

Handicapped people have consciousness your point is irrelevant.

 

Instead of catholic sites as you seem so fond of I'll post two documents one by the national institute of health and another by www.Hivpolicy.org

The first link mainly talks on American HIV rates and the percentage rating of condoms though is quite long

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...0IGoBA&usg=AFQjCNHYYvcC1Y73hJyXn1981756kw7DEA

The second link does talk about the third world including Nigeria, Brazil and Peru and the policies enacted by each country and their opinion on how these countries are tackling the problem not as informative in prevention but important when looking at the risks.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...9ICwCg&usg=AFQjCNElj9zqVaBM55Bk-baAs7u3DIt8qw

I have a third link but it's rather informal is from the world health organizations so I'll leave a link and a quote. Though if you want more documents you can see them in the link.

"Condoms, when used correctly and consistently, are highly effective in preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). A large body of scientific evidence shows that male latex condoms have an 80% or greater protective effect against the sexual transmission of HIV and other STIs.Condoms are a key component of comprehensive HIV prevention. WHO supports a combination of approaches to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV, including correct and consistent condom use, reduction in the number of sexual partners, HIV testing and counselling, delaying sexual debut, treatment for STIs and male circumcision. In 2009, 2.6 million people were newly infected with HIV.WHO works with its key partners in HIV prevention, in particular UNFPA and UNAIDS, to define global policy standards and support countries in condom procurement, quality assurance, promotion and distribution."

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/condoms/en/index.html

As you can tell this is a lot of information so I'll wait a while for another response here but I'll get to the other points you made in another post.

 

Are you claiming that people are trying to promote condoms in poor areas is because they are trying to commit genocide? I hope you have evidence for this claim that not only are institutes of health are actively trying to commit genocide but that "elites" are doing this as well.

Condoms are provided in poor areas to help them because otherwise they would not be able to afford them and it would help spread the disease, if they truly wanted to commit genocide letting them die of an untreatable illness would be better in their apparently master scheme to kill minorities.

Also what is not just about letting people decide to wear condoms which would decrease unwanted pregnancies and therefore decrease abortions? Is this not what you want but no instead of giving people education on safe sex and better contraceptives we just say no sex even though this is a failed solution I could link you to the demographics in the US if you'd like about where most abortions happen.

Though please explain how condoms are promoting or even causing genocide? They don't make you sterile you can choose when to wear them where is this evil plot? Surely it is a failed plot I mean I can't see "elites" saying "Ha Ha my plan of genocide is in the works first I will allow people the choice to have sex and if they want to wear a contraceptive they have that choice too and if they want to reproduce they could just not wear it. It's full proof"

 

You're rapidly losing credibility. Here's the summary from your link: In general, the Panel found the published epidemiology literature to be inadequate to definitively answer the question posed to the workshop participants. Most studies reviewed did not employ a prospective design, which is the optimal method to assess the effectiveness of condoms in preventing infection.

Let's look at your other quote: "Condoms, when used correctly and consistently, are highly effective in preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). A large body of scientific evidence shows that male latex condoms have an 80% or greater protective effect against the sexual transmission of HIV and other STIs.Condoms are a key component of comprehensive HIV prevention. WHO supports a combination of approaches to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV, including correct and consistent condom use, reduction in the number of sexual partners, HIV testing and counselling, delaying sexual debut, treatment for STIs and male circumcision. In 2009, 2.6 million people were newly infected with HIV.WHO works with its key partners in HIV prevention, in particular UNFPA and UNAIDS, to define global policy standards and support countries in condom procurement, quality assurance, promotion and distribution."

Notice the bolded parts. Christians are certainly incapable of preventing people from using condoms which are extremely cheap and readily available. Supporting monogamy and delayed sexual debut are methods endorsed by the WHO.

 

I never disputed that having less sexual partners reduces chances of HIV or abstinence is a form of stopping the spread of HIV my point was that so do condoms. If someone chooses to be monogamous and wants to be abstinent then I've got no issue but I would also like people to be prepared with information about safe sex. If you truly want to reduce abortions as most people do then why not support that.

 

Condoms are very cheap and already available.

As we've seen this is not true.

Not really. Contraception does not lead to less abortion.

Supporting monogamy and delayed sexual debut are methods endorsed by the WHO.

 

Here's some more studies:

Contraceptive Used in Africa May Double Risk of H.I.V.

Trends in the use of contraceptive methods and voluntary interruption of pregnancy in the Spanish population during 1997–2007

New Study Shows More Contraception, Birth Control Don’t Reduce Abortions

World Health Organization Determines Oral Contraceptives Cause Breast Cancer

Fact Sheet: Greater Access to Contraception Does Not Reduce Abortions

So contraceptives can be dangerous and don't reduce abortions

 

Consciousness is a very vague concept.

Consciousness arises as an emergent property of the human mind. Yet basic questions about the precise timing, location and dynamics of the neural event(s) allowing conscious access to information are not clearly and unequivocally determined.

LINK

Depriving people of basic rights based on this concept is madness.

 

Israel uses contraceptives to reduce the population of People of Color: Israeli racist birth control policy toward its Ethiopian population

quote: Health officials in Israel are subjecting many female Ethiopian immigrants to a controversial long-term birth control drug in what Israeli women’s groups allege is a racist policy to reduce the number of black babies.

The contraceptive, known as Depo Provera, which is given by injection every three months, is considered by many doctors as a birth control method of last resort because of problems treating its side effects.

However, according to a report published last week, use of the contraceptive by Israeli doctors has risen threefold over the past few years. Figures show that 57 per cent of Depo Provera users in Israel are Ethiopian, even though the community accounts for less than two per cent of the total population.

About 90,000 Ethiopians have been brought to Israel under the Law of Return since the 1980s, but their Jewishness has subsequently been questioned by some rabbis and is doubted by many ordinary Israelis.

Ethiopians are reported to face widespread discrimination in jobs, housing and education and it recently emerged that their blood donations were routinely discarded.

I'm sure you don't support this kind of ugly racism.

 

Fair enough my terminology wasn't perfect I'll try to explain though I'm not a neuroscientist so it will be very lamen to say the least.

I was referring to consciousness in the sense of sentient self-awareness or just basic senses, handicapped people have this and so do unconscious people. It derives from brain activity this is known a zygot does not have this, like I said before every cell has the DNA to be a human but we do not protect every cell because it is not a person.

 

It won't let me reply to your comments specifically so I'll try to respond later though I can slightly speak on the Ethiopian issue, I know very little about Israeli policies and/or what people do there I will have a better time looking up things with it though I don't doubt some people are supporting racist policies but I was more talking about US policies and even then more domestically.

 

First source is misleading it says hormonal injected contraceptives, if they stopped HIV I would be surprised.

Second source seems fine with it's analysis though it might be good to look into it more but as for the results they seem legit.

Fourth source I'll have to look into more though it never gave any reason it just said cancer increased which is true but reasons behind it are unknown.

The other two sources come from pro-life activist groups and sources like that tend to give information as a third party if you could provide the original sources for their information then it would be better suited.

The best way I could put that is me putting up a statistic by thinkprogress but the original source could be politifact and they have been known to skim over facts as have some pro-life websites.

Only one source I could say was probably accurate but as a rebuttal you should look at the statistics in the USA comparing results from different forms of sex education.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0024658

 

First point condoms may be cheap but normally teenagers wouldn't buy condoms having an entity provide them does reduce teen pregnancies.

Second point I've already shown in sources STI's spread less in places with more sex education and condoms especially in the US and in poorer areas with less education on these things they would benefit most.

Third point contraceptives don't directly lead to less abortion but lead to less unwanted pregnancies and to be fair I think it's a fair assumption to say that decreasing the amount of unwanted pregnancies would decrease the amount of abortions that people have.

Fourth point about abstinence it has failed in decreasing teen pregnancies when you look at the statistics in my last post link you'll see the comparison in states between different sex education systems between states. Abstinence will obviously be a 100% effective method if we were in an ideal world but we aren't most teenagers have sex Having an educated society about anything including safe sex will benefit society in the long run.

 

Do you usually not give links to the statistics and facts you supposedly post? Where do you pull this stuff from?

The thing is…I could also post articles and stats that prove what you say is wrong. But what good would that really do? Your side is not open minded enough…to even look or consider anything. Your rabidly pro-abortion…nothing would change your opinion.

 

You could just look them up but if you insist for a link here.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/540?task=view

I don't know what statistics you are referring to but if you want to ask for more just say.