Conquer Club

Juan_Bottom wrote:Not exactly.
Is Sperm Human?
When does a cluster of empty cells become a person? When can it theoretically even feel pain?
Is aborting a chimpanzee baby murder because their infant's biology is nearly identical to ours?
Is killing a Chimpanzee Murder?
Will outlawing Abortion do anything to curb abortion?


Is killing a cell cluster with a mutation Murder?

Symmetry wrote:Here is the correct link for BBS to cry "hypocrisy" over (or "hypocracy" if you're BBS and feign anger at something you haven't read in terms you can't spell).

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/world- ... sCatID=341

Oh, you've misunderstood me again. I know this may be difficult for you to grasp, but I was having a go at the fun word "hypocracy."

May the Rule of Hippos be fair in their judgment.

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Rehabilitation costs = costs of supporting that being.

Then the costs are kicked off to the organizations responsible for distributing children.

You're making an inequation then, if I'm understanding you correctly.

You seem to be trying to weigh only the costs of the abortion procedure vs. the costs of delivering the baby. You don't seem to want to weigh in the costs to society for supporting that baby after delivery (based on your second sentence there). Again, unless I'm misunderstanding you, so feel free to clarify.

Costs to society? What are those then? If society supposedly bears these costs, then how does every single person pay some fraction of this cost? Shall we project all future costs of every child? And what of the benefits?

Welfare costs, for instance. If a child is not aborted but instead is born into a welfare situation (yes, I realize not all are, but a significant portion are), then the welfare costs for that child are born by society. Or if they are not, then costs in crime and the like.

So abortions should be allowed for only people below the poverty line?

Why are you trying to put words into my mouth instead of discussing this honestly? I'm simply saying that those ARE ABSOLUTELY costs that must be considered. To pretend that those costs don't exist is either dishonest or ignorant.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what? How does this concern about the costs to "society" play out?

Didn't I explain it? I'm not sure I understand your confusion.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Besides, your contentions cut into either side of abortion. "What are the long-term benefits of allowing all those millions of kids to live? Since we don't know, let's ignore the main issue..." Your quibbles seem irrelevant, and if they are irrelevant, they detract from the main issue.

Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.

Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).

The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?

Again, I don't believe the situation can be viewed in that manner. In fact, I would find it to be highly faulty, for the reasons I mentioned above regarding societal costs.

Your argument about social costs only focuses on a group of the many, so it's limited in critiquing my general position. The truth is that no one knows the future costs and benefits to whoever from allowing a fetus to develop or from terminating it. In the a priori this is unknown, so any argument about costs and benefits still hinges on this uncertainty, which is a huge problem if this cost-benefit argument is applied to the issue of abortion in today's world. Surely, you see this, right?

I see. So basically, you want to make up an unrealistic scenario because you have some predetermined point you want to make, rather than to gain information or have a good discussion. Well then carry on, I'll bow out.

Still waiting for you to handle that problem of estimating future costs and benefits.

BigBallinStalin wrote: Hypocracy, rule of the Hippos.

Symmetry wrote:
That just links to the front page of a Turkish daily English language newspaper. Unsurpringly BBS was shocked, clearly not having clicked on the link.

Here is the correct link for BBS to cry "hypocrisy" over (or "hypocracy" if you're BBS and feign anger at something you haven't read in terms you can't spell).

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/world- ... sCatID=341

I've been getting PMs about how BBS has been following me around a lot. I dunno what he's trying to do, but you can bet he wouldn't say any of that shit if he didn't know that he was on foe. He never challenged me before he found out that I foed him. All of a sudden he's a tough guy.
And I'm proud to say I've ignored him.

But I'm also pleased to see that he's become embittered by the fact that I have spurned his affections for my juicy buns and now he's going after every smart person on the site. It wont be long before everyone knows him as a jerk. Sweet.

Duh BBS. Duh.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You're making an inequation then, if I'm understanding you correctly.

You seem to be trying to weigh only the costs of the abortion procedure vs. the costs of delivering the baby. You don't seem to want to weigh in the costs to society for supporting that baby after delivery (based on your second sentence there). Again, unless I'm misunderstanding you, so feel free to clarify.

Costs to society? What are those then? If society supposedly bears these costs, then how does every single person pay some fraction of this cost? Shall we project all future costs of every child? And what of the benefits?

Welfare costs, for instance. If a child is not aborted but instead is born into a welfare situation (yes, I realize not all are, but a significant portion are), then the welfare costs for that child are born by society. Or if they are not, then costs in crime and the like.

So abortions should be allowed for only people below the poverty line?

Why are you trying to put words into my mouth instead of discussing this honestly? I'm simply saying that those ARE ABSOLUTELY costs that must be considered. To pretend that those costs don't exist is either dishonest or ignorant.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what? How does this concern about the costs to "society" play out?

Didn't I explain it? I'm not sure I understand your confusion.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Besides, your contentions cut into either side of abortion. "What are the long-term benefits of allowing all those millions of kids to live? Since we don't know, let's ignore the main issue..." Your quibbles seem irrelevant, and if they are irrelevant, they detract from the main issue.

Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.

Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).

The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?

Again, I don't believe the situation can be viewed in that manner. In fact, I would find it to be highly faulty, for the reasons I mentioned above regarding societal costs.

Your argument about social costs only focuses on a group of the many, so it's limited in critiquing my general position. The truth is that no one knows the future costs and benefits to whoever from allowing a fetus to develop or from terminating it. In the a priori this is unknown, so any argument about costs and benefits still hinges on this uncertainty, which is a huge problem if this cost-benefit argument is applied to the issue of abortion in today's world. Surely, you see this, right?

I see. So basically, you want to make up an unrealistic scenario because you have some predetermined point you want to make, rather than to gain information or have a good discussion. Well then carry on, I'll bow out.

Still waiting for you to handle that problem of estimating future costs and benefits.

You'll just have to keep waiting, as I've come to the conclusion that you're not interested in discussing it honestly. As I stated above,
I'm done discussing it with you.

This is what I was saying. He's just alienating everyone and making them into enemies.

I'M RECEIVING SOME PMs FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES.


THE PEOPLE DEMAND A POLL!!!


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 24&start=0

Juan_Bottom wrote:GOP Senate Candidate Supports Life Imprisonment For Rape Victims Who Have An Abortion

North Dakota is the state where the governor wanted to ban ALL abortions, even to save the life of the mother (though I believe he was convinced to eliminate that clause). It was struck down by the Supreme Court, but will the current court vote the same way?

Juan_Bottom wrote:GOP Senate Candidate Supports Life Imprisonment For Rape Victims Who Have An Abortion

Wow. That's some kind of misogynistically fucked up world view, right there.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:GOP Senate Candidate Supports Life Imprisonment For Rape Victims Who Have An Abortion

North Dakota is the state where the governor wanted to ban ALL abortions, even to save the life of the mother (though I believe he was convinced to eliminate that clause). It was struck down by the Supreme Court, but will the current court vote the same way?

Yes.

Symmetry wrote:Nasty little troll, aren't you. Taking a morning after pill doesn't require an ambulance or a hospital visit.

Yes you do appear to be a nasty little troll, as I have mentioned time and time agagin that I am not talking about the morning after pill. I am talking about surgical abortions. Indeed the morning after pill is not even an abrotifactant and it generally works well before the question of implantation occues and definitely doesn't work after implantation has occured.

P.S. I'm actually 6' so I'm not little.

And while I am at it ... Study: Women More Likely to Die After Abortion, Not Childbirth

A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth.

tzor wrote:And while I am at it ... Study: Women More Likely to Die After Abortion, Not Childbirth

A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth.

Click image to enlarge.

I think that's somewhat misleading information. For instance, the rate of death after childbirth is mitigated by the fact that many times, dangerous births are aborted. So the mother would have been much more likely to have died after childbirth in those cases, but didn't thanks to the abortion (note I am not at all saying that's the most common reason for abortion). So if abortion were made illegal, as some would have, then this number would increase dramatically, in my opinion.

Tzor you still haven't defined "human life" or "abortion," or anything. I get that you don't like it. But I don't get what/why you don't like it. I don't knwo what the discussion is. Death to women who take the morning after pill?

tzor wrote:And while I am at it ... Study: Women More Likely to Die After Abortion, Not Childbirth

A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth.

Click image to enlarge.

That's interesting.

Are all abortions the same?

Juan_Bottom wrote:GOP Senate Candidate Supports Life Imprisonment For Rape Victims Who Have An Abortion

America, you were once great, how far the mighty have fallen.

tzor wrote:And while I am at it ... Study: Women More Likely to Die After Abortion, Not Childbirth

A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth.

Click image to enlarge.

First, Kudos for picking an article that is actually linked to the base results they mention. Even so, no scientific study goes without criticism and critique. I read the article, and also the original reference. It is very short, more a mention than anything else.

A couple of points. It looked at death rates of women who birthed from 1964 and 1991, in Denmark. While Denmark is/was an advanced country medically, the changes that occured in reproductive are during those 3 decades is phenomenal.

EDIT: Still trying to track this, but Wikki apparently says that DK only legalized abortion, except in cases of rape/incest and medical need in the 1970's.

ALSO, even in the US, all statistics I have been finding so far clarify that safe and legal abortion is safer. However, illegal abortion still happens, and is on the rise with the increase of highly restrictive laws in some areas.
The study makes no causal connection at all. It simply says that more than a year after birth or abortion or miscarriage does the women die. It could well be that women in riskier professions or engaging in riskier lifestyles (be they prostitutes.. an essentially legal profession in DK, in the military -- or other), along with women who are experiencing medical issues being more likely to abort.

A hint a what Woodruff said -- that women were more likely to abort fetus when there were issues with her or the child because there was ALSO a blip for miscarriages. That is women who had abortions were more likely to die, but women who had miscarriages were ALSO more likely to die. Let me add that there is no real stigma with out of wedlock births in Denmark, nor a problem attaining help caring for the child and has not been for quite some time. So, there is much less pressure to abort a child for "social reasons" than there is here in the US. In other words, its likely that women in Denmark are more likely to choose abortion for purely medical reasons than women here in the US. This would tend to slant the data toward a higher mortality rate.


None of this can be answered because the bit is so short and lacks explanation.

Another point is that this data does go against, not, as the article you linked to indicates, "commonly accepted" ideas. It goes against STUDIED and PROVEN data in other countries across a wide range of circumstances. The study cited seeks to look at death rates occuring more than one year down the road.. but is that really meaningful in reference to abortion/birth? Complications are most likely to cause death shortly after the procedure, not a year down the road, which is why most studies have not carried the research out that far.

Here:

According to the UN, 500,000 women die worldwide every year from childbirth, approximately 50,000 per year in the U.S. from all causes and complications of childbirth. According to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, between 5000 and 10,000 women in the U.S. died annually from illegal abortions prior to 1973 . After abortion became legal and safe, that death rate fell to dozens a year. The U.S. government stopped collecting data related to abortion deaths in 1987.

Thread died hard after that one.

Basically, too many Republicans have gone from debating opinion to insisting that any opposition just has the facts wrong... and on the internet, even tracking credible science is so hard, they get away with it far too often.

When you understand that women having control of their own reproductive health was THE major historical factor in advance of women's rights... its not a long leap to think this is very much an outright attack on women.

AND, remember, women pushing for even just basic research into women's health issues is a relatively new phenomena, ALSO partially the result of women being able to attain more education and access to medical information/doctors.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Basically, too many Republicans have gone from debating opinion to insisting that any opposition just has the facts wrong... and on the internet, even tracking credible science is so hard, they get away with it far too often.

When you understand that women having control of their own reproductive health was THE major historical factor in advance of women's rights... its not a long leap to think this is very much an outright attack on women.

AND, remember, women pushing for even just basic research into women's health issues is a relatively new phenomena, ALSO partially the result of women being able to attain more education and access to medical information/doctors.

The conservatives want you back in the kitchen during the day and in the bedroom at night. Oh, and keep quiet unless spoken to.

oh shit notyou, i skimmed that post too fast. thanks for bring it back to my attention!

PLAYER57832 wrote:Basically, too many Republicans have gone from debating opinion to insisting that any opposition just has the facts wrong... and on the internet, even tracking credible science is so hard, they get away with it far too often.

When you understand that women having control of their own reproductive health was THE major historical factor in advance of women's rights... its not a long leap to think this is very much an outright attack on women.

AND, remember, women pushing for even just basic research into women's health issues is a relatively new phenomena, ALSO partially the result of women being able to attain more education and access to medical information/doctors.

so let me get this straight... women's reproductive health issues were the major factor that advanced women's rights... yet women's reproductive health issues were not researched at even a basic level until women recently began attaining education and access to doctors?

that sounds a lot like how i got my first job... the employer hired me because he she was impressed with all my previous work experience!

john9blue wrote:oh shit notyou, i skimmed that post too fast. thanks for bring it back to my attention!

PLAYER57832 wrote:Basically, too many Republicans have gone from debating opinion to insisting that any opposition just has the facts wrong... and on the internet, even tracking credible science is so hard, they get away with it far too often.

When you understand that women having control of their own reproductive health was THE major historical factor in advance of women's rights... its not a long leap to think this is very much an outright attack on women.

AND, remember, women pushing for even just basic research into women's health issues is a relatively new phenomena, ALSO partially the result of women being able to attain more education and access to medical information/doctors.

so let me get this straight... women's reproductive health issues were the major factor that advanced women's rights...

Yes, though its a tad "chicken and egg". Also, women just attaining basic rights to personhood in themselves,( being able to own property, never mind vote) was a big part of it.
However, to attain anything like the basic rights, ability to earn a living we have now definitely requires women having control of their OWN reproduction, without having to necessarily seek approval of whatever men they associate with (whether married or not).

john9blue wrote:yet women's reproductive health issues were not researched at even a basic level until women recently began attaining education and access to doctors?

If you mean relatively recent.. as in the past 80 or so years, then yes. That is the case.

It was not until the late 60's that any but a few exceptional women could really think much of having any job other than being a secretary, nurse or teacher. Having one or two exceptions ... and understanding WHY they were exceptions, how that happened, pretty much affirms the rule.

john9blue wrote: that sounds a lot like how i got my first job... the employer hired me because he she was impressed with all my previous work experience!

Try again. Your logic is failing in your attempt to find excuses that just don't exist.