|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Problem with Legalized Abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Um, MBG quite correctly pointed out a rather glaring example of blatant sexism in that Medicare/Medicaid covers of Viagra but not the Pill. Considering the long history of patriarchy and sexism in law, culture and society in this country, how surprising is it, really, that this would be the case? I'm terribly sorry that your delicate male sensibilities are so easily injured by being confronted by one of the many current examples of gender inequality and misogyny that remain entrenched in our culture and government. When MBG pointed out that sexism and inequality merely exists by providing a clear-cut example, your reaction was to become completely irrational and hysterical and create a strawman of her argument. She never said that men were to blame for every problem women have, but they are to blame for some of them. In a sexist society, how could they not be?
quote: That's not neccessary, Linear, in a sexist society. The problems that are perceived to be "men's issues" have historically been considered more important. In a male-dominated government culture where pregnancy and chilbirth is seen as a "women's issue", and most government descisions are made by men, it is no surprise that birth control hasn't historically gotten the same sort of attention as, say, erectile dysfunction. It just isn't on their radar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
LinearAq writes: It is not that they are insincere in their desire to preventing the death of innocent unborn children. I'd say self-delusion is a form of insincerity. Exactly. After all this time and noise and waste of ammunition, we've come to the point: It's about controlling the women.
What do you mean by that...that it was their intent from the outset? Looks like you are just repeating a mantra..."They don't want to save the babies, they just want to subjugate women!!!". Provide some evidence that your version is truly their main purpose. Just because the means puts legal limits on what women can do, doesn't mean that was the reason for establishing those limits. That's like saying the reason for making certain forms of killing illegal was to limit the freedoms of individuals rather than minimize killing of people. Sure, actions indicate intent within limits. However, not understanding the person removes the context wherein the action was initiated.Have you looked at what the pro-life movement does besides protesting at abortion clinics and trying to limit legal abortions? How about providing financial assistance to women who are single and pregnant. How about finding adoption parents for the baby and prenatal nutrition and fitness counseling? Did you miss those things that they did?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Around half of all unwanted pregnancies happen to people using birth control. You seem to have trouble remembering that.
Well, approximately 30% of all women who are using contraceptive methods are using them incorrectly according to surveys cited by the CDC.Less than 10% of all sexually active women wind up with an unwanted pregnancy. Even if 60% of those getting an abortion used contraception, I would say that most of those failures were due to using contraception incorrectly. I have come to that conclusion based on information regarding the tested effectiveness of contraceptive methods. I guess I could do research to provide more accurate statistics regarding that if you feel that you aren't well informed on the effectiveness of individual contraceptive methods. By the way I do support comprehensive sex education at my local school board and county councils...I can't help it if 2 of our board members are preachers. Anyway, I thought this was about babies, not controlling women's sexual behavior, or was I wrong about that? I explained why I thought controlling behavior was the means chosen by pro-life advocates. They do not want to support a behavior outside their belief system and that is what they perceive providing free contraception would do. Besides, what good is contraception anyway? According to you and brennakimi, it fails over 50% of the time. Edited by LinearAq, : Wanted it to look good so nator wouldn't criticize my grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Um, MBG quite correctly pointed out a rather glaring example of blatant sexism in that Medicare/Medicaid covers of Viagra but not the Pill.
quote:Has she or you shown that the attitudes or behaviors of those establishing Medicaid's accepted drugs are based on discrimination or that they are trying to devalue women? No...not really. Besides that, she's wrong.
This site: provides a list of the reproductive services afforded by Medicaid by state. All States cover prescription birth control, many cover at least some over the counter birth control, and all provide some abortion coverage (rape, incest, life/health threatening issues). Here is the information on copay for prescription meds. The highest is $5.00 per scrip. Most are between $1.00 and $3.00, with 10 states having no copay at all. Note that there is no distinguishing a scrip for sexual needs from those for any other problem. It also seems that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services differs with MBG on their coverage for erectile dysfunction.
quote: quote: That's not neccessary, Linear, in a sexist society. The problems that are perceived to be "men's issues" have historically been considered more important. Edited by LinearAq, : Trying not to poison the message through badly written prose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Besides, what good is contraception anyway? According to you and brennakimi, it fails over 50% of the time. oral hormone therapy has a statistical one percent or less chance of failing for each act of intercourse for each person. there are a lot of acts of intercourse. that .1% adds up. add this to unintentional misuse (doses that aren't high enough for a given woman) and it may become quite large. that's because statistics has very little to do with reality. the reality is, it may work perfectly all the time on 300 women and fail miserably on me every time. did you ever wonder why there are so many varities of "the pill"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
brennakimi writes:
Really? Is that how statistics works? Providing more chances increases the probability that the event in question will occur? I didn't take statistics in college and only breezed over it when studying for my Professional Engineering Certification. So, how many times would you have to have sex for that 1% to grow to 50%?
oral hormone therapy has a statistical one percent or less chance of failing for each act of intercourse for each person. there are a lot of acts of intercourse. that .1% adds up. that's because statistics has very little to do with reality. the reality is, it may work perfectly all the time on 300 women and fail miserably on me every time. did you ever wonder why there are so many varities of "the pill"? I guess that's why we can just ignore the findings of science regarding the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education in the prevention of unwanted pregnancy. Statistics has little to do with reality and "my personal anecdotal experiences" are what we should base this country's medical decisions upon. I find it interesting that you discard the mathematics which form the basis for analysis in:The insurance industry (That drunk driving conviction doesn't mean anything...keep the rates the same!) Civil Engineering (Waddaya mean, that bridge design's failed 30% of the time? I know it'll work here!!) Medical analysis (Go ahead and smoke, those stats don't matter!) Edited by LinearAq, : Grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
oh please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LinearAq writes: What would you say they are deluding themselves about? As we have been discussing ad nauseam, they are deluding themselves that the fetus is a person, when they themselves ridicule the idea of treating the fetus as a person.
quote: What do you mean by that...that it was their intent from the outset? Looks like you are just repeating a mantra..."They don't want to save the babies, they just want to subjugate women!!!". Provide some evidence that your version is truly their main purpose. Umm... I was responding to what you said:
quote: I was just pointing out your admission that that's their main purpose.
Have you looked at what the pro-life movement does besides protesting at abortion clinics and trying to limit legal abortions? How about providing financial assistance to women who are single and pregnant. How about finding adoption parents for the baby and prenatal nutrition and fitness counseling? Did you miss those things that they did? How about showing us the evidence first? And that would be evidence that the anti-abortion movement as a whole is doing those things, not just a few isolated individuals or groups. Edited by Ringo, : Adjusted special effects. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
As we have been discussing ad nauseam, they are deluding themselves that the fetus is a person, when they themselves ridicule the idea of treating the fetus as a person.
"They" ridicule the idea of treating the fetus as a person with full rights of an independent person rather than as a person with modified rights commensurate with it's level of development. Just because you claim the declaration of a fetus as deserving of some rights requires it must be accorded all rights, doesn't make it feasible. There are some realities about the tenuousness of a fetus' existence that require limits to the rights accorded that fetus.
Umm... I was responding to what you said:
That was not an admission that their main purpose was to limit the freedoms of women. It was an explanation of why limiting the perceived freedoms of women was the direction chosen to achieve their main purpose of saving unborn children. quote: I was just pointing out your admission that that's their main purpose. Are my communication skills so inadequate that I will always fail to provide you with an understanding of the difference between purpose and actions to achieve that purpose?
How about showing us the evidence first? And that would be evidence that the anti-abortion movement as a whole is doing those things, not just a few isolated individuals or groups.
What would constitute evidence in that regard to your satisfaction?As it stands I know of some local Crisis Pregnancy Centers that provide some prenatal financial aid and counseling. Help with adoption was provided for several young women in my town that I am aware of. Is that anecdotal...yes and I may be unjustifiably assuming that this is an across-the-board occurrence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
There are some realities about the tenuousness of a fetus' existence that require limits to the rights accorded that fetus. you mean like subordinating it's will under that of it's host?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LinearAq writes: Just because you claim the declaration of a fetus as deserving of some rights requires it must be accorded all rights, doesn't make it feasible. Read the thread. I have said no such thing. I have said consistently that if a fetus becomes a person at conception, it should have the same rights at conception that we currently give it at birth.
There are some realities about the tenuousness of a fetus' existence that require limits to the rights accorded that fetus. Since when does a person's "tenuousness of existence" make that person less of a person?
Are my communication skills so inadequate that I will always fail to provide you with an understanding of the difference between purpose and actions to achieve that purpose? Looks that way. I'll say it again: if a man doesn't eat the food in front of him, I'll suspect that he isn't as hungry as he claims. No matter how eloquently he verbally communicates his claims, his actions are a more reliable communication.
Is that anecdotal...yes and I may be unjustifiably assuming that this is an across-the-board occurrence. Until you can provide better evidence than I-know-a-guy-whose-wife's-cousin's-hairdresser, your claims that anti-abortionists care about the fetus are pretty empty. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Ringo writes:
Yes and then you have springboarded from that to saying that we should be taking extraordinary effort to save those fetuses that die due to miscarriage or never implant.
I have said consistently that if a fetus becomes a person at conception, it should have the same rights at conception that we currently give it at birth. Since when does a person's "tenuousness of existence" make that person less of a person?
I guess it doesn't but tenuousness of existence does change the effort taken to continue that person's existence.
I'll say it again: if a man doesn't eat the food in front of him, I'll suspect that he isn't as hungry as he claims. No matter how eloquently he verbally communicates his claims, his actions are a more reliable communication.
So, you think if these Christians support sex outside of marriage, that would prove to you that controlling women is not their ultimate goal, even if they also were anti abortion.I guess that means that you believe it's appropriate to act contrary to your beliefs to accomplish a goal that you believe in. Consequently: 1. You support the idea that it is ok for Christians who lie to get someone 'saved'. 2. Those misrepresentations of the dangers of abortion by anti-abortionists will no longer be decried as scurrilous by you since it accomplishes their ultimate goal of saving the fetus by having the pregnant woman chose to keep the child to term.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
There are some realities about the tenuousness of a fetus' existence that require limits to the rights accorded that fetus. you mean like subordinating it's will under that of it's host? To an extent, yes. If that person poses a credible danger to your existence then your rights override its rights. Just as if that person were threatening you with a weapon regardless of its intent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
If that person poses a credible danger to your existence then your rights override its rights. what defines "credible danger"? if i were to do something to you that prevented you from working, that cost you thousands of dollars, that left you committed to something against your will for nearly twenty years, they'd lock me away and you'd probably sue for damages. it doesn't take a threat of physical harm to constitute endangerment or crime. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
if i were to do something to you that prevented you from working, that cost you thousands of dollars, that left you committed to something against your will for nearly twenty years, they'd lock me away and you'd probably sue for damages.
If you did those things, do you think you would deserve the death penalty to pay for it?What if I knew you were going to do that? Would it be appropriate for me to kill you before you got the chance? BTW: There's this new thing that they've come up with in the US to help you with that 20-year issue. It's called adoption. Maybe you should check it out. Edited by LinearAq, : qs /qs error
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024