Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problem with Legalized Abortion
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 256 of 293 (444469)
12-29-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by LinearAq
12-29-2007 1:26 PM


quote:
I forgot that men are to blame for every problem that women have. I also forgot that every man on the planet is out to stick it to every woman on the planet. Hey, that's just the natural order of things right? I mean, we men just stick it to everything 'cause all we do is think with our sticks.
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:
How about you actually provide something to support that statement about men controlling the Medicare system to the point where they are preventing women from having the fun and frolic that men get to have.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by LinearAq, posted 12-29-2007 1:26 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 9:57 AM nator has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 257 of 293 (444872)
12-31-2007 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by ringo
12-28-2007 3:24 PM


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.
What would you say they are deluding themselves about?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ringo, posted 12-28-2007 3:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 12-31-2007 10:54 AM LinearAq has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 258 of 293 (444876)
12-31-2007 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by nator
12-29-2007 2:04 PM


Re: Linear wants a conception certificate too!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by nator, posted 12-29-2007 2:04 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 10:19 AM LinearAq has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 259 of 293 (444883)
12-31-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by nator
12-29-2007 2:26 PM


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:
sex·ism
Dictionary.com:
1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.
American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
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:
On October 26, 2005, Section 1860D-2(e)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) was amended excluding from the definition of a Part D drug, “a drug when used for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction, unless such drug were used to treat a condition, other than sexual or erectile dysfunction, for which the drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)”. Subsequently, beginning CY 2007, ED drugs, when prescribed for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction, will be excluded from coverage under Part D.
quote:
How about you actually provide something to support that statement about men controlling the Medicare system to the point where they are preventing women from having the fun and frolic that men get to have.
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.
Apparently, it is necessary, since the data I provided shows she is wrong. It seems that you think any old diatribe declaring sexism in a particular instance should automatically be accepted without some support.
Edited by LinearAq, : Trying not to poison the message through badly written prose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by nator, posted 12-29-2007 2:26 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by molbiogirl, posted 12-31-2007 4:27 PM LinearAq has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 260 of 293 (444890)
12-31-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 8:52 AM


Re: Linear wants a conception certificate too!
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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 8:52 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 10:41 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 261 of 293 (444893)
12-31-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by macaroniandcheese
12-31-2007 10:19 AM


The new Statistics
brennakimi writes:
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.
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%?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 10:19 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 10:44 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 262 of 293 (444894)
12-31-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 10:41 AM


Re: The new Statistics
oh please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 10:41 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 263 of 293 (444895)
12-31-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 8:35 AM


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:
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.
Umm... I was responding to what you said:
quote:
Control of behavior is prevention of sin, and sin is the problem in the world. They cannot condone it and that traps them into trying to get laws that limit the perceived freedoms of women. Message 211
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 8:35 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 11:53 AM ringo has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 264 of 293 (444910)
12-31-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by ringo
12-31-2007 10:54 AM


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:
quote:
Control of behavior is prevention of sin, and sin is the problem in the world. They cannot condone it and that traps them into trying to get laws that limit the perceived freedoms of women. Message 211
I was just pointing out your admission that that's their main purpose.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 12-31-2007 10:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 12:41 PM LinearAq has replied
 Message 266 by ringo, posted 12-31-2007 12:50 PM LinearAq has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 265 of 293 (444918)
12-31-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 11:53 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 11:53 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 1:25 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 266 of 293 (444919)
12-31-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 11:53 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 11:53 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 1:16 PM ringo has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 267 of 293 (444924)
12-31-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by ringo
12-31-2007 12:50 PM


Ringo writes:
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ringo, posted 12-31-2007 12:50 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 12-31-2007 3:15 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 268 of 293 (444929)
12-31-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by macaroniandcheese
12-31-2007 12:41 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 12:41 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 1:28 PM LinearAq has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 269 of 293 (444931)
12-31-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 1:25 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 1:25 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 1:35 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 270 of 293 (444933)
12-31-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by macaroniandcheese
12-31-2007 1:28 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 1:28 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 1:54 PM LinearAq has replied
 Message 274 by Rahvin, posted 12-31-2007 2:32 PM LinearAq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024