Gbaji that "study" doesn't count because I don't want it to.
Also there are other studies which say different, so your study definitely doesn't count.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Starting Debate
The Starting DebateFollow
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
gbaji wrote:
And yet, I seem to have a better intuitive grasp of the effects of abortion on women than most people.
And I have first-hand experience with it.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not so invested in a "side" of the argument to ignore the negatives and downfalls of any given position.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
gbaji wrote:
But most people aren't willing to look at or even acknowledge data which opposes their starting assumptions,
The Article wrote:
The many studies that show a correlation between abortion, especially repeated abortions, and a reduction in women's economic well-being do not, for the most part, prove a clear causation.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Every time I see a pro-life billboard, I have to wonder how many people in a soup kitchen that $1000 would have fed.
Why don't you wonder the same thing when you see *any* billboard. Seems like an unfair assessment to me.
Most billboards aren't moralizing at me.
There's that fuzzy logic I love! What does that have to do with the fact that the money spent for those billboards could have instead been spent to feed people in a soup kitchen? Hint: The answer is "nothing".
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But most people aren't willing to look at or even acknowledge data which opposes their starting assumptions,
The Article wrote:
The many studies that show a correlation between abortion, especially repeated abortions, and a reduction in women's economic well-being do not, for the most part, prove a clear causation.
But the whole section was:
Quote:
The many studies that show a correlation between abortion, especially repeated abortions, and a reduction in women's economic well-being do not, for the most part, prove a clear causation. While anecdotal evidence may support the contention that abortion increases the breakup of relationships, psychological difficulties, and substance abuse, the argument can be and has been made that the causation is in the other direction. Those women inclined toward multiple abortions are also inclined to have these problems. More precisely, the same thing that is causing these women to have these problems may also be causing the multiple abortions. It is not that the abortions cause the difficulties, but that problems with unhealthy sexual relations with men, domestic violence, and similar challenges may cause both the abortions and the subsequent problems that are correlated with them. This argument is frequently used by abortion counselors and promoters.
However, another causal factor must be taken into account: to what extent does the ready accessibility of abortion cause the problems of exploitational sexual attitudes and self-righteous denials of responsibility by men? To what extent does the presence of the abortion clinic itself exacerbate the problems that cause both the abortions and the subsequent psychological difficulties?
In any event, the very least that can be said from this evidence is that repeated abortion is not therapeutic. The repeated utilization of abortion does not appear to lead to economic prosperity or social well-being. The argument that abortion accessibility is necessary to help eradicate poverty cannot be maintained in the face of the evidence.
More probably, the practice of abortion is leading to greater impoverishment of women. Abortion is a practice aimed at women, and therefore any impoverishing effects as described above would disproportionately impact on women. When we know that current trends involve a "feminization of poverty," any possible factor that exacerbates the problem should be examined. There is ample evidence to suggest that the widespread use of abortion is such a factor, which should, despite political ideologies, receive greater scrutiny.
However, another causal factor must be taken into account: to what extent does the ready accessibility of abortion cause the problems of exploitational sexual attitudes and self-righteous denials of responsibility by men? To what extent does the presence of the abortion clinic itself exacerbate the problems that cause both the abortions and the subsequent psychological difficulties?
In any event, the very least that can be said from this evidence is that repeated abortion is not therapeutic. The repeated utilization of abortion does not appear to lead to economic prosperity or social well-being. The argument that abortion accessibility is necessary to help eradicate poverty cannot be maintained in the face of the evidence.
More probably, the practice of abortion is leading to greater impoverishment of women. Abortion is a practice aimed at women, and therefore any impoverishing effects as described above would disproportionately impact on women. When we know that current trends involve a "feminization of poverty," any possible factor that exacerbates the problem should be examined. There is ample evidence to suggest that the widespread use of abortion is such a factor, which should, despite political ideologies, receive greater scrutiny.
That would require that you read more than a single sentence out of context though!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not so invested in a "side" of the argument to ignore the negatives and downfalls of any given position.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm pro-life.
I'm not rabidly pro-choice. There is a difference.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
That would require that you read more than a single sentence out of context though!
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
And yet, I seem to have a better intuitive grasp of the effects of abortion on women than most people.
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not so invested in a "side" of the argument to ignore the negatives and downfalls of any given position.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm pro-life.
I'm not rabidly pro-choice. There is a difference.
There is a difference. You do not personify it.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Quote:
In any event, the very least that can be said from this evidence is that repeated abortion is not therapeutic. The repeated utilization of abortion does not appear to lead to economic prosperity or social well-being. The argument that abortion accessibility is necessary to help eradicate poverty cannot be maintained in the face of the evidence.
lolgaxe wrote:
Oh so now you're arguing that the abortions aren't necessarily the problem and there's actually no evidence saying they are. Or did you mean the context you read into but the text you provided didn't actually say? That pesky English!
Um... You apparently forgot what I was arguing:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
most women who get abortions are *not* going to take advantage of that life altering move to put themselves on the right track. Most of them are instead going to continue making the same mistakes.
And you know this because...?
Do you see how the statistics for repeat abortions *and* the associated problems with relationships, drugs, drinking, and poverty, bear out my statement regardless of whether there's a causative relationship or not. Clearly "most women" who have abortions do not fit the rosy image we're often sold of a woman who, if only she could terminate that pregnancy, could then get right on with her successful and fulfilling life. The common argument for increasingly available abortions is that not having one will have some horrible effect on the woman's life. But if the current statistics of women who've had abortions is any indication, it's hard to imagine that their lives could be much worse.
And that's if we assume there is no causative relationship. If there is, then those statistics show a horrible cost to women for having easy access to abortion.
Edited, Nov 3rd 2011 6:18pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Um... You apparently forgot what I was arguing:
Edited, Nov 3rd 2011 9:26pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not so invested in a "side" of the argument to ignore the negatives and downfalls of any given position.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm pro-life.
Must be those things you wrote confusing me.
Fact is it's a polarised argument, gbaji. You have to be one or the other.
You seem to think you're clever by playing devils advocate all the time. You're not, it just makes you wishy washy and annoying.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nilatai wrote:
Fact is it's a polarised argument, gbaji. You have to be one or the other.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Fact is it's a polarised argument, gbaji. You have to be one or the other.
In what way is this not polarised? You either support a woman's right to have an abortion, or you think it should be illegal. Where, exactly, is the middle ground?
That is, excluding all medical reasons. I'm talking about elective terminations.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
See, poverty stricken women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions. They should have to give birth to those 12 kids. That'll fix that poverty!
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Fact is it's a polarised argument, gbaji. You have to be one or the other.
Just stop.
Nilatai wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Fact is it's a polarised argument, gbaji. You have to be one or the other.
In what way is this not polarised? You either support a woman's right to have an abortion, or you think it should be illegal. Where, exactly, is the middle ground?
Not having an opinion.
Love,
PunkFloyd
PunkFloyd
You know, if these poverty-stricken women that are having abortions had had some form of sexual education and access to birth control, there wouldn't be as many abortions.
PunkFloyd, King of Bards wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Fact is it's a polarised argument, gbaji. You have to be one or the other.
In what way is this not polarised? You either support a woman's right to have an abortion, or you think it should be illegal. Where, exactly, is the middle ground?
Not having an opinion.
Sure, but gbaji definitely has an opinion.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
I also support a woman's right to have a Falcon Punch, should she so desire.
catwho wrote:
I also support a woman's right to have a Falcon Punch, should she so desire.
But that would hurt.
catwho wrote:
I also support a woman's right to have a Falcon Punch, should she so desire.
Twice if the sandwich is made wrong.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Nilatai wrote:
PunkFloyd, King of Bards wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Fact is it's a polarised argument, gbaji. You have to be one or the other.
In what way is this not polarised? You either support a woman's right to have an abortion, or you think it should be illegal. Where, exactly, is the middle ground?
Not having an opinion.
Sure, but gbaji definitely has an opinion.
If you think that abortion is only acceptable because the fetus is not a person, but that it will attain personhood at some point before birth, then you'll be pro-life respect to optional termination in one case and pro-choice in another.
Of course, you might also supplement that by suggesting that late-term abortions are still acceptable as long as sufficient steps are taken to save the fetus if possible (2-3 months is certainly possible, if it has developed properly).
If you think that abortion is acceptable because the mother has the right to say what goes on with her body, which includes giving her the right to decide who or what uses her body and it what capacity, then you'll likely be pro-choice for all elective terminations. Though you could still oppose late-term abortions, if you think that there IS a moral obligation there when talking about short time frames.
Or you might suggest that this only holds for unintentional pregnancies, but intentional ones necessarily include you giving the fetus legal right to use your body.
Etc.
But if we are going to limit the discussion to the elective termination of early (1st or 2nd trimester) unintentional pregnancies, then I'd say that it probably is a binary issue.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
gbaji wrote:
What does that have to do with the fact that the money spent for those billboards could have instead been spent to feed people in a soup kitchen?
It's being preachy and judgmental at me and I'm being preachy and judgmental right back
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gbaji wrote:
Do you see how the statistics for repeat abortions *and* the associated problems with relationships, drugs, drinking, and poverty, bear out my statement regardless of whether there's a causative relationship or not. Clearly "most women" who have abortions do not fit the rosy image we're often sold of a woman who, if only she could terminate that pregnancy, could then get right on with her successful and fulfilling life. The common argument for increasingly available abortions is that not having one will have some horrible effect on the woman's life. But if the current statistics of women who've had abortions is any indication, it's hard to imagine that their lives could be much worse.
And that's if we assume there is no causative relationship. If there is, then those statistics show a horrible cost to women for having easy access to abortion.
And that's if we assume there is no causative relationship. If there is, then those statistics show a horrible cost to women for having easy access to abortion.
The choice isn't, shouldn't be, & hopefully will never be yours to make, dick. I thought you were for small government? Why the hell should the government tell a woman she CAN'T get an abortion?
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Recent Visitors: 314
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (314)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Starting Debate
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC