[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

[DSMatticus]

yeah you're a [EDITED] I already demonstrated that there are secular pro-lifers and while they are obviously a minority they do exist

They are not a minority; at least, their rational isn't, people just don't realize they're trying to justify a kneejerk emotional response and "every life is sacred" mentality that holds origins with religious sentiment.

personhood: okay so your definition of person is the default and there is no disagreement on it

Other definitions lead to contradictions and stupid shit, so while there is disagreement about it, it's not valid. The other positions fail very quickly.

bodily rights: what about the fetus's body oh snap punched a hole in that shit right there

That's all very lovely and irrelevant, because a fetus needs a right to someone else's body, not only its own. Does your neighbor have a right to your refridgerator 'because he'll die without it?' (Considering you are against social welfare, I'll take it the answer is 'no.')

no decision you make, no matter how you argue how reasonable or rational it is, will be freed from the protestant ethics ingrained into western civilization

You are incorrectly implying that protestant ethics have origins with protestants. Or are even unique to protestants. As opposed to understanding that Judaism and Christianity merely wrote down morals and beliefs people had already come up with, instead of inventing them. And with or without Christianity, those ethics would have continued to propagate normally because they are a set of ethics that lead to a functional, survivable society and cultural information spreads itself like that.

So, uhh, no. Fuck you and your "Christianity gave you everything you ever loved." Christianity is riding the coat tails of every good idea it could find, and that's significantly different and not at all impressive.

Also, direct counter-example; protestant morality would suggest pro-life, I am pro-choice, so I am obviously capable of holding moral beliefs independently of the religious beliefs surrounding me. To what extent, who knows, but I am obviously capable of living in a 'protestant' (according to you, anyway) society and developing non-protestant values.

You inspired me to look up pro-life and atheism. There is not that much out there, and much of what is is old...

I did say valid argument. And the general gist of what Kathryn Reed is arguing is; "fetuses are biologically human, and therefore they are people; also, abortion is really just the new racism because society always tries to exclude some group of biological humans from personhood."

Now, the second bit is really dumb; abortion is not racism, it does not exist because society likes trampling people. There's also the question of "why biological humanity?" So let's look at the problems with using biological humanity to define who is and isn't a person:
1) We find hyper-intelligent dolphin civilization. Do they have rights?
2) Aliens land next to your house in their UFO and invite you over for tea. Do they have rights?
3) We evolve into centaurs over the next thousand years (all that bovine growth hormone?) or something dumb. This is a pretty obvious biological difference from being human; do they still have rights?
4) Neandertals are biologically distinct from humans to some unclear extent; do they have rights? Or rather, would they have rights if we found some remote island of them (which makes absolutely no sense, since as far as I'm aware the neandertal's range was land-locked, but let's pretend).
5) Minorities are biologically distinct from eachother; as she points out, humanity has excluded countless groups through time, and that's largely been possible due to minor biological differences between groups that are geographically or reproductively segregated. Every individual biological human is distinct. Our evolutionary ancestors are biologically distinct. How big is this umbrella, exactly? What are the rules for defining what is and isn't biological human?

Biological humanity is a really worthless concept. It makes a poor source of personhood; it's both entirely arbitrary (you include all the things that are sufficiently human to provoke empathic responses), and fails to cover classic cases where personhood is obvious (other intelligent, emotional species).

The general conclusion seems to be that outlawing abortion is the wrong thing to do because there will always be a psychological and/or medical need for the procedure, but the overall desire is to minimize the number of abortions. To that end, the best way to solve that problem is extensive sex ed and widespread availability of birth control.

Agreed, but probably for different reasons than the ones they had. It's safer and cheaper and shuts up this stupid debate, and raises condom availability and sexual awareness, which puts everyone in a better position.

I am pro-choice, pro-life, and an Atheist. I happen to think that life begins when the parents believe it does for their child.

If that was a joke, it was awesome. On one hand, you're recognizing the failures of human belief (Atheism), and on the other using human belief to justify a statement (life begins when you believe it does). There's a contradiction here.

That belief you're referring to is really an emotional response hardwired into us by an evolutionary urge to procreate and protect our offspring. It's empathy for children, and mid-to-late term fetuses look a lot like little babies. That doesn't make it correct, though.

[Neeeek]

You inspired me to look up pro-life and atheism. There is not that much out there, and much of what is is old...

I did say valid argument. And the general gist of what Kathryn Reed is arguing is; "fetuses are biologically human, and therefore they are people; also, abortion is really just the new racism because society always tries to exclude some group of biological humans from personhood."

Well, that's really only half of what she was saying. And the other half is sort of important because it's a position that would have her politically characterized as pro-choice. Wanting to minimize the instances of abortion being necessary while not trying to make it illegal is the position held by most people who call themselves pro-choice.

So the atheist "pro-life" stance is basically just being what everyone else calls being "pro-choice".

Well, that atheist's pro-life stance anyway. Is there more somewhere?

[sabs]

You know, just because you're an Atheist who doesn't think there is a God, doesn't mean you don't believe in something

It also doesn't mean that you're an emotionless rational humanbot.
Pro Choice is very different than Pro-Abortion.

It actually doesn't matter who is right or not. If my biological imperative means I'm not comfortable with an abortion for me or my loved ones. It should still be a choice.

[PhoneLobster]

I happen to think that life begins when the parents believe it does for their child. For me, that's pretty close to conception. But I also don't think I have a say in what other people believe.

And I am sorry but that statement makes you look stupid.

Why? Simple enough because if you make THAT position the basis of LAW the result you get is INSANITY.

Person-hood begins when the parents say it does?

OK so the mother says "Not yet, so I'm getting an abortion! Yay!" and the father says "Hell no I say it's a person and that makes you AN ATTEMPTED MURDERER OF MY PERSON CHILD!". That situation could happen at conception, five minutes before child birth, or by your rather open ended statement 1 year or 50 years after birth. You could even flip it around with which parent thought what. Even if you only count one parent the OTHER parent (or even entirely outside parties) could end up taking them to court to proove that they BELIEVE a different thing about their fetuses person-hood status to what they STATE about that status in order to get an abortion (or not).

You also create a situation where some women who NEED abortions for medical reasons, or have very very strong cases for elective abortion with rape or genetically damaged babies etc... BECOME MURDERERS based on HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT. That is FUCKING STUPID!

Even without the direct conflicts that stupid idea causes you still create MORE emotional strain on women who receive abortions as there will be some group of other women running around going on about how their babies are real people from the moment of conception BY LAW and only the evil abortion receiving woman's lack of human empathy and motherhood and Jesus made her think otherwise and look how evil she is!

You are proposing to have a law that says one thing is murder and the other is nobodies business and the boundary between the two is an unprovable subjective feeling which can and will change or be lied about or generally misrepresented one way or the other.

That is bullshit and has bullshit effects on society. You should be ashamed for holding that position and thinking you should be allowed to state it in an adult discussion on the issue.

[Maj]

@DSMatticus: I actually read the non-essay that Ms. Reed wrote, and since she talks about arbitrary lines being drawn for gender, belief, and sexuality, I didn't get the same racist argument that you made up there (she was contrasting biological humanity to sociological humanity, not non-biological "humanity").

Her argument goes like this:

1) Science has taught me that conception is the beginning of a human's life (this is from the generally taught notion that the life cycle of a human - or any other animal - begins at conception).
2) People through history have made up criteria about who is a human and who is not.
C) Deciding that a fetus is not a human is just another arbitrary line that people have made up.

So the atheist "pro-life" stance is basically just being what everyone else calls being "pro-choice".

I actually thought this was really interesting because contrary to what I see on the Den, this demonstrates (correctly or not) that people have different ideas about what the terms pro-choice and pro-life mean.

Here, pro-life refers to religious whackjobs who want to ban every abortion ever. Pro-choice is everyone else. From that forum thread, however, it seems like other people see pro-choice as meaning allowing every abortion ever, and see pro-life as a moderate stance where extremely limited abortion is acceptable.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the implications of clearing up this misunderstanding are huge, and I believe that a surprising number of people would find themselves walking down the middle and actually able to agree on some sort of legal policy.

[PhoneLobster]

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the implications of clearing up this misunderstanding are huge, and I believe that a surprising number of people would find themselves walking down the middle and actually able to agree on some sort of legal policy.

No.

You see this among other things IS an issue of life and death. For both real live women, and Tzors imaginary snot babies. The extreme views will NOT compromise and indeed SHOULDN'T. If Tzor IS right and babies are real people from conception then it IS murder to abort them. If he is wrong (and yeah, he clearly is wrong) then it IS mass manslaughter to ban or even significantly limit abortion.

Doing what you can to limit abortion is a side issue with no particular relevance. Except that actually "pro-life" campaigners regularly do everything in their power to undermine organizations that do EXACTLY THAT already. So you WON'T be getting "middle ground" there either because the middle ground is ACTUALLY fucking Planned Parenthood and you already know what Tzor and friends want to do to them.

And finally whatever compromise and middle ground that the pro-choice movements of the world COULD have provided has been eroded and poisoned by decades of utterly underhanded and dishonest and even outright violent actions by pro-lifers. Commonly the pro-lifers have used and ABUSED the "middle ground" to hold out an olive branch about a compromise position only to deceptively leverage something sensible sounding like "informed choice" or "safer better abortion clinics" into outright abortion bans without ACTUALLY banning abortion. They just make it UTTERLY UNAVAILABLE TO ANYONE. Go ask Kansas (I think, I might have to check the state).

[Kaelik]

Her argument goes like this:

1) Science has taught me that conception is the beginning of a human's life (this is from the generally taught notion that the life cycle of a human - or any other animal - begins at conception).
2) People through history have made up criteria about who is a human and who is not.
C) Deciding that a fetus is not a human is just another arbitrary line that people have made up.

The issue is that her argument is fucking irrelevant, because no one is trying to deny that the fetus is human. The finger in your chili is human. What people are saying that is that a fetus is not a person. And it isn't under every definition we have for person that doesn't include a soul.

For once, DSM is actually right about something, in that the issue is she thinks we give rights for humanity instead of personhood, which is stupid.

[sabs]

Phone you're a fucking retard.
The law should be, You can have an abortion when ever the fuck you want.
Let women decide what they want to do, and when is right for them.


* I do have some issues with late term abortions.. because there is a point where the fetus is viable outside the womb.

[PhoneLobster]

The law should be, You can have an abortion when ever the fuck you want.

That isn't what you said.

I happen to think that life begins when the parents believe it does for their child. For me, that's pretty close to conception.

If it's "life" we can only assume due to the vagueness of the English language and your own inability to put together a legible statement that you are implying that ending that life is murder so abortion is murder. I simply presume you want to regulate and punish murder.

If you want so say "sorry I was wrong I changed my mind" or "sorry I totally fucked up my wording of that statement" then do NOT begin with "PL you are retarded". Because unfortunately, I was right and you were deeply stupid.

...
And PS you are also all over the place on this...

when the parents believe it does for their child. For me, that's pretty close to conception. But I also don't think I have a say in what other people believe...

...* I do have some issues with late term abortions.. because there is a point where the fetus is viable outside the womb.

...You can have an abortion when ever the fuck you want...

.. where you ALSO can't decide when you think abortions are wrong or whether you have a right to have an issue with that or not.

Perhaps you should try THINKING before opening your mouth? Or at least coalescing a completed and concrete opinion of some form?

[sabs]

You really don't understand how someone could be personally against abortions, and totally for the right of other people to have them when ever the fuck they want. Don't you.

Just because I think life begins within the first trimester, doesn't mean that even remotely impacts anyone's ability to get an abortion, except mine.

And yes, I personally have issues with late term abortions, and yet I still think the law should be, You can get a legal abortion when ever the fuck you want.

[Maxus]

You really don't understand how someone could be personally against abortions, and totally for the right of other people to have them when ever the fuck they want. Don't you.

Aka, I do not personally approve of abortions, but I recognize your right to make that decision for yourself.

Awesome. Mega pro-choice.

[PhoneLobster]

Blah blah, blah Sabs. Again. That isn't what you said. But whatever. Sure change your mind, be pro choice thats over all a good thing. BUT in the mean time...

Just because I think life begins within the first trimester,

So then you believe that abortions after that point are murder then right?

You just apparently think that kind of murder is OK.

Which probably means you are in a state of self deception over when you REALLY believe life begins.

So even outside of your position on abortion regulation for society we can simply discus how you FEEL about abortion and realize the things you feel about it ARE STUPID.

Which makes it all the more annoying when you rattle on about your really stupid feelings that are in fact contrary to your political position on the matter, in a discussion about the politics of abortion. You aren't bringing anything coherent or interesting to the table. Other than reminding us that for all this is an important issue of life and death a lot of stupid people really don't put much thought into their opinions on the issue.

[PoliteNewb]

And PL demonstrates, yet again, that just because he's right it doesn't mean he's not a total douche.

Just because Sabs believes something about when life begins, that is different from knowing or having evidence of it. Without evidence, he is uncomfortable telling everyone else "you're wrong, so we have to do it my way".

The definition of murder is a matter of facts, not beliefs. Sabs's belief on when life begins has nothing to do with murder.

[Koumei]

This thread has taught me something*. The kind of people most against abortions are the kind of people who, had their mothers had the ability to look into the future and see what they'd grow up to become, would 100% have decided to abort them.

This is why we also need to find a way to see the future, as well as keep abortions legal and stigma-free: less fuckers like Tzor and PR.

*A lie. It has very much been evident before this.

[Psychic Robot]

They are not a minority; at least, their rational isn't, people just don't realize they're trying to justify a kneejerk emotional response and "every life is sacred" mentality that holds origins with religious sentiment.

UNLIKE TRUE ATHEISTS, THESE ILLOGICAL FAKE ATHEISTS HAVE IDEAS THAT DON'T COMPLETELY ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH MY CONTEMPORARY LIBERAL IDEOLOGY ERGO THEY ARE FALSE PROPHETS SENT TO DECEIVE THE MASSES AND LEAD THEM ASTRAY

Other definitions lead to contradictions and stupid shit, so while there is disagreement about it, it's not valid. The other positions fail very quickly.

so what the hell is your definition and why should I care about it

That's all very lovely and irrelevant, because a fetus needs a right to someone else's body, not only its own. Does your neighbor have a right to your refridgerator 'because he'll die without it?' (Considering you are against social welfare, I'll take it the answer is 'no.')

the fetus has the "right" to the body it inhabits by virtue of being dependent on the mother and the mother choosing to engage in behavior that causes the fetus to be. as a mother cannot throw a baby out on the street (damn babies complaining about the rights to the sweat of her brow) so too should she not be allowed to have an abortion

You are incorrectly implying that protestant ethics have origins with protestants. Or are even unique to protestants. As opposed to understanding that Judaism and Christianity merely wrote down morals and beliefs people had already come up with, instead of inventing them. And with or without Christianity, those ethics would have continued to propagate normally because they are a set of ethics that lead to a functional, survivable society and cultural information spreads itself like that.

yeah no ayn rand is a more palatable version of atheist morality, at least it eschews the christian values endemic to western society. instead you have this warped christian hippie worldview, but it still has its roots in the teachings of christ

So, uhh, no. Fuck you and your "Christianity gave you everything you ever loved." Christianity is riding the coat tails of every good idea it could find, and that's significantly different and not at all impressive.

christianity created the west. we won the cold war. suck it.

Also, direct counter-example; protestant morality would suggest pro-life, I am pro-choice, so I am obviously capable of holding moral beliefs independently of the religious beliefs surrounding me. To what extent, who knows, but I am obviously capable of living in a 'protestant' (according to you, anyway) society and developing non-protestant values.

and yet you blindly cling to liberal policies in a futile sense of "social justice" interesting how that works.

[Neeeek]

So the atheist "pro-life" stance is basically just being what everyone else calls being "pro-choice".

I actually thought this was really interesting because contrary to what I see on the Den, this demonstrates (correctly or not) that people have different ideas about what the terms pro-choice and pro-life mean.

Here, pro-life refers to religious whackjobs who want to ban every abortion ever. Pro-choice is everyone else. From that forum thread, however, it seems like other people see pro-choice as meaning allowing every abortion ever, and see pro-life as a moderate stance where extremely limited abortion is acceptable.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the implications of clearing up this misunderstanding are huge, and I believe that a surprising number of people would find themselves walking down the middle and actually able to agree on some sort of legal policy.

See, I'm fairly sure you are wrong on the misunderstanding. The pro-lifers would disown her in a heartbeat for her position. Both of the last to Democratic Presidents have held the exact same position on abortion: it should be safe, legal, and rare.

See, I'm an extremist. I think abortion should be safe, legal, encouraged, and engaged in whenever desired, and the default response to pregnancy. The Earth can only sustain a finite number of people, and more is bad for everyone. See, I'm really not pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. The thing is I know the stances of people who are pro-choice, and they are basically identical to her position.

[Username17]

Neeeek has it nailed. Obama and Clinton both hold the official position that abortion should be legally allowed and morally discouraged. That's the stance of the democratic party. That's the position of the secretary of state.

That's the "pro-choice" position. The rallying cry is "Safe, Legal, and Rare". That's their actual position. I don't hold that position, I hold that encouraging people to not abort when they don't intend to raise the child is akin to asking people to volunteer their labor in the hefty task of dumping trash next to our nation's freeways. An untended child is a burden on society. There are already a substantial number of babies that do not get adopted, and it's a strain on social services either way. A pregnancy that results in a baby that someone does not intend to raise is a lot of work, and the end result is a drain on public resources.

If you intend to raise the child, you should go ahead and have that child. If you don't, then you should abort the pregnancy. Because the other option is that you spend forty weeks of hard labor in order to cost taxpayers money and raise crime rates. The thing where we're expected to smile approvingly at women who go through with entire multi-month pregnancies and dump their spawn on the government or the charity of strangers is fucking insane. I don't smile approvingly at people who steal traffic signs or litter, why should I be happy with someone draining public coffers just because what they did was a lot of work?

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

When I attended college and studied anthropology, I saw this convention as part of a larger phenomenon: the practice of defining who is and who is not human. This practice is found in all cultures and though the choice of outcast is variable, it seems inevitable that someone who is biologically human will be excluded from the social definition of humanity.

@Maj
She is talking about how children are only socially included in humanity post birth, then talking about how she thinks this is part of a larger phenomenon that includes things like adult outcasts, and discrimination against minorities fits the bill of 'adult outcasts,' and is probably the most common example thereof. So yes, she is drawing parallels between the exclusion of fetuses from social humanity (despite being biologically human) and the exclusion of minorities from social humanity (despite being biologically human). But that part is the most irrelevant part; it was just a WTF moment for me that I had to point out.

The important criticism of her position is that biological humanity is a stupid measure for personhood, by way of the counter-examples I provided. And her entire philosopy hinges on biological humanity being somehow relevant, which it is clearly not because it fails some really simple tests (how does it handle non-human human intelligences? It extends them no rights, that's how).

The finger in your chili is human.

I think this is why the terminology shifted from 'genetically human' to 'biologically human' at some point. A single finger is a complete genetic human, but it is not a complete biological human. It's still stupid, but it's stupid for one or two less reasons, depending on how they define biological.

so what the hell is your definition and why should I care about it

Of all the non-stupid as fuck definitions of personhood we have, not one of them leads to a fetus being a person. Most of them involve sapience/sentience/the capacity for certain classes of thoughts/desires/motivations, and mine's somewhere in that lot. You should care about it because nothing else makes any god damn sense.

The interesting thing, though, is that we don't need to have the personhood debate. Both sides already agree that fetuses are not people, one side just hasn't realized it yet. And it's really, really obvious when you look at the extreme cases: "got raped and knocked up? It's okay, you can kill an innocent person to help reduce the emotional distress of the experience," "is carrying the pregnancy going to kill you? It's okay, you can kill an innocent bystander to save your own life." If you believe abortion is permissible in these cases, you already believe that fetuses have less rights than mothers. As a matter of fact, you believe fetuses have so few rights that they can be killed to provide emotional satisfaction to rape victims. Why not let rape victims kill one random man of their choosing? They might feel better. Why can't patients in need of a kidney just kill someone and take their's? It'll save their life.

You can reduce the entire pro-life movement into two groups, a) the group that permits some abortions, who simultaneously claim that fetuses are people but that they are people you can kill for emotional comfort or people you can kill to save your own life (even though they've done nothing wrong), and b) the group that permits no abortions, and would force a mother to endure a fatal pregnancy.

So, you can either contradict yourself or be morally repugnant.

[tzor]

In what world is the question "If you wrote the law, what would it be?" not a simple question?

Because I don't think "A law" can do it. Because the problem needs to be divided into parts and each part has to be solved separately. Because every solution also causes problems and they need to be solved as well, idealy before those solutions take effect.

It would need a series of laws and most of them would not really be about abortion per se. Clearly we can eliminate a number of low hanging fruit right off the bat; elimination of all late term (viable fetus) pregnancies with the only exception being the life of the mother (and even then if a C-section can save both lives then that becomes the option). Expension of safe haven laws allowing anyone who is pregnant the comfort in knowing that she can give the baby to that safe haven after birth.

I would also like to see a complete change in the way abortion services are provided; but we cannot even begin that discussion while the current supreme court "mandate" allows these providers to basically lie about who they are and what they do. Such a discussion s impossible here because those providers are "scred cows" to the pro-life side.

New York has had legalized abortion longer than Roe vs Wade you know. New York is the place where the most abortions are performed. A lot of these abortions can be avoided if the right conditions are provided but as long as there is a major lobbying organization who gets a significant amount of operating revenue from the procedure it won't be.

[tzor]

Local Planned Parenthood Rhetoric Reflects National Spin on Abortion

Trupiano repeats the well-worn claim that “Over 97% of our services are about prevention,” while abortion “makes up about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services.” The issue, of course, is not how many items are on the menu, but what it is that individual customers order and which item brings in the most money.

The 97% and 3% mantra is repeated everywhere. But in some of the harder to find fact sheets, PPFA, the national organization, admits that 12% of its clients receive abortions, not 3%. At Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, the percentage is apparently much higher. According to the above mentioned website, 6,006 of its 26,553 patients received abortions in 2008, a whopping 22.6%.

However if you look at it in terms of its bottom line, even those numbers greatly understate abortion’s importance to the group. At going rates, the 332,278 abortions performed in 2009 PPFA translate into about $149.9 million, or about 37% of the group’s national “health center income.”

Estimates for PP Kansas and Mid-Missouri are comparable. 6,006 abortions, at going rates, would bring in at least $2.7 million in revenues.

[Username17]

Because I don't think "A law" can do it. Because the problem needs to be divided into parts and each part has to be solved separately. Because every solution also causes problems and they need to be solved as well, idealy before those solutions take effect.

Stop Weaseling!

Situation: a doctor runs some tests and there is a discussion between the woman and the doctor. There is a lot of crying, and the woman decides to undergo an abortion. Her life is in relatively little danger at this point. She is 30 weeks pregnant.

The doctor performs the abortion. Abortion performed. At 30 weeks. They presumably had some reason to do that, but you are not a doctor and wouldn't understand it if they told you. Now: under your "ban late term abortions" plan, they will have to explain the situation in court, both doctor and woman.

So the question remains: What penalties is the doctor facing if the jury decides that his explanation of the situation is not good enough? What penalties is the woman facing if the other jury decides that her explanation is not good enough?

How much prison time are you advocating for women who decide to undergo a late-term abortion after consulting with a physician if the jury decides that their explanation of the reasoning involved was insufficient to pardon them?

-Username17

[Count Arioch the 28th]

This is why I claim that Tzor is a wimp. He has strong opinions, but when it comes to making a stand on what is necessary (but unpleasant) to enforce said opinions, he skulks off.

I might be a low-born thug with depression and enough issues that it constitutes a whole subscription, but if I run into consequences so unpleasant that I don't want to go through with it, I at least stop trying to advocate it. And if I still feel like it's important for me to go through with it, I DO IT.

EDIT: Tzor, let me speak your language. Revelations 3:16. If you aren't willing to criminalize abortion, you don't get to call yourself pro-life. You're just a pussy.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Really, tzor? Really? A quote from 'National Right To Life News'? One which sources some of its most important numbers to 'harder to find fact sheets,' without providing any link to the actual sheets or their contents? That's seriously what you're trying to hold up as persuasive?

That article is a morass of massaged data. To begin with, it's trying to imply that you can extrapolate the national organization's numbers from a single region's numbers, which is flagrant bullshit.

Then it deliberately confuses the numbers it does have. Planned Parenthood's claim is that 97% of its services are not abortion. That article tries to contest that claim with percentages of clients, as though a client that receives an abortion might not also receive several non-abortion services. Indeed, since the numbers list 26.5K patients and 47.5K patient visits, it's clear that there's a lot of repeat business.

And that's a deal-breaker right there. If the writer is either stupid or dishonest enough to present that misinformation to his readers, then I don't care about anything else in his article, because I'm going to have to fact-check the whole thing my damn self to make sure he isn't pulling any more of those stunts - and since he doesn't give me the source on some of his numbers, I can't actually do that. That it got past the editors doesn't speak well of the standards of the publication as a whole.

[Psychic Robot]

The interesting thing, though, is that we don't need to have the personhood debate. Both sides already agree that fetuses are not people, one side just hasn't realized it yet. And it's really, really obvious when you look at the extreme cases: "got raped and knocked up? It's okay, you can kill an innocent person to help reduce the emotional distress of the experience," "is carrying the pregnancy going to kill you? It's okay, you can kill an innocent bystander to save your own life." If you believe abortion is permissible in these cases, you already believe that fetuses have less rights than mothers. As a matter of fact, you believe fetuses have so few rights that they can be killed to provide emotional satisfaction to rape victims. Why not let rape victims kill one random man of their choosing? They might feel better. Why can't patients in need of a kidney just kill someone and take their's? It'll save their life.

actually the reasoning is more complicated than that but you are clearly retarded as evidenced by the bolded section

[tzor]

Situation: a doctor runs some tests and there is a discussion between the woman and the doctor. There is a lot of crying, and the woman decides to undergo an abortion. Her life is in relatively little danger at this point. She is 30 weeks pregnant.

I'm not weaseling. If you can't see the problem inherent in your own example it's hard to convince you otherwise. First let's consider "the doctor." Later on it's clear that it's the same doctor that does the abortion; so the doctor is an abortionist. So right off the bat, that "discussion" is skewed becasue there is a vested interest in the part of the doctor to have this procedure performed. It's sort of the reason why most insurance companies insist on getting referrals from doctors who simply determine that a procedure is needed as opposed to those who actually do the procedue and have a vested interest in seeing the procedure begin done.

This shit is rampant in the system. It's protected by the abortion providing community and encouraged. This keeps the numbers of abortions high in the United States. If this alone was elminated the numbers would go down drastically. Never mind if actual pro-life options were provided to that woman because the numers would go down even further.

It is not waffling to note that there are two victims to every abortion, the unborn child and the mother to be. I want to help both of them. Not one over the other; both of them.