Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

#427 May 03 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:

Unless I'm missing something, you're not saying what you mean to say with those facts.


You're missing something.

Quote:
40% of children born today are to single women. Abortion was not used in these cases.


Yup. That's exactly my point. If one argues that abortion should be legal because it gives women the freedom to not have to either marry someone or raise a child on her own if she becomes pregnant, then the fact that the rate of children born to unwed mothers has gone up dramatically would show that it's not actually doing that. We can debate the reasons for that (and there are a number), but it's clearly not having the desired effect. That's what I'm showing with that data. I'm not saying that legalized abortion caused those statistics to change all on its own, but simply that by legalizing abortion we haven't solved the problem. It has become worse over time. So at the very least we can say that said argument for abortion is weak, right?


If a doctor produced a polio vaccine, then we implement it across society, but over time the rate of polo victims increase, we might at the very least look askance at someone arguing for continued vaccination on the grounds that it's necessary to reduce the rate of polio. We might instead suggest that there are other factors involved and perhaps we should be looking there instead, right?


Quote:
Your statistic would be better used only toward making an argument against, say, the assistance now given to unwed mothers making more of them able to raise children. Or the higher wages of single mothers to sustain having a child. Potentially the issues of having single pregnancies glorified in popular media. Even the lessening of social stigmas against pre-marital ***. But saying that women think "Oh, I can just have an abortion, NO WAIT! I want the baby now!" is... a jump.


It's a factor. One among many. You'll note I previously mentioned those other factors as well.

Quote:
Basically I'm seeing no causation here, just a correlation.


Sure. But I'm not the one who argued that abortion gives women the freedom to be "responsible" and abort children that they can't support financially. Regardless of the reasons, it's clear that that is not actually happening, is it?

Quote:
You cannot in good faith say how large a contribution "ease of abortion" is contributing to "single mothers having kids." If anything, it seems logically unrelated... because the "ease of abortion" obviously did not decrease the number of children born to unwed mothers.


As I've said. It's a combination of factors. But anything that makes the decision to have *** with someone you don't intend or want to marry easier is going to contribute to the rate at which women find themselves pregnant but not wanting to marry the person who impregnated them. And that's going to leave either abortion or single motherhood (or adoption). My point is that despite all the cheering about how abortion frees women from having to be single mothers in that situation, it hasn't actually done so.

Again, we can debate the exact reasons why, but at the end of the day, it's not really relevant to my argument. I was countering someone else's claim about the effect of abortion by pointing out that the net result isn't in the direction being claimed. Abortion rates are up since 1973 (and moreso if we go back 20 or so years when abortion was almost universally illegal), yet the rates of single mothers keeps climbing. We can sit around applauding the fact that women have the choice to abort, but it's clear that they aren't making that choice. And they're not making the choice to give a child up, or the choice to marry.

Edited, May 3rd 2011 2:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#428 May 03 2011 at 3:45 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira wrote:
So, you agree with me, then. A woman has more responsibility when it comes to having a child than a man ever can. Because that's what we're talking about, not whether or not one person is a more responsible person than another.


Nice try.. During pregnancy, it is the responsibility of the man to ensure that ALL of the needs of the woman and child are met.

Belkira wrote:
You've already agreed with me. There's no point.


I just corrected your confusion, so please answer the question.

Belkira wrote:
YOU don't understand your options, Alma. That's obvious to everyone but yourself.
Given the fact that no where in the option does it lay out that the man has a say in the abortion, I would stand by my stance that you're just making crap up.

Belkira wrote:
Are you really this stupid? No, really, I'm not trying to be rude. Are you? Because this was one of the more idiotic statements I've seen you make. How can you not understand that there can be no equality in this situation because of the mechanics of birth...? You would have a point if a man can conceive, carry, and birth a child. As it is, he cannot.


This is because you're confusing the concept of responsibility with the amount work necessary to fulfill that responsibility. The responsibility of "Taking care of the child" is the exact same for each partners, but the amount of work necessary by each partner can and will vary.

I'm not trying to downplay pregnancy in any way shape or form, but people like you are trying to use it like a weapon to get what you want. Let's assume that men could carry and birth a child If I were a deadbeat dad with the option of birthing a child while relinquishing all responsibility OR paying child support for 18 years, I would take the former. If I were a single dad with an option of birthing my child and raising it and having the wife pay child support or me pay child support for 18 years, I would choose the former. The only time I would rather want the woman to birth the child is if we were together or at least had a healthy and positive relationship.

Belkira wrote:
Good god, you're really laying the village idiot act on thick in this thread. Child support is about the welfare of the child. I have never pretended that I'm not putting the woman first. Of course I place higher value on a human being than on a collection of cells. I've never pretended otherwise.


You can deny the "collection of cells" as being a human, but as I already pointed out, if that "collection of cells" were guaranteed not to develop into what you consider a "person", then there wouldn't be any discussion of abortion in the first place. The entire argument on abortion has nothing to do with the collection of cells, but the child.

Out of curiosity though, at what point do you consider it a person? Do you support abortion at any time of the pregnancy?

Belkira wrote:
Nice try. I'm not doing your work for you. You want to play the "I've already stated it, just go find it!!" game with everyone else, then you should at least learn to play by your own rules.


That doesn't even make any sense... YOU were the one accusing me of saying something that I didn't say.
You don't just go around accusing people of something without any evidence and expect them to present evidence contradictory to your claim. You accused me of something, I'm asking you to provide proof. If you can't do so, then you fail. That's how life works.

Belkira wrote:
Yes, it's clear. Just as clear as it was before. In scenario two, you are forcing women to carry to term a pregnancy they do not want. Which is what I (and Nilatai) have been trying to explain to you.


Nope.. Both you and Natalia both stated that the man had a say so.. No where in my statement did I say that a man should have a say in the matter. Besides, that was the second option that YOU CHOSE. I presented two.

Belkira wrote:
See, I understand that this can never be completely fair. It's how life is. Women are given the ability to get pregnant and carry a baby to term. Men are not. The situation will NEVER be fair. There's no way to MAKE it fair. Your scenarios are not fair. Period. End of story.


It can very well be fair, you just don't want it to be. Even if you didn't believe my scenarios made it 100% fair, it is as close to fair that you can get.

I'll make sure I remember your statement the next time we argue about homosexuality. You're by far the biggest emotional hypocrite on this forum.


#429 May 03 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:

Sure. But I'm not the one who argued that abortion gives women the freedom to be "responsible" and abort children that they can't support financially. Regardless of the reasons, it's clear that that is not actually happening, is it?

Smiley: dubious
So your answer is to take away the freedom to be responsible because women choose not to do it? That's... pretty moronic. Especially when you yourself admit it might be "a combination of factors," none of which you bothered to bring up stats for, instead relying on one and saying "Obviously this played a part!"

Oh, wait, I see what you're going to say... the argument is that they can "either marry someone or raise a child on her own if she becomes pregnant." Hey, luckily, no one with half a brain should be making that argument. I mean, alma might, but the rest of us are saying "they can do what they want, including abortion, marrying, or raising a child."
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#430 May 03 2011 at 5:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Sure. But I'm not the one who argued that abortion gives women the freedom to be "responsible" and abort children that they can't support financially. Regardless of the reasons, it's clear that that is not actually happening, is it?

Smiley: dubious
So your answer is to take away the freedom to be responsible because women choose not to do it?


When did I ever say that? You're projecting.

Quote:
That's... pretty moronic.


If that were what I was arguing for, yes. You know what else is moronic? Patting yourself on the back that you've given women the freedom to abort and thus avoid the economic pit of single motherhood, while ignoring the very real fact that more women (and their children) are in that pit than ever before.

Quote:
Especially when you yourself admit it might be "a combination of factors," none of which you bothered to bring up stats for, instead relying on one and saying "Obviously this played a part!"


All those factors are a part of a social experiment that has clearly failed. For the most part, the same people who cheer on abortion rights are the same people who cheer on teaching contraceptive use in school, and who cheer on ever loosening social rules, and who support the creation and funding of a government "safety net" for all the women who follow the examples of the women they see on TV and in film, and then choose not to use contraceptives properly (or are just unlucky), and who then choose not to abort or marry or give children up for adoption.

Seems kinda self-fulfilling, doesn't it? And it makes arguments like "But we gave women the freedom to not end up in that condition" somewhat irrelevant, doesn't it?

Quote:
Oh, wait, I see what you're going to say... the argument is that they can "either marry someone or raise a child on her own if she becomes pregnant." Hey, luckily, no one with half a brain should be making that argument. I mean, alma might, but the rest of us are saying "they can do what they want, including abortion, marrying, or raising a child."


Yes. But when your "side" of the issue is largely about improving general social statistics, isn't it relevant to point out that those statistics have gotten worse over time? I'm making kind of a larger argument than just one about abortion. I'm observing that it appears as though liberals sell their causes on grand social ideals, but at some point the specifics of their position on those causes overshadows the social ends they originally sold it on. And as a result they never notice that the social benefits they started out claiming to care about are getting worse over time. They fight ferociously for government programs and social benefits for targeted groups, sure that without them, those groups would slip into poverty and despair and never notice that the groups they're "helping" have slipped even faster since they started giving them all that help.

Even if you don't accept the argument that the help may be part of the problem, can't you at least acknowledge that it's clearly not part of the solution? When do you notice that for all your efforts and all the money spent, the things you're trying to make better are getting worse?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#431 May 03 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:


All those factors are a part of a social experiment that has clearly failed. For the most part, the same people who cheer on abortion rights are the same people who cheer on teaching contraceptive use in school, and who cheer on ever loosening social rules, and who support the creation and funding of a government "safety net" for all the women who follow the examples of the women they see on TV and in film, and then choose not to use contraceptives properly (or are just unlucky), and who then choose not to abort or marry or give children up for adoption.

It's ok big guy, tell us how you really feel.

Who's projecting now? My issue with you is you're saying abortion is a factor and not backing it up. Know what else has happened since Roe v Wade? Gasoline prices have risen. Sh*t, by your logic, increased gas is one of "a combination of factors" that correlate with more babies born to single moms.

I would like to see some statistics on your idea that women want an abortion until they find out how much welfare they can get.
Quote:
When did I ever say that? You're projecting.

Oh, I'm sorry. You've said that abortion is "a part of a social experiment that has clearly failed." What was your solution? According to you, abortion has just opened up the floodgates to allow women to have children anyway. If it's "part of the problem," are you saying that changing it by restricting access is not "part of the solution?"
Quote:
When do you notice that for all your efforts and all the money spent, the things you're trying to make better are getting worse?

Probably when we get some actual analysis on your stats. Come on. Show us how many unwed mothers had *** because abortion was an option, then changed their minds because welfare was so much better.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#432 May 03 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
'kay.


Almalieque's first reference on page 6 wrote:
:
Either 1 of the 2 things should happen IMO.

1) Give women total freedom and responsibility for children, defaulting men the opportunity to support if desired.

0r

2) Make both men and women equally responsible, only allowing abortions on a case by case scenario.


See?


So, when you read " Give women TOTAL FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY for children, defaulting men the opportunity to support if desired. ", you interpreted that as " the man should have a say, and that if his views are not agreed upon he should be able to wash his hands of the child completely.!"

Interesting... Thank you for proving to us all that you're an idiot.
See bolded. Also, all the tirades you went on about it being unfair that a woman can make a decision and a man have to pay for it? Yeah, reread those, too.

Almalieque wrote:
1. Money != father.. I'm sorry you feel that way..
2. He's in the military, the women are in the military. He has no choice, it is automatically deducted from his pay check. If he had it his way, he wouldn't pay anything.

3. He doesn't care about his children, at least his newest one, that makes him a dead beat dad...

4. In any case, I gave you hypothetical situations of husbands/fathers getting their mistresses pregnant. Do you believe that they want them to carry the pregnancy or have an abortion and pretend that nothing happened?

Give it up, you're wrong.
1. Money = support. I'm not sure if you want to stick to one argument or not, instead of jumping all over the place. It would be nice though.

2. That's unfortunate. So all three of these women are Captains too?

3. Oh well, you didn't say that before now, did you. Shame, I was really routing for the guy.

4. This hypothetical applies to all men, right?


Almalieque wrote:
I already argued that the scenario of a man not paying is retarded, hence why I defaulted to scenario two.
No you didn't. You've been arguing this whole time that it's unreasonable to let the woman have autonomy in so far as deciding whether to terminate or not, if the man then has to pay. How in that scenario is it reasonable to expect tax money to pick up the slack from him?

Almalieque wrote:
So answer the question, if you have to receive governmental assistance to care for your child, then what's the problem?
Aside from the fact that you can't afford the child so it would be better off you not having it? Nothing.


Almalieque wrote:
So basically you're just making stuff up just like you did about your claim that health reasons are the prime reasons for abortion..... yeaa. man.. No wonder you're such a "science genius"....
Did I claim to be a "science genius"? I'm better than you, sure. That hardly qualifies one as a genius now, does it?

It was funny to see you try and play the "What do you mean you people?" card, though.
____________________________
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
#433 May 03 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Back in those idyllic days, the percentage of children born to single women nationwide was about 3%.
You mean back when everyone was an alcoholic?
And segregated, lol.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#434 May 03 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Who's projecting now? My issue with you is you're saying abortion is a factor and not backing it up.


So providing an alternative doesn't increase the rate at which people come upon the choice itself? That's a bit strange. If the options for crossing a chasm are "fall to your death" or "walk the long way around", what will happen? Everyone will walk the long way around, taking more time to get there, but none of them will fall to their death. If you build a rickety rope bridge across said chasm, you've provided another option "cross quickly with a chance of falling to your death". Would anyone be surprised if the rate of people dying from falling to their deaths in the chasm will increase?

Of course not. Abortion, contraception, and the availability of services for single mothers all contribute to the increased likelihood of women engaging in sexual behavior with men they would not choose to marry, because all of them give an "out" for the possible results. Why would you assume it wouldn't? I'm not making a value judgment here, just asking that you be honest about the full picture of the issue instead of just blindly cheering for "your side".

Quote:
Know what else has happened since Roe v Wade? Gasoline prices have risen. Sh*t, by your logic, increased gas is one of "a combination of factors" that correlate with more babies born to single moms.


Except for the whole "there's a logical reason increased availability to abortion might affect women's sexual choices" bit.

Quote:
I would like to see some statistics on your idea that women want an abortion until they find out how much welfare they can get.


That's not what I said. I said they think of abortion as a way out of pregnancy, but often back out because the emotional reality of an abortion when it's in front of you is much greater than the hypothetical talk about it. How many people on this forum speak well of abortion? How many would blanch at getting one themselves? That's not unusual. It's normal.

Quote:
Oh, I'm sorry. You've said that abortion is "a part of a social experiment that has clearly failed." What was your solution?


So unless I can present a perfect solution I'm not allowed to point out that our current combination of laws, social rules, and government programs is resulting in a very very poor outcome? That seems like a bizarre requirement, don't you agree?

Quote:
According to you, abortion has just opened up the floodgates to allow women to have children anyway. If it's "part of the problem," are you saying that changing it by restricting access is not "part of the solution?"


Nope. Still not getting it. I'm saying that cheering on the virtues of abortion because it allows women to be responsible and avoid the negative result of single motherhood is somewhat silly when the statistics for single motherhood have increased so much in the past 4-6 decades. It's exactly like cheering about decades of government regulations designed to help people eat better and stay healthy while the obesity and health statistics have gotten worse over the same period of time. Clearly the actions taken didn't make things better in either case.

Quote:
Quote:
When do you notice that for all your efforts and all the money spent, the things you're trying to make better are getting worse?

Probably when we get some actual analysis on your stats. Come on. Show us how many unwed mothers had *** because abortion was an option, then changed their minds because welfare was so much better.


My argument does not require identifying a single source of the problem. You're placing an unfair requirement on me here. All I'm saying is that it's more than a bit absurd to praise the benefits of something, when the end result overall is negative. It's equivalent to talking about how well designed the Titanic is while it's sinking. Doesn't matter what's specifically causing the ship to sink, does it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#435 May 03 2011 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
So in conclusion, you have no solution, you claim there's a problem that abortion is partially responsible for but don't show any causation nor stats to back it up, and you also seem to imply that abortion has caused more single mothers than it has prevented.

Quote:
My argument does not require identifying a single source of the problem. You're placing an unfair requirement on me here.

Then why would you make the claim:
Quote:
I'm suggesting that because abortion is an option more women put themselves in the position of needing it (they aren't nearly as careful about unwanted pregnancies despite all the education), and because the reality of abortion isn't as simple as it seems when you're not faced with the choice in the short term and government assistance is available more women once in that position make the choice to have the child and end out on welfare.

You are saying that women are less safe and more sexual due to thinking they can have an abortion, and then when pregnant they change their minds about abortion because of welfare. How is it unfair to ask you to prove it if you claim it is so?

Edit: I'm not trying to jump down your throat here, and I think a lot of people have the same concern. Abortion isn't a matter to be taken lightly, and single parents without the income to properly support children is a big issue. But if you're going to make claims like:
Quote:
All I'm saying is that it's more than a bit absurd to praise the benefits of something, when the end result overall is negative.
Then you need to actually back it up. We know unwed pregnancies are up. Know what else I know? Planned Parenthood performed 300,000 abortions last year; assuming 40% of those were to single girls (a VERY conservative guess, no?), that means PP alone lowered the number of unwanted children born, thus helping the situation. So, show some data that the availability of abortion has caused at least more than that in a year. That is what you're claiming, right? Other factors, sure, but you chose abortion in your suggestion.

Edited, May 3rd 2011 8:48pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#436 May 03 2011 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Know what else has happened since Roe v Wade? Gasoline prices have risen. Sh*t, by your logic, increased gas is one of "a combination of factors" that correlate with more babies born to single moms.


Except for the whole "there's a logical reason increased availability to abortion might affect women's sexual choices" bit.

Gas prices have increased since Roe v Wade because women are driving further to reach abortion clinics, thus increasing the demand for gasoline.

There. Now that there's a logical reason behind it, do you accept this explanation as valid? Or will you do what we do when you spout this ******** and recognize that there's absolutely no data before the conjecture?
#437 May 03 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
You're getting off topic Locke. Here's the original statement I responded to:

Nilatai wrote:
Seriously? You think it's responsible to bring a child into the world which you can not afford, because things like food stamps exist?


This statement is clearly claiming that the responsibly choice is to abort rather than ending out on welfare. I didn't make the comparison, I was responding to someone else who had. My counter is that an even more responsible choice would be to not get pregnant in the first place. I followed that with a comment that while aborting instead of being on welfare might be a more responsible choice, it's a moot point since clearly a **** of a lot of women are in fact choosing to be on welfare instead of having an abortion.

We can speculate about why that's happening (which I have done), but no amount of you disagreeing with my speculation changes the core legitimacy of my initial statement. Don't play the "I don't agree with one tiny part of what you said, so everything you're saying is wrong" game.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#438 May 03 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nilatai wrote:
See bolded. Also, all the tirades you went on about it being unfair that a woman can make a decision and a man have to pay for it? Yeah, reread those, too.


Ok, so you read,"Make both men and women equally responsible, only allowing abortions on a case by case scenario." and interpreted "the man should have a say, and that if his views are not agreed upon he should be able to wash his hands of the child completely."?

How exactly is that any better? That's just as stupid... but, thanks again for displaying your lack of comprehension. Nowhere in there did I mention that the man should have a say in the matter. You're combining and creating bits and pieces. No where in any of those two scenarios state what you are claiming.

YOU ARE WRONG...

Nilatai wrote:
1. Money = support. I'm not sure if you want to stick to one argument or not, instead of jumping all over the place. It would be nice though.

2. That's unfortunate. So all three of these women are Captains too?

3. Oh well, you didn't say that before now, did you. Shame, I was really routing for the guy.

4. This hypothetical applies to all men, right?


1. You are so easily lost in conversation. We were talking about DEAD BEAT DAD's. I claimed that dead beat dads support abortion. Your counter was that can't happen because the guy isn't a dad yet. I gave you an example of a man with kids and an unborn being a "dead beat dad". You countered to say that since he's giving money, that he isn't a dead beat dad. I countered to say, you giving money to your child doesn't relinquish you from being a dead beat dad as there is more to fatherhood than just providing money. I could provide money and never communicate with my child at all. I would rather have a poor dad than a rich dad that isn't involved in my life.

2. No.. now that I think about it, maybe one of them isn't a Captain, I'm not sure. All I know is that the money is being drawn out of his paycheck.

4. Only the men in the scenario described. The point is that if a man doesn't want to take any responsibility for an unborn child, he will more than likely support abortion. I can't remember how we got to that road, but that was the point.

Nilatai wrote:
No you didn't. You've been arguing this whole time that it's unreasonable to let the woman have autonomy in so far as deciding whether to terminate or not, if the man then has to pay. How in that scenario is it reasonable to expect tax money to pick up the slack from him?


Almalieque's first reference wrote:

Either 1 of the 2 things should happen IMO.

1) Give women total freedom and responsibility for children, defaulting men the opportunity to support if desired.

0r

2) Make both men and women equally responsible, only allowing abortions on a case by case scenario.

Since option 1 is totally stupid, as it'll probably increase the number of dead-beat dads, I'll go with option 2.

I'm open to other solutions, but that's the only two I can think of.


See, the problem with people like you and Belkira is that you all don't pay attention, then you retaliate with nonsense that was never mentioned and then accuse me of being an idiot for supporting your made up argument.

First, you make up an argument about guys having a say so and then you completely over look my rationale AGAINST abortion. For Pete's sake, the first option completely allows abortion on any terms at any time. My whole argument was that abortion should only be authorized on a case by case scenario in situations such as, rape, health, etc. That is exactly what option two states.

Nilatai wrote:
Aside from the fact that you can't afford the child so it would be better off you not having it? Nothing.


You didn't answer the question... If the government is assisting you (in other words, giving you the necessary needs to support the child), then what is the problem? If the government is giving you the money, you can't say that you don't have the funds to take care of the baby.

Nilatai wrote:
Did I claim to be a "science genius"? I'm better than you, sure. That hardly qualifies one as a genius now, does it?

It was funny to see you try and play the "What do you mean you people?" card, though.


What qualifies you to be "better" than me?
#439 May 03 2011 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
My counter is that an even more responsible choice would be to not get pregnant in the first place.
lol

Yes, if only people realized they should be cold and calculating when it comes to having *** with their partner. It's so simple!
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#440 May 03 2011 at 7:09 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
This statement is clearly claiming that the responsibly choice is to abort rather than ending out on welfare. I didn't make the comparison, I was responding to someone else who had. My counter is that an even more responsible choice would be to not get pregnant in the first place. I followed that with a comment that while aborting instead of being on welfare might be a more responsible choice, it's a moot point since clearly a **** of a lot of women are in fact choosing to be on welfare instead of having an abortion.


The bold has been the point that Belkira seemed to keep overlooking. The responsibility comes BEFORE the pregnancy and the abortion. Just because we're talking about abortion doesn't mean every time I mention responsibility that I'm referring to after the pregnancy.

I disagree with the welfare statement. I think it's irresponsible to STAY on welfare with no motivation to move up, but to just have MORE babies and milk the system. Going on welfare to temporally support yourself while you get your life together is a WHOLE lot more responsible than having an abortion, assuming that the child is wanted along with other factors, i.e. health.
#441Almalieque, Posted: May 03 2011 at 7:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Or just not have ***? It really is that simple... You don't need *** to survive. If you aren't ready to have a child, then you can hold off.
#442 May 03 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ok, so you read,"Make both men and women equally responsible, only allowing abortions on a case by case scenario." and interpreted "the man should have a say, and that if his views are not agreed upon he should be able to wash his hands of the child completely."?

How exactly is that any better? That's just as stupid... but, thanks again for displaying your lack of comprehension. Nowhere in there did I mention that the man should have a say in the matter. You're combining and creating bits and pieces. No where in any of those two scenarios state what you are claiming.

YOU ARE WRONG...
By saying that if the guy doesn't have a say in the matter, he shouldn't have to pay, you are insinuating that the man should have a say in the matter. How can you not see this?

YOU ARE STUPID...



Almalieque wrote:
1. You are so easily lost in conversation. We were talking about DEAD BEAT DAD's. I claimed that dead beat dads support abortion. Your counter was that can't happen because the guy isn't a dad yet. I gave you an example of a man with kids and an unborn being a "dead beat dad". You countered to say that since he's giving money, that he isn't a dead beat dad. I countered to say, you giving money to your child doesn't relinquish you from being a dead beat dad as there is more to fatherhood than just providing money. I could provide money and never communicate with my child at all. I would rather have a poor dad than a rich dad that isn't involved in my life.
First, that's not how you use an apostrophe but that's neither here nor there. Second, even if I accept your premise that dead bead dads support abortion, how does that equate you thinking that the default position on abortion should be illegality, with certain exceptions?

Almalieque wrote:
2. No.. now that I think about it, maybe one of them isn't a Captain, I'm not sure. All I know is that the money is being drawn out of his paycheck.
Well someone needs to be fired then. Isn't there that whole spiel about not fraternising with subordinates?

Almalieque wrote:
4. Only the men in the scenario described. The point is that if a man doesn't want to take any responsibility for an unborn child, he will more than likely support abortion. I can't remember how we got to that road, but that was the point.
You brought up deadbeat dads supporting abortion.


Almalieque wrote:
See, the problem with people like you and Belkira is that you all don't pay attention, then you retaliate with nonsense that was never mentioned and then accuse me of being an idiot for supporting your made up argument.

First, you make up an argument about guys having a say so and then you completely over look my rationale AGAINST abortion. For Pete's sake, the first option completely allows abortion on any terms at any time. My whole argument was that abortion should only be authorized on a case by case scenario in situations such as, rape, health, etc. That is exactly what option two states.
Okay then, lets start over. Re: bolded section...Why?



Almalieque wrote:
You didn't answer the question... If the government is assisting you (in other words, giving you the necessary needs to support the child), then what is the problem? If the government is giving you the money, you can't say that you don't have the funds to take care of the baby.
I dunno, I seem to remember certain Republicans on this forum complaining about too much taxation and too many "social programs". Also, from what I see in my country, people specifically have more children so they can get extra benefit from the state. Sad, but true. I'm sure it's not isolated to just my country.

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Did I claim to be a "science genius"? I'm better than you, sure. That hardly qualifies one as a genius now, does it?

It was funny to see you try and play the "What do you mean you people?" card, though.


What qualifies you to be "better" than me?
You're bad at maths and science?
____________________________
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
#443 May 03 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My counter is that an even more responsible choice would be to not get pregnant in the first place.
lol

Yes, if only people realized they should be cold and calculating when it comes to having *** with their partner. It's so simple!
Or just not have ***? It really is that simple... You don't need *** to survive. If you aren't ready to have a child, then you can hold off.
Ahahahaha, too funny. I feel bad for you, being that disconnected from how the world works.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#444 May 03 2011 at 7:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
So in conclusion, you have no solution...


I don't need to have a solution to point out that what the other guy is doing isn't working. I can present several solutions, but we kinda first have to recognize that there's a problem, right? Yet, it's like pulling teeth to get liberals to even acknowledge that those statistics are getting worse, or that there's a problem at all. Blinders are screwed on too tight I guess.

Quote:
Quote:
My argument does not require identifying a single source of the problem. You're placing an unfair requirement on me here.

Then why would you make the claim:
Quote:
I'm suggesting that because abortion is an option more women put themselves in the position of needing it (they aren't nearly as careful about unwanted pregnancies despite all the education), and because the reality of abortion isn't as simple as it seems when you're not faced with the choice in the short term and government assistance is available more women once in that position make the choice to have the child and end out on welfare.


There are three different "sources" mentioned in that quote. I'm not sure why you think that somehow nullifies my statement. I'm not saying which of those factors is most significant, just pointing out that they all work together to cause a result. Why is that so hard for you to swallow? Are you seriously arguing that the availability of abortion doesn't influence at all a womans sexual choices? That would seem incredibly unlikely.

What's funny is that you know this already. If I remove the issue from one in which you're already invested in, you'll agree with the logic. For example, if someone looked at the injury statistics for pro football players and then speculated that the improved protective gear and sport medicine over the past 4 decades has actually caused more injuries because players are more willing to perform riskier moves while playing, I'm betting you wouldn't think that was so unfounded. But I make what is essentially the exact same speculation with regard to availability of contraceptives and abortion, and your mental brick wall goes up. You might want to think about why you can't think logically about certain topics. It's not me. It's you.


Quote:
You are saying that women are less safe and more sexual due to thinking they can have an abortion, and then when pregnant they change their minds about abortion because of welfare. How is it unfair to ask you to prove it if you claim it is so?


Stop leaving portions out. I'm saying that increased availability of contraception and abortion increases the odds of women engaging in sexual activity with men they would not marry, so that when/if they do get pregnant, that fact combined with the funding for welfare increases the odds of them choosing to raise the child as a single mother. I'm not placing any specific weight on any one of those factors, but presenting a reasonable explanation which has the virtue of matching the statistics we're seeing.

Quote:
Edit: I'm not trying to jump down your throat here, and I think a lot of people have the same concern. Abortion isn't a matter to be taken lightly, and single parents without the income to properly support children is a big issue. But if you're going to make claims like:
Quote:
All I'm saying is that it's more than a bit absurd to praise the benefits of something, when the end result overall is negative.
Then you need to actually back it up.


I have. That statement is not a claim of direct causation. I am making two points:

1. People are praising abortion because it gives women the ability to make a responsible choice and avoid becoming a single mother.

2. Rates of single motherhood are higher than they have ever been.


I'm saying that it's absurd to cheer about point number 1, when point number 2 is true. I've only provided 3 or 4 examples to illustrate the reasoning I'm using here. Did you think that I was claiming that a polio vaccine causes more people to have polio? Nope. But if, even due to completely unrelated factors, the rates of polio increased after implementing your vaccination program, you would likely not make a point of praising the vaccine for preventing the spread of polio, right?

And you'd kinda shut up about the safety features on the Titanic while the **** ship is sinking, right?


I just see the same thing when people praise abortion for giving women another way to avoid becoming single mothers, when the rate of single mothers has gone up. And not just a bit, but dramatically.


Quote:
We know unwed pregnancies are up. Know what else I know? Planned Parenthood performed 300,000 abortions last year; assuming 40% of those were to single girls (a VERY conservative guess, no?), that means PP alone lowered the number of unwanted children born, thus helping the situation. So, show some data that the availability of abortion has caused at least more than that in a year. That is what you're claiming, right? Other factors, sure, but you chose abortion in your suggestion.



The pumps on the Titanic pumped out more water after hitting the iceberg than they were before, right? Can you see how your logic might just be flawed?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#445 May 03 2011 at 7:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're getting off topic Locke.
Smiley: dubious That's your answer to throwing out a statement and then being asked to back it up? Edit: Ah, you answered more fully. I was wondering why I got the short answer before.

Quote:
My counter is that an even more responsible choice would be to not get pregnant in the first place.
Agreed. Anecdotally, I don't know a single woman who said "Man, I'm going to have all the *** I want because I can abort. No need for birth control! Oh wait! Instead of aborting I'll go on welfare!" It could be my social group, though.

Quote:
Did you think that I was claiming that a polio vaccine causes more people to have polio?

So... you're saying abortion helps the problem! But it also makes the problem in the first place. So again, show it.

I think what you want to say is "Birth control has increased the amount of *** going on in our country. Abortion provides a final guard against becoming an unwed mother." But even in that case, it's helping the problem (not the amount of ***, but according to your statistic, unwed mothers). You are of the opinion that, if abortion were to disappear today, but birth control and welfare remained the same, there would be fewer unwed mothers, correct? Or, on the other hand, if abortion remained legal and welfare and birth control disappeared, we'd have much higher rates than the 50's for unwed mothers?

No matter how you slice it, if you think the problem is "unwed motherhood," abortion helps. If you think it's sexual promiscuity... then your statistic was a strawman, like I said from the first. Because there's no show of a causation between legal abortion and more unwed mothers in what you said Smiley: nod

Oh, and one last one:
Quote:
And you'd kinda shut up about the safety features on the Titanic while the **** ship is sinking, right?

If the safety features were more boats, or better pumps to allow more time for rescue to arrive, **** no. You'd string up the guy who advocated getting rid of those because "The ship is sinking anyway," because following his advice would have killed many more people.

Ie, you analogy sucks, hence me not responding until now.

Edited, May 3rd 2011 9:51pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#446 May 03 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Almalieque wrote:
knowing contraceptives fail, double, triple up on them.


I hear wearing 3 condoms at once is super effective.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#447 May 03 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Ah, and one other gem I missed.

Here's some advice: STOP MAKING DUMB ANALOGIES!
Quote:
What's funny is that you know this already. If I remove the issue from one in which you're already invested in, you'll agree with the logic. For example, if someone looked at the injury statistics for pro football players and then speculated that the improved protective gear and sport medicine over the past 4 decades has actually caused more injuries because players are more willing to perform riskier moves while playing, I'm betting you wouldn't think that was so unfounded. But I make what is essentially the exact same speculation with regard to availability of contraceptives and abortion, and your mental brick wall goes up. You might want to think about why you can't think logically about certain topics. It's not me. It's you.

Your advice here would actually be for the player to stop playing the sport. You can't get hurt in a football game if you don't play, right? Or if you do play, make sure you only play two-hand touch with a single other person.

A better answer would be you equating *** to football makes me think you have a lot wrong in your head.

Do like those tight ends, though.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#448 May 03 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My counter is that an even more responsible choice would be to not get pregnant in the first place.
lol

Yes, if only people realized they should be cold and calculating when it comes to having *** with their partner. It's so simple!


Or just not have ***? It really is that simple... You don't need *** to survive. If you aren't ready to have a child, then you can hold off.


If that sounds too foreign to you, knowing contraceptives fail, double, triple up on them. I would never trust "the pill". Use a condom and a pill and don't have *** during her high fertilization times.

I'm not saying it isn't easy to get "caught up in the moment", but I am saying it is easy to avoid those situations.


Spoken like a true virgin.
#449 May 03 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Good
******
49,884 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
knowing contraceptives fail, double, triple up on them.
I hear wearing 3 condoms at once is super effective.
Shove a Fleshlight in her and fuck that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#450 May 03 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
You know which group is one of the lowest users of abortion clinics?

Yup. Thats right teh gheys.

SSM should be encouraged because it leads to lower abortion rates.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#451 May 03 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Quote:
My counter is that an even more responsible choice would be to not get pregnant in the first place.
Agreed. Anecdotally, I don't know a single woman who said "Man, I'm going to have all the *** I want because I can abort. No need for birth control! Oh wait! Instead of aborting I'll go on welfare!" It could be my social group, though.


Welcome to the concept of unintended consequences. No one chooses to end out in jail either. They choose to commit a crime. No one chooses an unwanted pregnancy, but they choose to have ***. No one chooses to get into a car crash, but they might choose to drink and then drive. Assuming we can both accept that lots of things happen to people without them choosing that outcome, then shouldn't we look at the choices being made and assess how things affect those choices rather than throwing out the relatively weak argument that one thing can't be a causative factor for an outcome simply because no one would choose that outcome?

The existence of a safety feature absolutely does increase the likelihood of it having to be used. That doesn't mean we should stop putting in safety features. That's not what I'm proposing. I am saying, that if the rate at which the negative thing your safety feature is supposed to prevent is increasing, you might want to look at why instead of just praising the fact that you built this safety feature.

Quote:
Quote:
Did you think that I was claiming that a polio vaccine causes more people to have polio?

So... you're saying abortion helps the problem! But it also makes the problem in the first place. So again, show it.


Yes. In the same way that protective gear in football helps people avoid injury, but at the same time increases the likelihood of them engaging in dangerous activity which might cause them to get hurt. The polio example wasn't intended to illustrate that causative relationship but purely to show that even in the absence of any causative relationship, you'd still not praise something if the end results were an increase in the bad thing you were trying to reduce. I'm trying to cover all the bases here, and I understand that this confuses people sometimes. But that's how I think. I divide an issue into cases and examine each one. What I see here is that under no case should we be looking at the availability of abortion as some kind of wonderful thing that has freed women from the servitude of unwanted marriages or single motherhood. Even if you don't accept that the availability of abortion has any effect on the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy, my general statement still stands. It hasn't increased the rate at which women do make that responsible choice, has it?

Quote:
I think what you want to say is "Birth control has increased the amount of *** going on in our country. Abortion provides a final guard against becoming an unwed mother." But even in that case, it's helping the problem (not the amount of ***, but according to your statistic, unwed mothers).


Sure. But yet the end result (rate of children born to unwed mothers) has gone in the other direction, hasn't it? So that "final guard" isn't working.

Quote:
You are of the opinion that, if abortion were to disappear today, but birth control and welfare remained the same, there would be fewer unwed mothers, correct? Or, on the other hand, if abortion remained legal and welfare and birth control disappeared, we'd have much higher rates than the 50's for unwed mothers?


I think it's possible. But my larger argument doesn't rely on that being true. I'm not proposing that we eliminate abortion. I'm saying that we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back because we made abortion legal when one of the core reasons for doing so has gotten worse. I followed this up with a whole diatribe about how we sometimes get so focused on the cause we assume is important because of something, that we forget to check the thing that is really important. We adopt affirmative action programs (at the risk of adding yet another side topic) on the assumption that it'll help balance things out in terms of racial statistics. Then we fight huge battles over the issue of affirmative action. And when those are "won", we praise ourselves for doing the right thing. And all the while we don't bother to check to see if those social imbalances are actually being fixed.

Or, to present another example: We create programs to help poor and minority people own homes. Why? Because statistically home ownership is the path to wealth and prosperity. We push the programs to the point where we bankrupt our financial industry, all the while patting ourselves on the back at how much we're helping all those people. We measure the number of loans given out to those who might not have gotten them and use those numbers to calculate how wonderful our actions are. But at no point are we looking to see if the end result is positive. We fail to get that those things are paths to prosperity for those who can afford them, but helping someone who can't to get a loan they can't afford doesn't do anything but make our stats look good on paper. But since we're judging our success based on how many of those loans we help make happen and not whether we're actually helping people obtain prosperity, we miss the forest for the trees.


I just think that we often replace the objectives we want with the specific methods we assume are needed to achieve those objectives. And sometimes we do this to such an extent that we cease to even look at the reality of what's going on and just look at the adoption rate of the methods we're using. We assume that more kids attending after-school activities means less crime and drugs. We assume that more seats filled at a homeless shelter means we're fighting homelessness. We replace solving the problem with treating the symptoms and often don't even notice that there's a difference.

My argument is much broader than just abortion. That just happened to be the specific issue at hand. I saw someone essentially praising abortion for allowing women to be responsible, but I don't think that choosing to abort after becoming pregnant with a child you don't or can't raise is responsible in the first place. It just struck me as odd.

Quote:
Quote:
And you'd kinda shut up about the safety features on the Titanic while the **** ship is sinking, right?

If the safety features were more boats, or better pumps to allow more time for rescue to arrive, **** no. You'd string up the guy who advocated getting rid of those because "The ship is sinking anyway," because following his advice would have killed many more people.


But they weren't. That's the point. In the same way that all the added ability for women to be responsible and get abortions instead of becoming single mothers hasn't actually resulted in fewer women ending out as single mothers. You're doing exactly what I wrote about above: Focusing so much on the details of the methodology that you fail to see the bigger picture. Obviously, we can argue that had the Titanic not had any water tight bulkheads and pumps and life rafts and had still hit the same iceberg at the same speed in the same manner, that many more lives would have been lost. But at the same time, we can argue that because they had such "advanced" bulkhead and pump systems, they didn't think the ship could sink, so they didn't put as many life rafts on it as would be needed *and* it increased the confidence of those operating the ship, leading them to travel faster than was safe, and leading them to fail to ask for help even after hitting the iceberg because they assumed that the ship wouldn't sink.


Does this mean we don't put those features on ships (or even better ones)? Absolutely not. But it does mean that we need to not assume that their mere existence solves the problem. But what I see around me is a culture where we teach "safe ***" via contraceptives to our kids in our schools, we inundate them with images of sexuality on TV and in movies, we fight for the availability of abortion even for teens without the knowledge or permission of their parents, and then we wonder why each generation for the last 40-50 years has had many more children born to single mothers than the previous one?

There's also a chicken and egg issue to this: Do we argue for the importance of contraception and the availability of abortion because people are more sexually active today? Or are they more sexually active because those things are available? Does that in turn translate to a greater acceptance of sexuality in our society, which then results in more portrayals of such on TV and in film? And does that create some kind of feedback effect as well? This is why I said that there's no single cause. But it's clear that if we care about children being raised by single mothers in our society, then we maybe ought to look at that rather than just praising various things which we think should help, but apparently are not.


We clearly do seem to be acting as though the safety features we've put in place solve the problem. And as a result we don't actually act responsibly, and thus make the problem worse over time. At least, that's how I see it.

Edited, May 3rd 2011 7:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (54)