There are a lot more effective ways to get rid of people than abortion if that is your aim. Germany, Russia and China all had some effective programs.

Gene363 wrote:

You're so busy making assumptions that you cannot see that you are wrong, still. It is not impossible that I know people on the opposite ends the abortion issue. Perhaps you never associate with people that are not just like you, but some folks are a lot more open minded.

Gene363 wrote:

Gene. You're either being obtuse or intentionally cryptic to avoid being called out in a lie.
If you're friends with women who are happy about an abortion they had in the past and have told you, then say so. And if you are, feel free to take back your statement referencing women regretting abortions. I don't care, neither way is it "statistics"... All I want you to do is stop with the "you're wrong about x"... Then "you're wrong about -1(x)" BS... Make an actual statement.

victor809 wrote:

Yeah I'm gonna bet that the sample size of women willing to tell gene that they had an abortion in the past is pretty small. The chances of him having a friend who is both pleased and vocal about an abortion are about the same as me having a friend who's a vocal Evangelical.

victor809 wrote:

Well, you'd be wrong, again. So what is your count?

Gene363 wrote:

So now your stance is that you know women who are pleased they had abortions?

victor809 wrote:

Just the opposite, now answer the question?

Gene363 wrote:

Then your comprehension is poor.
I stated:
"The chances of him having a friend who is both pleased and vocal about an abortion are about the same as me having a friend who's a vocal Evangelical."

You chose to state I was wrong and that just the opposite is true.

victor809 wrote:

And... you're still wrong and failed to answer my question. On the positive side, you did bring up reading comprehension, you might want to work on yours.

Gene363 wrote:

Sigh.

If you believe that women who have had an abortion regret it 15 years later. Then why do you reference friends who are both pleased with and vocal about their past abortions.

You can't have it both ways gene. And I'm a male. I can't have an abortion. I have paid for them.

victor809 wrote:

Where did I say they did? Jesus Christ gene... Be smarter.
I was specifically referencing sampling bias which in and of itself acknowledges that not all "of group x" think alike.

Ok... Let me spell this out very slowly for you.

You select your set of friends based on who you get along with. That likely requires having similar values. As such, your sample size of "women who regret abortions they had in the past" is likely irrelevant, because that's exactly the group which would lean anti abortion, and would then have things in common with you.

Your inability to understand my statements, claim I'm wrong when I say one thing, and wrong when I then state the exact opposite is ridiculous.

victor809 wrote:

You're so busy making assumptions that you cannot see that you are wrong, still. It is not impossible that I know people on the opposite ends the abortion issue. Perhaps you never associate with people that are not just like you, but some folks are a lot more open minded.

Gene363 wrote:

Gene. You're either being obtuse or intentionally cryptic to avoid being called out in a lie.
If you're friends with women who are happy about an abortion they had in the past and have told you, then say so. And if you are, feel free to take back your statement referencing women regretting abortions. I don't care, neither way is it "statistics"... All I want you to do is stop with the "you're wrong about x"... Then "you're wrong about -1(x)" BS... Make an actual statement.

victor809 wrote:

So, you agree then that baby you're so anxious to kill gets their day in court, including appeals.

Gene363 wrote:

I remember when abortions were illegal...those were tough times for many young girls and their families...quite a few died from botched back-alley abortions or "home abortions."

delta1 wrote:

Gene... Go up your post halfway. The "both" is not an assumption. That is a criteria. If you have female friends who are both x and y....

The entire conversation is around whether the women you reference who "regret having abortions years later" is anything other than your sampling error. Ie... Where did you get that information.

You implied that it came from friends.

Now... A rational person would realize that a woman who is both pleased she got an abortion, and willing to talk about how pleased she is, is not likely someone who would be close friends with someone vocally anti-abortion. Therefore, it is unlikely you would even have that conversation with someone who doesn't regret an abortion.

Funny enough, you stated I was wrong in the above assumption. If the above assumption is wrong, then you have had conversations with women who do not regret their abortion at all.

If you've had conversations with women who don't regret their abortions, then why the f--k would you make the implication that the "nurturing female mind" will regret their abortion many years later?

Choose one or the other. You can't make both statements.

victor809 wrote:

Opel, I guess math is not your thing either. It is a net zero. We presently pay $200 in taxes. $10 of which goes toward abortions. In the scenario I suggest We pay $200 in taxes. $10 of which goes toward abortions. The difference is Tail who is against abortion has none of his money go towards abortion. We have both paid the same amount of taxes. In my original post I stated I am against abortion and outlined why I am willing to pay taxes for abortion.

Speyside wrote:

ewok said taints...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

I miss wheel....

dstieger wrote:

Gene... You simply did try to have it both ways. You can deny all you want, but unless you clarify rather than just say "no you're wrong" your argument is useless.

As for talking to women you know... While admirable, isn't really any way to decide a law. You think we should make abortions illegal because some unknown percentage of women may regret making the choice later in life? Because some have told you they feel they made a wrong choice, you think it's smart to make the choice for all women. That's.... Really paternalistic....

victor809 wrote:

Gene... You would be parternalistic for supporting a law because you're sure you know what's best for all women.

Doesn't matter if some sampling of women have told you they regret doing it. I regret dropping out of the sciences... You going to make a law requiring all students stay in their graduate schools, because they may regret leaving it at some point in the future?

Allowing something should be the default. Making something illegal should only be done if there is good reason. And I hate to tell you but "you little ladies might regret this in the future" is not a good reason.

victor809 wrote:

I am pro choice, my friend Dan is pro life. I feel strongly that none of his tax money should fund abortions and twice as much of my tax money should fund abortions. I am not talking about him paying less taxes and me paying more taxes. Rather a redistribution of how part of our taxes are spent.

Also I think abortion is wrong, but feel a womans choice to control her own body takes precedence until such time as the fetus could become a viable human being outside of the womb.

Not looking for heated discussion, rather I thought these would be good discussions.

Speyside wrote:

If a Mother choses to murder, (abortion = murder) her child, has consent from the Father and isn't past the first trimester, let the miserable biotches have at, the government has no business up a woman's skirt.

Public money should not be used for abortions, it's murder, not health care. One possible exception, if three doctors agree that childbirth would cause the death of the Mother its healthcare and in that case public funds would be acceptable, however, the operation should also include a tubal ligation.

Our civilization will be judged by how we treat the youngest and the oldest members of society.

Gene363 wrote: