Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Again if those other services that "help prevent abortions" are really the important thing, then those services would best exist within an organization that doesn't provide abortions so that organization could operate without the drag-weight of people hating them and opposing them because they provide abortions.
It is not expedient to the goal of these other services that prevent abortions to bundle them up in an organization that also does abortion, but again I think quite a few people would oppose that because they like legal abortion and like having the capacity to use these other services as a political club in defense of an organization that provides abortions.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
It's an archaic system that's caused the deaths of actual women.
They're supposed to be holding a vote soon to repeal it, and replace it with an "Abortions available up to twelve weeks" thing, but we'll see how it goes, as abortion is currently illegal in Ireland.
Your opinion literally doesn't matter, then. Because they will do it anyways and have been for thousands of yours. Choosing to ignore facts is very asinine. Frankly, you're a huge douche-bag for having this position, too.
I didn't read anything else in your post and deleted it. You do not deserve a response with this kind of attitude and perspective. It is your shitty, *ssholish, attitude and position that really needs to die quickly so we can actually move forward.
Stop posting so damn much, jeez. Not every reply warrants a novel.
Also: increase PP funding. Max it out, bitches. Prevents lots of abortions. The more innocent lives that can be saved, the better.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jan 25th, 2018 at 06:56 PM
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
We also had a legal definition of personhood at one point that defined black slaves as property and 3/5 of a person.
The legal definition for rights is not an ethical excuse to me, because I don't believe the ethical obligation to not violate someone's rights only exists if the government defines it as such. I believe in a concept of negative rights, that the immorality of murder, slavery, imprisonment, and theft is still a violation of rights and ethics regardless of whatever legal definition is imposed from top down.
I don't think the legal protection of a right defines whether or not the right itself exists in an ethical sense. If the government decides tomorrow that I'm not a person, it's still a violation of my rights for you to murder me, the government just isn't recognizing or defending my rights.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
It's not a "important" or "not important", they're all important, screenings, sex safety, birth control etc. A woman getting a cancer screening is as important as a woman getting a safe abortion should she want/need one. So I see no point to your 'let's separate them'.
That doesn't take away the fact that abortions are a minuscule part of what PP provides and the fact that PP stops far more abortions from ever needing to happen than they perform. It's really a win/win situation for pro-life people, they're just too blinded by the "abortions are bad!" dazzle.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Again I'm not denying that back alley abortions would take place, I'm saying you haven't provided jack shit in the way of evidence that these abortions would be similarly common and thus lead to a greater loss of human life overall in a system where they're illegal. Just the fact that some people will illegally pursue abortion if it's made illegal is not remotely enough evidence that making abortion illegal will increase the loss of human life because you haven't provided the statistical evidence to suggest as much.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
You confirm they exist. Since it is not a point of debate, why try to make it a point of debate?
I don't care about anything else you want to argue about. This is the crux. Safe, legal, access to abortions will always be>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal back-alley abortions. They will do it anyway. Not matter what you say, no matter how much sophistry you try to inject into your argument, you cannot change this fact. You want to play a numbers game? Fine, play it. Not going to engage it. We agree on my premise so there's no need. You want to argue numbers? Look it up yourself and argue with the researchers.
Making abortions illegal does not significantly decrease their frequency. They just move from the legal sphere to back alley operations. We know this because Mexico, which bans abortions in most of the country, was found in a study to have an abortion rate 40% higher than the US. Here's an interesting article reporting on some official findings on the subject:
The author of the study then goes on to explain that the disparity is to do with the USA's broader access to family planning and contraceptive services, which are some of the most crucial aspects of Planned Parenthood. Fund Planned Parenthood and those services, reduce abortion. Making abortion illegal and defunding the PP just puts lives at risk. Again, we can look at Mexico:
IMO, arguing this is not necessary. This type of information is ubiquitous. It is common knowledge. And he agrees with my premise. But, yet, he still wants to engage in numbers just to argue. I don't know why.
I told him to look this stuff up, himself, and argue with the researchers. While your efforts are good, I think it is a waste of your time.
And DMB, please don't take this as I'm eShitting on you. Just trying to make you see logic/reason. When I was around your age and even a bit older, I had very similar views towards abortion, just not from a religious pov.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Yes I am going to play a numbers game. Because that's what you were doing by saying unsafe abortions could kill the mother too.
A single safe abortion is better than a single back alley abortion, I can absolutely agree with you on that.
However I happen to think that 20 safe abortions which leads to the loss of twenty human lives is worse than 5 worst case scenario back alley abortions which leads to the loss of 10 human lives.
I need the statistics in order to weigh the utility, and if you're not capable of providing the evidence, then I'm not compelled to take the stance that our government should hold the standard of being permissive towards the termination of innocent human life.
You're asking me to research and provide evidence for your argument for you, to which my answer is... no. Do it yourself if you want me to accept your position.
It's not sophistry. You haven't proven that the outcome of a pro-life system is worse because all you've done is compare two situations without giving any credence to how common those situations would be under each system. You are not making a compelling argument or proving to me a worse overall outcome in a pro-life system, and you're expecting me to side with the government saying terminating innocent human life is legally protected on what amounts to a weakly grounded argument.
I actually respect you and would like to have a cordial conversation because I know the two of us are capable of such a conversation, so if you would stop refusing to read my arguments and stop slinging pejorative and emotionally charged statements at me and discuss the issue I would greatly appreciate it.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Fair enough on the eShitting, we're debating a topic we disagree on, I expect you to disagree with me.
My view on abortion is independent of my view on religion. I don't cite any higher authority or Biblical text for my stances and honestly don't really think to God or the Bible as the basis to my position. I'm in a couple circles with friends who are atheists that feel exactly the same way, so I don't think I'd suddenly become pro-choice if I lost my faith in God. I don't think it's fair to attribute my stance to religious motivations if that makes sense.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Okay. Then just one is good enough for me. We done?
Also, you typed a lot for nothing. You should cut your point down to just one sentence or 3 at the most. You can google everything you want on this. We agree on the premise. Everything else is a waste of time to discuss.
So, you tell me? How many illegal and unlicensed abortions is at a high enough ratio to legal abortions before you consider, "Well, okay...we need to get abortions made legal and regulated and fund contraceptives and education."?
Tell me where your douchebaggery ends and your kindness begins. My douchebaggery on this topic ends at the first trimester. After that, no abortions.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 25th, 2018 06:48 PM
Prevents lots of abortions. The more innocent lives that can be saved, the better.
