Bill O'Reilly Blasts Planned Parenthood

Originally posted by Q99
Here's something else I want to point out: A lot of the time people have abortions because they're too young, or not in a good place to take care of a kid.

So they have an abortion well before it becomes a baby.... and then, a few years later, they have a baby that would not have existed if they didn't have an abortion.

There's huge numbers of people who are alive now because their parents had abortions.

The logic here is just so bad, I don't even know where to begin.

The "a lot of..." phrasing in your argument is just a way to excuse yourself from presenting any kind of statistical foundation or logical grounds to give this statement any kind of factual relevance.

Essentially "yeah, it happens somewhere out there I'm sure".

This has as much validity as me saying that "A lot of ppl who have abortions find having a second or third abortion easier so it may have actually killed a lot more unborn kids than it supposedly "allowed to live"."

Secondly, you're arguing POTENTIAL for life when it suits you (parents having abortions having the potential to have another kid).

Originally posted by Robtard
That logic probably doesn't make sense to you because you feel a fetus is a person from conception.

No, the logic doesn't make sense to me due to its poor logical foundation and its hypocritical nature (oh yeah potential matters when it suits the argument!).

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sure sure, I wonder if killing a dogs babies for no other reason then to do so is morally ok as well.

That comment was actually to Nib, you just posted before I did and it was just explaining the reason why he probably felt that way, not implying that he was wrong or right in his beliefs.

So maybe ease up with the bitterness?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
No, the logic doesn't make sense to me due to its poor logical foundation and its hypocritical nature (oh yeah potential matters when it suits the argument!).

Fair enough. But what was "hypocritical" in Q99's post?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sure sure, I wonder if killing a dogs babies for no other reason then to do so is morally ok as well.

Where does this "no reason" stuff come from?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The logic here is just so bad, I don't even know where to begin.

The "a lot of..." phrasing in your argument is just a way to excuse yourself from presenting any kind of statistical foundation or logical grounds to give this statement any kind of factual relevance.

Essentially "yeah, it happens somewhere out there I'm sure".

This has as much validity as me saying that "A lot of ppl who have abortions find having a second or third abortion easier so it may have actually killed a lot more unborn kids than it supposedly "allowed to live"."

Secondly, you're arguing POTENTIAL for life when it suits you (parents having abortions having the potential to have another kid).

You don't think some women regret having abortions, and have the baby for that alone? Or maybe they always wanted kids, and felt disappointed that they'd, in their view, needed the abortion so they could have more time to get in to a better place in life?

Originally posted by -Pr-
You don't think some women regret having abortions, and have the baby for that alone? Or maybe they always wanted kids, and felt disappointed that they'd, in their view, needed the abortion so they could have more time to get in to a better place in life?

Oh, I KNOW some women regret having abortions. I dated a girl who had one. Messed her up. She cried a lot over the child she could have had.

Not the point.

The entire line of his logic is meaningless. It is not supported by stats, and is phrased to not require any kind of supporting data, but of course it is a possibility that definitely happens in life just like anything else.

It just had as much logical relevance as saying "I like apples" and is hypocritical to boot (oh look! potential matters when it fits my argument!).

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Oh, I KNOW some women regret having abortions. I dated a girl who had one. Messed her up. She cried a lot over the child she could have had.

Not the point.

The entire line of his logic is meaningless. It is not supported by stats, and is phrased to not require any kind of supporting data, but of course it is a possibility that definitely happens in life just like anything else.

It just had as much logical relevance as saying "I like apples" and is hypocritical to boot (oh look! potential matters when it fits my argument!).

I genuinely feel like I missed something in q's post and your reply, tbh.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough. But what was "hypocritical" in Q99's post?

Because he argues strongly (in the past) against the concept of "potential" (with regards to life) but suddenly NOW seems to be using "potential" like it matters since it fits his position.

"There's huge numbers of people who are alive now because their parents had abortions."

HAHAHAHAHAAHAH WHAT THE ****!!?

Originally posted by -Pr-
I genuinely feel like I missed something in q's post and your reply, tbh.

Ok. Let me break it down.

Using his logic, a mother having children after her abortion is exercising the potential to have another child under potentially better conditions. Implying that this seems to have some sort of relevance in terms of the abortion argument when one is not directly causal of the other.

As if to imply that abortions actually did the next child a favor. And so it somehow cancels things out.

Using his logic and the flimsy requirement of proof it provided, I can easily say that it just as likely that a parent aborts the next child and the next due to circumstances not improving and it becoming easier to go thru the procedure.

Of course he uses the "a lot of..." phrasing to generalize the statement avoid presenting any kind of statistical data or logical foundation.

And I find it a bit hypocritical that he would discuss a parent's potential to have future children when he argues strongly for an actual living child's potential to live in order to suit an argument.

Edit. I really should step out of the GD forums. The way ppl here talk sometimes, it's like a black person reading a forum where people say the N-word over and over again and having himself defended. But it's ok, because this one fits the liberal narrative.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Ok. Let me break it down.

Using his logic, a mother having children after her abortion is exercising the potential to have another child under potentially better conditions. Implying that this seems to have some sort of relevance in terms of the abortion argument when one is not directly causal of the other.

As if to imply that abortions actually did the next child a favor. And so it somehow cancels things out.

Using his logic and the flimsy requirement of proof it provided, I can easily say that it just as likely that a parent aborts the next child and the next due to circumstances not improving and it becoming easier to go thru the procedure.

Of course he uses the "a lot of..." phrasing to generalize the statement avoid presenting any kind of statistical data or logical foundation.

And I find it a bit hypocritical that he would discuss a parent's potential to have future children when he argues strongly for an actual living child's potential to live in order to suit an argument.

Edit. I really should step out of the GD forums. The way ppl here talk sometimes, it's like a black person reading a forum where people say the N-word over and over again and having himself defended. But it's ok, because this one fits the liberal narrative.

Oh that.

No, I was purely agreeing with the whole "women who have them in cases are more likely to have them later" part. Wasn't arguing numbers or anything like that.

Btw, to clarify, I honestly can't comment on the whole liberal thing, as I only have a vague idea of what that means.

Still cant get over this:

"There's huge numbers of people who are alive now because their parents had abortions."

Shocking but not exactly shocked from who it came from.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Oh that.

No, I was purely agreeing with the whole "women who have them in cases are more likely to have them later" part. Wasn't arguing numbers or anything like that.

Btw, to clarify, I honestly can't comment on the whole liberal thing, as I only have a vague idea of what that means.

It was a meaningless baseless (IMO hypocritical) hypothetical speculation that shouldn't even be given any weight in these discussions, IMO. Like I said, it had no factual foundation other than it "most likely does happen" (but the opposite is just as likely to be true).

Pardon me, last statement slipped out.

I really need to take a break from this place. Some of the statements, are just..... aggravating to read.

That is probably why I never argue with TI/Star even tho I don't agree with much of what they says a lot of times (no offense bros).

They provides a counterbalance of sorts. Many might find what they say offensive, but the same "many" can't seem to grasp that the things they say are just as bad, if not worse, to the other side listening (well, reading) in (even the moderate side of it).

But of course, many are blind to anything outside of what they consider should be.

Originally posted by Nibedicus

Secondly, you're arguing POTENTIAL for life when it suits you (parents having abortions having the potential to have another kid).

I'm using it as an example- I don't believe that potential is a good guide, but if someone wants to use it as a criteria? I'll examine it out the full way.

Using his logic, a mother having children after her abortion is exercising the potential to have another child under potentially better conditions. Implying that this seems to have some sort of relevance in terms of the abortion argument when one is not directly causal of the other.

It certainly is casual. Whether one has a prior child affects the decision to have a child, whether one feels one can take care of a child does, all of that is commonly tied to the decision.

As if to imply that abortions actually did the next child a favor. And so it somehow cancels things out.

It causes the next child's existence. If you're arguing 'stuff done to a potential not-yet-existent child,' then it must be applied consistently on the timeline.

And if you're arguing 'potential'... well, potential now vs potential later.

"Potential counts now but long term potential doesn't," is a criteria I find even less convincing than simple potential.

Of course he uses the "a lot of..." phrasing to generalize the statement avoid presenting any kind of statistical data or logical foundation.

Statistical data? Rather hard since we can't exactly compare timelines, but we do know common reasons for abortions.

"I've had one abortion, why not more?" is... not exactly a real life reason you'll encounter.

"Right now I'm poor, I'm working, I cannot pay for or take care of a child," is a common one, and one that by nature changes if their situation improves.

Though, researching, I did discover something interesting- An even more common reason for abortion is to protect kids they already have. Which both illustrates 'quality of life for children' factors in to decision, but is interesting in that it's weighing the potential vs the quality of life of one or more children that already exist when the mother doesn't think she's in a position to take care of more.

Basically, I'm just piling on reasons here. The number one reason is, hey, people have a right to control their own bodies.

Potential is a double-edge sword argument that doesn't work out the way many who use it think, so I bring up the issues with that too.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It was a meaningless baseless (IMO hypocritical) hypothetical speculation that shouldn't even be given any weight in these discussions, IMO. Like I said, it had no factual foundation other than it "most likely does happen" (but the opposite is just as likely to be true).

Pardon me, last statement slipped out.

I really need to take a break from this place. Some of the statements, are just..... aggravating to read.

That is probably why I never argue with TI/Star even tho I don't agree with much of what they says a lot of times (no offense bros).

They provides a counterbalance of sorts. Many might find what they say offensive, but the same "many" can't seem to grasp that the things they say are just as bad, if not worse, to the other side listening (well, reading) in (even the moderate side of it).

But of course, many are blind to anything outside of what they consider should be.

I do see your point, and it's not so rare that even I throw my hands up and just go elsewhere on the forum due to some of the things people say.

It doesn't help when I'm somewhat in the middle on a lot of arguments, either. As in, i'm not always specifically on one side, I mean, not that i'm the centre of anything.

Originally posted by Q99
I'm using it as an example- I don't believe that potential is a good guide, but if someone wants to use it as a criteria? I'll examine it out the full way.

It certainly is casual. Whether one has a prior child affects the decision to have a child, whether one feels one can take care of a child does, all of that is commonly tied to the decision.

It causes the next child's existence. If you're arguing 'stuff done to a potential not-yet-existent child,' then it must be applied consistently on the timeline.

And if you're arguing 'potential'... well, potential now vs potential later.

"Potential counts now but long term potential doesn't," is a criteria I find even less convincing than simple potential.

Statistical data? Rather hard since we can't exactly compare timelines, but we do know common reasons for abortions.

"I've had one abortion, why not more?" is... not exactly a real life reason you'll encounter.

"Right now I'm poor, I'm working, I cannot pay for or take care of a child," is a common one, and one that by nature changes if their situation improves.

Though, researching, I did discover something interesting- An even more common reason for abortion is to protect kids they already have. Which both illustrates 'quality of life for children' factors in to decision, but is interesting in that it's weighing the potential vs the quality of life of one or more children that already exist when the mother doesn't think she's in a position to take care of more.

Basically, I'm just piling on reasons here. The number one reason is, hey, people have a right to control their own bodies.

Potential is a double-edge sword argument that doesn't work out the way many who use it think, so I bring up the issues with that too.

No, you "examined" it only when it fits your argument. Use it or do not, let's not be hypocrites here.

Everything can be "tied" to just about every decision. It's a factor, not a cause. And without stats, you're literally just speculating. There is as much chance for the reverse to be true (having an abortion made them not want to have any more "potential" children, thus removing the "potential" for future life) as the other. You're grasping at straws.

Either you accept "potential" as a line of logical argument, or you do not. I will not discuss things when you obviously have a double standard.

Neither is "Yes! that abortion saved my little baby's life by making him live!". I simply created an absurd statement to counterbalance your absurd statement.

I know that economics factor strongly on decisions to abort. That is obvious. What you don't seem to understand that the abortion a) does not guarantee that their situation improves, it might -possibly- make it less likely it would get worse. And b) does not guarantee in any way that they will have another kid. You need to differentiate between definites and possibilities as much as you need to differentiate between direct causaility and influencing factors.

Essentially, you are grasping at straws to try and make a point.

Your link went 404 on me.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It was a meaningless baseless (IMO hypocritical) hypothetical speculation that shouldn't even be given any weight in these discussions, IMO. Like I said, it had no factual foundation other than it "most likely does happen" (but the opposite is just as likely to be true).

Pardon me, last statement slipped out.

I really need to take a break from this place. Some of the statements, are just..... aggravating to read.

That is probably why I never argue with TI/Star even tho I don't agree with much of what they says a lot of times (no offense bros).

They provides a counterbalance of sorts. Many might find what they say offensive, but the same "many" can't seem to grasp that the things they say are just as bad, if not worse, to the other side listening (well, reading) in (even the moderate side of it).

But of course, many are blind to anything outside of what they consider should be.

I like the way you post, and I know you are a genuine poster and would happy to debate or engage conversation with you any time, if something of mine gets your attention, post a response and I promise it will be a civil conversation.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I like the way you post, and I know you are a genuine poster and would happy to debate or engage conversation with you any time, if something of mine gets your attention, post a response and I promise it will be a civil conversation.

Aiyt, man. Thanks.

👆

Originally posted by Nibedicus
No, you "examined" it only when it fits your argument. Use it or do not, let's not be hypocrites here.

Isn't examining approaches that other people use in an argument normal and, indeed, a positive way to debate?

You can entertain a thought without holding it to be true. Heck, sometimes one starts out that way and then embraces a concept. I know I've changed my mind on some things after starting with just academically considering a concept.

Everything can be "tied" to just about every decision. It's a factor, not a cause.

How can something be a factor without being a cause?

And without stats, you're literally just speculating. There is as much chance for the reverse to be true (having an abortion made them not want to have any more "potential" children, thus removing the "potential" for future life) as the other. You're grasping at straws.

I am speculating, but it's something I don't know how you'd stat, and I do find the idea that there'd be 'as much of a chance' to be unlikely, since many of the reasons for having abortions in the first place are temporary in nature.

Though I will note, if someone just doesn't want to have kids? That is allowed, it is fine that they do that.

Either you accept "potential" as a line of logical argument, or you do not. I will not discuss things when you obviously have a double standard.

It is a line of argument I can understand, and point out what I view as issues with it.

And, conversely, I would encourage you to respond on the matters I present even if you don't use them as your primary judgements. That's no double standard- a double standard is using one criteria for one side of the argument, a different one for the other, not examining multiple criteria.

Neither is "Yes! that abortion saved my little baby's life by making him live!". I simply created an absurd statement to counterbalance your absurd statement.

The thing is, "If I hadn't had that abortion, I wouldn't have had (X kid) later," is a real, non-absurd statement, you're just phrasing it in an absurd way.

It's factually accurate, even if oddly phrased.

I know that economics factor strongly on decisions to abort. That is obvious. What you don't seem to understand that the abortion a) does not guarantee that their situation improves, it might -possibly- make it less likely it would get worse.

It doesn't guarantee it, but it more than 'possibly' makes it less likely, raising a kid is an expensive thing, having a full term pregnancy involves missed work and recovery- even if isn't successful and there's often longer term health effects. There's much higher medical costs.

And b) does not guarantee in any way that they will have another kid.

Agreed.

You need to differentiate between definites and possibilities as much as you need to differentiate between direct causaility and influencing factors.

If we're talking 'potential,' we are automatically talking possibilities, there are no definites.

Not having an abortion does not guarantee having a kid. Having one definitely lowers the odds of having a kid several months down the road, but how it affects the odds in total is much harder to tell. Having one kid later on is quite likely. Having more kids because they are in a situation where they can have more than one *with* high quality of life is possible. Sometimes women die during pregnancy, and having an abortion of a medically iffy pregnancy opens up the possibility of recovering and then having one or more further ones- but at bare minimum being alive themselves, and yes, getting rid of planned parenthood and abortion clinics would result in the elimination of abortions for medically dangerous pregnancies too. Women die from not getting properly performed abortions.

There's a whole lot of unknowns in there, and that brings us to a point- having an abortion affects the probability of having a kid in significantly different ways for different people. It's not a consistent lowering of potential. Sometimes the probabilities are about even, sometimes it results in fewer children, sometimes more, and the number of living women is also affected.

If one is arguing based on potential, what's the answer to the wildly divergent probabilities?

Essentially, you are grasping at straws to try and make a point.

Not so much, I'm engaging as what I see as the logical consequences of a commonly presented argument.

And IMO, we're having a productive back-and-forth on it.

Your link went 404 on me.

Lemme try again, I think I hit a space in it or something, so just raw link this time...

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/10/most_surprising_abortion_statistic_the_majority_of_women_who_ter.html

Originally posted by Q99
1) Isn't examining approaches that other people use in an argument normal and, indeed, a positive way to debate?

You can entertain a thought without holding it.

2) How can something be a factor without being a cause?

3) I am speculating, but it's something I don't know how you'd stat, and I do find the idea that there'd be 'as much of a chance' to be unlikely, since many of the reasons for having abortions in the first place are temporary in nature.

Though I will note, if someone just doesn't want to have kids? That is allowed, it is fine that they do that.

4) It is a line of argument I can understand, and point out what I view as issues with it.

And, conversely, I would encourage you to respond on the matters I present even if you don't use them as your primary judgements. That's no double standard- a double standard is using one criteria for one side of the argument, a different one for the other, not examining multiple criteria.

5) The thing is, "If I hadn't had that abortion, I wouldn't have had (X kid) later," is a real, non-absurd statement, you're just phrasing it in an absurd way.

It's factually accurate, even if oddly phrased.

6) It doesn't guarantee it, but it more than 'possibly' makes it less likely, raising a kid is an expensive thing, having a full term pregnancy involves missed work and recovery- even if isn't successful and there's often longer term health effects. There's much higher medical costs.

7) Agreed.

8) If we're talking 'potential,' we are automatically talking possibilities, there are no definites.

9) Not having an abortion does not guarantee having a kid. Having one definitely lowers the odds of having a kid several months down the road, but how it affects the odds in total is much harder to tell.

10) Having one kid later on is quite likely. Having more kids because they are in a situation where they can have more than one *with* high quality of life is possible. Sometimes women die during pregnancy, and having an abortion of a medically iffy pregnancy opens up the possibility of recovering and then having one or more further ones- but at bare minimum being alive themselves, and yes, getting rid of planned parenthood and abortion clinics would result in the elimination of abortions for medically dangerous pregnancies too. Women die from not getting properly performed abortions.

11) There's a whole lot of unknowns in there, and that brings us to a point- having an abortion affects the probability of having a kid in significantly different ways for different people. It's not a consistent lowering of potential. Sometimes the probabilities are about even, sometimes it results in fewer children, sometimes more, and the number of living women is also affected.

12) If one is arguing based on potential, what's the answer to the wildly divergent probabilities?

13) Not so much, I'm engaging as what I see as the logical consequences of a commonly presented argument.

And IMO, we're having a productive back-and-forth on it.

Lemme try again, I think I hit a space in it or something, so just raw link this time...

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/10/most_surprising_abortion_statistic_the_majority_of_women_who_ter.html

1) You are well within your rights to make absurd (albeit offensive and hyporcitical) comments, sure. Just as I am within my rights to call it out for being absurd (as well as offensive and hypocritical).

2) Direct causality implies a -direct- cause and effect interaction. A factor simply influences. I bought the car because I need to ride to work vs. I heard my coworker mention the Toyota is a nice car.

3) And I can disagree with you and state that "many reasons are not temporary" (especially since economic conditions can worsen, ppl age and die and relationships break up). And since you're speculating, we'd be in the same position proof-wise (except I'm not the one pushing an absurd line of thought).

4) You claim that potential is irrelevant/unimportant in one argument for right of life and claim that it is for another. Again, you either do or you do not. A fetus' potential to become a child has far more relevance, as there actually a direct causality in "fetus->child" rather than there is in "non-worsening economic conditions->child" (I mean it's not even comparable). And yet one "saves life" and the other is just not even considered life. You say you try to understand on side of the argument yet throwing out a line of thought that runs completely counter to what you've stated in the past (saying that now potential has value in life arguments). Sounds like double standards to me.

5) Anything is possible. Scenario most likely happens IRL as well. But it is a scenario that does not meet the logic implication of what you are trying to communicate (that abortion somehow "saves lives", even typing that disgusts me.) Ever hear of the "everyone should have a gun argument? Or "guns save lives, arm everyone to protect from terrorists!" from the NRA? Yours is worse. Much worse. Whatever you feel towards what the NRA is implying, that is how I feel about what you're saying. Or maybe you agree with the NRA, I dunno. In case you do, I'll have to find another absurd logical inference.

6) None of which has a direct causal link to them having kids in the future. Nor does it prove that continuing would have prevented them from having another kid in the future (while just having to wait a little longer) or not. What you did was simply speculate on maybes, couldas and shouldas.

7) Ok.

8) There are different kinds of "potential". One are remote possibilities (your scenario). The other are almost definites/most likely's with direct causalities that are simply time-sensitive (fetus->child). The obvious difference is likelihood.

9) Which is why what you said is worthless speculation. A bit offensive, too. Kind of like someone going "hey we went and killed 10,000 Arab Muslims, that's 10,000 less Arabs that'll become terrorist". It might not sound that way to you, but it sure sounds that way to me. Let that sink in for a second.

10) It is NOT -likely-. It -improves- the chances for them to so IF they decided to have another child in the first place but there are far more factors decided upon than economics when having the child (career, health, family interaction, health of relationships, preference for smaller families, etc). I mean, what the heck are you even talking about??

You know all those POOR families having tons of kids? You think they considered their economics STRONGLY before having MORE kids? And all those mid-income or well-off families having fewer kids?

Economic situation as a factor for having more kids is more likely the reverse of what you think.

11) Which makes your entire line of thought irrelevant. You're basically just saying "anything is possible". Well.... DUH.

12) The answer is likelihood. Which can be supported by stats.

13) I would prefer that you state what you say with a little bit more sensitivity of our side of the argument. You need to understand that we think and feel that the "fetus" is an innocent human being and state your arguments with that in mind. In which case we can have the productive discussion you want to have.

14) Still 404. Maybe cut/paste?