Birth control is not a matter of “luck”. Besides, I am assuming in your analogy that there was at least one bullet in those million chambers? If so, you cannot say you had no intent to kill if you knew that there is a bullet in there somewhere.
Classyladyhp. I realize you probable didn’t do this on purpose, but I need to remind you that it’s against the rules to change someone’s words within quote tags beyond fair use standards.
[QUOTE=Pit rules]
Quoting: do not alter words within quote tags beyond fair usage standards
Do not change quotes of other posters or off-board citations beyond fair usage standards. If you delete material, use either ellipses or descriptive tags (e.g., <snip>, [material deleted], etc.) to indicate you’ve done so. To add non-editorial explanatory material, use square brackets, which means things like [sic] or replacing a pronoun to make a partial quote clearer. If you add formatting for emphasis, please indicate you’ve done so, either in square brackets within the quote or immediately after the quote. Quote tags are for actual quotes only - don’t use them to paraphrase another’s argument or make a joke.
[/QUOTE]
No warning issued.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
Really? There’s a method of birth control that is 100% effective when used during intercourse? I mean, I know Sex Ed class for me was a generation and a half ago, but all the methods I’m aware of are generally evaluated at less than that.
Hmm, still seems to be current:
Yes, I forgot to add the detail that there was a bullet in the chamber. But you grasped the analogy in spite of my poor execution.
Yes, and I asked (at least twice) when was it ever a major issue in an election? In the top five? In the top ten? It was certainly less prominent in 2004 than gay marriage was. I was previously asking about national elections, but now I’m curious about state-level races, too. In the 1974 midterms, right after Roe, was abortion an issue? How about in 1976?
If the issue is this important and the laws are so ill-matched to the true feelings of Americans, surely there must be some sign of electoral discontent.
One in five. Is that “society as a whole” ? Those were your words. If this cite is your evidence, than your original claim is unproven since “society as a whole” does not seem especially concerned with the issue.
Well, if Americans aren’t willing to vote on these beliefs, then how serious are they about them?
Why do you think the court of 1973 affirmed Roe in the first place? Was it really such a shocking, misplaced, alien, SCREW-YOU-AMERICA decision? Some states, including the most populous states, had already legalized abortion to various degrees.
Well, I guess the next two or three decades of the John Roberts court will prove interesting. Of course, over that same timeframe, I guess hundreds of Canadian citizens will have their civil rights stripped from them… Anyway, if abortion is a major issue to American society “as a whole” I’d expect them to vote out Obama before he can appoint any more justices. Among the early Republican field, though and far as I know, only Rick Santorum is making abortion a major issue, and I don’t think it’s helping him.
At the beginning of quoted section, besides the user’s name, is a small blue and white icon that lets you link back to the source post. It would save time if you used it.
My multi-quote function is not working. I didn’t do it on purpose. Everytime I hit multi-quote and reply it’s all screwed up.
Yes and you can’t get pregnant without having sex. (Well you can with medical assistance but that’s not what we’re talking about here).
Don’t be silly, of course birth control fails occasionally. But there is a big difference between that and leaving it to luck as to whether or not a pregnancy occurs.
So you believe that people should only have sex when they intend to get pregnant?
I completely expect another of your “that didn’t prove anything and I still insist I’m right” responses to this. It’s like a compulsion or something isn’t it. But for the sake of other readers I’ll comment on the polls you provided and your why I think your take on the data is wrong.
your take as I understand it, is captured in this part of your post
I asked,
Your explanation
.
and
FTR; I never said unrestricted in the 1st trimester. I only noticed that the polls show consistently that Americans are much more accepting of abortions in the 1st trimester than the 2nd and even less in the third. That indicates to me they do see a difference between an embryo and a 3rd trimester fetus. It seems to me that if people actually supported only the strict limitations you claim, the numbers between trimesters would be closer.
with that foundation, let’s have a look. I mentioned before that you have to look at the information as a whole rather than just the bits that support the conclusion you prefer.
So in the link you offered we can see that the public still supports Roe v Wade being upheld by quite a margin but some of the polls do indicate the public wants abortion to be more limited. However if we go down to this question from your link
“Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?”
we see that the numbers for legal in in all cases and legal in most cases are consistently higher than illegal in all cases and illegal in most cases. That seems to contradict your conclusion. I’d say illegal in most cases fits the restrictions you say the populace wants, but it doesn’t have the highest numbers.
Look a little further down to this question
Left up to woman and their doctor consistently 20 points or more ahead of the rape incest and life, option that you insisted was what the data showed. For you to make your argument using that link and then ignore that data seems blatantly dishonest to me.
Your other polls have similar results. The data sometimes seems to contradict itself , as in yourLA Times link
so far that seems to support your conclusion but they follow it with
So the the populace seems to be able to understand the important difference and dividing line between their personal opinion about abortion, and the choice of the persons it is actually affecting, and come down on the side of choice. Allowing the doctor and woman to choose yes or no. That’s the pro choice position.
In the Gallup poll you used they said,
It also disagrees with your conclusion about how people support Roe v Wade if you look at it more closely. On page three the table at the bottom indicates support that specifically spells out anytime in the first 3 months, it gets support
In summary while polls in the last few years do show a shift toward a more conservative view and more restrictions , that doesn’t prove anything other than opinions change. Your conclusion certainly is a long way from clear given the poll data. I predict given the publicity given the recent wave of restrictive laws, the pro choice movement will be a little more aggressive in the coming months.
Finally, given your pattern , I don’t except you to agree, or concede a single point. You should know that your jr high pattern of insisting you’re correct no matter what is pretty unimpressive. If you want to continue any discussion plaese try to keep your posts concise.
Waaaahhh!!! It’s not my fault!! It’s this stupid old function I’m not smart enough to figure out.
Listen, kid, the mod was being gentle with you. The least you could have done was say “Sorry, it won’t happen again.”
Not really analogous. Wanting or working toward society being more responsible is a great thing, but we know it will take generations. In the meantime we have to deal with reality as best we can. We know that a large number of unexpected and unwanted pregnancies will occur every year. We face the question of how to handle them and the question of women’s right to choose concerning her own body, vs questionable fetal rights and how that affects society as a whole.
I didn’t say it did. Read the post again. It’s an undeniable scientific FACT, that a zygote and embryo is fully and uniquely human. To claim otherwise is to deny scientific fact, period. It’s not something you can form your own opinion on and argue.
If you want to keep the discussion accurate you need accurate terminology. That is all.
I personally have no problem calling a fetus a human. But then, it seems to me it fulfils those characteristics necessary for a parasite, too.
I suppose that’s the problem with trying to pick the most emotive terms possible.
Largely speaking, I would tend to assume that a human man and woman could create a non-human, or else evolution wouldn’t work. I guess that’s a problem of drawing a line, though.
Sorry I missed this before. It’s a matter of terminology. The term person, is dealing more with the legal aspects which is why I menti0oned fetal rights.
The issue isn’t clear and still under discussion, that’s one thing Roe v Wade decided , that the legal rights to protection under the law did not clearly extend to a human fetus. That doesn’t make it less human. A newborn certainly has all the rights of protection that an adult has.
What’s your secret? rimshot
(see, cause orgasming can be kind of hard for some ladies…so I want more info about how she manages it as a “natural consequence”…thanks you’ve been a great audience…please tip your waitress…)
It’s not just about emotive though. Is it possible some people prefer to think of a fetus as not yet human, because of that arguments emotive qualities?
The difference between human and A human is interesting as well. Then there’s the viability question and consciousness. It’s a complex issue. Still, scientifically, an embryo is fully and uniquely human, in one of the stages of development. The fetus stage is not less human than the infant or adult stage.
Sure, that’s true. I bring it up really only because i’ve had my potential corpse argument pooh-poohed by classyladyhp, and that’s an argument on which the emotive aspect is focused.
Well, in poundage terms, I guess it is.
Except for our ancient and cuddly cousins the Monotremes! They lay eggs like a reptile, fascinating!
The thing is, you can argue the scientific FACT either way. A fetus has the DNA of a human and has the potential to grow into a human. OTOH, I don’t think you are going to find too many people, and even scientists, who are going to call a five or six week old fetus a human.
For me, it hinges on that word potential and it’s close cousin, develop. If the fetus is going to develop into a baby, then it isn’t a baby now, is it?
A newborn is a human - it is no longer living in a parasitical manner and it is just one body, not two (usually). I wouldn’t have a problem with calling it a human fetus, but a real live honest to garsh human? No - DNA matches and potential to become something just don’t mean that it is that something.
Oh yeah, I forgot about platypuses. I didn’t know about the spiny anteaters - it looks like a hedgehog!
What exactly is the “it’s” you’re referring to? What you did was respond to an argument I never actually made, which is a repeating pattern with you.
You know what’s really funny. Is that you’re laughing and you still obviously don’t fucking get the very simple obvious point being made.
No, I haven’t done that, you’ve just once again missed the point and then pulled what you imagined my argument is out of your ass.
Was it an a childhood accident? Having 1/4 of a brain does explain the nature of your posts.
Look dipshit. #1.) you;re still arguing something you made up, because I never made a statement about people’s opinions mattering TO ME PERSONALLY.
#2.) You’re logic is fucked up. It’s obviously possible to take an argument or opinion into consideration, and still disagree and oppose it, even if it’s held by the majority. btw: I can’t obfuscate an argument I never made.
Is so {trying to find your level.}
When you claim to know my motives for posting or not posting , and all your conclusions are about you ridiculous ego, that’s mind reading bullshit.
That’s right, because I post as and when I please. One day I may have time and interest. Another day I may not. Your posts being so long convoluted didn’t help either. QUOTE] Both you and I know the reason you adamantly refuse to address either of those points is because you’re wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Actually it’s only your undeserved ego that knows that.
I’m sure that’s the lie you tell yourself. As I said, you’re not that unique for the SDMB. Seen it before.
I’ve seen plenty of posters who have taken formal logic and are still clueless about how to apply it. That’s who you remind me of. Someone who thinks they understand and apply it correctly, and is blind to how flawed thier thinking is.
Not only do you misrepresent what I actually said, you can’t seem to tell the difference between some evidence , and proof. 1.) I never said what you claimed in the last post. I’ll gladly acknowledge that your link is evidence that the moral issue was a factor. I never said it wasn’t. The link I provided said that there were other factors as well, including that doctors wanted to control the business and get rid of the competition from midwives and others. When you have two pieces of evidence you don’t just declare one proof and the other irrelevant.
. Just did on my schedule not on your demand. .
My arguments are consistent when posters respond to them rationally. The bullshit you call logical conclusions is a problem of your own making that you like to blame on others.
It doesn’t matter if you go away or not. Your posts will still be a self aggrandizing, jr high ego, pile of bad logic.
It might if I had any reason to value your opinion.
A smaller human is not less of a human.