In the year 2000, there were ~3,314 accidents per 100,000 drivers.
Hormonal birth control used by itself has an average failure rate between 300/100,000 and 8,000/100,000 per year.
Pretty close statistics for an off-the-cuff analogy, BEG. I’m impressed.
That’s fine but it doesn’t change the fact that in your gun analogy, the victim is always there regardless of outcome, but in protected sex the ostensible victim by definition doesn’t exist unless you have the comparatively rare negative outcome (AND they survive the miscarriage lottery).
The point of the analogy was to demonstrate that “I didn’t expect the outcome” doesn’t remove responsibility for the results.
I have zero issue with the “precautions failed, confirmed pregnancy, aborted in first trimester” case. I consider that the “no fault” zone.
hahhahahah!!!
True, but the relative risk of the outcome DOES matter in all kinds of situations, including legal ones (mostly centering around negligence).
And the vast majority of abortions that happen then will only increase if ostensible pro-lifers will bugger the hell off and keep their moralizing mitts off of birth control and sex ed. Fight the retards on your own side.
Please see the 12 scenarios listed in post #1710, bottom half.. Did you ever respond to them?
What, you’re inviting another round of the definition game, where you can say abortion is an important issue to the whole of society, but not a “major” issue (or maybe it is a major issue, but you never actually said the word “major”…)
If abortion a major issue or not? Was it ever a major issue or not?
Well, I’d already expanded my query to state races. It’s not important.
Okay, and how many races, at any level, were decided by abortion alone? I get that it’s generally presumed the Republican candidate will be opposed to abortion and the Democrat will be in favour of choice (of course, this can vary wildly) and some people might vote for the Republican on that basis alone (the Democrat too, I assume)… Was there ever a situation in the primaries where one Republican candidate beat out rivals for being “more” pro-life than they?
I dunno, just trying to evaluate the electoral impact of abortion. One of your cites says one in five Americans are influenced by it, which I’ll absolutely grant is significant, but it doesn’t quite get to the “whole of society” level.
Still not the “whole” of society, though. Even if you double that to two-in-five to hypothetically include voters who consider the abortion issue while voting.
Well, their remedy is a slower process (and I never said otherwise) of voting for and contributing to the most-pro-life candidates in the primaries, the most pro-life candidates in the elections for president and senator, and expressing support for the appointment of pro-life justices to re-evaluate or over-ride Roe. I guess right off the bat, Rick Santorum should have a minimum of 20% support, being the most pro-life Republican candidate thus far (as far as I know), but I guess we’ll see how it shakes out over the next few months.
Yes, I can read the wiki page, too.
You mean were invalidated? If not, I don’t understand this statement. Anyway, just for laughs, let’s look at the states where abortion was legal prior to Roe or legal with a “woman’s health” exception, which I figure means “legal if you can get a doctor to sign off on it.” That’s 19 states, represented on the “Abortion in the Unites States” wiki page’s map in yellow, green and blue. And now, just for laughs, I will compare that map to the electoral college 1976 map, which gives a rough indication of population distribution by state.
The 19 states, if I add right… 9+6+45+4+7+7+6+9+12+12+8+13+12+10+3+41+14+3+4 = 225, out of 528.
So, very roughly… 225/528 ~= 42% population lived in states who access to abortion was minimally affected by Roe (and that doesn’t even count women in the 31 other states who knew how to procure an abortion anyway). That sounds like more than enough for Roe to qualify as an idea whose time had come.
And of course, I cheerfully admit the statistical goofiness of the above. My point is that abortion rights wasn’t something American society “as a whole” didn’t want or wasn’t ready for, let alone crammed down their throats, as the saying goes. I know it’s popular to hold up Roe as an example of “activist judges” and such, but let’s be honest - American society didn’t crumble or warp because of Roe, nor did Roe represent a radical departure from what already existed in a significant part of the U.S.
So is abortion a “major” issue or not? Is it really that inappropriate for me (a strawman, as it were) to infer that “more important… than… gay marriage” qualifies as “major”?
Sure, and that’s okay - just that being a victim doesn’t automatically mean you get to win the conflict.
Sorry, I distracted her with my awesome zinger.
It’s a blessing and a curse.
Double that.
Exactly. All anti-abortion people care about are potential kids, not the real ones. Otherwise, how could you care so much about a pregnancy you didn’t create, yet so easily toss of all the kids (in the US, 1 in 4) living with hunger and other issues just because they aren’t yours?
You haven’t addressed posts I made to you days ago. I think it is more likely that you simply ignore what you can’t answer.
Yes, how can anti-abortionists claim so much desire to honor and protect potential humans when they have so little concern for actual already here humans?? It isn’t even just the women, tho they bear a greater burden - what about all the men forced into child support for 18 years, for a baby neither of the parents wanted?
As much as I’d like to believe that, I’m pretty sure she was distracted by her lack of a coherent argument for those scenarios. You know, based on her post history and all.
Just guessin’ really.
She’s never replied to any of my serious responses either.
I meant common people as opposed to scientists.
In this context, I don’t think so because we are dealing with what a majority views as human and apparently the majority doesn’t view a fetus as a human. The scientific community may want to view it as human due to DNA, but even they hedge their bets by using words like “potential” and “develop”.
Thanks - that’s a good one!
Another problem with looking at it scientifically is that technically, a fetus is human tissue that, yes, has the ability to become a human, but at the time it is still only tissue.
(GAHHHHH I just had to call United Healthcare and threaten them with nuclear death from the sky AGAIN!!! I’ve lost my train of thought…)
Oh yeah. It seems to me that those who are against abortion are giving the fetus (and earlier) a soul, so it isn’t an issue with them as to whether or not it is human, but that it has a soul. And according to them, an innocent soul, so it’s more valuable than the poor woman surrounding it. Which to me seems to be an obvious issue of allowing religious beliefs to dictate law.
Corporations can be considered as persons under the law?
The fetus has some rights, but it doesn’t have human rights any more than the anti cruelty laws for pets are human rights. (If I remember correctly…)
So there shouldn’t be any difficulty balancing the rights then? If nothing else, the woman is a thinking, feeling being and the fetus isn’t. Simply because it has the potential to become a human shouldn’t mean it has the right to force the woman to give up her lifestyle at the least or risk her life at worse, unless she wants to take that chance.
You’re asking the wrong person here - I have trouble viewing newborns as “real” humans! But I personally cannot see that it can be a human person until it is no longer acting as a parasite, even if the host is now dead. Yes, doctors should do everything in their power to save the unborn IF the mother is already dead, but not if she is still alive and doing so would endanger her life. Unless she wants them to, and even then, eh.
I have forgotten what legal definition I was looking for… :smack:
I’m willing to bet it’s easier for a 15-year-old South Dakotan girl to have a tooth pulled/a broken arm set/prescription for antibiotics than a prescription for birth control/an abortion. When you talk about “how rural people tend to want to shape their societies” you’re pretty much rephrasing what I just stated in less direct manner.
Here’s why South Dakota women are unable to get comprehensive reproductive medical care.
It’d be funny, too, if it weren’t so sad, that the restrictions don’t really do much to eliminate abortions, but instead punitively make it much more difficult on patients as they are driven across state lines to get the same care to which her metropolitan cousin has easy access.
For someone like you who prefers abortions take place in the first trimester, these restrictions should be appalling as tend to result in later term abortions, which further marginalizes the health and welfare of women:
These restrictions end up resulting in unwanted children and mothers who cannot afford to care for them which in turn ends up costing the community even more:
This is what I’m talking about when I say that while I respect your ideals, the reality is that there are, and will continue to be, women in need of abortion, for whatever reason, and the **only **effective way to significantly reduce (*not *eliminate; that is unrealistic) those abortions is by providing every woman with easy access to comprehensive and affordable reproduction medicine and education. And by ‘comprehensive’ I mean up to and including abortion as her doctor and she determines necessary and preferred.
When you seek to restrict reproductive rights, you’ll invariably find restrictions will end up way past what you may be comfortable with and well into into unreasonable, misogynistic territory.
And so oh, well, too bad, so sad, sucks to be her, shouldn’t have been born in a state where the legislators have no regard for the actual lives of women and girls? Throwing your hands up and saying “that’s the way it is” isn’t an answer. It’s not a solution to a considerable problem. It’s a fucking ridiculous cop-out, is what it is.
That’s not a feminist principle. The principle is quite simple: trust women to make our own decisions about our own lives without outside interference. Period.
It’s not trust women to dictate what other women should do. It’s not trust women to know better than you what course your life should take.
And yet, a Republican woman (the incredibly incompetent, wholly dishonest and purely hateful Virginia Foxx) introduced the bill and the whole spate of Republicans voted for it. The lives of women be damned.
And you blithely ignore the extremely restrictive laws South Dakota already on the books up until this year, which had limited access to one clinic on the far eastern border of the state, which if you’ve ever looked, is quite a big one. (Not unlike if the only abortion clinic in all of Texas was in Dallas.) And they’ve made it worse: right now, because of a clause in the new restrictions signed in the past few weeks, no woman can get an abortion in South Dakota at all. For any reason.
My “side” is roughly where abortion is now handled in public policy. Since it’s clear I don’t agree with the “life at conception crowd”, you’re getting pretty ridiculous.
And as long as people continue to try to push permissible abortions past the point where I consider the fetus enough of a person worth defending, I’ll keep doing so. I will also fight to extend reproductive health care and education to every corner of the country. I’ll oppose further restrictions before that point, and vehemently oppose end-around tactics like the defunding of training mentioned earlier.
So, AV, what do you think would happen if all abortion laws among the various U.S. states ceased to exist? Worst-case scenario. Just curious.
Seriously, do you think people have abortions past your personal comfort zone just because they were too lazy to get around to it? There have been plenty of cites in here showing that almost all later abortions are done because the fetus has some sort of devastating issue. Would you rather these be brought to term, perhaps risking the life of the woman, certainly costing quite a bit of money, only so the parents can watch it die and perhaps suffer as it does so?