You really seem to be hung up on not understanding how this works. Either that or you simply refuse to accept that people have a right to control what happens to their own bodies. I’m not sure which it is, but at this point it’s starting to look exceedingly disingenuous.
Heck, I’m curious why it’s always him that gets to do the murder, rape and enslaving. It’s never him who’s getting murdered, raped or enslaved. Sooner or later, I’ll ask him if it’s important to him not to get murdered, raped or enslaved and if so, why.
Smallpox! Though we don’t even vaccinate for that anymore.
If Omg a Black Conservative and Finn ever get into a knock-down drag-out, what are the odds of their terminally crashing the board with dueling thermonuclear posts?
I asked him about enslavement and it was skipped.
As near I can figure, in his world all citizens are enslaved by the government, unable to make a move without legal permission.
Only if the law adheres to a certain moral standard.
So, you’re not paralyzed by his piercing logic , and left in a quivering mass of surrender? Whew, that was a close one.
You might want to re-read what I wrote out, since you’ll see I specifically said that you were different than most pro-choicers.
So you’re saying it’s better to be dead than it is to be born to parents who don’t want you? How many people born to parents who didn’t want them have you talked to? Not many, apparently.
So you’re back to the woman’s convenience trumping the life of the unborn. The weight you provide the woman is inifinitely greater than that which you provide the unborn, which leads to a situation where the woman’s whims always take precedence over the life of the unborn.
I have been arguing them, even going so far as to ask you to provide some kind of factual evidence which would give credence to your claims, which you haven’t.
Yet it’s not so different to preclude from arguing that a pregnant woman shouldn’t have to “give up” her body to the unborn because no one born can demand the same of a woman?
Or not. Go back through this thread and show me what argument by a pro-choicer I’ve ignored. You’ll find that I’ve been quite astute in answering them all ^^
Yet it is a good enough reason to ban murder. That begs the question, then, as to why abortion isn’t murder. The only argument you like to use won’t work in this instance, because murder is not defined based on the location of the one killed.
Yes, there is. Either (1) you ban abortion, in which case both parties are held to equal standards or (2) you let a man opt out of potential fatherhood during pregnancy. Both situations result in equality between both the man and the woman, though I’ve a sneaky suspicion neither one is all that palatable to you.
It’s called adoption.
No, it’s anything but a pointless quibble, anymore than letting someone naturally die and artificially ending their life are pointlessly quibbling. And, yes, I’m ignoring you being obtuse.
And why only “in this very specific circumstance” instead of all circumstances?
Since voting is a legal right, I doubt Jefferson would hold anyone in contempt who said that one only has the right to vote because the government says so.
(Continued and stuff…)
It wasn’t Republicans, as no Republican voted for HCR. It was Democrats 
But how would the FAIA know that the state isn’t acting in its own accord, as it only has a budget of $5 and therefore can’t police the states.
It seems to me you’ve tried to construct an scenrio which is impossible based on all the little criteria you’ve got set up.
I mean the woman, though if the fetus survives the abortion (which you apparently don’t believes happens) and (s)he kills it, (s)he can also go to jail for that.
And what negative results? You see, I continue to ask you this question, and you continue to tell me the negative results you think will happen. But that doesn’t work, because you’re making those assumptions in the face of evidence to the contrary. I can clearly point out the positives in banning abortion; you can only list what you think would be the negatives should abortion be banned, even though you can provide no evidence which would lead one to believe your assertions.Forget what you think might happen if we ban abortion. I want you to show me some study, or evidence based on the past, which would give credence to your assertions. Much the same way I can find multiple studies which document the positive effects banning abortion would have (i.e., higher contraceptive use, a lower unintended pregnancy rate, a lower abortion rate, a higher rate of adoption and lower incidence of STD’s), you should be able to find multiple studies which document the ill effects of making abortion illegal. I eagerly await seeing what you come up with.
Which is why NYC is the shining beacon of American society, what with their low unintended pregnancy rate, their low abortion rates, and their low STD rate.
…Oh wait…
No, they can’t, precisely because changes in abortion law are followed by a change in sexual behavior. This is a simple fact borne out of evidence, and as fact which my previous links attest to. You don’t have to like it, but it is what it is.
No. It means that the U.S. has a more open debate regarding abortion than do most other industrialized countries. Over the past twenty or so years, religion has actually weakened as a predictor of abortion attitudes, yet anti-abortion sentiment continues to rise, mainly because pro-lifers are far more effective at shaping the debate than their pro-choice counterparts. Debate between pro-lifers and pro-choicers doesn’t bode well for pro-choicers. That’s not hubris, it’s just a fact.
When you start talking about “bodily autonomy”, especially it being absolute, you discredit the existence of the unborn.
But how can an action be rationalized by the individual engaging in that action?
As you’d see if you were reading my responses, you’ll see I’m perfectly content to concede that making abortions illegal won’t reduce their instance to zero and that some women will abort illegally (if I could be bothered, I’d find the actual post but it’s way back long ago, and I don’t feel like meandering through a few thousand posts to find it). But no, apparently you’re not aware of it, otherwise you wouldn’t have accused me of being facetious, since it’s a major arguing point for pro-choicers in, well… I’d say most every country.
What the…? That’s not even close to what I said, which was that having children is typically an impetus that causes women to better themselves. There was a study done on this a while ago. I’ll find it for you later, though I’ll doubt it’ll be read just like 99% of the other studies I’ve linked to.
Yes, you brought up someone in South Dakota murdering an OB/GYN; not me. I don’t see why you’d get all queasy about it now, after the fact.
And just for shit’s and giggle’s… I think the same way I’d rather not have been aborted, I’d rather not have been enslavd, murdered or raped (unless it’s by a chick and she’s smokin’ hot).
[QUOTE=margin]
If your screen name is any way accurate and you’re American, then you’re in favor of slavery for women, where your ancestors—the women that is----were once treated exactly as you want to treat women now.
[/quote]
Is that so? I’d be willing to bet that you’d rather be made to carry a pregnancy to term (9 months) than to be made a slave for life.
Anyway, if I might, I would just like to say that what you wrote out… Was fucking stupid. You think that holding someone responsible for their actions is equatable to forcing someone into a situation from which they cannot escape based on the fact that they’re deemed to be ‘inferior’ to another? If we’re going to make slavery comparisons, then it would be more apt to compare abortion to slavery since, in both cases, one group is stripped of rights held by all other humans (a human undeserving of human rights is a funny notion).
Except, and get this, they don’t have that right.
Do you know what will happen if I sit on the side of the street and hold up a big sign which says “Will exchange sex for money!”? I’ll get picked up by the cops and shipped off to jail. Do you know what will happen if I sit on the side of the street snorting coke? I’ll get picked up by the cops and shipped off to jail. Do you know what will happen if I try to pay someone to beat me up? They’ll go to jail for assault and I’ll probably be shipped off to a mental ward.
The fact is that, contrary to whatever line you want to give, people don’t have the right to control what happens to their own bodies. I’ve constantly asked of people who make this claim to show me what country they live in where people are able to do whatever they please with and to your bodies but, unsurprisingly enough, no one can show me such a country, on account of them not existing. Whenever you feel like leaving your fantasy world and entering the real one, let me know.
Disingenuous would be making a statements which are so false one would have to wonder the mental statement of those looking to make them. Disingenuous would be making a statement which is proven false by a two second look at the law of any country. Disinengenuous would be you. Now proceed to ignore this.
“Specific instances” and “between a women and her doctor” are no more opposites than are ‘always’ and ‘pizza’, for the first doesn’t preclude the latter. This is why I asked you what between a woman and her doctor meant and what instances those entails. Obviously, it’s a hard question for you, since you seem unwilling to delve into it.
Look. Do you really not read what I type out? I could quote myself again, but I figure why bother? You would assume that “between a woman and her doctor” is the “liberal” position, but when asked what “between a woman and her doctor” entails, you either refuse to look at the situations in which Americans would leave the decision to have an abortion “between a woman and her doctor” (since it wouldn’t be always) or to concede the point I’ve been making-- that “between a woman and her doctor” is a nebulous statement, and that we need to look at the specific instances which that entails.
No, it’s not. I don’t know how to make it any simpler for you. I could try using one syllable words, but that’d be pretty damn hard.
Except I didn’t ignore anything. Okay. Wait. I got it. Let me try it another way. This is what the LA Times poll said:
To your credit, you acknowledged this. You then go on to quote this:
Which you’ve thusly used that as the basis for your argument, arguing that when faced with “between a woman and her doctor” and certain specific instances, they choose “between a woman and her doctor”. I asked you how you figured, as the two weren’t compared and that the latter poll is a general sentiment, which doesn’t make the first false. You then tried arguing something about “people viewing the legality and morality of abortion” to be different, to which I pointed out this was untrue. So where’s the argument?
The answer is that you have none. The only kind of argument you have is taken from the other poll, in which 46% said abortion should be between a woman and her doctor, 40% said it should be restricted to rape, incest and maternal health and another 10% said it shouldn’t be permitted. Of course, I pointed out that this doesn’t lead to unrestricted first trimester abortions because no group has a majority, and as a result where the first two groups aggregate to be larger than the third group, abortions would be legal, and where the latter two groups aggregated to be larger than the first, they would be illegal. You ignored this, though, which puts us at this point.
I really have no idea what you’re trying to argue, but you have no argument.
facepalm
I mean, really. Really? REALLY?!?!?! Can you not read data? The only poll which put “between a woman and her doctor” against “specific instances”, which I originally posted, doesn’t give credence to your assertion.
…Yes. That’s what I said.
No, you wouldn’t. It was asked “in general” (more below).
Quite possibly because, as you said, the further out you go the less approving people get of abortions, regardless of their reasons. Now, with that being said, I made the mistake of trying to break down views on abortion by trimester into hard categories, which I shouldn’t have done, as I noticed the question was speaking about in general (as contrasted to the above which was concerning specific circumstances), and didn’t take into account possible circumstances surrounding an abortion in those situations (as evidenced by the fact that just about 14% of individuals would even consider allowing an abortion during the 3rd trimester).
In this case, where you can provide no evidence to the contrary and every poll ever dealing with the case has consistently arrived at the same conclusion, I’m going to go out on a not so limb here and say they’re totally proof. It’s odd you keep calling polls dubious, when I’m only interested in polls which ask respondents whether abortion should be legal or illegal in specific cases (which are hard to call dubious), while you are interested in polls which break down the numbers by undefined parameters. I mean, really. :smack:
Uh-huh. Can’t say I’m not giddy with excitement.
Raises hand I was an unplanned pregnancy, born to a father who didn’t want me and more or less resented me the whole time I lived with him. It took me decades to get over this, and in some ways I’m still not, at 53 years of age. Yes, it would have been FAR better for me to have not been born then (as opposed to “dead”), as well as better for my parents and the brothers that came after me, but my mother was an idiot.
Once again, being pregnant is not an inconvenience - it can be life threatening, or “merely” mess up the health of the woman for life. Even the “easiest” pregnancies carry risks and health issues. Once again, you will never be able to prove that even .0001% of abortions are done on a whim, whereas we have been able to prove that almost all are being done for concrete reasons. Once again, a fetus is not alive, certainly not in the sense the woman is, so her life, yes, takes precedence over the potential life of a fetus.
Pregnancy & delivery cost a lot of money you know, and also tend to interfere with being able to go to work/school.
<major snippage>
There IS no distinction. As long as the fetus is inside of the woman, it has no legal “body”.
<more snippage of irrelevant stuff>
Well, that’s not true. It doesn’t matter if the trespasser is there of his own volition or not, I have a right to remove him from my house if I see fit.
<yet more snippage>
A fetus isn’t an individual. If it was, you’d be hard pressed to not charge a woman who involuntarily miscarries with manslaughter.
Almost all of mine. I’ve chosen to believe it is because you have no answer for my witty and highly intelligent posts…
I’ve reread it several times, and I keep coming to the conclusion that you’re saying “You’re different from other members of group X, who believe Y”. Since I also believe Y (and have said so several times), your observation is incorrect.
Even if I was friends with hundreds of them, this doesn’t move me. You can skip further attempts at emotional appeal.
I dunno about “infinitely” (it is remotely possible under very specific and unlikely circumstances I would adjust my priorities), but yes.
I’ve no problem with her giving up the child for adoption, if she chooses to see the pregnancy through. I understand this is not uncommon. I see no reason she need be deprived of that choice.
I’m not sure (2) counts as “indisputable”, but I’ll stipulate it for the moment.
I’d hesitantly agree with (A), pending some clarification about drug legalization (i.e. though I favour drug legalization in principle, I recognize the various harms caused by, say, crystal meth).
But (B) is way off. Your example doesn’t describe something one does with one’s body, but something one does with someone else’s body. And before this inevitably prompts another “but the fetus has a body” objection, I’ve explained that I view pregnancy as an unique and exceptional circumstance. You can choose not to recognize it as such, as is your right, and thus we have an impasse.
I figure you only added the caveat (and it’s such an improbable unlikely caveat, at that) to avoid answering the question because you can see where it leads - if someone has the right to remove someone from their house, surely a greater justification exists to remove someone from their body.
So, no, you didn’t answer the question. I will assume, however, that your answer is “yes”, because you have to go to such lengths to seek out a way to say “no”.
I don’t care if pro-choicers assume this of pro-lifers. I am assuming it of you. At best, I figure you’re pretending not to know how trying pregnancy can be, shrugging it off as a mere matter of convenience, because it lets you continue to tell yourself that banning abortion will harm no-one.
Indeed it is. So?
When you first asked that question, I honestly thought you were kidding. So there really are people who have survived an abortion? Huh, go figure.
I still don’t see why this gives them any special insight into the issue. I’d rather consider the opinions of social workers, medical doctors, and statisticians and the like who’ve can observe and study the issue dispassionately.
Besides, what if one of those survivors eventually has an abortion of her own or makes a pro-choice statement? How much weight would you give it?
You can get any or all of those without banning abortion, but let’s assume banning abortion does get you most or all of these. It’s a short-term solution, surely.
If I was in a him-or-me, life-or-death situation? I’d kill the other person to survive if I had to. I presume he would do the same to me. So let’s be sporting about it - the mother can kill the fetus and the fetus can kill the mother. Go! I’ll bet on the mother, frankly.
My claims always recognize the particular circumstances that distinguish abortion. Your constant omission of this recognition doesn’t serve your argument. In fact, every time you try to reframe my argument without recognizing this distinction, I figure you have not reframed my argument in a honest and complete manner, so I decline to play along with the pretense that you have found flaws in an argument that you can’t even restate accurately.
This has to be a willful misunderstanding on your part. Other possibilities are even less flattering.
Well, if a born person says to a woman “I need to be hooked up to your body for the next nine months”, she can tell them to get lost. She doesn’t have such an easy option with a fetus, but she can choose to abort. In a free society, anyway.
You haven’t answered some of my arguments, so I’m not going to bother looking for unanswered arguments of others.
Well, go ahead and try to argue that it is, and see where that takes you. I know you’d get some fervent and instant agreement from one segment of the population. I can only hope the other segment is rational enough to keep you in check.
Well, option (1) is ridiculous (almost spiteful, actually), and I can vaguely see some justification for (2), though in practice when fathers doesn’t want to support their children, they just… don’t do it. I understand successful pursuing a so-called “deadbeat dad” in court has no guarantees.
So, you’re right, neither option is palatable. I could vaguely live with the second if the father couldn’t sign off unilaterally, i.e. he gets to abandon parental responsibility if the mother agrees to let him… In any case, this kind of situation argues that abortion must remain legal. Heck, in the stats you’ve cited, some significant number of women said they were aborting because they lacked support from husbands/boyfriends. This “men’s rights” approach undercuts the argument for an abortion ban, not abortion legalization. I invite you keep on making it. Think up as many variations as you want.
And I don’t see why we can’t have adoption and abortion, nor why we should sacrifice the latter to give a boost to the former. What happens after a few years when the backlog of adoption-seekers get cleared and the rate of unwanted pregnancies continue (even assuming that this rate is lower than before the ban)?
How many potential adoptive families are there in the U.S., anyway?
If you get to define abortion as not natural, I get to define other medical interventions (and indeed any product of 20th- and 21st-century science and technology) as similarly not natural. Fair is fair. Heck, abortion predates the 20th-century, by a considerable margin.
Because allowing it in all circumstances leads to anarchy, while allowing it in abortion does not. Or at least it never has.
I seem to recall the American Revolution (in which Jefferson played some minor supporting role) being about throwing off a government that didn’t represent its people. Hmmm…
I’m tired of playing the loophole game. If it truly is a toothless ban, I figure that means no official from any level of government (federal, state, municipal, county, etc.) can act on it. Otherwise it’s not toothless, by definition.
If you had some other definition of “toothless” in mind where part of the government was toothless and another part was free to do as it wished, then you completely missed the point of the hypothetical.
Well, before this thread, I’d never heard of it happening, but… okay… I can picture it. Sure, once the fetus is out of her body by whatever process (including an attempted abortion), it’s technically “born” and by the standards I’ve described, killing it is a felony.
And incompetent doctors should indeed be delicensed and if necessary, prosecuted.
Yes, but I’m not just making them up, and I figure the severity of these negative effects is in proportion to how energetically a ban is enforced.
You’re being overly generous about the quality of evidence you’ve brought to this thread.
Well, what about Abortion in Nicaragua? Abortion was legal there prior to 2006 (albeit with some heavy conditions) and illegal afterward. I assume the wiki page itself doesn’t carry much weight as a cite, but it does include a link to a Human Rights Watch document (pdf) titled “OVER THEIR DEAD BODIES: Denial of Access to Emergency Obstetric Care and Therapeutic Abortion in Nicaragua”, for what it’s worth.
So picture something like that, scaled up 50 times, for an abortion ban in the U.S.
I take it I’m supposed to assume some bad things about New York City at this point. And I kinda thought it was a (if not “the”) shining beacon of American society - it’s certainly the economic center and (along with Hollywood) a key cultural center.
Heck, I’ll even assume it’s 100% true that the sexual habits of Americans will be modified the way you describe.
I just don’t see why you’d want to do that. And I figure the resulting negatives aren’t worth it. And your country already tried that, back before Roe. Teenage girls were still “getting in trouble”, STD’s ran free, and everything was paradise, I guess you’re assuming.
There are other potential explanations, including that pro-lifers can more easily organize their forces because of the internet and this organization makes them seem more numerous than they are. Also, that they’ve concentrated their efforts on individual states where success is more likely and largely given up on creating a national consensus. If I had to guess, I could picture opposition to abortion following a similar path as opposition to gay marriage - short-term successes but time isn’t on their side.
When you say “discredit”, do you mean “ignore” or “downplay the significance of” (or something else)? I admit up to now I thought you meant “ignore”, but I’m prepared to admit my error.
I do not ignore the unborn’s existence, but I do find other elements more significant.
And in case, I’m quite confident I never said it was absolute. If I said so at some point, I admit that it was in error. It is not absolute.
Because the alternative, where no individual is allowed to rationalize anything, is preposterous.
If you’re conceding these points, can I assume you’re not going to demand any more cites for them?
Sure, some women will better themselves. Cheerfully conceded. Meanwhile, you’ll have lots of women who won’t, and their unwanted children will suffer as a result.
Oh, you’re such an internet tough guy, calling me “queasy”. You brought up the idea of betting on it. So name your stakes and I’ll mull over whether I’m interested or not. And before you start implying cowardice, be advised that I’m posting here under my real name and you are not.
Really? That’s important to you? Why? Prove it. If you can’t prove it, you can’t object when someone suggests laws be passed authorizing your enslavement, rape and murder.
I’ll bet that I’d choose neither, and I’d win.
Yes, because what you’re proposing to do involves other people’s bodies. If you sit at the side of the road and hold up a sign that says “will masturbate for you for money” depending on jurisdictional squibbles, it’d be hard to charge you with anything. (See: perfectly legal peep show theatres.)
Not for snorting the coke, for having the coke. It’s not the act that’s illegal. (When you’re arrested for public intoxication it’s because of the effect your intoxication has upon other people: loudness, public urination/defecation/vomiting, flashing, assaulting people, potential DUI offenses, etc.)
Depends on how you do it. If it’s a professional BDSM practitioner strapping you to a cross and beating you with a cat o’nine tails until you cry, bleed and beg for more, probably not. If it’s the corner thug who beats you up in public, yes, possibly so. Again, this is an event which doesn’t just involve something happening within the confines of your own body.
You cannot provide a single example of a person being prohibited from any act which enables them to control the status and integrity of their own body. People are permitted (sometimes court-ordered) to remove cancerous growths. Barring trespassing issues, a person would not be prosecuted for killing an animal on the endangered species list, or for “hunting out of season” if the animal was attacking them. If a man forces his penis into my mouth, I’m not going to be arrested if I bite it off, even if he subsequently dies from the wound. I can pay someone to split my tongue in two, like a snake’s. I can have my fingers fused, my earlobe and septum piercings stretched until I can fit my fist through the holes, my entire epidermis covered in tattoos. I have no life-threatening illnesses, but just the same have an advanced directive that says I am to be given no ventilators, no defibrillation, definitely never a feeding tube or anything of the sort; I am to be given comfort measures and allowed to die. And I have every legal expectation for that directive to be followed to the letter, because I have the right to determine what happens to my body, even if it “hastens” my own death.
Whatever rights you want to assign to a non-sentient, non-viable zygotic entity which may not even have a fully formed brain, what you have failed to show in your many, many, many posts is any proof, legal or otherwise, that said embryonic/fetal rights trump my right to remove contents from my uterus if I feel it necessary. I obviously have the right to control the contents of my uterus: I’m having its current contents (a series of fibroids) removed in two weeks. Demonstrate with something beyond your opinion that I no longer have the right to control my uterus when the contents happen to be fetal tissue rather than fibroids. That is my challenge to you. Show me some kind of proof, some kind of anything that supports civil law suspending my rights to control my uterus.
What’s with
the fucking idiotic
quoting and quoting
Because what started out as a Pit thread about people to attempt to impose their morality regarding abortions by interfering with access to locations where abortions are occasionally performed has turned into a debate among people with differing views on the morality of abortion, or the morality of imposing your opinions on other people, or other esoteric issues which have jackshit to do with whether or not people should be allowed to harass other people who are involved in perfectly legal activities.
Good point. The protesters are acting perfectly legally. Stop harassing them.
Has any actual evidence surfaced in the preceding 55 or so thread pages to support this claim that the clinic protesters have been “harassed”?
And then, we should stop harrassing the people who are harrassing the protesters. That’s legal too.
When those are the only two choices given, then one does somewhat preclude the other. Which was my point. and It’s foolish to think you can take “women and their doctors” out of the context of that question and discover , through other polls , that it means the same thing as the other choice offered, i.e. the THING THEY DIDN’T CHOOSE.
That’s kinda the point of looking at all the data and trying to interpret and resolve apparent conflicts.
See above. I didn’t say THE liberal position, I said, within the context of the question asked it clearly means “more liberal” By a very significant margin they chose NOT to endorse only hard case restrictions.
I’ll remind you again that I’m not claiming the polls prove anything. I’m claiming you ignored the significance of conflicting data of your own links. Now you’re avoiding giving a simple direct answer. One more time.
Please try to answer directly.
Well, “I’m right no matter what” only has 1 two syllable word, which is what most of your posts amount to.
As I’ve said. I think you can use the general, and specific data from different polls to get an overview of where the general public are at. If you read the link about polls you see that even the specific ones are not absolute. For example, Given the list of motives for abortion, and use of the word allowed or legal and illegal, are the people focusing on the motive and giving a personal moral response, or are they focusing on legal/illegal and all that entails. Looking at the data in the other polls brings me to an interpretation that LA times quote that sums it up nicely. In general , looking at ALL the data, the public is willing to accept Roe vs Wade and few legally enforced restrictions in the 1st trimester, even if they don’t morally, personally agree.
I don’t agree it’s untrue and the LA Times quote sums it up.
I believe there was more than one poll in which your were specific restrictions were rejected in favor of something that could only mean less restrictions. The 46% one specifically said “for ANY reason” which you conveniently left out. The same for this
Up until viability wins by a few points.
Let’s combine that with poll after poll strongly supporting Roe vs Wade , even when the 3 month issue is mentioned. Poll after poll that indicates abortion is far more acceptable in the 1st trimester. Combine that with several polls where the majority identify with Pro choice, rather than Pro life. Considering questions like,
B clearly wins, although you are claiming the majority wants more restrictions.
Easier and the same clearly win, even though you claim the majority wants more restrictions.
less strict and remain the same clearly win, even though you claim the general public wants more restrictions.
easier and no change wins, even though you claim the majority wants more restrictions.
A word on what “most” means. It’s not specific but it’s certainly reasonable, in light of current laws, that those who favor more restrictions would choose “illegal in most cases” or something to that effect, since , according to you, that’s exactly what they want. Illegal except for hard cases.
It does when no matter the reason is specifically listed doesn’t it?
You did that by selecting polls that agree with you and ignoring the ones that didn’t. Which was my original point.
to recap,
When you provide a link to polls cherry picking the data is bad form.
The polls have what seems to be conflicting data depending on how the question is phrased, and polls are subject to interpretation. There are quite a few polls that contradict your assertion. Considering all the data from your own links, you haven’t proved anything.
A reminder. I’m not claiming the polls prove anything, so let’s not use the distraction “what you’re trying to claim” I’m claiming you cherry picked data and the polls, read together, do not indicate what you assert.
There’s more than one, that specifically says “no matter the reason” Given all the other data IMO, my interpretation of the total data, rather than a select few, you certainly haven’t proven anything.
Acknowledged. Since that data repeats itself in poll after poll, I read it as the general public does recognize a difference between an embryo, or 1st trimester fetus and 3rd trimester.
Now, with that being said, I made the mistake of trying to break down views on abortion by trimester into hard categories, which I shouldn’t have done, as I noticed the question was speaking about in general (as contrasted to the above which was concerning specific circumstances), and didn’t take into account possible circumstances surrounding an abortion in those situations (as evidenced by the fact that just about 14% of individuals would even consider allowing an abortion during the 3rd trimester). A mistake acknowledged. That’s progress.
Most people would be aware that certain medical problems wouldn’t even be caught until the 2nd or 3rd trimester. Why would, the life of the mother, or a fatal defect in the fetus, change from the 2nd to 3rd? Let’s take a look at your polls.
Did you notice the woman’s mental health also an acceptable reason for abortion for the majority? That’s quite an opening for women isn’t it? Could the stress of being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy cause mental health problems?
Did you notice the baby being mentally or physically impaired was also approved by the majority? When do you suppose doctors know that kind of thing? How physically or mentally impaired is an acceptable level to “murder a child”? Down Syndrome?, Menially retarded? Unable to walk? Blind? Can we “murder babies” for those reasons?
, False. I have provided evidence ,taken from your own links, that you ignore.
Is this is an admission that you have no cite available that shows polls to be anything like proof? That’s what I specifically asked for. You can provide a cite, or admit that your use of proof, is your personal opinion with nothing to support it. That means, it’s not proof at all.
There’s nothing the least bit odd about it. It’s a widely accepted principle for anybody that understands the nature of polls. I provided a link explaining that. Here’s another
I ask you again to provide any cite where a credible source promotes public opinion polls as proof of anything. If you cannot then your use of “proof” in this case really amounts to your personal opinion.
as a point of interest, there was a show on NPR yesterday
Abortion Foes Push To Redefine Personhood
Interesting show.
Looking at the Personhood USA site
they are a religious organization.
Rachel Maddow also did a report on it. talking about the person hood at fertilization laws making advances in several states.