Abortion

Sky · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ May 6 2005, 05:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You should never force your "beliefs" upon anyone. If you can't agree with that, you should not be dicussing here.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

True. But we can discuss andd then come to an agreement or agree to dissagree. You dont see me forming a Parliment, taking over and imposing my beleife on everyone am i?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
No, but your side's ultimate goal is to have abortion outlawed permanently, which would indeed be forcing your morality on the entire country. Notice how allowing abortions doesn't force a decision on anyone, it doesn't limit anyone's choices. That's why people favor it; it's called pro-<i>choice</i> for a reason.

Now, if you don't want to argue the legislative side of things, then this is just an argument about simple opinions, and neither side is going to change the other side's mind. If we're just talking philosophy here, the best "agreement" that is going to come from this discussion is "let's agree to disagree".

TommyVercetti · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Comrad Skulk @ May 5 2005, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> a Fetus is an extension of a women's body, and a women can do with her body what she wants  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Oh... my... God...

I actually AGREE with Comrad Skulk (selectively).

Aegeri · May 2005

Wierd bug that, wonder what causes it (the reason for the double post).

Aegeri · May 2005

This post isn’t a response to troll, because neither will he bother reading it, he will probably ignore it much like the arguments I presented last time. I merely wish to defend my statement that Steel Troll is full of absolute bollocks, which I will clearly and unarguably demonstrate now.

<b><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Steel Trolls arguments are built on a poor understanding of biological and sociological effects of abortion and are completely without factual validity.</b></span>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You've posted mostly bollocks is what you've done.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

For Franks Sake!!! I am not imposing my views! I am in a discussion, and you are frankly being rude *reported*</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I've already supported my post earlier, and isn't it funny how you've failed to respond to a single point in it. I named your arguments as being utterly void for exactly that reason not to mention the rest have been thoroughly rebutted already (Why do what others already did?). Then again, maybe it should be finally made 100% clear why saying you are ‘full of utter bollocks’ is a 100% fair statement, although anyone reading the thread should easily see this is why (Due to the excellent rebuttals to many of your points already available).

In this post I will be quoting you from throughout the thread, seeing as I wish to address specific points in more detail that have come up that I merely wish to conclusively demonstrate are factually incorrect. I will also be quoting numerous papers at the same time which demonstrate or point out certain concepts. Simply look at the degree of creative spelling to determine if a quote has been taken from Steel Troll or a journal article.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And how can you deny that i have posted facts to back up my views?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No you haven't.

Throughout this thread there isn't anything I could consider as being a solid argument except for pure semantics and using the usual all emotional and no substance argumentation I expect from these. But again, this was largely irrelevant because what got my goat was this comment:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Prison tbh.

That means she's intentionally killing the child.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Because it completely misses the entire point of why this legislation was legalised and even when it is, why it still fails for some individuals. This is what I responded to because it, like most things you've posted in this thread, shows a complete lack of understanding about the situation at hand. This however, was just plainly ignorant and I wasn't about to let it pass, because it above EVERYTHING else you've posted just shows how ABSOLUTELY LITTLE you know about the topic.

No duh incidentally she's intentionally trying to kill the child, do you even understand the concept of what a self-abortion actually is? For all your demonising of 'abortion' methods in the first post of this thread (Which I’m aware came up later on) have you considered-oh wait you probably haven't even spared a thought. I bet you wouldn't know what self-abortion induced scepticemia is, or how women drive themselves almost to death drinking chemicals like quinine to attempt to give themselves an abortion.

But your 'hours' of research undoubtably brought such issues, which are reported all over the medical literature (see below) as possibly one reason for *why* we have a choice right? Perhaps on some level, a woman has a right to choose to NOT risk her life trying to get around idiosyncratic laws.

For example, I point out you use the same kind of emotional argument that has no credibility with such statements as:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><i>Description of various abortion procedures</i>

These are barbaric procedures. Even criminals or animals being put down die with more dignity. The poor baby, the only thing it ever did was to be conceived. I cant stand the passive apathy of some people, just coz it doesnt really affect them directly "Lets nuke it, L00L" sad-fix.gif</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yet, where is your description of the horrific effects to the mother and a fetus/baby (if it's even able to survive after being dumped in a dumpster in some cases) of the effects of a failed self-abortion? Where is the description of the effects of self-abortive methods like quinine poisoning? Where is the description of effects on the woman from trying to scrape the fetus out of her **** with a sharp object?

Your argument takes a basic fact, and then distorts and abuses it compared to the entire scenario and picture. Unlike some here, I don't call a shovel a pick, I call a shovel a shovel and an empty merely emotional argument exactly what it should be called; an empty emotional argument (fallacy). Would someone be so readily convinced of your position when shown what desperate women in Brazil (again see below) have done to get an abortion where it's almost illegal? Would they consider your position so valid if you were able to present to them your analysis (From 'hours' of research) into what desperate women do when they are denied access to an abortion?

But again, this is from someone, who proclaims factual evidence yet does the following:

1) Grossly distorts a fact in a logical fallacy in a simple appeal to emotion.

2) Comes out with rubbish like this throughout the entire thread (And we’ll be visiting many such arguments over the course of this post). As you think I ignored your comments, rather than just leaving others to wipe the floor with your arguments instead, I’ll now address some of your key ‘facts’ you claim to have presented in this thread. I’ll show that not only are your facts erroneous they are occasionally just flat out ridiculous distortions of the real scenario.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Better to have a <b>few</b> illegal abortions at the knowing risk of the mother, than have millions of abortions due to it being legalised, therefore making women think "Its legal, it must be ok to kill my son/daughter to be"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Of course noting that your statement is factually incorrect (like I accused you, funny how things end up coming together isn't it?) and can be demonstrated to be wrong, AGAIN, see the JOURNAL ARTICLE links I post below, but we’ll be revisiting this topic but once again I’ll point out to those reading, this is one of his many facts he horribly got wrong.

3) No citation on this one, probably because it’s a statement that is full of utter crap (See later on).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes, abortions do happen - on a surprisinly large scale - Mostly in the western world, with US having very high numbers.
Would numbers decrease if there were a ban?Yes</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again this is nothing more than hot air, would ILLEGAL abortions increase with a corresponding increase in the numbers of women suffering from self-abortion induced conditions? Again, <i>I've linked articles in this post that refute this nonsense that I found within 15 minutes at my library, yet for all your 'hours' of research you have no understanding of this concept</i>.

But again, it’s going to get <i>worse</i> for troll as a detailed analysis of these kind of statements comes up.

4) He continues with this tangent.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It is well known that preventitive measures are the best remedy, and if applied to abortion, millions of inocents could be spared.They had no choice to be conceived and killed.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No it isn't, from a medical point of view non-legalised abortions are simply putting a greater risk factor on women committing self-abortive procedures that directly places harm to them. You seem to think an undifferentiated mass of cells is more important than a grown womans health and safety. The leap in logic that you've demonstrated is amazing and I'm surprised this didn't come up more often previously.

Also, more emotional argumentative fallacies and for a supposed 'fact' you don't back this up with any study or research paper supporting it.

Again, I supported my statements with a <i>mere three</i> papers, and by <i>mere three</i> I indicate that I just took three out of HUNDREDS of papers demonstrating the same concept, from well before the 1950's!

What the hell, let’s go and look at MORE examples shall we?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <b>Unsafe abortion is still a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality in Africa</b>. To assess whether the introduction of legal abortions in South Africa has decreased admissions resulting from mid-trimester abortions, a prospective study of abortion cases admitted to the King Edward VIII Hospital, Durban, South Africa, over a four-month period was carried out. Two hundred and four women were admitted with incomplete abortion; 49% of which were spontaneous, 17% certainly induced, 10% probably induced, 18% possibly induced and 4.3% legally induced. <b>A change in the laws on termination of pregnancy (TOP) has resulted in a decrease in cases of incomplete abortion being admitted to the gynaecological wards</b>. However, illegal TOPs are still prevalent for a variety of reasons. There is need to place more emphasis on the delivery of efficient contraceptive services and reproductive health education for women.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Moodley J, Akinsooto VS. Unsafe abortions in a developing country: has liberalisation of laws on abortions made a difference? African Journal of Reproductive Health. 2003 Aug;7(2):34-8.

Once again, where your argument finds yet another truck has run through it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Context: Accurate measurement of induced abortion levels has proven difficult in many parts of the world. Health care workers and policymakers need information on the incidence of both legal and illegal induced abortion to provide the needed services and to reduce the negative impact of unsafe abortion on women's health. Methods: Numbers and rates of induced abortions were estimated from four sources: official statistics or other national data on legal abortions in 57 countries; estimates based on population surveys for two countries without official statistics; special studies for 10 countries where abortion is highly restricted; and worldwide and regional estimates of unsafe abortion from the World Health Organization. Results: Approximately <b>26 million legal and 20 million illegal abortions were performed worldwide in 1995</b>, resulting in a worldwide abortion rate of 35 per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Among the subregions of the world, Eastern Europe had the highest abortion rate (90 per 1,000) and Western Europe to the lowest rate (11 per 1,000). <b><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands.Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted</b></span>. Conclusions: Both developed and developing countries can have low abortion rates. Most countries, however, have moderate to high abortion rates, reflecting lower prevalence and effectiveness of contraceptive use. Stringent legal restrictions do not guarantee a low abortion rate.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Henshaw SK, Singh S, Haas T. The incidence of abortion worldwide. International family planning perspectives and digest. 1999 Jan;25(Suppl):S30-8.

Look at that we can see from this that two key things have been found, the most significant being <i>legal restrictions have no significant effect on the abortion rate</i>. Secondly, abortion rates between countries where it is legal and illegal are <i>not significantly different</i> as a result.

Also note this contradicts this reference to the numbers quoted by you later on in the thread;

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> In the world 46 million abortions are conducted each year, 20 million illegaly. If abortion was made illegal except for thoes exemptions stated in the first post, abortions would drop to lets say 25million (including legal ones due to extrenuating circumstances) Couple this with more higher quality education in all parts of the world (if it is top class in the states it deffinately isnt top class all over the world), the figure drops to lets say 10-15 million. Add better resources for adoption + foster care and maybe people would decide to not have an abortion lets say 10 million illegal abortions take place. Add stricter enforcement of allyway-clinics and increase jailterm for it, and the figure drops to hopefully below 10 mill? 5 mill maybe? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

completely, but we shouldn’t have been surprised by that one. Also note the remaining garbage within the quote is well refuted through the multiple citations that I have already mentioned. We really do have to question not only the validity of your ‘facts’ but undoubtably the sources where you get these facts, as so many analysis have indicated that none of your methods functions at all, particularly jail terms (See the Brazil study for example). As a result, the entire remaining part of the quote and his line of argumentation on this point, can be thrown out the window.

Blub, blub, blub.

Pssst, hear that Steel Troll? That’s your argument drowning and yet more of your ‘facts’ imploding under scrutiny.

5) More from Steel Troll, though I’ve put the ‘profit mongers’ who were formally intangible internet nasties, into flesh and blood of the Brazillian misoprostol black marketers.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"There is no valid alternative strategy if it means that a sizeable amount of women are just pushed into the hands of irresponsible profit mongers." What do you mean? You mean their babies are taken from them ? Im not sure i get your point. Well if there is no viable strategy to ensure for the babies born who are not aborted, than the governments should not only do something to ensure that is so, but also invest in preventtive measures and not full frontal attacks.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You mean like Brazils government, which banned the drug misoprostol, which was used as a common inducer for self-abortions. As a result, the drug is now rife on the black market there and women are scammed hundreds of dollars paying for it from vendors, without even being sure what they are buying? (Costa S.H 1998, referenced below).

6) Just demonstrating yet another contradiction from Steel Trolls arguments.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>this, however, is still preceded by my first exception stated above, in case of rape, the mothers psychological and social well being would come first.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It's strange this double standard in you, as you evidently don't give a living crap about her in any other situation.

But this, if you want to claim making 'factual' arguments is the MOST COMPLETELY FULL OF BOLLOCKS STATEMENT YOU MADE IN THE WHOLE THREAD.

It can be held up as a pure example of how LITTLE you actually know about pregnancy, how LITTLE you know about what a woman goes through during such an event and the <i>massive</i> physiological and psychological processes going on. Not that it matters, because you’re about to confirm it even further by not only digging a hole, but jumping in and digging another one in the bottom of the original one.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>True, but these changes arnt so bad. The women might get wider hips, larger mammery glands..these changes are not detremental to health so much as to warrant an abortion</b>. They did have a choice about putting themselves at risk of getting pregnant.(unless it was due to rape, at which my stance remains)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is utterly laughable. A womans entire physiology is altered due to child birth, for example; her blood pressure is heavily and dramatically altered, her immune system is altered and begins to behave differently (immune susceptible, because the baby inherently has to dull her immune system in order to not be attacked itself) and many more physiological features. Then again, why should I need to go into a detailed description when something like this:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b> Summary Deaths from pregnancy complications remain an important public health concern</b>. Nationally, two systems collect information on the number of deaths and characteristics of the women who died from complications of pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) reports maternal mortality through the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS); CDC National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System (PMSS) conducts epidemiological surveillance of pregnancy-related deaths. The numbers of deaths reported by these two systems have differed over the past two decades; our objective was to determine the magnitude and nature of these differences. For 1995-97, we compared maternal deaths in the NVSS with pregnancy-related deaths in PMSS for the 50 States, Washington DC and New York City. Pregnancy-related deaths whose underlying cause was assigned to ICD-9 codes 630-676 by NVSS were classified as maternal deaths; those coded outside 630-676 were not. There were 1387 pregnancy-related deaths in PMSS and 898 maternal deaths in the NVSS; 54% of these deaths were reported in both systems, 40% in PMSS only, and 6% in NVSS only. <b>Pregnancy-related deaths due to haemorrhage, embolism, and hypertensive complications of pregnancy were proportionately more often identified by NVSS as maternal deaths than those from cardiovascular complications, medical conditions or infection</b>. <b>From the 1471 unduplicated deaths classified as maternal or pregnancy-related from either reporting system, we estimated a combined pregnancy-related mortality ratio of 12.6/100 000 live births for 1995-97, compared with 11.9 for PMSS only and 7.5 for NVSS only</b>. The identification and classification of these events is dependent on the provision of complete and accurate cause-of-death information on death certificates. Changes in the guidelines for coding maternal deaths under ICD-10 may change the relationship in the number of deaths resulting from pregnancy reported by these two systems.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Mackay AP, Berg CJ, Duran C, Chang J, Rosenberg H. An assessment of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States. Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology. 2005 May;19(3):206-14.

Demonstrates my entirely point completely succinctly and with no further fuss. But wait, we’re the ones claiming we’re so full of facts aren’t we! Death isn’t a significant potential side effect (and while 12.6/100,000 may seem small, statistically with the number of births that do occur that is good odds), and note that before we go into tiddly fits about such statistical tomfoolery, <i>I am merely disproving your initial postulate that pregnancy is NOT a condition that is non-detrimental</i>. The very fact that they can result in death should IMMEDIATELY tell you your initial analysis is COMPLETELY flawed.

Yet more of your ‘facts’ that yet again under careful scruitiny implodes.

7) Here he just demonstrates he has no understanding of the topic at hand, let alone anything to do with pregnancy.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I didn't have time to go into details, my view still stands that in normal pregnancy, there are no major changes. OMG wow, her heart bp increases!!! Terminate!! </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As this has been demonstrated to be nothing more than your usual incorrect assertation (proven above several times now) we can assume that your opinion on that matter is irrelevant.

It’s probably a good thing you didn’t go ‘into details’ as it saved yourself from being further eviscerated.

However, we can note that you’ve employed another logical fallacy here and just performed a ‘straw man’ fallacy of parodying an opponents position they never held, and then knocking it down. Good job on you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How many women are most women? And it goes on to say that only 5 % of those have the risk...
So just because there is a very low risk of a woman having cardiovascular problems during pregnancy doesnt mean we should abort. My view still stands, normal pregnancy does not cause any problem which would warrant the use of wanton abortion or foeticide.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Your view fails to stand in light of the fact pregnancy can cause such significant complications as DEATH (12/100,000 live births) and is important enough for literature to point out that;

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>The physician also should be familiar with the more common cardiac disorders seen in pregnancy, be familiar with cardiovascular drugs and their potential effects on the pregnant patient and fetus, and be aware of cardiac disorders which are relative and absolute contraindications to pregnancy due to high rates of maternal mortality</b>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Danzell JD. Pregnancy and pre-existing heart disease. J La State Med Soc. 1998 Feb;150(2):97-102.

So yet again, poor old Trolls facts and ‘views’ are found to be deficient.

This is a repeating story isn’t it!

8) Another appeal to emotion fallacy to dissect.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Stop being patronising. I am not trying to guilt trip people.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Not really this is *entirely* your point as I’ve already demonstrated, your main debating tactic has been to EXCLUSIVELY rely on heavily emotional arguments and imagery. Where you have attempted to describe biological or sociological aspects of abortion (pregnancy/comparative rates of abortion) your arguments have been found to be completely deficient.

9) They do that, but they also have a further safety net for those that want it and teens are particularly at risk from an unwanted pregnancy (Conversely, much older women are as well, with peak fitness being in the early 20s).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Instead of the NHS spending money on free abortons, they should spend it on educating the youth so as to minmise the risk of unwanted conception. Tbh pill + uterine cap + condom = almost 99.9% coverage against "mistake</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Although I am not certain what the figures in Britain are, we can actually see that from an Australian study the introduction of legalized abortion reduced self-induced abortion rates (though increased legal abortion rates, which if you’re going, huh why state that, it’s just for completeness), however;

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <b>Overall, contraception has had a greater effect than abortion in reducing births in South Australia. </b>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yusuf F, Siedlecky S. Legal abortion in South Australia: a review of the first 30 years. The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.. 2002 Feb;42(1):15-21.

Indicating that legalized abortion does not have as wide a significance on reduced birth rates as the education and spread of contraceptives. Which is concurrent with other literature.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you feel them to be inadequate, thats your problem imo. You do not seem to have read all the posts, thats why i asked you top read them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Unfortunately, I did read what you wrote and believe me, your ‘facts’ inadequacies have nothing to do with me. It’s notable that I did read your posts initially, I stated this near the beginning of this post, I just felt others were doing such a good job at smacking you around that I didn’t need to bother myself. I merely took issue with one particular comment you made later on, but your dodge of the issues and sources I’ve bought up made me decide to post this.

Again, not so much to respond to you but to justify why I feel it’s perfectly viable to call your arguments nothing more than complete bollocks, and believe me, I think I’ve made a rock solid case. See the above evisceration of many of your ‘facts’ as a good example.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>without much research</b> adamant about your views</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>.

...

Oh good lord this is a winner my friends but then again, if I’m poorly researched (with my numerous citations in this post and my last one to numerous scientifically peer reviewed journal articles) what does that make you? Ignorant? Well, that sounds about right actually, but lets continue the evisceration by reposting many of my arguments again from the other night. Again, because you evidently completely ignored them the first time, but combined with my above rebuttal of many of your arguments, it just strengthens my overall position that you have *no* clue about many aspects of what you are talking about.

But why not quote some stuff? I need no meaningless emotional arguments like you and it's surprising that with how heavily I emphasised this you missed it the first time.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Although researchers and practitioners alike have long been aware of the existence and dangers of self-induced abortions, virtually no research exists on this topic. This article describes methods of self-induced abortion from current and historical literature. A case study of an adolescent using quinine is discussed to highlight both the reasons some adolescents choose to self-abort and the possible dangers of using such methods. Serious risks to the adolescent are associated with any self-induced abortion attempt. Nurse practitioners are in a key position to assess an adolescent's risk factors for self-induced abortion attempts and to educate about the dangers of such attempts.

PIP: The introduction to this article on the existence and dangers of self-abortion attempts among adolescents in the US notes that in 1992 more than 134,000 US adolescents sought legal abortions, while an unknown number attempted illegal or self-induced abortions. The article goes on to describe a case in which a 19-year-old almost died after ingesting 1.5 g of quinine in a self-abortion attempt. <b>Next, the article reviews the literature on methods used to attempt self-induced abortion and points out that 70 cases of attempted quinine induced abortion resulted in three abortions and <i>11 maternal deaths</i></b>. A table lists other methods of self-induced abortion, including use of drugs, instrumentation, cervical dilation, and trauma. After noting that adolescents may be particularly susceptible to such attempts because of their limited resources and limited access to legal abortions, the article describes reasons for self-induced abortion attempts. Next, recommendations are made to help nurse-practitioners recognize the symptoms of self-induced abortion attempts and prevent the occurrence of self-induced abortion by accessing risks and providing adolescents with the education and support needed to prevent such attempts.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Risky choices: the dangers of teens using self-induced abortion attempts. Smith J.P. Journal of Pediatrics Health Care 1998.

This analysis is from countries where abortion is legal, yet women still resort to physically risking harm to them-selves to remove an unwanted child. Clearly this is a more complicated issue than the ill-supported straw mans and emotional arguments you have constantly brought up would indicate.
Another article

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Legal abortions are authorized medical procedures, and as such, they are or can be recorded at the health facility where they are performed. The incidence of illegal, often unsafe, induced abortion has to be estimated, however. In the literature, no fewer than eight methods have been used to estimate the frequency of induced abortion: the "illegal abortion provider survey," the "complications statistics" approach, the "mortality statistics" approach, self-reporting techniques, prospective studies, the "residual" method, anonymous third party reports, and experts' estimates.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Estimating induced abortion rates: A review. Rossier C. Studies in Family Planning. 2003.

Once again, you try to make this big deal out of abortion being legal increasing rates, when in reality by outlawing or restricting abortion you merely cause harm to both the woman and the ball of cells/baby/whatever you are wanting to make it so it’s convenient for your appeal to emotion arguments. What about this, from a country you undoubtably think does it the right way (snicker) having only abortions where it directly threatens the womans life (which it can be technically argued is any pregnancy, especially depending on age, but I digress) or rape.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In Brazil, abortion is only permitted to save the woman's life or in cases of rape. The principal effect of legal restrictions is not to make induced abortion practice less prevalent but to force poor women to resort to abortions performed under unhygienic conditions or attempt self-induced abortion. Within this context, misoprostol, a synthetic analogue of prostaglandin E1, was introduced in the country in 1986. Purchased over the counter in pharmacies, misoprostol has became a popular abortifacient method among Brazilian women. By 1990, about 70% of women hospitalized with abortion-related diagnoses reported use of the drug. In 1991, the Ministry of Health restricted the sale of misoprostol, and in some states its use was totally banned. While the proportion of abortions induced with misoprostol has decreased, the drug continues to be sold on the black market at an inflated value. Research indicates that women have acquired more experience with the drug over time, resulting in lower doses and more effective administration. Several studies show that the rate and severity of complications are significantly less among women who used misoprostol compared with women who used invasive methods. Research also suggests that about half of the women have complete abortion with misoprostol, but seek medical care as soon as they have vaginal bleeding. <b>The experience of Brazilian women with misoprostol is an example of how women when faced with unwanted pregnancy will resort to illegal abortion whatever the costs are to their health</b>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Commercial availability of misoprostol and induced abortion in Brazil. Costa S.H. Journal of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 1998.

Let’s make something clear again:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>The experience of Brazilian women with misoprostol is an example of how women when faced with unwanted pregnancy will resort to illegal abortion whatever the costs are to their health</b>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Let's notice how this correlates with one of the first things I pointed out in the previous post:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Desperate women turn to desperate measures,</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I suppose you missed this? Notice the links to numerous articles, from a range of countries from 1st world countries where abortion is legal (America) and others, which have abortions in the EXACT SAME LEGAL STATUS of abortion as YOU PROPOSE in this thread to agree with, and the INCREASED risk of many problems with self abortion methods women are forced to use instead.

I'm just speechless that you would be so blatantly dishonest, mind this is your only tactic that you've employed the whole thread, but really no surprise when you see JOURNAL ARTICLES you switch off.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <b>And my beleife is backed up by facts Ageri, thank you very much.</b></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As I’ve just eviscerated every main argument you’ve bought up, noting that I’ve ignored your emotional fallacies and straw mans unless I felt it pertinent to the analysis at hand, you have no facts.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you do not agree with the facts, that speak for themselves, than that is your own problem.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, only because you present what you want to and utterly fail to look at the large picture. Your arguments come down to nothing more than a regurgitated appeal to emotion logical fallacy, and that is why I directly said you were full of bollocks. The only person who can now ‘deny’ what the ‘facts’ say is you, because as I’ve just demonstrated your facts are actually incorrect and usually nothing but ignorance.

As for my research against yours, seeing as you lack even a basic understanding of the physiological and sociological effects of pregnancy, people here can hopefully see how little your ‘research’ is worth.

I conclude that you have a poor understanding of many basic facts surrounding abortion and have demonstrated so with my demonstration of your faulty logic, and the whole sale evisceration of numerous arguments you have made. I can hence conclude that I have not unfairly labeled your argument as bollocks, because it has easily been demonstrated to be full of factual errors, logical fallacies and poor argumentation based solely on a poor analysis of available data. In short: Your argument is total bollocks.

Good day.

TommyVercetti · May 2005

Owned. Hell, not even. Pwned, which by my definition means "pawned," because the subject is not worth owning.

Cyndane · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ May 6 2005, 10:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Owned. Hell, not even. Pwned, which by my definition means "pawned," because the subject is not worth owning.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
@Tommy: I wouldn't even go that far, everytime I have tried to use facts with him he has ignored them just as bad as a certain banned someone did.

He makes up numbers (from a possible real number) (see ageri's quote on his anti-abortion numbers if it was illegal) and then tries to defend it with emotionalism.

Not to mention the double standard with rape victims. (Brazil being an excellent example as ageri said.)

Even his "idea" of pregnancy is so far off the mark it is scary. I could have sworn they taught this stuff in health class in the world schools. Or something similar, are the schools outside of the US (and some in) really that poor?

(I really want an answer to that question above, someone from outside the US, I only had a short time period where I was outside the US in school, so I do not know how well they work, and my school(that I was forced to go to) I know sucked.)

Renegade · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ May 6 2005, 07:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> *snip*  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Congratulations, sir. You have won the thread. I salute you for your superior skills in pwnage. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

Sky · May 2005

Christ, Aegeri. Take out the big letters and that's like a thesis paper. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' />

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 20 2005, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> women's rights vs unborn baby's rights

Discuss

My views, abortion should be baned except in extreme circumstances

eg
1) Mother has been raped (Termination only before 14 weeks)
2) Serious threat to mothers life

Why? 14 weeks?
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Steel Troll has posted I believe part of his point was to show that at a certain stage in pregnancy the fetus is undeniably a human being.

I find it disturbing that many on this thread consider that "attachment" to the mother is the only defining characteristic between what is a human-being and what isn't. Honestly, do you all consider passengers on a domestic flight sub-human for the duration that they are attached to the aircraft while flying?

You can argue the morality of abortion in the infinite number of grey scenarios that life presents; but to deny that at a certain point you're dealing with a tiny human-being (attached or not) is IMO absolutely intellectually bankrupt.

Cyndane · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 6 2005, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Steel Troll has posted I believe part of his point was to show that at a certain stage in pregnancy the fetus is undeniably a human being.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As long as it is dependant upon the mother it is part of her body.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 6 2005, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I find it disturbing that many on this thread consider that "attachment" to the mother is the only defining characteristic between what is a human-being and what isn't. Honestly, do you all consider passengers on a domestic flight sub-human for the duration that they are attached to the aircraft while flying?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I find it disturbing that you even used that analogy. That you could even equate airline passengers to being pregnancy is very disgusting.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 6 2005, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You can argue the morality of abortion in the infinite number of grey scenarios that life presents; but to deny that at a certain point you're dealing with a tiny human-being (attached or not) is IMO absolutely intellectually bankrupt.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You are intellecutally bankrupt for suggesting the fetus is anything other then part of her body untill it is detached. Untill such a time, which is called birth, it is a part of her body. (Read: It requires her to be alive for it to live.)

@Sky: It could be a thesis if it was about 10 pages longer. TeeHee. :-)

Sky · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 6 2005, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> @Sky: It could be a thesis if it was about 10 pages longer. TeeHee. :-)  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Ahh yes, I suppose I should rephrase that to "public high school thesis". <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' />

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 6 2005, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 6 2005, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Steel Troll has posted I believe part of his point was to show that at a certain stage in pregnancy the fetus is undeniably a human being.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As long as it is dependant upon the mother it is part of her body.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So you define dependancy/lack thereof as the only criterion for a tiny human to be classified as a fetus or baby? I thought so.

I'm sure my son would be thrilled to know what you thought of him in the early stages of life.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 6 2005, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I find it disturbing that many on this thread consider that "attachment" to the mother is the only defining characteristic between what is a human-being and what isn't. Honestly, do you all consider passengers on a domestic flight sub-human for the duration that they are attached to the aircraft while flying?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I find it disturbing that you even used that analogy. That you could even equate airline passengers to being pregnancy is very disgusting.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh spare me the mock outrage here Cydane. Now you're prattling on about the sacredness of pregnancy out the left side of your mouth while the right side professes extreme indifference as to what happens to the "clump of cells" that is annoyingly attached to a woman for 9 months.

Now if we can put your -quite frankly- unbecoming feminism aside for a second and look at my ananlogy, I feel that it is singularly astute. The passengers at altitude are dependant on the plane for oxygen and hence survival in much the same way as a fetus. Was this all too subtle for you ?

Now of course the analogy is absurd and that my dear is the entire point! And no I'm not going to spoon-feed you anymore here.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 6 2005, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You can argue the morality of abortion in the infinite number of grey scenarios that life presents; but to deny that at a certain point you're dealing with a tiny human-being (attached or not) is IMO absolutely intellectually bankrupt.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You are intellecutally bankrupt for suggesting the fetus is anything other then part of her body untill it is detached. Untill such a time, which is called birth, it is a part of her body. (Read: It requires her to be alive for it to live.)
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You are a veritable intellectual pauper. You are telling me that my son 10 seconds before birth was nothing but a fetus? And don't spout some gibberish legal defintion or try wiggle out of this with some clever semantics: The fact is my son 10 seconds before birth was a human being!

I challenge you Cydane, should you ever become pregnant, to think of your unborn child as "just a fetus".

And save your disgust please. I am merely pointing out an objective truth that you would rather not admit to for whatever agenda is running around that brain of yours.

(and I am pro-choice, but not for burying your head in the sand and pretending that at a _certain point_ in pregnancy you are dealing with a tiny human)

Cyndane · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 6 2005, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I challenge you Cydane, should you ever become pregnant, to think of your unborn child as "just a fetus".  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Striking a fairly low blow there FilthyLarry, I can not be pregnant.

I have no agenda, I am pointing out that you can not have selective abortion as ageri has shown before (read up).

I take that back I do have an agenda, it is called don't impose your moral beliefs on others. That is my agenda.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The passengers at altitude are dependant on the plane for oxygen and hence survival in much the same way as a fetus.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Last time I checked the passengers in an airline were not in the air for around nine months. I fail to see the correlation, because there isn't one.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So you define dependancy/lack thereof as the only criterion for a tiny human to be classified as a fetus or baby? I thought so.

I'm sure my son would be thrilled to know what you thought of him in the early stages of life.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I am glad that you are a parent. I do hope you raise him well.
If you wish to be technical, yes I do define a human as that, because without the mother the baby would not survive, you can not argue that very well. Once outside of the womb the newly born infant begins to develop its own sense of itself, most of the time slowly, but then it is truly an individual. (Still requires the mother but it is not a be all end all option) Untill such a time it is simply reacting instinctually. (Aka, not really having a thought process, other then automated)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You are a veritable intellectual pauper. You are telling me that my son 10 seconds before birth was nothing but a fetus? And don't spout some gibberish legal defintion or try wiggle out of this with some clever semantics: The fact is my son 10 seconds before birth was a human being!
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Personal attacks are not welcome FiltyLarry.

Since abortion is legal you have to allow it for all stages of the pregnancy, you place restrictions on something women will find a way around it. (Ageri has demostrated this above me) It is an all or nothing science, whether you like it or not.

You can disagree with me all you want, but that really doesn't matter. I stand very strongly against what Troll attempted, with this thread as evidence.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 6 2005, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> . </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 6 2005, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I challenge you Cydane, should you ever become pregnant, to think of your unborn child as "just a fetus". </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Striking a fairly low blow there FilthyLarry, I can not be pregnant.

I have no agenda, I am pointing out that you can not have selective abortion as ageri has shown before (read up).

I take that back I do have an agenda, it is called don't impose your moral beliefs on others. That is my agenda.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It was not my intention to "strike a low blow". I did not know and I do apologize for that.

I'm not attempting to impose my moral beliefs here, but to point out the inadequacies of a definition such as 'fetus', which encompasses a span of time during which so much changes.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The passengers at altitude are dependant on the plane for oxygen and hence survival in much the same way as a fetus.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Last time I checked the passengers in an airline were not in the air for around nine months. I fail to see the correlation, because there isn't one.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The dependancy for oxygen from a 3rd party for survival is there. The length of time is irrelevant as a human being can only survive for minutes before death without it.

The point is that applying the idea of dependancy as the sole criterion for defining whether something is human or not is absurd.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So you define dependancy/lack thereof as the only criterion for a tiny human to be classified as a fetus or baby? I thought so.

I'm sure my son would be thrilled to know what you thought of him in the early stages of life.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I am glad that you are a parent. I do hope you raise him well.
If you wish to be technical, yes I do define a human as that, because without the mother the baby would not survive, you can not argue that very well. Once outside of the womb the newly born infant begins to develop its own sense of itself, most of the time slowly, but then it is truly an individual. (Still requires the mother but it is not a be all end all option) Untill such a time it is simply reacting instinctually. (Aka, not really having a thought process, other then automated)
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, Cydane, I am truly sad you feel this way. All I can tell you from my experience and my wife's account, we strongly feel that my little one had a "personality" inside the womb. I don't see why the personality/sense of self is the sole province of what takes place outside the womb. He seemed to exhibit habits outside the womb that we think took place inside as well.

That's about all I can say really. We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You are a veritable intellectual pauper. You are telling me that my son 10 seconds before birth was nothing but a fetus? And don't spout some gibberish legal defintion or try wiggle out of this with some clever semantics: The fact is my son 10 seconds before birth was a human being!
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Personal attacks are not welcome FiltyLarry.

Since abortion is legal you have to allow it for all stages of the pregnancy, you place restrictions on something women will find a way around it. (Ageri has demostrated this above me) It is an all or nothing science, whether you like it or not.

You can disagree with me all you want, but that really doesn't matter. I stand very strongly against what Troll attempted, with this thread as evidence.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, with all due respect I think we are both guility of personal attacks.

Having said that, I must re-iterate: I fundamentally agree with you and Aegeri on the right to choose _but_ I cannot agree that a fetus a few seconds before birth is the same as a fetus that is eight weeks old. I feel that is too broad a term for describing the unborn child.

The technical/legal defintion is one thing; the reality in my experience is quite another. I was there for the birth of my son.

Steel_Troll · May 2005

LOL! Now THAT is a what i was lookig for Ageri. I got really annoyed that you just previously said my argument was "Utter Bollocks without stating why." Although i commend you for your work, i do not like this superior take on a discussion. You could have "pwned" me so much better being a bit more modest. There is no need to belittle me in the way you do. Flaming? Very close to it nont the less.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> thanks for the pointers, you must remember i am a new venture into the Discussion forum...I do agree people can have different oppinions to mine.
Ill adress your points Nem0..</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I have done a few hours reading on the topic, and i do have my sources, and although they may not be as focused as yours on your particular discussion point, they have hovever helped me formulate my discussion and in turn has informed me. I do not have access to the wide variety of, obviously specialised research you have. I do however have the internet.

Citing Our golden rule number five
5.: Respect other peoples newssources.
...Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.

If you however deem my statistics fabricated, i have to therefore dig up my source*digs* Statistics were taken from here <a href='http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm' target='_blank'>http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortions...ortionstats.htm</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted eacy year, 20 million
of them obtained illegally.etc etc etc</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Self-abortion, i understand what it is. Do i understand why the mother is driven to tis? No. What drives a mother to kill her own child is well beyond me.

I however intended her only to be put into prison on a specific term, that Abortion was illegalised, but adequate social support was provided by the government. If at this point however, with full knowledge of the social support being offered to her by the government, and also with the alternatives of adoption and foster care were put forward to the woman and she still had an abortion, then yes. I would want to see someone like her placed in prison. Why does brazil suffer from the detremental effects of illegalizing abortion? Because it is a third world country and it has NO soccial support and an almost inexistant health care.

So using brazil and South africa, which are third world countries ar in my viewed flawed. So yes, maybe my argument is flawed in the sense that it would not be possible to be carried out in a third world country, but it would work in a first world country. So am i totaly pwned? No.

You mistake my lack of time, for a blatant ignoral and blanking. I just am short of time due to exams at the moment. I however felt the need to reply to you well thought, although rather brash reply. I do ad did read your posts.

As for the phisiological changes to a womans body, as i said in a post later on in the thread i did not go into detail on it, as i did not find it a valid argument to use as a case for abortion. Why? Being, as you imply detrimental and therefore case for abortion, that is silly why? Statistics are to be feared. Your statistics say there is a 12.6 in 100,000 chance that the woman will die due to an abortion. Well guess what? the odds of death-by-asteroid are still about 1-in-50,000.

My view still stands, normal pregnancy does not cause any problem which would warrant the use of wanton abortion or foeticide in most women.

You are more likely to be hit by an asteroid than die from being pregnant. So yes, for most women, the physiological changes induced by pregnancy are not life threatening, and you falied to find fault with my argument that led on from this point

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Approximately 0.1-3.2% of ALL women have a uterine abnormality. Factor out the ones in the baby bearing age range, now whats the chance of getting one in the the c-section baby saving procedure??And then not even all of these women have a severe enough uterine abnormality that warrants a vertical c-section. On top of this only 8 - 10% have the possibility of their uterus rupturing. Now thats an extreemly low number.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

I also noticed that the research you got was for "An assessment of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States" Well, isnt america the place with the highest cardiovascular problems in the world? So is this study really Globaly aplicable?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Overall, contraception has had a greater effect than abortion in reducing births in South Australia.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Bingo. At least we agree that abortion should not be used as a contraception, so i do not tsee your argument there

By the way. Do i have to quote my sources for everything? I do have Sources its just that i find it very time consuming to link em.

I am tired. It is four ocklock in the morning, this is by no means the most rational reply ever, but it is none the less a reply, and i am glad to say, nullifies at least a few of your points, especially the one in which you say i will not read your post.
Good night/ morning.

Renegade · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your statistics say there is a 12.6 in 100,000 chance that the woman will die due to an abortion... the odds of death-by-asteroid are still about 1-in-50,000... You are more likely to be hit by an asteroid than die from being pregnant.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Wrong. Lets do some math, shall we?

100,000/12.6 ; 50,000/6.3 ; 25,000/3.15 ; 12,500/1.75

Chances of death from pregnancy related compilcations are 1.75 in 12,500. Much greater than your chances of death by asteroid.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(Brazil) it is a third world country and it has NO soccial support and an almost inexistant health care.

So using brazil and South africa, which are third world countries ar in my viewed flawed.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' />

Brazil and South Africa are <i>not</i> third world countries. A third world country would be a place like Turkmenistan. Their political policies and civilian/government infrastructure are decidedly modern (and in the case of South Africa, on equal level with the US).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I also noticed that the research you got was for "An assessment of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States" Well, isnt america the place with the highest cardiovascular problems in the world? So is this study really Globaly aplicable?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Huh? Those two issues are neither related to one another, nor are they corrolated to each other in any way. If you're going to make a comparison, make one that makes sense.

I suggest you go and get some sleep before making another post in this topic, it really seems to be affecting the quality of your agruement.

Cyndane · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ May 6 2005, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> LOL! Now THAT is a what i was lookig for Ageri. I got really annoyed that you just previously said my argument was "Utter Bollocks without stating why." Although i commend you for your work, i do not like this superior take on a discussion. You could have "pwned" me so much better being a bit more modest. There is no need to belittle me in the way you do. Flaming? Very close to it nont the less.

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
You deserve to be belittled since all but one of your "facts" is emtionalized.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (StreelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If you however deem my statistics fabricated, i have to therefore dig up my source*digs* Statistics were taken from here <a href='http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm' target='_blank'>http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortions...ortionstats.htm</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted eacy year, 20 million
of them obtained illegally.etc etc etc</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Twenty million illegal, that can not possibly be known since they are only done in illegal countries and as ageri has pointed out it is an estimate, a very rough estimate. (All websites I have looked at (outside of yours) states that is an estimate and its probably closer to 23 million but there is no way to know for sure. Most countries don't like to report their failures.)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I however intended her only to be put into prison on a specific term, that Abortion was illegalised, but adequate social support was provided by the government. If at this point however, with full knowledge of the social support being offered to her by the government, and also with the alternatives of adoption and foster care were put forward to the woman and she still had an abortion, then yes. I would want to see someone like her placed in prison. Why does brazil suffer from the detremental effects of illegalizing abortion? Because it is a third world country and it has NO soccial support and an almost inexistant health care.

So using brazil and South africa, which are third world countries ar in my viewed flawed. So yes, maybe my argument is flawed in the sense that it would not be possible to be carried out in a third world country, but it would work in a first world country. So am i totaly pwned? No.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<i> Yes, you are. </i>
Brazil is a 2nd world country not 3rd. As it is devloping and is not undeveloped.
South africa, other then egypt is probably the most advanced thanks to the british. It is also not 3rd world.
A third world country is more like india, sri-lanka, ethopia, ghana, and etc.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (steeltroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
As for the phisiological changes to a womans body, as i said in a post later on in the thread i did not go into detail on it, as i did not find it a valid argument to use as a case for abortion. Why? Being, as you imply detrimental and therefore case for abortion, that is silly why? Statistics are to be feared. Your statistics say there is a 12.6 in 100,000 chance that the woman will die due to an abortion. Well guess what? the odds of death-by-asteroid are still about 1-in-50,000.

My view still stands, normal pregnancy does not cause any problem which would warrant the use of wanton abortion or foeticide in most women.

You are more likely to be hit by an asteroid than die from being pregnant. So yes, for most women, the physiological changes induced by pregnancy are not life threatening, and you falied to find fault with my argument that led on from this point
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Women automatically under 18 and over 40 are automatically put at high-risk and are closely watched by doctors (My source, my nurse.)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (steeltroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Approximately 0.1-3.2% of ALL women have a uterine abnormality. Factor out the ones in the baby bearing age range, now whats the chance of getting one in the the c-section baby saving procedure??And then not even all of these women have a severe enough uterine abnormality that warrants a vertical c-section. On top of this only 8 - 10% have the possibility of their uterus rupturing. Now thats an extreemly low number.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

I also noticed that the research you got was for "An assessment of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States" Well, isnt america the place with the highest cardiovascular problems in the world? So is this study really Globaly aplicable?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You completely ignored even me on this one. If a woman was forced to have a c-section say at 24 weeks or 36 weeks, they would require a vertical c-section since the fetus is NOT IN THE CORRECT POSITION. I fail to see how you missed that completely. If the doctor was to use a horizontal the fetus would not be able to be pulled out by its head as it should be, which could result in severe injury to the now newly born infant.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (steeltroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Bingo. At least we agree that abortion should not be used as a contraception, so i do not tsee your argument there

By the way. Do i have to quote my sources for everything? I do have Sources its just that i find it very time consuming to link em.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That was never part of the argument, your source even backs everyone up on this one. Remember taken from your site.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Article posted above)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Abortion Statistics - Using Contraception (U.S.)

<b> * 54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.
* 90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception </b>
* 8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception.
* It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

lolfighter · May 2005

The odds of death by asteroid are 1 in 50000? Meaning that one in every fifty thousand people dies from getting hit by an asteroid? Let me whip out my calculator:
Assuming six milliard people in the world, that comes to 120000 deaths by asteroid. Now spread out across, say, eighty years, that gives us 1500 deaths by asteroid every year, give and take a little. You'd think we'd hear about that.

Aegeri · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ May 6 2005, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> LOL! Now THAT is a what i was lookig for Ageri. I got really annoyed that you just previously said my argument was "Utter Bollocks without stating why." Although i commend you for your work, i do not like this superior take on a discussion. You could have "pwned" me so much better being a bit more modest. There is no need to belittle me in the way you do. Flaming? Very close to it nont the less.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Not that you deserved either the time or effort and look at this, you're back to your usual rubbish.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I have done a few hours reading on the topic, and i do have my sources, and although they may not be as focused as yours on your particular discussion point, they have hovever helped me formulate my discussion and in turn has informed me. I do not have access to the wide variety of, obviously specialised research you have. I do however have the internet.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Then get a better source, I'm infamous here for not accepting any random garbage that comes from the internet.

As I said, every single source I have used comes from an credible peer reviewed MEDICAL journal. These are people who are doctors and researchers DIRECTLY working in the area.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Citing Our golden rule number five
5.: Respect other peoples newssources.
...Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. <b>Unless you can find contradicting factual data</b>quote]

Before you quote rules at me, read them yourself first.

And yes, a medical journal, reporting on an aspect of medical data is 'authorative'.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Self-abortion, i understand what it is. Do i understand why the mother is driven to tis? No. What drives a mother to kill her own child is well beyond me.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Desperation, as the Brazil study points out numerous times.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I however intended her only to be put into prison on a specific term,</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Which is a stupid idea (that I've pointed out numerous times now and backed up repeatedly, it's amazingly hillarious that you continue to ignore the VAST amount of evidence against such stupid ideas).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>that Abortion was illegalised, but adequate social support was provided by the government. If at this point however, with full knowledge of the social support being offered to her by the government, and also with the alternatives of adoption and foster care were put forward to the woman and she still had an abortion, then yes. I would want to see someone like her placed in prison.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Which is just stupid anyway, because as I've demonstrated multiple times, even wtih abortion being legal <i>many women still opt to go for a self-abortion</i>.

Again, your laws merely drive women to taking extreme measures risking their own health.

<b>This is a fact that is irrefutable given that it comes up over and over, no matter what the country is</b>.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why does brazil suffer from the detremental effects of illegalizing abortion? Because it is a third world country and it has NO soccial support and an almost inexistant health care. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No it's not and once again you come out with complete and utter rubbish. Brazil actually has a relatively modern health care system and even has a decent social support structure.

Are we going to claim America is a third world country too? (Self abortions occur in America, Britain and other developed countries as well)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So using brazil and South africa, which are third world countries ar in my viewed flawed.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

South Africa is not a third world country by a long stretch at all.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So yes, maybe my argument is flawed in the sense that it would not be possible to be carried out in a third world country, but it would work in a first world country. So am i totaly pwned? No.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes you are, because:

1) South Africa is not a third world country, I'm amazed you even claim it is. Neither is Brazil though this is at least somewhat understandable.

2) Your argument is still fatally flawed as other studies have concluded that these practices still continue in first world countries, even though abortions are legal.

Very evidently you have once again failed to read anything that was posted.

[quote[You mistake my lack of time, for a blatant ignoral and blanking.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, it's still blatant ignorance.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I just am short of time due to exams at the moment.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Boo hoo. I don't care.

If you're going to claim something as a 'fact' actually be CERTAIN it's a fact. It took me roughly 15-25 minutes of searching a simple library data-base to find numerous journal articles that ripped through everything you've claimed. I didn't even post the <i>majority</i> of the results I found.

'Facts' undoubtably mined from anti-abortion sites and lobbiests are not valid.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I however felt the need to reply to you well thought, although rather brash reply. I do ad did read your posts.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Funny how we missed the point the first time then (It took two attempts to get you to notice the significance of the Brazillian study). It's also interesting that you've failed to notice that even with legalised abortions there is still an unusually disturbing trend that many women still try to use self-abortive techniques.

As I said, the picture is inifinitely more complex than your simplistic arguments would suggest.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for the phisiological changes to a womans body, as i said in a post later on in the thread i did not go into detail on it, as i did not find it a valid argument to use as a case for abortion.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes it is, but evidently you have completely proven you have no understanding what so ever about pregnancy. As I've pointed out it's effects are infinitely more important than you are describing.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why? Being, as you imply detrimental and therefore case for abortion, that is silly why? <b>Statistics are to be feared</b>. Your statistics say there is a 12.6 in 100,000 chance that the woman will die due to an abortion. Well guess what? the odds of death-by-asteroid are still about 1-in-50,000.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I don't even need to rebut this, your amazing ignorance of statistics can stand for anyone can see.

You are aware that 12.6/100,000 is GREATER odds than 1/50,000 correct? No wonder you 'fear' statistics, you have no idea what it is!

Incidently just to requote this from me;

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>and note that <b>before we go into tiddly fits about such statistical tomfoolery, I am merely disproving your initial postulate that pregnancy is NOT a condition that is non-detrimental</b>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

GOOD GAME READING MY POSTS. I EVEN COMMENTED THAT THE STATISTICAL CHANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

None the less, in 200,000 births you would have 23 dead women (Actually more but I need not go into a more complicated discussion, because this suffices). In 200,000 Asteroid strikes you would have 4 deaths, that is if I believed your ridiculous claim anyway (which I don't).

23 is a lot more than 4.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My view still stands, normal pregnancy does not cause any problem which would warrant the use of wanton abortion or foeticide in most women.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Wrong, but then again you've already proven that you are completely full of bollocks, why I am not surprised to see the trend continue?

As far as wanton abortion or foeticide in <b>most</b> women, it's evident that abortion doesn't have nearly the effect on total birth rate as contraceptives. Are contraceptives wanton destruction of sperm and eggs, hence killing thousands of potential babies before they ever got a chance?

Again, I've already covered this.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You are more likely to be hit by an asteroid than die from being pregnant. So yes, for most women, the physiological changes induced by pregnancy are not life threatening, and you falied to find fault with my argument that led on from this point</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Nope I didn't and your point has been demolished further, because if you had a 1/50,000 chance of being killed by an asteroid there would be a lot more deaths from it per year.

Yet I don't even remember the last person EVER REPORTED killed by an asteroid. Of any size. Even a mere 1 person per year.

All I demonstrated was your base argument was a joke, and now all you've done is gone and put on your clown make-up as well.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I also noticed that the research you got was for "An assessment of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States" Well, isnt america the place with the highest cardiovascular problems in the world? So is this study really Globaly aplicable?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes it is and there is even a reference there that indicates so (you know...had you read my post...) Secondly, there is a second study that already covers that specifically (psst look at my references).

Once again, you did NOT BOTHER READING MY POST.

And you wonder why I dismissed your argument as 'bollocks' the first time rather than bother arguing with you?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Bingo. At least we agree that abortion should not be used as a contraception, so i do not tsee your argument there</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

First of all, the practice of quoting something out of context and then claiming the author agrees with you based on it is called 'quote mining'. Secondly, no I don't agree with you and I'm merely demonstrating that even with legalised abortion, contraceptive use is more important in lowering the birth rate than abortions are.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Do i have to quote my sources for everything? I do have Sources its just that i find it very time consuming to link em.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Websites are not even worth it to reference unless they are an online journal article or something else in print. But lets face it little Johnnys anti abortion site on geocities is NOT a valid source against peer reviewed journal articles or medical textbooks.

You'll notice that I repeatedly reported exactly what journal articles (the abstracts in full no less) I used were. This is to definitively make sure that people can see:

A) This is common among the medical literature

B) That many <i>different</i> countries, researchers and doctors <i>all come to similar conclusions and see similar phenomena</i>.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>and i am glad to say, nullifies at least a few of your points, especially the one in which you say i will not read your post.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No it doesn't, it's merely more bollocks to hide the fact you had no clue about what you were talking about to begin with, and you STILL haven't read most of my post. All you've done is added further hillarity now such as the fact you evidently have no clue about statistics either.

I am done with you.

Cyndane · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ageri)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Nope I didn't and your point has been demolished further, because if you had a 1/50,000 chance of being killed by an asteroid there would be a lot more deaths from it per year.

Yet I don't even remember the last person EVER REPORTED killed by an asteroid. Of any size. Even a mere 1 person per year.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Last asteroid that someone was reported to have died was in 1946 (It was also the size of a baseball) (almost 60 yrs ago), in alabama. I covered this in the bible thread when proving Noah's Ark false.

Just information. :-)

CMEast · May 2005

Well argued Aegeri and you've dug up some excellent articles there. I think it would have come across a little better if you'd just stuck to your points instead of mocking Steel Troll for an opinion which he's allowed to have whether it is only really backed up by emotions or not.

Steel Troll, there really isn't much you can say about abortion now except to say that "it's practical but not ethical". Something I <i>might</i> agree with. In the end it's a [Understatment]shame[/Understatment] that so many kids have to die but... Nice to see you didn't try and flame back though, not really worth it imo and it just shows you can be on the right side even when you're wrong <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It was not my intention to "strike a low blow". I did not know and I do apologize for that.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, but it <b>was</b> your intent to strike a blow, just as it was Cyndanes intent to strike one back. Could we <i>all</i> just keep this kind of stuff to a minimum please?

Anyway...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You can argue the morality of abortion in the infinite number of grey scenarios that life presents; but to deny that at a certain point you're dealing with a tiny human-being (attached or not) is IMO absolutely intellectually bankrupt.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

By intellectual bankrupt do you mean N00B!11!? Other than the fact that I personally have always said that it's a tiny human being and, even if it isn't, it is the chance of one and so should be counted as the same (just as a winning lottery ticket <b>is</b> a fortune whether you can spend it yet or not), what about those with a different idea of what is 'human' compared to you? Maybe there definition doesn't count a foetus or even just an unborn baby? Normally that would be considered semantics but it becomes important when your idea of 'human' is used to decide what lives and what dies.

How about this for you, not matter how grey the situation... no, even better. Lets pick a perfectly 'white' scenario where two potential parents are more than capable of looking after the child if it was brought to term, they are emotionally, financially and in all other ways completely secure and they could provide the perfect childhood. Lets go a bit further and say they have done some advanced new test and we can tell right now that the child, if born, would be a healthy, happy individual who's genius would benefit the world. In fact, lets go all the way and make this mankinds own saviour, without whom we would all die. Can this foetus be aborted? Does the mother have that right? YES

Final thought for the day (or this post anyway), why is it that so many people talk about how they only truly realise that they are parents when they have the baby in their arms for the first time? Why in films does the father never get that wondrous starry look in his eyes while staring at the pregnancy test kit (unless they had only a slim chance of conceiving and are desperately trying to)? I've never seen the father hand out cigars when his wife buys the first maternity dress or they pick the room that will be converted into a nursery yet either.

Steel_Troll · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I suggest you go and get some sleep before making another post in this topic, it really seems to be affecting the quality of your agruement. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am tired. It is four ocklock in the morning, this is by no means the most rational reply ever, but it is none the less a reply, and i am glad to say, nullifies at least a few of your points, especially the one in which you say i will not read your post.
Good night/ morning.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

you were tooo true.
but

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I also noticed that the research you got was for "An assessment of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States" Well, isnt america the place with the highest cardiovascular problems in the world? So is this study really Globaly aplicable?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

They are related, pregnancy puts extra strain on the heart and circulatory system. It is one of the major causes of pregnancy induced death after internal bleeding.As america is known for being obese, and 1 in 4 or 22.72% or 61.8 million people in USA have cardiovascular problems, can we therefore use this study and apply it to the entire wordl?

I re-read that statistic, and sadly for the second time in this thread thought? "WTH ?? GG Steel..." I realise that that chosen statistic was not the right one to use, but these are

disabling accident at home 1 in 81
airplane crash 1 in 4,000
Cancer 1-in-7
Stroke 1-in-23
A ccidental Injury 1-in-36
Motor Vehicle Accident 1-in-100
Intentional Self-harm (suicide) 1-in-121
Falling Down 1-in-246
Assault by Firearm 1-in-325
Fire or Smoke 1-in-1,116
Natural Forces (heat, cold, storms, quakes, etc.)1-in-3,357
Electrocution 1-in-5,000
Drowning 1-in-8,942

pregnancy related death 1.75-in-12,500

Air Travel Accident 1-in-20,000

SOURCES: National Center for Health Statistics, CDC; American Cancer Society; National Safety Council; International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; World Health Organization; USGS; Clark Chapman, SwRI; David Morrison, NASA; Michael Paine, Planetary Society Australian Volunteers

“Abortion was the leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in 2001,” said Elisabeth Makaya, head of the Ministry’s infant and maternal health department.

The survey, released last week, showed back street abortions caused 28.8 percent of pregnancy-related deaths in 2001. They accounted for more than a quater of the total fatal complications that arose during registered pregnancies that year.

So really the actual ratio of the mother dying due to pregnancy related death is much higher that 1.75 in 12500.
So my point that abortion is justified due to the risk that mothers are taking stands.

Next.... Brazil a society that is well known for its human rights abuse. Many desperate abortions in brazil are attributed to the sex with kids problem it has.Children therefore have been raped, as they can not give their informed consent.

According to a 1994 investigation on child prostitution by a special commission of the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil's lower house, prostitutes were found to be as young as five years old. "There exists the distorted view that the relationship with child prostitutes is an affirmation of youth and masculinity," said the report.

Brazil's government, worried about the nation's image overseas, has joined the campaign. In recent months, Justice Ministry officials have met with Brazilian airline and tourist groups, asking them to denounce travel agents who sell sex tours.

Brazil may be, in your view 2nd world country, but i beleive it as well as South Africa do not have the sufficient social support , healthcare support or adequate adoption/foster care facilities. What facts do i have to back that up??

"Brazil has one hospital bed per 270 persons, one physician per 848 persons, and an infant mortality rate of 57 per 1,000 live births. Socioeconomically, 80 percent of Brazil’s population are classified as low income. Brazil’s per capita gross domestic product in 1993 was $5,000.

And "South Africa In 1993, 18 million South Africans were living below the poverty datum line. Based on a minimum subsistence level of $90 per month,Infant mortality was 46 per 1,000 live births. There was one physician for every 1,264 persons and one hospital bed per 222 persons. Unemployment is a major and ever-increasing problem. The current unemployment figure amongst the black population is conservatively estimated at 25 percent. The 1995 per capita domestic product was $4,000 U.S."

So although i Edited and updated a few things in bold, my argument still stands :</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I intended her only to be put into prison on a specific term, that Abortion was illegalised, but adequate social support was provided by the government. If at this point however, with full knowledge of the social support being offered to her by the government, and also with the alternatives of adoption and foster care were put forward to the woman and she still had an abortion, then yes. I would want to see someone like her placed in prison.

Why does brazil suffer from the detremental effects of illegalizing abortion? Because it is an <b>underdeveloped country</b> it has <b>almost</b> no social support and and an almost inexistant health care which is limited to handing out free condoms with almost no dialogue.South Africa, being in a worse off Socio economic state than brazil, is therefore no better than brazil in terms of being able to provide social support.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So using brazil and South africa, which are third world countries in my view (as i dont beleive there are any 2nd world countries) is flawed. So again, am i totaly pwned? No.

Cyndane you are being silly. I did adress you, i did not ignore you at all. <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=92201&hl=vertical+c-section&view=findpost&p=1456255' target='_blank'>CLick, silly billy</a> that is your post, now read my post a few osts down, that was a direct response to your post.You have failed. Failed to see that i chalanged your point that abortions at 24 weeks must use vertical c-sections. In other words, from what i have read, this is not true, horizontal cuts can now be used (in 1950's though, this was certainly true) In modern day medicine, the position

In modern medicine the only time the vertical cut is performed nowerdays is when there is a uterine abnormality, hence my post later on that

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Approximately 0.1-3.2% of ALL women have a uterine abnormality. Factor out the ones in the baby bearing age range, now whats the chance of getting one in the the c-section baby saving procedure??And then not even all of these women have a severe enough uterine abnormality that warrants a vertical c-section. On top of this only 8 - 10% have the possibility of their uterus rupturing. Now thats an extreemly low number.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

Although i love the frase always out numbered, never outgunned does not suite me here, as there are many bullets flying towards me( most are Very-god-Discussion-poin tipped bullets) but i sadly, do not have time to catch em all (by answering them) so i might leave a few out, and make people yell "Hah we got him!" but really, i just do not have time, energy to tackle it... if i was bewtter resourced (as ageri deffinately is" i am sure i would be able to provide evidence which would be seen fit in ageri's eyes. The truth is we can not all be as well resourced as ageri ... i am certain very few people would argue points like ageri on an internet discussion forum...<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />

Steel_Troll · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How about this for you, not matter how grey the situation... no, even better. Lets pick a perfectly 'white' scenario where two potential parents are more than capable of looking after the child if it was brought to term, they are emotionally, financially and in all other ways completely secure and they could provide the perfect childhood. Lets go a bit further and say they have done some advanced new test and we can tell right now that the child, if born, would be a healthy, happy individual who's genius would benefit the world. In fact, lets go all the way and make this mankinds own saviour, without whom we would all die. Can this foetus be aborted? Does the mother have that right? YES</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And this is what this whole discussion boils down to.

Abortion may be (in your views) practical, but it is deffinately unethical even though it is supported by law. The Nazis law allowed them to kill the jews just as the abortion laws allow us to kill inocents human beings.

What more, no one can argue that the way in which it is carried out is barbaric.

Aegeri · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They are related, pregnancy puts extra strain on the heart and circulatory system. It is one of the major causes of pregnancy induced death after internal bleeding.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Read. The. Reference.

I will not go through this with you again unless you demonstrate a basic degree of reading comprehension.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As america is known for being obese, and 1 in 4 or 22.72% or 61.8 million people in USA have cardiovascular problems, can we therefore use this study and apply it to the entire wordl? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

READ. THE. REFERENCES.

I will not STATE THIS AGAIN.

I'm losing patience with you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I re-read that statistic, and sadly for the second time in this thread thought? "WTH ?? GG Steel..." I realise that that chosen statistic was not the right one to use, but these are</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh good, re-read this then:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>and note that before we go into tiddly fits about such statistical tomfoolery, I am merely disproving your initial postulate that pregnancy is NOT a condition that is non-detrimental. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'></span>

How many times must this be stated?

I'll cut out the rubbish here, because it's aside from the point of what I presented the argument as inititally.

However.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> “Abortion was the leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in 2001,” said Elisabeth Makaya, head of the Ministry’s infant and maternal health department.

The survey, released last week, <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>showed back street abortions caused 28.8 percent of pregnancy-related deaths in 2001</span>. They accounted for more than a quater of the total fatal complications that arose during registered pregnancies that year.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Noting that this is already in agreement with my other references, which you STILL HAVEN'T READ OR YOU WOULD SEE I'VE ALREADY BOUGHT THIS UP.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So really the actual ratio of the mother dying due to pregnancy related death is much higher that 1.75 in 12500.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again, irrelevant to my point or the argument.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So my point that abortion is justified due to the risk that mothers are taking stands.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

What the hell is the point of this sentence? Are you saying that so long as a mother can kill herself in the process, it's alright, noting that you've HORRIFICALLY mangled the fact that these are illegal abortions done under non-sterile conditions?

This is it really, I'm done with you.

You are completely and utterly intellectually vapid. Absolutely.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Next.... Brazil a society that is well known for its human rights abuse. Many desperate abortions in brazil are attributed to the sex with kids problem it has.Children therefore have been raped, as they can not give their informed consent.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This doesn't change the point or anything I've bought up at all.

But go on, keep missing the point.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Brazil may be, in your view 2nd world country, but i beleive</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I've demonstrated what you 'believe' is worth very little.

You 'believed' that over 1/50,000 people die very year from a meteorite strike.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>it as well as South Africa do not have the sufficient social support , healthcare support or adequate adoption/foster care facilities. What facts do i have to back that up??</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh let's see indeed.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"Brazil has one hospital bed per 270 persons, one physician per 848 persons, and an infant mortality rate of 57 per 1,000 live births. Socioeconomically, 80 percent of Brazil’s population are classified as low income. Brazil’s per capita gross domestic product in 1993 was $5,000.

And "South Africa In 1993, 18 million South Africans were living below the poverty datum line. Based on a minimum subsistence level of $90 per month,Infant mortality was 46 per 1,000 live births. There was one physician for every 1,264 persons and one hospital bed per 222 persons. Unemployment is a major and ever-increasing problem. The current unemployment figure amongst the black population is conservatively estimated at 25 percent. The 1995 per capita domestic product was $4,000 U.S."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is ignoring several aspects including the date is taken before the end of Apartheid in South Africa (1993) where numerous blacks were deliberately denied health care or better jobs. Today this isn't so much of a problem, especially with further reform occuring. The Brazillian statistics are also out of date, a review by Atkinson S, Cohn A, Ducci ME, Gideon J., Implementation of promotion and prevention activities in decentralized health systems: comparative case studies from Chile and Brazil. (2005) indicates that Brazil has come a long way in 12 years since 1993.

But again you've merely demonstrated (as always) you haven't read my sources. Once again, this has ALREADY been covered though Brazil still remains a very good example.

Lastly on South Africa again:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Abstract Context: The South African Red Cross Air Mercy Service and its Flying Doctors Service provides health care to far flung and disadvantaged communities in South Africa. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to highlight the importance and effectiveness of the service in providing health care to a range of people who have poor or no access to certain health services in South Africa. Methods: Data and information was collected from records and statistical data of our service. Data was evaluated and compiled into a report highlighting the achievements of this organisation from its infancy to the present day. Findings: The Flying Doctor and Health Outreach Programme has made a difference in improving health care by providing specialist services, transport of patients and training of medical personnel in outlying areas of South Africa that have poor access to health care. Emergency Air Ambulance and Rescue Services have proven to be supportive in providing rapid advanced life support and rescue services to patients in emergency situations. Many lives have been saved through this service. <b>Conclusion: The South African Red Cross Air Mercy Service plays a crucial role in delivering specialised health care to disadvantaged communities in South Africa</b>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Exadaktylos AK, Haffejee F, Wood D, Erasmus P. South African Red Cross Flying Doctors Service quality and safety in the rural and remote South African environment. The Australian journal of rural health. 2005 Apr;13(2):106-10.

A 'third world country' (as you call it) not only can fund and support an <i>effective</i> Air Mercy Service but that it's capable of transmitting specialised health care services as well? Who would have thought! Unless of course, South Africa isn't QUITE as third world as we'd like to 'claim' correct?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So although i Edited and updated a few things in bold, my argument still</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So using brazil and South africa, which are third world countries in my view (as i dont beleive there are any 2nd world countries) is flawed. So again, am i totaly pwned? No. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Except you'd still be wrong (and look, another pesky journal article to contradict you!).

Once again, South Africa, no matter WHAT you say is not a third world country. Just because it is in 'Africa' is not good enough logic to claim it is a third world country.

This is my last response to you, I'm tired of answering stupid inane arguments and you continually prove that you haven't read a single article I have presented.

I don't reference things for my own amusement.

Oh good, a nice summary post:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Abortion may be (in your views) practical, but it is deffinately unethical</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Once again we highlight your ridiculous assertion here, and point out that you think it's perfectly 'ethical' to allow a woman to essentially kill herself using a self-abortion method. This problem is largely why the medical community suggests abortion should be a legal option, because it puts many young women at an extreme risk.

But we can already see your indifference to pregnant women throughout this thread, and your general ignorance of what pregnancy actually involves.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The Nazis law allowed them to kill the jews just as the abortion laws allow us to kill inocents human beings.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But for sheer fun, let's also note that the NAZI party was actually anti-abortion and in fact abortions were illegal for any Aryan. None the less, I've long learnt that when the losing side compares his opponents to Hitler/NAZI regime they have automatically conceded the argument.

You will get no further response from me.

CMEast · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ May 7 2005, 02:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And this is what this whole discussion boils down to.

Abortion may be (in your views) practical, but it is deffinately unethical even though it is supported by law. The Nazis law allowed them to kill the jews just as the abortion laws allow us to kill inocents human beings.

What more, no one can argue that the way in which it is carried out is barbaric.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
It is unethical to abort, it never said it was ethical to stop people from having the choice. I am very pro-abortion/death etc etc. You say "in your views" but how can you not take the same stance considering all the evidence for it, legalising abortions is very practical indeed.

Oh, so you just don't like the way in which it is carried out? So if we did the abortions in a nice way for the foetus it would be ok?

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 7 2005, 08:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It was not my intention to "strike a low blow". I did not know and I do apologize for that.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, but it <b>was</b> your intent to strike a blow, just as it was Cyndanes intent to strike one back. Could we <i>all</i> just keep this kind of stuff to a minimum please?

Anyway...
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'd appreciate it if you would kindly not play the role of forum moderator.

In addition I find it hightly ironic that you seem to target the the rare instance where someone actually apologizes for criticism. I find that strange to say the least.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You can argue the morality of abortion in the infinite number of grey scenarios that life presents; but to deny that at a certain point you're dealing with a tiny human-being (attached or not) is IMO absolutely intellectually bankrupt.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

By intellectual bankrupt do you mean N00B!11!?

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, I mean there comes a point in time where it is just no longer honest to try and pretend that there is not a tiny-human being waiting to be born.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
How about this for you, not matter how grey the situation... no, even better. Lets pick a perfectly 'white' scenario where two potential parents are more than capable of looking after the child if it was brought to term, they are emotionally, financially and in all other ways completely secure and they could provide the perfect childhood.[*snipped some*]
Can this foetus be aborted? Does the mother have that right? YES
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, I would say that the mother <b>does have the right to abort. </b>

<b>However depending on when the abortion takes place as far as I'm concerned she does not have the right to consider the unborn baby as anything less than a human being.</b>

I just want some honesty here. If she can admit that and still want the procedure done then fine.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Final thought for the day (or this post anyway), why is it that so many people talk about how they only truly realise that they are parents when they have the baby in their arms for the first time?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, "out of sight" tends to be out of mind. This is true with so much of human nature.

We tend to be very vision orientated, so this shouldn't come as a surprise really.

I think for woman it is somewhat different though, as they have felt the baby for a length of time already.

CMEast · May 2005

If I was trying to play moderator I'd have reported the posts, or started talking about locking the topic, all I did was remind people to play nice. If was playing any role it was 'concerned citizen'.

I also thought that sentence ironic, I found it amusing that you were apologising for a low blow you never intended to make and wasn't meant to be an attack at all but then stood by all the 'higher blows' that were far more aggressive and were on purpose. Plus I felt that quoting that particular section rather than any of the other more negative comments more appropriate precisely because they didn't need repeating.

Oh and 'Intellectually bankrupt' does not mean dishonest, it means stupid. If you wish to insult people do it more accurately or better, not at all.

I don't know a single person that has had an abortion and not thought about their 'child' afterwards. I'm pretty sure most women are aware that they are killing a child (or at least the potential for one) but it's not the kind of thing they want to admit or hear accusations for. I mean after all, as you said: </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think for woman it is somewhat different though, as they have felt the baby for a length of time already.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I think it is probably quite difficult to be dispassionate about a life growing inside you, only one person I know feels no guilt at all for the abortion and I think that's because she saw the baby inside of her as a threat (and she wouldn't thank me for analysing her like that in such a public place... ). However none of the others I know regret making that decision, they were always justified at the time.

Now I don't know that many girls who have had abortions (im only 22), I know a fair few just because of where I live and some of the things I've been through but certainly not enough to constitute a sample or anything. Still, that's not what I was trying to go for.

Finally, surely you are arguing that these women that have abortions are somehow unaware that this could be a human life that they are ending and that if they only knew they'd never do it. That sounds like yet another variant of the emotion based 'It's a baby, you can't kill babies you monsters!' style defense that every other 'pro-life' supporter adopts.

TommyVercetti · May 2005

Stop posting, Aegeri already won. Go start a new serv- I mean discussion, Steel.

Steel_Troll · May 2005

Ageri you now fail to discuss, you impose.
Hehe, it is funny how you said i am done with you, and that i am intelectually vapid, and yet you still deem me a threat, so much so as to return to this thread after what you said "i am done with me." <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /> (starts counting...)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am merely disproving your initial postulate that pregnancy is NOT a condition that is non-detrimental.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

My original "postulate" from which you took my quote was out of context. He said in basic terms "cant a woman abort due to the fact that the baby causes detremental changes to her body, and could essentialy prove a threat to her life?" And i said to him that i did not think that the phisiological changes that occur to a woman during pregnancy warrant a mother to be allowed to terminate the baby.

And that is what i was on about here:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So my point that abortion is justified due to the risk that mothers are taking stands.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So i was not saying that (in your words)"so long as a mother can kill herself in the process, it's alright, due the fact that these are illegal abortions done under non-sterile conditions?"

I did however state that, with the illegalisation of abortion,(except for cases of rape) there would come a vast increase in the ammount spent in education/foster care/and adoption as well as health care and contraception.

If at this point, with the woman being in fully informed, then she would face prosecution.If she however puts herself at risk by self aborting. It is her choice and at her calculated risk.

South africa Updated results (from 2005)

Death rate 21.32 deaths/1,000
Infant mortality rate: 61.81 deaths/1,000 live births
Life Expectancy 43.27 years

With comparison to a first world country, england
Death rate 10.18 deaths/1,000 population
Infant mortality rate 5.16 deaths/1,000 live births
Life Expectancy 78.38 years

The service started in the Northern Cape in March 1996 and was extended into KwaZulu-Natal in June 1998. Terms of skilled health professionals from the city hospitals are flown to more remote towns and hospitals where they treat patients and provide support and in-service training for local staff. More than 70,000 patients have already benefited and the province have been able to extend access to specialised services at very low cost.
The provincial health departments and local communities identify the needs, the provinces provide most of the skilled health professionals, while the Red Cross, supported by business, provide the aeroplanes, pilots and logistical support. It is a partnership that works

As admirable their work is, and although it is a step in the right direction, the truth is it is very limited. It is operates in only two provinces, and relies heavily on funding. Although 70000 people have benefited since 1996, southafrica is far from develpoed.

SA has a negative Population growth rate: -0.31% (2005 est.) Due to the ravaging affects of aids and poverty in the townships.Low education rates coupled with inadequate health care for millions (not a mere 70000 in 9 years). Its main spendature at the moment is far from setting up adoption centers and foster care, and its attempts at encouraging people to use contraceptives is meager at best.
"Only 2 out of 10 used a condom the last time they had sex" NOTES FOR A SPEECH BY THE MINISTER OF HEALTH, DR MANTO TSHABALALA-MSIMANG, TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN RED CROSS SOCIETY <a href='http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/sp/1999/sp1016.html' target='_blank'>http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/sp/1999/sp1016.html</a>

CMEast
If she can admit that the baby is a human being, how can the procedure be fine?

She is ultimately killing a human being. You say it is fine. I have a big problem with that. Will we ever see it in different views? I doubt it...

TommyVercetti, I can post if i want to. In my view you can not all out "Win" a discussion. Discussion = Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
If this were a debate, Ageri may in your view have "Won", but here all he has done is come up with some very valid points. This goes for you as well Ageri, by you saying "You will get no further response from me." you fail to discuss, you impose.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 7 2005, 12:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> .  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If I was trying to play moderator I'd have reported the posts, or started talking about locking the topic, all I did was remind people to play nice. If was playing any role it was 'concerned citizen'.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No actually East, you were playing the role of 'annoyed citizen'. 'Concerned citizen' alerts the authorities while 'annoyed citizen' decides to take matters into their own hands. And when you do that it is not appreciated by anyone, including the mods.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I also thought that sentence ironic, I found it amusing that you were apologising for a low blow you never intended to make and wasn't meant to be an attack at all but then stood by all the 'higher blows' that were far more aggressive and were on purpose.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, there is a difference between attacking someone for something that they have no control over versus something they do. I'm happy that this amuses you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Oh and 'Intellectually bankrupt' does not mean dishonest, it means stupid. If you wish to insult people do it more accurately or better, not at all.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hmmm. So it seems you are not above what you preach on these discussion boards eh? Ok Pot, I'll be Kettle.

Now that we've been formerly introduced I'd like to point out that the meaning behind my words was rather obvious.

If you wan't to haggle about technical defintions all day fine; but my take on 'Intellectually bankrupt' means to have no valid arguments to support your point of view. In other words you have no reasonable intellectual material to work with as opposed to your idea of 'stupid'.

There's a difference and why don't we spend all day arguing semantics and splitting hairs?

It is not honest to try and argue without intellectual substance to support your position, because then you resort to fabricating evidence and hiding behind technical defintions that we all know are inadequate. That is what I'm trying to explain here.

And again, your pseudo-moderating is not appreciated.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Finally, surely you are arguing that these women that have abortions are somehow unaware that this could be a human life that they are ending and that if they only knew they'd never do it. That sounds like yet another variant of the emotion based 'It's a baby, you can't kill babies you monsters!' style defense that every other 'pro-life' supporter adopts.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, let me try express my point of view here once again. I'm saying that:

i) <b>At a certain time</b> during pregnancy the foetus is for all intents and purposes a human being. I've already demonstrated that just because it is dependant on the mother does not make it less human.

ii) <b>If an abortion</b> takes place at this point in time in i) I believe it dishonest to say anything else than that you are killing a human-being. The justification thereof is a matter for the moral-court to decide and that is outside of the scope of what I'm discussing.

iii) The woman can choose to abort and I am for pro-choice _but_ with the understanding and full awareness of what it is that you are doing in ii) which is killing a tiny human-being.

And this is not a purely emotional argument. It is making sure that the choice is an informed and thoughtful one. I'm not legislating morality here, merely pointing out an objective truth.

Abortion

Comments