• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

Not to stray offtopic, but has anyone felt the urge to get fat because of, say, parental neglect ? (I'm watching TV)......................
 
As stated previously, if, as most pro-choice people believe - as I believe, because I'm pro-choice - that women control their own bodies, what goes in and what comes out, then except for the exceptions where a woman is raped or she is still an under aged child, etc., you have to accept that no woman gets pregnant unless she allows herself to get pregnant. If she's not forced to have unprotected sex, she makes a choice - there's that choice thingy again - a choice to engage in an activity that has the potential to leave her pregnant. She makes that choice - or, if you'd prefer, she takes that gamble and sometimes she wins, sometimes she loses.

Choosing to have sex is not choosing to get knocked up. It can be said that the woman is taking the risk but that in no way shape or form means she wants to get pregnant or that she is obligated to gestate and give birth. She has the option to abort.
 
No, I don't know the numbers - I'm not sure they're available. Considering the trends and considering that nothing so drastic has happened in society in the past 5 years, I'm not prepared to bet at all that the 1.2 million number has dropped "dramatically" and I can't see any evidence that would lead you to the conclusion. I will say, however, that I sure hope you're right.

After much searching I found the stats for 2009 ( I wish I could find more recent stats) and the abortion numbers were down from 2008 by 5 percent.

Description of System: Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). The reporting areas provide this information voluntarily. For 2009, data were received from 48 reporting areas. For the purpose of trend analysis, abortion data were evaluated from the 45 areas that reported data every year during 2000–2009. Census and natality data, respectively, were used to calculated abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births).

Results: A total of 784,507 abortions were reported to CDC for 2009.

Of these abortions, 772,630 (98.5%) were from the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 2000–2009.

Compared with 2008, the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2009 decreased 5%,representing the largest single year decrease for the entire period of analysis. The abortion ratio decreased 2%.

From 2000 to 2009, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 6%, 7%, and 8%, respectively, to the lowest levels for 2000–2009.

Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2009
 
At the same time, when do pro abortion women ever take responsibility for creating a life, a life they have no right to take away? How often is it seen that pro abortion women, in 99% of the cases wherein they consensually agree to an act that is intended to lead to pregnancy [ that is its main purpose, to promote the survival of the species ], take the responsibility for that action, along with their partner? And how many women are willing, if indeed the responsibility is to be equal, to give men just as much right to make the ultimate decision to choose life... or do you believe that its solely the woman's choice? Because that is the common liberal meme, woman's choice...what about all the equality? What about man's choice? What about partner's choice...together... and how about the baby's choice? I mean your way is having it both ways, this woman's choice only and women never having to take actual responsibility for her own actions.

Aborting IS taking responsibility. Birthing a child you cannot or will not raise properly or pawning it off on others to raise is NOT responsible, IMO.

The man can have a choice when it's HIS body being put at risk by the pregnancy.

The baybee can have a choice when it is capable of making and articulating one.
 
why would you assume they have fallen, especially dramatically?

From 2008 to 2009 abortion rates fell 5 percent.
I think since more and more women of childbearing years are using Long term BC methods the rates have dropped and will drop even more.
 
Why do you feel the need to be so nasty? Minnie said nothing to deserve that.

Who is being nasty? Not me. i simply called someone out on their lies.


Aborting IS taking responsibility. Birthing a child you cannot or will not raise properly or pawning it off on others to raise is NOT responsible, IMO.

The idea of abortion being responsible is like making sure you destroy evidence of a crime you committed, hence "being a good citizen".
The man can have a choice when it's HIS body being put at risk by the pregnancy.

No, the man has to worry about 18-21 years of slavery/indentured servitude, no matter his protestation.

The baybee can have a choice when it is capable of making and articulating one.

When is a "baybee" capable of articulating a choice?
 
Ever heard the phrase, "casting pearls before swine"?

I want to thank you for demonstrating the inherently dishonest nature of the abortion banning argument, which can only make arguments by misportraying the meaning of words, just as they misunderstand the meaning of life and freedom

The highlight of your post was the part where you describe ZEF's as a social group. :lamo
 
Not to be crude, but it's convenient if you support abortion to find that the raw numbers of actual abortions don't matter. The fact still remains that abortions in the US have been consistently above 1.2 million per year. That, to me, is still a remarkably high number and one has to assume that abortion in 2013 is considered a form of birth control while when Roe v Wade was adjudicated it was considered a rare but necessary procedure in certain circumstances. To me, that's a very sad commentary on today's society and probably explains why support for abortion has been falling steadily and there is more support for limits on abortion at the state's level.

Untrue

GraphABCWashingtonPostabortion_460.jpg
 
Here's a better chart.

As anyone can see, support for abortion has remained fairly steady over decades

abortion+1.jpg
 
Choosing to have sex is not choosing to get knocked up. It can be said that the woman is taking the risk but that in no way shape or form means she wants to get pregnant or that she is obligated to gestate and give birth. She has the option to abort.

Sure she has the option to abort - no one is denying that - it's ludicrous, however, to say "that in no way shape or form means she wants to get pregnant" if she's foolish enough to have unprotected intercourse - that's as stupid as saying if I walk across a 12 lane highway with cars barrelling by, I in no way shape or form want to get hit so it's not my fault if I get hit. Take some effin responsibility.
 
I want to thank you for demonstrating the inherently dishonest nature of the abortion banning argument, which can only make arguments by misportraying the meaning of words, just as they misunderstand the meaning of life and freedom

The highlight of your post was the part where you describe ZEF's as a social group. :lamo

What is immediately identifiable, upon conception one might say, when "debating" [ being the loosest,weakest construal of that concept] with you is, once we get beyond your tossing of one liner barbs, your sneers, your taunts, jeers, scorns and scoffs, you can never back up any, ANY, of your hypothetical deeply held and "reflected" thoughts with anything beyond the most cursory, shallow opinions. Once we get into the actual Constitution, your "only born persons" arguments fade then completely vanish, a dreamlike vaporization upon wakening, your flawed interpretation of what is so simply stated in the UVVA 2004 is so far off as to be comical, certainly recommending the use of a road map to get you back anywhere close to the destination, your understanding of what was actually the basis and what was said in R v W, even though you keep sending the google scholar document of the ruling, is just appallingly embarrassing [ even if not embarrassed, we end up embarrassed for you].

I think what is most particularly apropos in response here is probably your own signature phrase, which does seem more in line with a deep reflection from a mirror in your own abode, so it must be close to home: "One can only be so intelligent, but stupidity knows no limits".

I do, now, see where you are coming from.
 
Just as abortion stats are difficult to quantify because various states require various reporting, reliable stats on pregnancies that result from rape are difficult to find. However, according to the LA Times:

"Because pregnancy is believed to occur with about the same frequency whether a woman was raped or engaged in consensual sex – about 5% of the time – the wildly different estimates in occurrences of rape have produced wildly varying estimates of the number of pregnancies that result."

Statistics on rape and pregnancy are complicated - Los Angeles Times

From the Wall Street Journal:

"The biggest discrepancy is in the estimates used for the number of rapes in the U.S. These can vary in official government estimates from as few as 64,000 a year to as many as 1.3 million, about 20 times larger, depending on when and how rapes are counted.

...The Federal Bureau of Investigation counted 84,767 forcible rapes—as distinct from statutory rapes without force—in 2010, based on crime reports from local law-enforcement agencies. The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, based on polling Americans, counted 188,380 rapes and sexual assaults that year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, conducting its own victimization survey, counted 1.3 million rapes in 2010.

Survey design and question wording also matter. A study published in 2000 by the Department of Justice compared two surveys conducted in 1997 among women attending college. The surveys were identical, except that one was modeled on Justice's crime victimization survey while the other asked much more detailed questions to screen for rape. The latter survey estimated a percentage of women who had been raped that was 11 times higher than the one modeled on Justice's survey."

In addition to conflict between the CDC's and Justice's reporting, "The other unknown number is the probability that a rape will lead to pregnancy. There are no fully reliable, up-to-date data on such relevant factors as the age of victims, the rate of their hormonal contraceptive use and what percentage of rapists ejaculate in their victims, researchers say." Pregnancies From Rape Prove Tough to Count - WSJ.com

Important to note that the Kilpatrick referenced is the author of the 1996 study frequently cited: Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and de... [Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

The 32,000 rape pegnanancy number comes from a study of a national sample of women.

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape.

STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.


RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape
among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45);
among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.

Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape.

A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester;
32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption;
an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.

CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence.
As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.

Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women. - Abstract - Europe PubMed Central
 
Even in threads not remotely related to rape, here you rape-obsessed weirdos are, doing your thing in yet another thread.

We need a rape forum. For the same reason we have a Middle East forum, for the same reason we have a Trayvon Martin forum.
 
The fixation is bizarre. Not as bizarre as the fetus--more recently, the blastocyst--cast as the sexually assaulting invader.
 
What is immediately identifiable, upon conception one might say, when "debating" [ being the loosest,weakest construal of that concept] with you is, once we get beyond your tossing of one liner barbs, your sneers, your taunts, jeers, scorns and scoffs, you can never back up any, ANY, of your hypothetical deeply held and "reflected" thoughts with anything beyond the most cursory, shallow opinions. Once we get into the actual Constitution, your "only born persons" arguments fade then completely vanish, a dreamlike vaporization upon wakening, your flawed interpretation of what is so simply stated in the UVVA 2004 is so far off as to be comical, certainly recommending the use of a road map to get you back anywhere close to the destination, your understanding of what was actually the basis and what was said in R v W, even though you keep sending the google scholar document of the ruling, is just appallingly embarrassing [ even if not embarrassed, we end up embarrassed for you].

I think what is most particularly apropos in response here is probably your own signature phrase, which does seem more in line with a deep reflection from a mirror in your own abode, so it must be close to home: "One can only be so intelligent, but stupidity knows no limits".

I do, now, see where you are coming from.

You constantly, and dishonestly, continue to insist that I haven't proven that ZEF's have no rights protected by the law, even though I have proven this beyond any doubt. The opinions you refer to as "mine" are, in actuality, the decisions of SCOTUS - the body which the constitution you claim to adhere to has given the authority to make such decisions.

As far as UVVA goes, I have no posted my "interpretations"; I have referenced court decisions, including those of SCOTUS. Those rulings have consistently shown that UVVA does not grant any "personhood" to a ZEF, nor can it be used as an argument that a mothers decision to abort deprives anyone else of any of their constitutional rights (ex equal protection)

In response, all you have done is claim that "SCOTUS is wrong" as if your opinion has equal legal authority as SCOTUS, and "Someday they'll change their minds" as if your prophecies are anything but fantasies masquerading as an argument.
 
Yeah, and I am saying it's bizarre to base a moral and ethical positions on law, which tends to be subject to all manner of pressures and interests. Take for instance the nazi slaughter of the jews, or the iranian execution of homosexuals, etc

Also, you might want to look other places for authoritative citations on religious text, besides a mathematician

Good point, so let me bring up the Bible itself.

1) Genesis, chapter 2:

"7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "

As you can see, Adam did not become a person until he took his first breath. But what about fetuses themselves? The Bible has a lot to say on that question also:

From Exodus, Chapter 21:

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her , and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman' husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine .

That's right. It is not murder. The man who caused the fetus to die can be sued, and forced to pay money to the the woman's husband. But many today who profess to be Christians attempt to invent new meanings which never existed in the Bible at all. What does the Bible say about them? It's right here:

From Revelations, Chapter 22:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

God hates hypocrites, and will punish them severely.
 
Good point, so let me bring up the Bible itself.

1) Genesis, chapter 2:

"7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "

As you can see, Adam did not become a person until he took his first breath. But what about fetuses themselves? The Bible has a lot to say on that question also:

From Exodus, Chapter 21:

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her , and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman' husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine .

That's right. It is not murder. The man who caused the fetus to die can be sued, and forced to pay money to the the woman's husband. But many today who profess to be Christians attempt to invent new meanings which never existed in the Bible at all. What does the Bible say about them? It's right here:

From Revelations, Chapter 22:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

God hates hypocrites, and will punish them severely.

Why would I care what the bible says on the issue?
 
Why would I care what the bible says on the issue?

Because YOU said THIS:

Also, you might want to look other places for authoritative citations on religious text, besides a mathematician

A little forgetful today?

Thanks for playing. :mrgreen:
 
Folks, be my guest....Just go back to post #450 of this thread, as it is even hard for me to believe anyone would stoop to such blatant dissembling after another has had the patience to, over and over, so painstakingly show them the exact errors of their ways. But go back, read that post for just a smidgen of the non-stop misstatements, the spinning of prevarications as if they were the solid truth, the incessant factual inaccuracies, the lost in space perspectives...so its easy enough to just go back to that post. If you are up for a little fun, especially a psychology major at university perhaps, try to follow the labyrinth of twists and turns of the myriad deficiencies of judgement, the common senselessness, the utter absence of an anchor of sufficient weight to keep one moored in reality. Actually rather comical, but at the same time troubling, as it is so persistent.

Somewhat surprised I am still in such good humor about it all, but I guess most of us can take solace and truthfully say, that there, but for the grace of god, go I. If you should, by chance, go back to all the other posts, do not take offense at his name calling, the "delusional", "nut bagger" or "party of stupid" stuff, know that those who are without proper arguments often feel so frustrated that they feel they must strike back, must resort to this manner of trying to inflict some damage, any damage, and this is the only way left to them.


You constantly, and dishonestly, continue to insist that I haven't proven that ZEF's have no rights protected by the law, even though I have proven this beyond any doubt. The opinions you refer to as "mine" are, in actuality, the decisions of SCOTUS - the body which the constitution you claim to adhere to has given the authority to make such decisions. For the last time, yet with patience as just maybe you may eventually get it, SCOTUS is not the Constitution. Besides, if you actually followed the SCOTUS ruling on Roe, along with its accompanying commentary, you would realize that the Justices indicated the limits of the rights of privacy. But as I have mentioned it and referenced it before, you either desire to ignore it, or maybe just simply do have not the adequate capacity to understand it.

As far as UVVA goes, I have no posted my "interpretations"; I have referenced court decisions, including those of SCOTUS. Those rulings have consistently shown that UVVA does not grant any "personhood" to a ZEF, nor can it be used as an argument that a mothers decision to abort deprives anyone else of any of their constitutional rights (ex equal protection) You posted that it, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2004. was a solely a protection of the mother, not a protection of the unborn victim...I have proven numerous times, with direct quoting from the language of the act itself, that it is specifically a protection of the unborn baby, thus the title of the act. Again, why you cannot comprehend such simplicity one can only surmise, but then to say you have never ventured those opinions...what would be a nice way to put what it is you are trying to do...? Besides which, the act itself states plainly, for all to see, "(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." What does member mean to you? What does homo sapiens mean to you? Would you consider yourself a member of the species homo sapiens?

In response, all you have done is claim that "SCOTUS is wrong" as if your opinion has equal legal authority as SCOTUS, and "Someday they'll change their minds" as if your prophecies are anything but fantasies masquerading as an argument. What I have claimed is that SCOTUS is not a legislative body, that is the sole right of the legislative branch under the US Constitution. Article I, Section 1, reads, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Even the power of judicial review of the laws made by the legislative branch is not granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, that was precedent and tradition that started with Chief Justice John Marshall in the case, after ratification, of Marbury v Madison. Again, you really should read up and know your history before hitting that submit button...so in reality, there was no law previous, there were no boundaries specified for abortion as drawn up by any legislature, that was lawmaking from the bench, which is unconstitutional per the Constitution and specifically quoted above... that it has been allowed is an absolute travesty and basically a tyranny of the minority on the high bench. Yes, that is MY opinion and Yes, it is better than SCOTUS as mine is constitutionally correct. And I have also proven that SCOTUS are not our masters, they are not gods or even infallible popes, they are mere mortals and their judgements can be called into question and previous decisions have been proven wrong... Plessy v Ferguson... but you just don't or won't get that... so, I cannot feel your pain, but good luck with all that...
 
Because YOU said THIS

Right, on the issue of translation and what context the term "law" was being used in the passage under discussion. You may notice that citing a biblical translation does not address these points



A little forgetful today?

No

Thanks for playing. :mrgreen:

Pro tip: if you're going to try and be a smart ass about something you might want to actually know what you are talking about.
 
Right, on the issue of translation and what context the term "law" was being used in the passage under discussion. You may notice that citing a biblical translation does not address these points





No



Pro tip: if you're going to try and be a smart ass about something you might want to actually know what you are talking about.

Are you calling the Bible stupid? :mrgreen:

And don't forget that it was YOU who said:

Also, you might want to look other places for authoritative citations on religious text, besides a mathematician

I merely gave you an authoritative citation on religious text.... From the religious text itself.

YOU laid the ground rules. I merely followed them. And, by the way, I WAS quoting law, as it existed at that time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom