• 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!

Abortion KILLS An Innocent Human Being [W: 459]

Yes tjere are real numbers in there but you cant give me a real number of how many pregnancies PP prevented. Its impossible to measure that.

For instance PP gives out free condoms. Lets say 5 in 10 women get pregnant and 50,000 women took condoms from PP. Are we suppose to draw the conclussion that PP prevented 25,000 unwanted pregnancies.

Some of those women would of sought out contraception from another outlet and some of them will get pregnant despite taking the condoms.

The numbers your citing are probably unreliable

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Yes tjere are real numbers in there but you cant give me a real number of how many pregnancies PP prevented. Its impossible to measure that.

For instance PP gives out free condoms. Lets say 5 in 10 women get pregnant and 50,000 women took condoms from PP. Are we suppose to draw the conclussion that PP prevented 25,000 unwanted pregnancies.

Some of those women would of sought out contraception from another outlet and some of them will get pregnant despite taking the condoms.

The numbers your citing are probably unreliable

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Reality about the numbers? There's numbers available. Instead of you making up your on conclusions other than...well, you can't really rely on PP's numbers...yadda, yadda. Show us what's going on...according to your numbers and sources for those numbers. I'd like to see them.

If you want to show numbers outside of PP's, great, love to see them.
 
Reality about the numbers? There's numbers available. Instead of you making up your on conclusions other than...well, you can't really rely on PP's numbers...yadda, yadda. Show us what's going on...according to your numbers and sources for those numbers. I'd like to see them.

If you want to show numbers outside of PP's, great, love to see them.
You should probably go back and reread my post because your not grasping what i have said or your purposely trying to get me to argue your strawman.

I think i been pretty clear that the conclusion your trying to draw is impossible to draw. There are no numbers that you can cite to accurately depict how many unwanted pregnancies PP has prevented.

If you want to believe the claims because they you reassure you that you have the right position, thats on you. Im telling you your methodology is flawed and you gave you an example of why.

Instead of xhallenging me to prove something i said is unprovable why dont you prove that the math your using is not only correct but also leads you to the conclussion that PP has prevented 575,000 (i think was claimed) from ever occurring.

Sometimes i think you guys disagree with things just for the sake of being contrite.

Btw i did not agree with or disagree with anything. I disputed the reliability of their claim.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Not talking about the Planned Parenthood numbers.

There are real numbers in the percentage of pregnacies aborted.
In 2013 the percentage of pregnancies aborted ( induced or chemical ) was 20.2 percent.

There are real percentages in numbers of unwanted pregnancies that are aborted in the US.

40 percent of unwanted / unplanned pregnancies are aborted.


Those are well known and accepted numbers by many pro life groups as well as the CDC
So now you want to argue about something i never argued?

This started when i challenged the claim that you made that PP prevents more unwanted pregnancies than it performs abortions. I said that is impossible to prove. Now you want to talk about abortion numbers, how convenient.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
You should probably go back and reread my post because your not grasping what i have said or your purposely trying to get me to argue your strawman.

I think i been pretty clear that the conclusion your trying to draw is impossible to draw. There are no numbers that you can cite to accurately depict how many unwanted pregnancies PP has prevented.

If you want to believe the claims because they you reassure you that you have the right position, thats on you. Im telling you your methodology is flawed and you gave you an example of why.

Instead of xhallenging me to prove something i said is unprovable why dont you prove that the math your using is not only correct but also leads you to the conclussion that PP has prevented 575,000 (i think was claimed) from ever occurring.

Sometimes i think you guys disagree with things just for the sake of being contrite.

Btw i did not agree with or disagree with anything. I disputed the reliability of their claim.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

It's impossible to draw to the exact number about a lot of social statistics. But there is enough evidence to support such numbers within the realm of possibility and probability.

This is about your opinion as to the credibility of PP and it's reported numbers. But then again, you know that the US Gov also does audits on their numbers. They publish number that would be within the realm of numbers and percentages.

The real question in this matter is: What is more likely to be close enough to claim it to be false or true? But you know that.

So what is more likely to be closer to reality? Are the published numbers and percentages by the CDC, US Health and Human Services, and/or PP...OR Trouble13's opposition to considering any numbers or percentages representative of what is possible/probable or not possible/probable?
 
It's impossible to draw to the exact number about a lot of social statistics. But there is enough evidence to support such numbers within the realm of possibility and probability.

This is about your opinion as to the credibility of PP and it's reported numbers. But then again, you know that the US Gov also does audits on their numbers. They publish number that would be within the realm of numbers and percentages.

The real question in this matter is: What is more likely to be close enough to claim it to be false or true? But you know that.

So what is more likely to be closer to reality? Are the published numbers and percentages by the CDC, US Health and Human Services, and/or PP...OR Trouble13's opposition to considering any numbers or percentages representative of what is possible/probable or not possible/probable?
By far, mine.....
And im being completely serious

I dont dispute that the services PP provides sometimes leads a woman who would of had an abortion deciding not too and that in some cases they help women avoid being in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy.

But when you start engaging in rhetoric like PP prevents more abortions than it performs im saying thats an impossible claim to verify. Thats exactly what minnie tried to do. Than she started citing a bunch stats to back up her claim but nothing she presented proves her claim.

I didnt even say her claim was wrong. I said its unverifiable because it is. She is trying to sell an opinion as a fact.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
By far, mine.....
And im being completely serious

I dont dispute that the services PP provides sometimes leads a woman who would of had an abortion deciding not too and that in some cases they help women avoid being in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy.

But when you start engaging in rhetoric like PP prevents more abortions than it performs im saying thats an impossible claim to verify. Thats exactly what minnie tried to do. Than she started citing a bunch stats to back up her claim but nothing she presented proves her claim.

I didnt even say her claim was wrong. I said its unverifiable because it is. She is trying to sell an opinion as a fact.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

REALLY, BY FAR...YOURS? :lamo

Once again...

And aside from your disagreement with Minnie...that X number isn't ON THE NOSE X number...

What is more likely to be close enough to claim it to be "probable"..

1) The published numbers and percentages by the CDC, US Health and Human Services, and/or PP...


2) OR your claim that everybody associated with reporting numbers, percentages and statistics for any or all organizational numbers, percentages, etc, ...are all just bull****.

On other unrelated and irrelevant stories...

What you believe with regard to PP coercing or leading women into getting abortions is 100% your imagination... UNLESS you have some reliable source, numbers, percentages, statistics that support that claim.
 
REALLY, BY FAR...YOURS? :lamo

Once again...

And aside from your disagreement with Minnie...that X number isn't ON THE NOSE X number...

What is more likely to be close enough to claim it to be "probable"..

1) The published numbers and percentages by the CDC, US Health and Human Services, and/or PP...


2) OR your claim that everybody associated with reporting numbers, percentages and statistics for any or all organizational numbers, percentages, etc, ...are all just bull****.

On other unrelated and irrelevant stories...

What you believe with regard to PP coercing or leading women into getting abortions is 100% your imagination... UNLESS you have some reliable source, numbers, percentages, statistics that support that claim.
Why are you extrapolating what i said to all stats? I said one specific claim is impossible to make and the numbers being cited dont prove the claim made. You arguing against a claim im not making, allthough i do admit to bring skeptical of most of these type of stastical claims. There tends to be hias in how the data is collected in ways that yend to favor the result the person was looking for. For purposes of this one claim though i never disputed those numbers. I accepted them for the sake of argument and because there is no point in arguing about things that are not relevant.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
You should probably go back and reread my post because your not grasping what i have said or your purposely trying to get me to argue your strawman.

So now you want to argue about something i never argued?

Now you want to talk about abortion numbers, how convenient.

Typical debate tactics from these two. Although I respect and like them it can be quite frustrating having to deal with it.
 
Typical debate tactics from these two. Although I respect and like them it can be quite frustrating having to deal with it.
Im guessing they feel the same way about us, lol

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
So now you want to argue about something i never argued?

This started when i challenged the claim that you made that PP prevents more unwanted pregnancies than it performs abortions. I said that is impossible to prove. Now you want to talk about abortion numbers, how convenient.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I was showing that long term birth control has really reduced unwanted pregnancies and cut abortions by 40 to 80 percent.
Planned Parenthoods helped distribute a lot of the long term birth control devices to thousands of women.

As a pro choicer I rejoice when unwanted pregnancies and abortions are reduced.
 
Yes tjere are real numbers in there but you cant give me a real number of how many pregnancies PP prevented. Its impossible to measure that.

For instance PP gives out free condoms. Lets say 5 in 10 women get pregnant and 50,000 women took condoms from PP. Are we suppose to draw the conclussion that PP prevented 25,000 unwanted pregnancies.

Some of those women would of sought out contraception from another outlet and some of them will get pregnant despite taking the condoms.

The numbers your citing are probably unreliable

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Reality about the numbers? There's numbers available. Instead of you making up your on conclusions other than...well, you can't really rely on PP's numbers...yadda, yadda. Show us what's going on...according to your numbers and sources for those numbers. I'd like to see them.

If you want to show numbers outside of PP's, great, love to see them.

I think what Trouble is trying to say is that you don't understand statistics. Numbers just don't mean what they say. What the numbers don't say is many times more illuminating than what they say.
 
Back
Top Bottom