• 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!

Pro-"Life" Movement is a Sham; not a single life saved!

L

LeastKnownSaint

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2019
Messages
19
Reaction score
11
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you want more abortion, be pro-"life." On average, in countries where abortion is prohibited, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 pregnancies[1]. In countries where abortion is allowed with no restriction, it is 34 per 1,000 pregnancies. Beyond their talking points, they don't have any credibility, and it is more about punishing women for their sexual activity vs saving lives. If this were true, the pro-"life" movement would have formed to address abortion and NOT solely legal abortion.

I would suggest pro-"lifers" be marginalized from criticizing legal abortion until they can get their own house in order.


1. Guttmacher Institute, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access | Guttmacher Institute
 
LeastKnownSaint said:
If you want more abortion, be pro-"life." On average, in countries where abortion is prohibited, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 pregnancies[1]. In countries where abortion is allowed with no restriction, it is 34 per 1,000 pregnancies. Beyond their talking points, they don't have any credibility, and it is more about punishing women for their sexual activity vs saving lives. If this were true, the pro-"life" movement would have formed to address abortion and NOT solely legal abortion.

I would suggest pro-"lifers" be marginalized from criticizing legal abortion until they can get their own house in order.
Click to expand...

Laws against murder has not saved a single life as statistics can show that everyone that has been murdered has been murdered. Therefore those that advocate for laws against murder need to get their own house in order.

Sounds silly doesn't it? Of course it does. Just as your statement is because you can't count how many have been saved due to the laws that deter those that don't want to break it.

And since you're new here and don't know me...I'm pro-choice. It's not my responsibility to tell someone what to believe or how to think.
 
LeastKnownSaint said:
If you want more abortion, be pro-"life." On average, in countries where abortion is prohibited, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 pregnancies[1]. In countries where abortion is allowed with no restriction, it is 34 per 1,000 pregnancies. Beyond their talking points, they don't have any credibility, and it is more about punishing women for their sexual activity vs saving lives. If this were true, the pro-"life" movement would have formed to address abortion and NOT solely legal abortion.

I would suggest pro-"lifers" be marginalized from criticizing legal abortion until they can get their own house in order.


1. Guttmacher Institute, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access | Guttmacher Institute
Click to expand...

Abortion is at once like and unlike other prohibited things:
 
It's not about life it's about control over women. Even the Bible condones abortion - under a man's direction of course. It's all a sham.
 
LeastKnownSaint said:
If you want more abortion, be pro-"life." On average, in countries where abortion is prohibited, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 pregnancies[1]. In countries where abortion is allowed with no restriction, it is 34 per 1,000 pregnancies. Beyond their talking points, they don't have any credibility, and it is more about punishing women for their sexual activity vs saving lives. If this were true, the pro-"life" movement would have formed to address abortion and NOT solely legal abortion.

I would suggest pro-"lifers" be marginalized from criticizing legal abortion until they can get their own house in order.


1. Guttmacher Institute, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access | Guttmacher Institute
Click to expand...

Your whole premise is false. Lives are saved by those who are pro life. It is absolute fact. Noting the overall rate, has nothing to do with whether or not a pro life person or movement caused a woman to change her mind about getting an abortion. Are MORE lives saved when abortion is legal? That's an appropriate question, and appropriate statement if true. But the statement in your title is 100% factually false.

BTW, 34 vs 37 per 1000 is not statistically significant. That puts the two about equal given margin of error.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Xelor said:
A woman who wants one doesn't necessarily need anyone else's contribution(s)/input/help to get one.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. They need a doctor willing to perform one.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
LeastKnownSaint said:
If you want more abortion, be pro-"life." On average, in countries where abortion is prohibited, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 pregnancies[1]. In countries where abortion is allowed with no restriction, it is 34 per 1,000 pregnancies. Beyond their talking points, they don't have any credibility, and it is more about punishing women for their sexual activity vs saving lives. If this were true, the pro-"life" movement would have formed to address abortion and NOT solely legal abortion.

I would suggest pro-"lifers" be marginalized from criticizing legal abortion until they can get their own house in order.


1. Guttmacher Institute, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access | Guttmacher Institute
Click to expand...

The right loves a fetus, it's the kids they don't care for. Where is the adoption agency the GOP pro-lifers created to take care of the actual babies once born? Where are the volunteers to feed and clothe them? Nurture and care for these babies they so desperately didn't want aborted? I'm not saying some don't actually care but I am saying the vast majority of the right is only using abortion as a political weapon from days past since the GOP doesn't actually stand for anything but money and power. Aren't they proving it by disregarding their own constituents ballot initiatives?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Laws against murder has not saved a single life as statistics can show that everyone that has been murdered has been murdered. Therefore those that advocate for laws against murder need to get their own house in order.
Click to expand...

And the point went over head.
First, what statistics and what is your source? There has never been laws against murder because that would be a redundancy. As soon as you legalized it, it would cease to be murder.
Secondly, laws which are intended to restrict said activity but have the opposite effect, should not only be criticized but their supporters should be ostracized.
The pro-"life" movement not only produces more abortions but kills more people in it's attempt to. They are effectively pro-death.
 
maquiscat said:
Your whole premise is false. Lives are saved by those who are pro life. It is absolute fact. Noting the overall rate, has nothing to do with whether or not a pro life person or movement caused a woman to change her mind about getting an abortion. Are MORE lives saved when abortion is legal? That's an appropriate question, and appropriate statement if true. But the statement in your title is 100% factually false.

BTW, 34 vs 37 per 1000 is not statistically significant. That puts the two about equal given margin of error.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Facts are facts; you aren't saving any lives and in fact creating a net negative in lives saved. Once you factor in the high rate of maternal morbidity associated with illegal abortions, you are truly pro-death.
Remember, actions always speak much louder than words.
 
LeastKnownSaint said:
Facts are facts; you aren't saving any lives and in fact creating a net negative in lives saved. Once you factor in the high rate of maternal morbidity associated with illegal abortions, you are truly pro-death.
Remember, actions always speak much louder than words.
Click to expand...

Facts are indeed facts. A life saved is a life saved no matter how many others are lost? If I perform an action that saves your life, even while it allows 3 others to die, are you going to go around and claim your life wasn't saved? If a bomb goes off and destroys a building and doctors are only able to save 1 out of three people, do we claim that no lives were saved?

There is certainly a place for noting death vs save rates . And I am not going to argue that in such countries as you mentioned that the aborted rate isn't higher than the saved rate (this is ignoring actual miscarriages and those who were never going to abort to begin with). But to try to claim that no lives were saved is a bold faced lie and one that places discredit upon pro choice movements.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Xelor said:
Abortion is at once like and unlike other prohibited things:
maquiscat said:
Yes they do. They need a doctor willing to perform one.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Red sequence:
No, a woman intent on aborting an unwanted pregnancy can, if she cannot obtain the services of a doctor (regardless of the reason she can't), can undertake to abort her pregnancy without a doctor.
  • Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality
    • Methods: None of the methods below requires a doctor.
      • Drinking toxic fluids such as turpentine, bleach, or drinkable concoctions mixed with livestock manure
      • Inflicting direct injury to the vagina or elsewhere -- for example, inserting herbal preparations into the vagina or cervix; placing a foreign body such as a twig, coat hanger, or chicken bone into the uterus
      • Placing inappropriate medication into the vagina or rectum
      • Jumping from the top of stairs or a roof
      • Blunt trauma to the abdomen

      Aside:
    • Spectrum of abortion restrictiveness' relationship with deaths resulting from unsafe abortion undertakings:
      • The median rate of unsafe abortions in the 82 countries with the most restrictive abortion laws is up to 23 of 1000 women compared with 2 of 1000 in nations that allow abortions. (Source: Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic)
      • Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths). (Source "Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003" See also: 2008 update)
      • The same correlation appears when a given country tightens or relaxes its abortion law. E.g:
        • Romania
          • Pre-1966: AOR Abortion --> Abortion mortality ratio was 20/100K live births in 1960.
          • 1966: Legal abortion restrictions imposed --> By 1989 the ratio reached 148 deaths per 100K live births.
          • 1989: Restrictions removed --> Within a year the ratio dropped to 68/100K live births; by 2002 it was as low as 9/100,000K live births.

          • y59hm3av
        • South Africa
          • "South Africa, after abortion became legal and available on request in 1997, abortion-related infection decreased by 52%, and the abortion mortality ratio from 1998 to 2001 dropped by 91% from its 1994 level." (Source)
      • Less restrictive abortion laws do not appear to entail more abortions overall. (Source)
        • "The world’s lowest abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is legal and widely available but contraceptive use is high; in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, the rate is below 10 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years. In contrast, in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, where abortion laws are the most restrictive and contraceptive use is lower, the rates range from the mid-20s to 39 per 1000 women."
 
LeastKnownSaint said:
If you want more abortion, be pro-"life." On average, in countries where abortion is prohibited, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 pregnancies[1]. In countries where abortion is allowed with no restriction, it is 34 per 1,000 pregnancies. Beyond their talking points, they don't have any credibility, and it is more about punishing women for their sexual activity vs saving lives. If this were true, the pro-"life" movement would have formed to address abortion and NOT solely legal abortion.

I would suggest pro-"lifers" be marginalized from criticizing legal abortion until they can get their own house in order.


1. Guttmacher Institute, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access | Guttmacher Institute
Click to expand...

You consider 37 per 1,000 over 34 per 1,000 some kind of big win? It is such a minor difference that I am wondering if you even understand percentages...
 
bongsaway said:
The right loves a fetus, it's the kids they don't care for. Where is the adoption agency the GOP pro-lifers created to take care of the actual babies once born? Where are the volunteers to feed and clothe them? Nurture and care for these babies they so desperately didn't want aborted? I'm not saying some don't actually care but I am saying the vast majority of the right is only using abortion as a political weapon from days past since the GOP doesn't actually stand for anything but money and power. Aren't they proving it by disregarding their own constituents ballot initiatives?
Click to expand...

You expect a political party to create an adoption agency? Weird.

I'm not going to waste time refuting your silly claim that those who are pro-life don't care about babies after they're born; I'm going to say only that this is a lie, and an old, stale, recycled one.
 
LeastKnownSaint said:
If you want more abortion, be pro-"life." On average, in countries where abortion is prohibited, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 pregnancies[1]. In countries where abortion is allowed with no restriction, it is 34 per 1,000 pregnancies. Beyond their talking points, they don't have any credibility, and it is more about punishing women for their sexual activity vs saving lives. If this were true, the pro-"life" movement would have formed to address abortion and NOT solely legal abortion.

I would suggest pro-"lifers" be marginalized from criticizing legal abortion until they can get their own house in order.


1. Guttmacher Institute, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access | Guttmacher Institute
Click to expand...

Balderdash.

Personally, I think those who butcher the innocent unborn will wind up in Hell, unless they repent.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You consider 37 per 1,000 over 34 per 1,000 some kind of big win? It is such a minor difference that I am wondering if you even understand percentages...
Click to expand...

If the whole point of your movement is to save lives, yet not only do you fail to do so, but have a higher percentage in rate, that is still a massive embarrassment and defeating. That isn’t even including the higher rates of maternal morbidity associated with those laws!

Is this really the discussion you want to have? You are so hooked over a difference in a percentage to not an ideology that has completely failed saving lives.
 
Logicman said:
Balderdash.

Personally, I think those who butcher the innocent unborn will wind up in Hell, unless they repent.
Click to expand...

Awesome, so you should let people do as they please since your imaginary friend has it all settled. Free will, right?
 
maquiscat said:
Facts are indeed facts. A life saved is a life saved no matter how many others are lost? If I perform an action that saves your life, even while it allows 3 others to die, are you going to go around and claim your life wasn't saved? If a bomb goes off and destroys a building and doctors are only able to save 1 out of three people, do we claim that no lives were saved?

There is certainly a place for noting death vs save rates . And I am not going to argue that in such countries as you mentioned that the aborted rate isn't higher than the saved rate (this is ignoring actual miscarriages and those who were never going to abort to begin with). But to try to claim that no lives were saved is a bold faced lie and one that places discredit upon pro choice movements.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Again, the laws pro-”lifers” implement not only have zero impact on the rate of abortion but drive up the maternal morbidity rate. You are effectively killing more people and you are more deserving of the title of being pro-death.

This isn’t my opinion, these are facts.
 
nota bene said:
You expect a political party to create an adoption agency? Weird.

I'm not going to waste time refuting your silly claim that those who are pro-life don't care about babies after they're born; I'm going to say only that this is a lie, and an old, stale, recycled one.
Click to expand...


No, not the party, the members of the party who say they care so much about abortion. Start an adoption agency so people who want kids and can't have them are able to adopt the kids the right saves from being aborted. What is so strange about that? Other than it would actually mean some action and not just lip service demonizing abortion which is still legal in this country.
 
Re: Pro-"Life" Movement is a Sham; not a single life saved!

LeastKnownSaint said:
Again, the laws pro-”lifers” implement not only have zero impact on the rate of abortion but drive up the maternal morbidity rate. You are effectively killing more people and you are more deserving of the title of being pro-death.

This isn’t my opinion, these are facts.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But your title is "not a single life saved", and that is factually false. When looking at this issue there are three rates at play. There is the abortion rate itself, the maternal morbidity rate, and then the one that you want to ignore, the fetal survival rate or the number of women who were going to have an abortion but didn't. While, yes the morbidity rate is higher than the saving rate, that does nothing to negate that ZEFs were indeed saved. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. After all you can't compare the rate of termination with the rate of being saved without a saving rate.

When you spread such obvious falsehoods about no life saved, all you do is provide ammo for your opponents to say, "see? They lie. Here are all the lives we have saved." And they would be factually correct. Yes they will be deceptive in not showing the rate comparisons, but you are already shown to be the one spreading falsehoods, and they are more likely to be believed. You may be going for the net effect, but be obvious about it. More lives lost under anti-abortion than saved. That statement is factually true. Yours is factually false.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
LeastKnownSaint said:
If you want more abortion, be pro-"life." On average, in countries where abortion is prohibited, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 pregnancies[1]. In countries where abortion is allowed with no restriction, it is 34 per 1,000 pregnancies. Beyond their talking points, they don't have any credibility, and it is more about punishing women for their sexual activity vs saving lives. If this were true, the pro-"life" movement would have formed to address abortion and NOT solely legal abortion.

I would suggest pro-"lifers" be marginalized from criticizing legal abortion until they can get their own house in order.


1. Guttmacher Institute, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access | Guttmacher Institute
Click to expand...

If Christians drive abortion rates through the roof by advocating for saving the children alive, does that make God evil for motivating Christians to stand against the murder of the unborn?
 
LeastKnownSaint said:
Awesome, so you should let people do as they please since your imaginary friend has it all settled. Free will, right?
Click to expand...

If you think God/Christ are imaginary then you haven't done your homework. Which is why you're ok with the heinous butchery of the innocent unborn.

Let me ask you a question: How large a pile of bloody, aborted babies piled up on your front lawn would it take until your sensibilities were offended?
 
Oh, many have demonstrated they are not pro life, they are pro birth. Once they are born, not my problem. Oh, your kid is starving, too bad, get another jobs (of course, if they were starving, they would demand assistance). Oh, your kid is gay or transgender, going to hell and treat them like ****. All those poor people, they are just lazy, they dont' get any help. thousands and thousands of unwanted kids in foster care looking for homes, do they do anything for them? Nope. Do they do anything to push sex education and prevent unwanted pregnancy? Nope, you know who does, Planned Parenthood. They do more to prevent abortion than the asshole pro life people outside yelling their hate and protesting.

bottom line, pro life people are too often religious assholes that think they will win points with god by forcing their morals on everybody else. And often times, they are the most immoral among us.

Frankly I think anybody pro life are assholes, not in that they would never abort a baby, but the fact they want to force others to live by their ways. That makes them assholes
 
maquiscat said:
Your whole premise is false. Lives are saved by those who are pro life. It is absolute fact. Noting the overall rate, has nothing to do with whether or not a pro life person or movement caused a woman to change her mind about getting an abortion. Are MORE lives saved when abortion is legal? That's an appropriate question, and appropriate statement if true. But the statement in your title is 100% factually false.

BTW, 34 vs 37 per 1000 is not statistically significant. That puts the two about equal given margin of error.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This is what the right thinks is making an argument, claim something is fact, provide nothing to back it up, and then ignore all the arguments they can't refute.

Sorry, planned parenthood saves far more lives than pro life assholes outside harassing people, since they prevent unwanted pregnancies by providing affordable access to birth control, as well as their other health services they provide

See, that's how you make an argument, state your position, and provide reasoning.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Oh, many have demonstrated they are not pro life, they are pro birth. Once they are born, not my problem. Oh, your kid is starving, too bad, get another jobs (of course, if they were starving, they would demand assistance). Oh, your kid is gay or transgender, going to hell and treat them like ****. All those poor people, they are just lazy, they dont' get any help. thousands and thousands of unwanted kids in foster care looking for homes, do they do anything for them? Nope. Do they do anything to push sex education and prevent unwanted pregnancy? Nope, you know who does, Planned Parenthood. They do more to prevent abortion than the asshole pro life people outside yelling their hate and protesting.

bottom line, pro life people are too often religious assholes that think they will win points with god by forcing their morals on everybody else. And often times, they are the most immoral among us.

Frankly I think anybody pro life are assholes, not in that they would never abort a baby, but the fact they want to force others to live by their ways. That makes them assholes
Click to expand...

Look at all the Broad Brush BS.....
 
Sampson Simpson said:
This is what the right thinks is making an argument, claim something is fact, provide nothing to back it up, and then ignore all the arguments they can't refute.

Sorry, planned parenthood saves far more lives than pro life assholes outside harassing people, since they prevent unwanted pregnancies by providing affordable access to birth control, as well as their other health services they provide

See, that's how you make an argument, state your position, and provide reasoning.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the OP is making a pro choice stance, right? Only he is using factually false statements to do so, such as no lives are saved by anti-abortion. While I agree with the conclusion that allowing choice has been shown to actually reduce abortions, I am.jot going to let factually false statements be used towards that conclusion.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom