Abortion; Why?

Obviously not as intelligent as this:

If so, screw you for judging me, *******, and take your idiotic reasoning and cram it back up your butt.

Oh that? I was joking, squire. Couldn't you tell?

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Maybe it lost something in translation? You know, drugs can induce anger management problems. Perhaps you should add a smiley when you make a joke so that we know that you are in fact being humorous & not just having withdrawal symptoms or something.

Ironic advice, squire! Shirley you still jest?

You just aren't making any sense now. Trolling is the last resort of someone who can't think of anything else to say. Although I admit a maybe would have helped.

Actually I just outwitted you at your own game.

Good for you. At least it is better than a tantrum like you had earlier.

No tantrum. I simply made a contingent statement. You claimed to be joking to cop out of taking responsibility for your arrogant and dismissive post, but we've established now that you're something of a liar.

If you hadn't been insulted by my contingent statement, I wouldn't have been insulted, either. However, the "If so" didn't factor for you, so obviously you meant your "joke" exactly as I originally suspected.

Also, you seem to fail to appreciate the irony of your advice that I should have used a smiley to indicate a tongue-in-cheek post.

Maybe Yoda can explain to you. He's quite perceptive, unlike yourself.

It wasn't a 'contingent' statement it was a childish outburst. You have interpreted the post as arrogant & dismissive, probably because you are in fact quite immature. Just as your asseveration that I am a liar is quite frankly childish.

You are quite delusional aren't you? You can take that as ad hominem as you like. I shall not reply to any more of your baiting. I have better things to do in life.

I would take less drugs if I were you though.

Apparently, you've run out of intelligent thoughts.

Let this be a lesson to you, to reconsider next time before going for the cheap shot.

Ok, I had an abortion when I was 19yrs old we used condoms and it burst

My reasons at the time were,
I was Nursing, at that time 1969 we had to live in the nurses home, it was like boarding school. You had to leave nursing if you got married etc.
I was 2 years into a 4 yr course and wanted to complete it as i loved it.
I was very immature so having to care for a baby I don't know how i would have coped
My Boyfriend was also 2 years into his uni degree so money was a big issue how were we going to survive
I had it an illegal clinic run my 2 obstetricians so it was set up like a hospital, and everyone was really nice to me.
I lied to him about my age as he had a thing about only doing girls over 21yrs

It was a very emotional time for me and not something I decided on without a lot of thought and talking to my boyfriend.

I have gone on to not have any children as I have something wrong with me, this was not due to the abortion and maybe If we had waited a bit longer I may have miscarried but as it was my first pregnancy I didn't know.

Some may say this is my punishment for doing this but I have met many girls who have done the same and have gone on the have children.

Even as I write this I feel very emotional about the whole dicision but I can't go back and change things and at the time it was the best decision for me.

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Nebbit saved the thread. I appreciate your sharing

A Mississippi ballot initiative that declared life begins at conception — and would have banned abortion in the state — was rejected by voters Tuesday

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...#ixzz1dBSJQrT4

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

That wasn't my viewpoint on abortion. I was merely pointing out that, if you were using overpopulation and, therefore, a lack of natural resources as a reason for abortion, that aborting 1st world fetuses would be more beneficial than concentrating on the 3rd world.

I would think that improving technology and healthcare in the 3rd world, along with universal education, would reduce the birthrate in these countries on its own.

Like you, I thought my views on abortion were fairly apparent to those who'd read my posts in this thread.

Sure is. But it's not the reality-denying, truth-isn't-real statement that you claimed it was.

"No it isn't!"

Yup. That's what happens when there's a big boom in population: it keeps rising even after birth rates lower. And those birth rates tell us what'll happen next. And they tell us it's going to slow significantly, and possibly reverse if trends continue. It certainly doesn't show us that we're currently in line to just keep growing wildly.

Alright then. This, by the by, was kind of the essence of my Kansas analogy. People's views of these problems can often be based in little more than the problems they face on a day-to-day basis. I imagine people who live in Manhattan are more worried about overpopulation than people in Nebraska.

Obviously, I don't agree with the idea that we can or should throw blanket distrust over all statistics...however, even if we do that, we're led to the inexorable conclusion that there's really no way to know much of anything. We do not experience enough directly to have opinions about things like overpopulation at all if we do not first accept other people's accounts of what's happening in the places of the world we cannot see. Doubt about statistics, then, only makes one argument: an argument for not having an opinion about this issue (and many others).

I'm not a fan of the UN for a variety of reasons, but I have difficulty comprehending what they would gain from this kind of lie. I also have difficulty believing such an unwieldy organization would be much good at keeping a secret or so adroitly manipulating statisticians and field researchers. That's difficult to believe. And without checking, I'll bet the estimates at least somewhat jibe with other sources, which makes me think any kind of systematic attempt to skew the numbers would be borderline impossible.

The only reasonable argument left to someone afraid of overpopulation, then, is that it's insanely hard to measure population and therefore there is no attempt to skew anything, but merely a general incompetence in doing so. But that leaves us with no idea of what's happening with population numbers, including whether or not they're growing anywhere to begin with. Again, the position you've articulated does not defend fear over overpopulation, but leads only to an insistence that none of us knows anything.

Amusing. But if I ask them they'll say that they didn't make them up and they're perfectly legitimate. You're the one doubting them, so I'm asking you. I'm asking you if there is any even remotely specific reason for doubting them.

That could mean a lot of different things, so whether or not I agree would depend on what you mean, specifically. And to be honest, I'm having trouble even guessing as to what this could mean or how it could reconcile Malthus' errors to reality.

I will say, however, that certain major parts of Malthus' reasoning are clearly wrong regardless of whether or not things change. Particularly the second of his propositions: "That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase." We're seeing that's not true right now. Really, the whole theory is that population is directly tied to the "means of subsistence." That's pretty blatantly wrong, no matter what happens going forward.

How is it logical posturing? It is logically inevitable that one of the two things I listed must be true. If you say this is not the case, please explain why. Merely contradicting it again has no explanatory or argumentative power.

Certainly not; and since you're not guessing about that, I'm not disagreeing with it. I disagree with the inferences you draw from that fact: chiefly, the guess that population will continue growing at the same rate, or even continue growing indefinitely at all. And, by implication, the guess that this will doom us all, presumably because our ability to use resources more efficiently (or make new ones economically viable) will be outstripped by the immediate needs of this growing population. Those are the areas where guesswork starts to dominate, and those are the ones I therefore call guesses.

You can safely assume, in other words, that if you'd said something like "there are 7 billion people on the planet and population is currently rising," I would not have contradicted you. Though I likely would have guessed the implication of this statement of fact. And that, of course, is the whole discussion: not the fact you mention above, but the inferences and implications drawn from it.

I stand corrected. Like I said, I haven't been following the thread. I must admit I wasn't sure of your exact personal opinion, but what I said of the idea itself still stands.

If a woman has voluntarily opened her legs for a man, and a pregnancy results, then I don't believe in abortion for that situation. I don't believe that it should be the solely woman's choice at all, actually (barring an involuntary sexual act). I think that the potential father should have a say, and if he wants to keep it and she doesn't, she should be made to carry to term and can then sign over her parental rights to him as she sees fit. I just can't get on board with the idea that once a child is born, it's half his responsibility but while it's gestating, it's none of his choice.

What a terrible thing to say about woman Most of us have sex because we love or like the person unless they are prostitutes

Really. You believe a woman ought to have her life turned upside down and sideways for a year against her will?

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.