Real questions about pro choice

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry. I won't eat someone else's crow. I referred to where I found the sources, which was at Google with a quick search, and included a university website. The other facts about human anatomy and the ovulation cycle I mentioned as my own without sourcing, because I have an MD. Sorry I did not mention that ahead of time, I thought they were also not debatable items, just Physiologic facts.

[/ QUOTE ]
The crow I was referring to is yours, not somebody else's. You said I was wrong when I said I'm certain the chance of a pregnancy resulting from one instance of sex with a condom used in the normal manner is less than 3%. You were wrong. I was not.

[ QUOTE ]
But, in order to discuss what I really want to talk about, let's go with your data as being 100% accurate, and mine (and the univeristy website and my medical school, etc,) as being off target.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, although as noted, the source for the first piece of data I used (condom failure rates) was you. If you're wrong, c'est la vie. I believed (and still believe) that your figures are close; otherwise I'd have tried to refute those also.

[ QUOTE ]
So, according to your data, despite the apparent near-perfection with which condoms prevent babies, the truth is, there is an epidemic of unplanned pregnancies in the US. This in turn, leads to more abortions, which is all I really hoped to discuss. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that there are in fact, unplanned pregnancies, and that women do, in fact, sometimes choose to abort them...

[/ QUOTE ]
My data is that there are something like 5.5 million pregnancies per year in the US. About 1.2 million of them are aborted.

Here's a thought experiment for you: Consider how many instances of sex take place annually in the US. (In fact, consider how many take place simply on the campuses of all universities in California, where in 2004 about 2.5 million students were enrolled. Source.) Do you really think 5.5 million pregnancies could possibly represent 3% of that figure for the entire nation? If so, I think you (vastly) underestimate the number of (hetero-) sexual encounters that take place annually.

(Bear in mind that 5.5 million is 3% of 183 milion sex acts, give or take. This figure might be a little high, but is certainly not inconceivable for the students in California, and of course it obviously must be ridiculously low when we start talking about the total number of times 300 million US citizens coupulate in a year.)

I hope to eradicate your notion that condom use results in pregnancy anything like 3% of the time. Many Christians (I assume you're one) oppose both abortion and birth control, a colossally stupid position which absolutely drives me up a wall. Fix your thinking, Doctor, please oh please, so that in your roles as both a Christian and a medical professional, you can help others fix theirs.

Better birth control = less abortions.

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, Are you really implying that since a person used a rubber, they should not feel obligated toward the fetus?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
As in, those who forgot the condom or the pill or whatever are more obligated?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt this is what you intend to say, but since you brought it up to defend a woman's right to abort, what else could you be implying?

[/ QUOTE ]
I did nothing of the sort. I brought it up because you made claims about birth control that are obviously untrue (and by obvious, I mean "back-of-the-envelope math" is more than sufficient to refute them).

I am not pro-abortion. (In fact, the phrase "a woman's right to choose", annoys the piss out of me.) Women have the right to make all kinds of choices, the enormous majority of which have little or no bearing on childbirth. The right we're talking about here though - and it is a right, as far as I'm concerned, only in the legal sense - is the right to abort, and I'd just as soon we drop the euphamism and say so.

[ QUOTE ]
If you have an unplanned pregnancy, some posters have tried to justify the NEED for abortion because the woman should not be "burdened" by such a responsibility if they did not *intend* this to happen. Need proof of lack of intent? Hey, she used a condom. How was she supposed to know it wouldn't work this time? Hey she was on the pill, she was being careful, this is *not* her "fault."

[/ QUOTE ]
I find this insufficient justification for abortion. She also doesn't intend to crash her car into someone else's car, but sometimes it happens, and her intent doesn't excuse her if she is "at fault".

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry. Not gonna buy that. People get an unplanned pregnancy because of ONE reason: they had sex before they were ready to have kids.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're wrong about this because you are incorrectly equating "unplanned" with "unwelcome". All of the following are examples of unplanned pregnancies with causes other than you describe:
1. They had sex while using protection as they were planning to have children a little later in life. The protection failed but they welcome the child.
2. They rape or are raped (and I include most forms of incest in this category).
3. They wrongly believed that they were medically unable to have children. A pregnancy results.
4. They correctly believed they were extremely unlikely to have children, either because of age or medical considerations. Once again, a pregnancy results anyway.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP,

(to note, I havent read the thread so this might be a repeat)


Lets assume there is some library in your area. If I offered you $5, would you be willing to run through it wearing no clothing, with just a mask on your face? No? OK, I accept that. What if Bill Gates offered you $1 billion dollars. Yes. Hmmm. What is the exact dollar amount that gets you to say yes? Hmmm... cant pinpoint it?


Now, I use this example not to make any point about abortion, per se, but just to illustrate that this common pro-life argument is flawed.

Just because you cant identify the number between 5 and 1 billion dollars that makes you switch doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Similarily, just because a person cant identify the point between 1 day and 9 months at which a fetus can no longer be morally aborted doesnt, by itself, mean that it doesnt exist.


EDIT: in response the obvious counter to my statements, I will add in ahead of time:

define the legal limit on abortion at some time that is safely and certainly below the limit.

ie. "I dont know where the switch occurs, but Im certain it is below $50" or "I dont know where the switch occurs, but Im certain it is below 1 month"

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting argument, but your first premise is that there MUST be a point in there somewhere that abortion is OK, just as there MUST be a dollar amount for which you would run through. This is the where we diverge.

[/ QUOTE ]

techically speaking, this wasnt one of my premises (though I do happen to believe such a point exists). The point of my post wasnt pro-abortion as much as it was a refutation of the argument put forth in the OP. I believe his argument was along the lines "since you cant pinpoint when abortion is moral, the point doesnt exist," but I gave evidence to the contrary. I wasnt necessarily saying the point when abortion is moral exists, I was just saying that the fact people cant pinpoint it isnt sufficient to prove it doesnt exist.


The edit I put in the post was just thrown in to counter the response "if you admit you cant pinpoint when abortion stops being moral, arent you risking commiting immoral acts by allowing it?" which can be countered by simply saying that, even though you cant identify the point at which it becomes immoral, you can identify points that are certainly before and certainly after that point.

[jogger08152]

It was suited.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry. I won't eat someone else's crow. I referred to where I found the sources, which was at Google with a quick search, and included a university website. The other facts about human anatomy and the ovulation cycle I mentioned as my own without sourcing, because I have an MD. Sorry I did not mention that ahead of time, I thought they were also not debatable items, just Physiologic facts.

[/ QUOTE ]
The crow I was referring to is yours, not somebody else's. You said I was wrong when I said I'm certain the chance of a pregnancy resulting from one instance of sex with a condom used in the normal manner is less than 3%. You were wrong. I was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[b]<font color="blue">Again, I was not wrong, according to multiple web sources, which I again verfiied by a simple Google search. They all say that with condom usage, a chance for getting pregannt even with perfect use lies around 3% in one year's time. If they are incorrect here, as you are set to prove, please take up your issue with them, not me.</font> [b]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But, in order to discuss what I really want to talk about, let's go with your data as being 100% accurate, and mine (and the univeristy website and my medical school, etc,) as being off target.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, although as noted, the source for the first piece of data I used (condom failure rates) was you. If you're wrong, c'est la vie. I believed (and still believe) that your figures are close; otherwise I'd have tried to refute those also.

[ QUOTE ]
So, according to your data, despite the apparent near-perfection with which condoms prevent babies, the truth is, there is an epidemic of unplanned pregnancies in the US. This in turn, leads to more abortions, which is all I really hoped to discuss. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that there are in fact, unplanned pregnancies, and that women do, in fact, sometimes choose to abort them...

[/ QUOTE ]
My data is that there are something like 5.5 million pregnancies per year in the US. About 1.2 million of them are aborted.

Here's a thought experiment for you: Consider how many instances of sex take place annually in the US. (In fact, consider how many take place simply on the campuses of all universities in California, where in 2004 about 2.5 million students were enrolled. Source.) Do you really think 5.5 million pregnancies could possibly represent 3% of that figure for the entire nation? If so, I think you (vastly) underestimate the number of (hetero-) sexual encounters that take place annually.


[/ QUOTE ] <font color="blue">obviously not...I think you vastly OVERestimate the number of people using condoms correctly</font>[ QUOTE ]

(Bear in mind that 5.5 million is 3% of 183 milion sex acts, give or take. This figure might be a little high, but is certainly not inconceivable for the students in California, and of course it obviously must be ridiculously low when we start talking about the total number of times 300 million US citizens coupulate in a year.)

I hope to eradicate your notion that condom use results in pregnancy anything like 3% of the time. Many Christians (I assume you're one) oppose both abortion and birth control, a colossally stupid position which absolutely drives me up a wall. Fix your thinking, Doctor, please oh please, so that in your roles as both a Christian and a medical professional, you can help others fix theirs.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="blue">I am not against birth control. I am against abortion as a means of it. My wife takes the pill. I prescribe it for her. And to be clear, my "notion" is NOT that condom use results in pregnancy ANY percentage of the time; my notion is that Unplanned/Unwanted pregnancies are caused by sex ALL of the time </font>

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
my notion is that Unplanned/Unwanted pregnancies are caused by sex ALL of the time

[/ QUOTE ]
Not ALL the time. Women get pregnant without sex and sometimes the pregnant woman may decide the pregnancy is unwanted.

Also, people who get pregnancy by other means may find themselves with more pregancies than they want. Even if carrying sextuplets is one pregnancy (is it?) that still leaves the perfectly valid abortion question without sex being involved.

If by 'ALL' you just mean 'most' then I apologise for this nitpick. In the future when they invent a post-sex, pre-conception pill then even 'most' may become false.

I can't see what this has to do with the abortion debate.

chez

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
My data is that there are something like 5.5 million pregnancies per year in the US. About 1.2 million of them are aborted.

Here's a thought experiment for you: Consider how many instances of sex take place annually in the US. (In fact, consider how many take place simply on the campuses of all universities in California, where in 2004 about 2.5 million students were enrolled. Source.) Do you really think 5.5 million pregnancies could possibly represent 3% of that figure for the entire nation?

[/ QUOTE ]
Umm, not all pregnecies are on accident.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
To my knowledge, the bible does not say, "Thou shall not abort a two week old fetus". At least I know this isn't one of the Ten Commandments.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Thou shall not kill."

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">So your position is that abortion is necessary for our survival as a species. I'm sorry, but that sounds really ridiculous to me. I'll explain why in a second. </font>

I'm not sure it's necessary today for humans. I mentioned this only to show that abandoning unwanted offspring has played some role in the past toward a species' survival. A lioness must give up on a cub who breaks it's leg for example. Our ancestors must've had to give up a baby who was sickly or simply put too much pressure on the survival of the rest of it's siblings. It's evolution, but I guess you don't believe in that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll admit I haven't really thought this one through, but my first reaction is that there are a number of things which separate humans from the animal kingdom, and this is one of them. My second reaction is that in your lioness example, giving up on the cub is a matter of survival. Abortion is a matter of personal convenience.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Then why do you suppose it is that most fundamentalist Christians (or any othe religion for that matter), have no problem with killing when it suits them?


[/ QUOTE ]
If you are making this statement as part of your argument that abortion is not morally wrong, then there are so many logical flaws here that I won't even bother explaining them.

I will say that "Thou shall not kill" is more accurately translated as "Thou shall not commit personal murder." The death penalty (Romans 13) and war are issues that do not fall under this commandment. Abortion does, though. Abortion is killing as a matter of personal convenience.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To my knowledge, the bible does not say, "Thou shall not abort a two week old fetus". At least I know this isn't one of the Ten Commandments.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Thou shall not kill."

[/ QUOTE ]

I take that to mean, "Thou shall not kill (other living human beings)". Don't you? Whether or not a two week old fetus is a human being is questionable at best. And while we're on the subject...

Seriously, how can war ever be justified to those who have a problem with abortion (because of God)? Or capital punishment? Or what's with the "stone to death a girl you're about to marry who's not a virgin"? "Thous shall not kill" is pretty broad. How do you know when to make all these exceptions?