Abortion video

[Zylia]

Heres a question. If it is discovered in the earlier to middle terms of your pregnancy that your child has a high chance of being severely deformed, with both physical and mental disabilities, ones where they wont be able to run around the yard, they wont be able to speak, and they wont be able to attend school and learn, would you consider abortion? If you discover this and you make $20,000 a year, are unmarried with only a high school diploma and your family is also equally as poor, would abortion be a viable option - knowing that you're bringing a child into the world who will have severe disabilities and will have a very low quality of life because of them? Since you can't afford to take care of him/her, they will have to stay at a special facility all of their life, being cared for as an infant for the duration of their lifetime. Rather than subjecting them to a painful life, would it be a better alternative to just let them go and rest in peace? There is always a chance that the tests could be wrong, but if there is a high chance would it be worth the risk? And if you do happen to have a decent amount of money, enough to support you and your husband, but having the child would force you to quit your job to care for the child 24/7 while your husband works long hours because the income is necessary. By having that child, your lifestyle is abruptly changed and you spend your whole life taking care of a child like this well into their teens... if not longer? It may be a rare occurence and it may sound extremely immoral but some people just couldn't handle a situation like this and probably would choose to not bring a disabled child into the world. No one desires to have a disabled child, but in most cases it can't be prevented and you love them despite this and do everything in your power to make them feel joy. If it is known ahead of time... would it be a courtesy to the child to not force it to go through a hardship-filled life? Not only would the child face hardships, but you and your existing family will also have life altering changes, which likely would lower your quality of life.

Abortion isn't just a cut and dry instance of "Hey you had sex, you got knocked up, kill the baby instead of dealing with it." There are a lot of different reasons that people decide to have an abortion. I'm sure its not an easy choice either even if people do decide to have one.

 

[Uzor]

A Woman is dying, out cold, or delierious and pregnant. How is she gonna answer in control? How are you going to know she's in control if she does answer?

lolz

Sure if you wanna sit there with your blinders on and make believe that the Christian right is not growing stronger everyday and has not already has made the first move toward criminlizaing abortion. then ya. I guess sitting there saying "It should be legal" and doing nothing to make sure that it "STAYS LEGAL" would help someone like you.

Just a FYI, the Christian population have decreased every year. 1990, 86,2% saw themselves as involved in a religion in America. 2001, it were down to 76,5%. By year 2020, it is expected that the majority will no longer consider themselves involved in a religion, and they will then be a minority. So no, it is by no means growing stronger. Especially considering that 76,5 number is not the number of Christians, it is the number believing in a religion. ANY religion. So there's no point in us trying to make sure it stays legal, since christianity becomes weaker every year.

I bet you sit around wondering why we have such fucked up laws that get passed everyday and just shrug your shoulders when you see that happen also? It's no wonder that your generation is being made slaves to feed the pension scams that your fathers made and you do nothing about it. You just sit there say "oh well" and don't even try to make a proactive move to change shit before shit happens.

Actually, I don't. I'm lucky, I don't like in America, so I don't have to live with the stupid rules your government make. And lucky me, I quite enjoy my free schools, free public transportation, free health care, free abroad education, and free school materials.

Ya. I said not the majority. The "or" your reffering to should have been a "but".
And yes I did say 1% is 1000 babies, and that seems to be a small number in your mind.

You made an assuption that its 1%. While I am 99% sure it is MUCH less then that. I will come back to this later.

So why are you trying to find blame on the woman for conspiracy? This is what it's about. YOu gay guys who don't have to get pregnant want woman who do, to have your babies, go to jail when you don't own up to shit and help them take care of the babies. You also want jail to hang over thier heads, so when you can't get your way and tell them not to have an abortion when they want one. That's a fucking hypocrite if you ask me.

Because the woman have more say in it then the doctor do. It i sher choice, not the doctor's. And I find the bolded part hilarious. First you're accusing all of us to be gay, then you say we want women who can get pregnant, then you say we want them to go to jail, and then you say we don't own up to our shit?

That is hypocrisy if anything. First of, the majority of us are not homosexual. Second, yes. Quite a lot of us do like women. Third, we're not the ones that want them to go to jail. The anti-choice people are the ones trying to make it illegal. Fourth, I don't know why you'd think we don't own up to our shit since you know none of us in real life.

Where the fuck did I say that?



Because...... Christian's believe in criminilaizing abortions?

You said they don't claim it to be murder. So then I'll ask again, why are the people demonstrating against abortion holding signs of dead fetuses and signs that say "Stop the murder!"?

NEVER happens? What happend to the 1000 babies who get aborted in the third trimester? Who said it NEVER happens?



Yes because a woman who wants an abortion would want to be cut open, and get a big fat scar on her body.

Because when you do an abortion past 5th month, Because its the safest and least painfull method? Well, you could simply do it by forcing a premature delivery by using prostaglandin, either one works.

A woman however can be in many cases be in a not so clear cut situation. Primarily because she is the victim as well as the conspirator. The bottom line is it's her body, we don't want to send our woman to jail, for making a decision about her own body, but we also need to so something about the loud voice for abortion. Something needs to be done, a line needs to be drawn if you like it or not. I believe I've stated where the line should be that would appease both sides farely well. The line that appeases both sides will never make you completely happy, but when you look at the whole picture, it would work fairly well. I think so anyway.

No, we don't need to do anything about the minority whiners. There's a lot of people demonstrating against homosexuals, and black people. Should we do something to appease both sides for hose as well? Should we draw a clear line and say it is not legal to be flamboyantly gay, and that it is not legal to sit in the front of the buss if you're black? I mean, we obviously need to appease both sides. How about we just do it Hitler-style and make it illegal and ship them all to a gas chamber?

Where should we draw the line?

 

[Darkdante]

Again, you're saying a woman making a decision to end her pregnancy is a victim. You're implying she has little say in what she's doing. That's pretty demeaning.

Yeah. Instead of demeaning them as you say, lets make them criminals.
Your the one calling to make woman criminals, even though there's no law and never will be a law stating that a woman should be a criminal in an abortion.

Why don't you think woman get punished as doctors do in the abortion ban that we have in effect? Is that what you truthfully believe? If abortions get criminalized, then all woman who have abortions should be made criminals even though no law states that they should be cirminals? Are you a woman hater? WTF man.

I don't have to "believe" they don't want to compromise on abortion. I just have to turn on the television or surf the internet or listen to the radio and hear the anti-choice people confirm they don't want a compromise. If I thought they'd be content with a ban on late-term abortion and would stop trying to chip away at the first six months, I'd relax a bit. They are not content with that.

Thats why they passed the partial birth abortion act of 2003, because they compromised even though they wanted full criminalization of abortion, they weren't stupid enough to believe they could get it. So they settled for something less that would make both sides happy. They knew one day if they did not compromise abortion could one day be 'legalized', so they compromised and now we are in this limbo waiting to swing one way or the other. Compromise means when both side come up with something livable, not when both sides try to be unmoving and not care about the other sides concerns or what they may do.

I didn't have to. When I'm arguing all along that women are moral agents capable of making their own reproductive decisions as equals who don't need to be "protected," and you follow up by saying not everyone believes women are equals and that you believe something else, it's not that big of a twist. It's fine if your words were unclear and you want to clarify them, but I wasn't twisting them.

Yes you were. Quote me where I said all those things you ASSUMED I said. You seem to like twisting the truth you think you hear, instead of asking for clarification of something you don't understand. If there's something you don't understand next time take the time to ask for an explanation instead of jumping to insane conclusions.

Late-term abortion is not banned. Just one type of late-term abortion. They got a ban in place that says you can't pull a fetus halfway out and crush its skull, but they left in place the one where you go in and dismember it in the womb. The latter procedure is more risky and leaves women more prone to injury, but we wouldn't want to let doctors make those kinds of decisions about which procedure is best for their patients. They might've kept the banned one in place, since it carried less risk to the health of the mother.

Like you yourself said, all thats left is a risky procedure. Thus more woman try it earlier. The ban worked, just like the people who made it, intended for it. Abortions during the third trimester has decreased. Of course since we arn't required to report abortions you'd have a hard time finding the truth of that for yourself.

But then again all you'd need to do is use common sense. If all you had was a risky procedure would you wait till the thrid trimester?

But I'm not really concerned about turning this into a battle over late-term abortion. My point is that women are capable of deciding if they should carry a pregnancy to term or not, and it doesn't really matter to me when she makes that decision. The anti-choice crowd isn't content to decide for themselves that abortion isn't an option for them; they want to make sure that it's an option nobody gets to pick.

Like I said, you like it your way or the highway. Not the smart choice, since if things don't work out, you get jack shit. YOu can go ahead and live in your fantasy world that the whole world is out to get you, and that no one is willing to make a compromise, or you can come back to the real world where there are different people with different outlooks than yours that also need to be addressed. If everybody could decide the right thing to do for themselves that wouldn't hurt anybody else, then we wouldn't need laws that govern the way we live.

But we need laws don't we?

 

[Uzor]

they didn't settle with it. They're still demonstrating.

And nice way to ignore the post above yours.

 

[Darkdante]

Patience is a virtue man. Can you not see how freaking long your post is?

 

[Darkdante]

Just a FYI, the Christian population have decreased every year. 1990, 86,2% saw themselves as involved in a religion in America. 2001, it were down to 76,5%. By year 2020, it is expected that the majority will no longer consider themselves involved in a religion, and they will then be a minority. So no, it is by no means growing stronger. Especially considering that 76,5 number is not the number of Christians, it is the number believing in a religion. ANY religion. So there's no point in us trying to make sure it stays legal, since christianity becomes weaker every year.

Whats your point?

Read what you just wrote. Christians consist of 80% of America.
Here is some stuff you left out:
~They get more organized everyday, with things like the Christian coalition, the Christian Vote.
~That out of all 'developed nations" the United States is one of the most religious?

What do you expect to happen? For it to get 100%? Even the Democrats(those who fail to see shit soon enough) now see the importance of the Christain vote after what Bush did. You can see it in the Presidential race right now.

OPEN YOUR EYES. Read what you just wrote, damm nit.

Actually, I don't. I'm lucky, I don't like in America, so I don't have to live with the stupid rules your government make. And lucky me, I quite enjoy my free schools, free public transportation, free health care, free abroad education, and free school materials.

Yes because the rest of the world is so much better than the USA.

You made an assuption that its 1%. While I am 99% sure it is MUCH less then that. I will come back to this later.

And your point is? That 600 babies makes so much difference in the argument than 1000 babies, yes?

Your point?

Because the woman have more say in it then the doctor do. It i sher choice, not the doctor's.

The procedure is the crime, not the choice. So what does this matter? If you read you would understand that. But you don't, and you continually prove that.

And I find the bolded part hilarious. First you're accusing all of us to be gay,

Your not? Well you should be or will soon be if you want to send woman to jail after you get them pregnant.

Thats Fucking genious.

Quite a lot of us do like women.

You sure have a funny way of showing it.

Third, we're not the ones that want them to go to jail.

Thats seems to be the centered part of why you guys are arguing with me.

You mean to tell me now its not?

You said they don't claim it to be murder. So then I'll ask again, why are the people demonstrating against abortion holding signs of dead fetuses and signs that say "Stop the murder!"?

Where exactly did I make this error? I SAID Christains don't claim an abortion to be Murder?

Because when you do an abortion past 5th month, Because its the safest and least painfull method? Well, you could simply do it by forcing a premature delivery by using prostaglandin, either one works.

Isn't that the leading cause of infant death? So now you would be guilty of murder, and consipirinng to commit murder like you lunatics are suggesting.

No, we don't need to do anything about the minority whiners. There's a lot of people demonstrating against homosexuals, and black people. Should we do something to appease both sides for hose as well? Should we draw a clear line and say it is not legal to be flamboyantly gay, and that it is not legal to sit in the front of the buss if you're black? I mean, we obviously need to appease both sides. How about we just do it Hitler-style and make it illegal and ship them all to a gas chamber?

Minority? Hmmmm. CBS took an opinion poll in 1998. Support for Third Trimester abortions went 7%.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll1.htm

Seems like a bit more than than a minority to me. I think you need to open your eyes.

Where should we draw the line?

I've made that perfectly clear by now if you've been reading...................

 

[Halifirien]

Yeah. Instead of demeaning them as you say, lets make them criminals. Your the one calling to make woman criminals...

Have you been following the thread at all? I'm not calling for women to be made criminals. I've been arguing all along that women aren't committing a crime in the first place. I've been asking, if anti-choicers consider abortion to be murder, why they're not treating the women like criminals for paying someone to kill their children. There's a pretty big difference there.

They knew one day if they did not compromise abortion could one day be 'legalized', so they compromised and now we are in this limbo waiting to swing one way or the other.

Abortion is already legal in the U.S., and you're only reinforcing my point that a ban on late-term abortion isn't an actual compromise because neither side is content with it and has any plans to let it stand as it is.

Honestly, I'm not sure I know what your point is about anything.

 

[Darkdante]

One day, when, or if there is such a thing, and we actually teach people about it, (I'm looking at you, abstinence based sex-ed) then and only then can we start to view abortion as a crime.

Too bad your 4 years too late. It already is a crime, for doctors and a certain procedure. Those doors have already been opened.

With the door cracked open, the winds of change start to blow through. Making believe you don't see it solves nothing.

 

[Darkdante]

Have you been following the thread at all? I'm not calling for women to be made criminals. I've been arguing all along that women aren't committing a crime in the first place. I've been asking, if anti-choicers consider abortion to be murder, why they're not treating the women like criminals for paying someone to kill their children. There's a pretty big difference there.

Let me throw some assumtions down your throat now.

You are the biggest one of all here trying to find a reason why we don't accuse woman of a crime, when it is clear as day that any law in effect, or even proposed here, would never pinpoint the woman as a criminal.

No one here is asking that question stronger, than YOU.

Why are you so intent on placing blame on the woman, when it is plainly clear that no one is willing to do that?

Your asking the questions and bringing up the subject. It seems conflicting to me why someone agaisnt making a woman a criminal in an abortion case would so frequently bring it up. Even the anti-choicers hardly ever bring it up as much as I've seen you do.

That seems to be the basis of your argument agains't me, even though I"ve repeatedly stated and current laws stated that woman should not be criminalized for abortion cases.

Abortion is already legal in the U.S., and you're only reinforcing my point that a ban on late-term abortion isn't an actual compromise because neither side is content with it and has any plans to let it stand as it is.

Honestly, I'm not sure I know what your point is about anything.

Of course it is legal. But as long as you see strong support and continued change toward criminilizing abortion, that can always change. And if you don't compromise soon enough, the change might happen that you may not want.

Your losing the point because of your redicoulous argument to try and see why I don't make the woman the criminal, even though I repeatedly tell you why the woman should not be the criminal. While it is pretty clear you want woman to be criminals if any abortion ban passes.

 

[Halifirien]

You are the biggest one of all here trying to find a reason why we don't accuse woman of a crime, when it is clear as day that any law in effect, or even proposed here, would never pinpoint the woman as a criminal. No one here is asking that question stronger, than YOU.

/sigh

 

[Uzor]

Whats your point?

Read what you just wrote. Christians consist of 80% of America.
Here is some stuff you left out:
~They get more organized everyday, with things like the Christian coalition, the Christian Vote.
~That out of all 'developed nations" the United States is one of the most religious?

What do you expect to happen? For it to get 100%? Even the Democrats(those who fail to see shit soon enough) now see the importance of the Christain vote after what Bush did. You can see it in the Presidential race right now.

OPEN YOUR EYES. Read what you just wrote, damm nit.

You obviously missed some of what I wrote, since the 75,6% number were ALL religions. Not just christianity. Christianity isn't the only religion. Here's some others that are included in the 76,5% number.

• Christianity
• Buddism
• Judism
• Islam
• Hinduism

And that's just the major ones. There's a saying I like. It goes like this.

Religion is thought:

For the common man to be true
For the wise man to be a lie
For the rulers to be a tool
​

Which I agree with. And in that case, the so-called one of the most "developed" nations, it is also one of the most easily fooled. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Yes because the rest of the world is so much better than the USA.

I never said that. You're the one calling us all fools for, and I quote:

I bet you sit around wondering why we have such fucked up laws that get passed everyday and just shrug your shoulders when you see that happen also? It's no wonder that your generation is being made slaves to feed the pension scams that your fathers made and you do nothing about it. You just sit there say "oh well" and don't even try to make a proactive move to change shit before shit happens.

From that it sounds like you're the one saying America sucks. I just kindly explained that no, I don't sit around wondering why you (America) have such fucked-up laws. Why would I sit around wondering that when I don't live in America?

And your point is? That 600 babies makes so much difference in the argument than 1000 babies, yes?

Your point?

Less then 1% doesn't mean 0.4% less. I'd venture its closer to 50 babies. And yes, it does make a difference. Unless you want to go in to the argument about everyone in America being allowed to carry guns, and buy a shot gun at the local bank, as well s being able to buy ammunition at Wall Mart. Then yes, it does make a big difference when you have easy access to guns. No wonder school shootings happen. At least you saved those 50 babies from being unloved and grow up to be just like them.

The procedure is the crime, not the choice. So what does this matter? If you read you would understand that. But you don't, and you continually prove that.

Yes. I'm the one proving to be unable to read...

Your not? Well you should be or will soon be if you want to send woman to jail after you get them pregnant.

Thats Fucking genious.

LOL, dude. I'd cut you a gold star if my mom allowed me to use the scissors.

You sure have a funny way of showing it.

Yes, I show my appreciation by respecting women and give them their own choice by guilt-tripping them and calling them bloody murderers for choosing abortion.

Thats seems to be the centered part of why you guys are arguing with me.

You mean to tell me now its not?

Ar e you even following the agrument? we're saying we shouldn't make abortion a crime, and thus prevent from jailing our women.

Where exactly did I make this error? I SAID Christains don't claim an abortion to be Murder?

Yes, YOU said Christians don't claim it to be murder. But the countless of christian people demonstrating against abortion claim it to be murder. Hence, you're wrong.

Isn't that the leading cause of infant death? So now you would be guilty of murder, and consipirinng to commit murder like you lunatics are suggesting.

Huh? This made no sense to me, considering both methods are safe. Premature delivery is just that, giving birth to the baby prematurely. Which, by the way, the baby can survive. It is, however, more painful to the woman, hence why a ceasarean section is better. Additionally, you don't need to get a scar from it. Hell, my aunt gave birth to twins 20 years ago through caesarean section, and she have no scar.

Minority? Hmmmm. CBS took an opinion poll in 1998. Support for Third Trimester abortions went 7%.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll1.htm

Seems like a bit more than than a minority to me. I think you need to open your eyes.



I've made that perfectly clear by now if you've been reading...................

How 7% is a majority is beyond me.

And if something isn't a majority it is? This is the million dollar question.
A) Minority
B) Majority
C) Elephant
D) Mouse

Edit: I read through the poll, and you don't quite seem to have understood the pool. I don't blame you though, third grade math can be hard.

So here, I'll explain it to to. The question is: [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"I agree with the pro-life movement. Abortion is wrong and deserves criminal penalties."

The answers are:

[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Strongly Agree[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]40%[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Agree[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]7%[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Undecided[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]2%[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Disagree[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]8%[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Strongly Disagree[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]41%

[/FONT] That means that 40% strongly agrees, and 41% strongly disagrees. 8% disagree, and 7% agrees. That makes it 49% versus 47%. While yes, the numbers are still close, that poll is wrong, considering the numbers add up to 98%. Additionally, since the poll was taken on a website that is AGAINST abortion, the numbers are in the "Agree" favor. So no, that poll is not reliable. To get any kind of decent numbers in America, you need to ask people on the street.

Additionally, I'd still like to see you answer. You say that if people raise their voices about something, you need to compromise. What about all those anti-gay acts and anti-black groups? Shouldn't we change the law to say that being gay is wrong, and that being black is against the law? We need to compromise, remember?

 

[Dayner]

.... you guys just make big deal abot it ... i wonder what will happn if a man get pregnant ;p

 

[Halifirien]

.... you guys just make big deal abot it ... i wonder what will happn if a man get pregnant ;p

As the old quote goes, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." :biggrin:

 

[Zylia]

It kinda gets me unnerved when men debate about abortion rights anyway. Might just be my views, but I really feel like its degrading when men are vehemently pro-life for reasons other than 'my religion wont allow it' You can't really call the 'you couldn't understand' card on another woman, but a man never really would understand what its like, especially if they've never had children.

I think alot of people, primarily men need to put it into more localized terms, like, if you're saying that you should have a child even if you were raped... say that it was your daughter who was raped and shes upset and distraught over it... and that carrying the baby around only makes her more depressed. God forbid if she has suicidal thoughts. If your daughter was suicidal over having a rapist's child, would you let her get an abortion if she was begging for it? Say the daughter was over 18, consenting age, and she CHOSE to have it done. Would you shun your own daughter for deciding to not carry a criminals child?

Abortion outlawed across the board isn't a good idea... There definitley should be regulations on it, but its still comparable to temperance. If you can't get it done safely but someone who knows what they're doing, theres going to be people willing to perform it illegally.

And theres always the throwing down the stairs method...

As far as the Christian right go, they're exactly that. Most individuals who use their religion whole-heartedly in their politics tend to be much farther right on the spectrum than the moderate rights. Most of them wouldn't ever consider voting Democrat anyways, so theres no point in Democratic candidates trying to spend a large amount of time trying to gain their votes. Thats how it works. The group that IS in flux could potentially be the moderate right, who do have religious beliefs but they separate their politics from their religion. I'm vastly generalizing but its the typical profile you see. These are the people with conservative viewpoints but are more toward the middle road than the radicals. Theres also Democrats that are moderate that would consider voting for a candidate on the other side. Your party affiliation means nothing more than letting you vote in primaries. It's to keep radical Republicans and radical Demorcrats from voting in the opposing primaries to play the system.

The big reason we get such 'fucked up laws' is because there are lobbyists and big businesses that are influencing the government and they dwarf the individual voter. That is why interest groups form - to give the little man a more collective voice that holds more power (like the NRA, which also has big supporters as well as individuals). It's the responsibility of elected officials to represent and present the concerns of its constituents, but in the same token, its also imperative that they attain re-election. The more support they can attain from interest groups the more support they have in their re-election campaigns. Its a vicious cycle. While representatives will do all they can in their power to please their constituents, Democrat representatives will likely never please Republican constituents and vice versa. The opposing side views legislation created on a liberal lean as 'fucked up', while liberals consider conservative-born laws as equally 'fucked up'

Our system is really intricate but it works. Abortion is one of those issues that is an election death sentence if you take a harsh stance on it, and therefore no one is going to make a move to press it toward one side or another. Most liberals and conservatives have set views on abortion rights that WONT change. Beliefs about abortion originate from an individuals unchanging morals.

Elected officials would rather present their personal views and not act on abortion- keeping their voter pool for the next elections - rather than taking a chance and working toward change. Like it or not, thats how the system works. There are greedy politicians who acknowledge they lose their job if they lose constituents. This happens on BOTH sides. Why do you think most of the candidates in the running for the 2008 election have liberal/conservative leaning views but few of the front runners are willing to take drastic measures toward any issues. Taking a forward stance on ANY issue in politics will cost you. Look at Mike Gravel on the liberal side. This guy wont win, we all know that. He is loud, has a very far left leaning view. He's not middle of the road enough to acquire moderates from the other side. Take the Hillary, Obama, and Edwards camps though... they all have much more moderate Democratic views. Theres a reason for this... There is a pool of moderate Republicans that they're aiming at. Republicans who are fed up with the current president and would potentially vote for the other candidate on the other side just to get away from the current path. It works on the other side as well. There are moderate Democrats who support the war and who fear terrorism. Military families likely too, who are afraid that the Democrats will pull troops and funding prematurely. These guys may vote on the right side to protect themselves or their loved ones, afraid of the liberal platform.

It's like a game, running for office. Some play it well and some don't. But I digress.

I found a much more recent poll website on abortion opinions. There are several different surveys from different news organizations and newspapers. The questions posed are about abortion. I don't -think- that it was a liberal/conservative leaning site, but feel free to mention it if it is and I missed it.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

The second survey question on that page is:

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"
Legal in all cases: 23%
Legal in most cases: 34%
Illegal in most cases: 28%
Illegal in all cases: 14%
Not sure: 2%
Total: 101% (sure there was some rounding.. lol)​

Most people aren't for it being illegal in all cases. Theres a minority who do, but most others have a more moderate view on it. Don't get your hopes up for changes anytime soon - in either direction.​

 

[Darkdante]

.... you guys just make big deal abot it ... i wonder what will happn if a man get pregnant ;p

When I get bored I like to argue =P about anything.

 

[Darkdante]

How 7% is a majority is beyond me.

And if something isn't a majority it is? This is the million dollar question.
A) Minority
B) Majority
C) Elephant
D) Mouse

Edit: I read through the poll, and you don't quite seem to have understood the pool. I don't blame you though, third grade math can be hard.

So here, I'll explain it to to. The question is: [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"I agree with the pro-life movement. Abortion is wrong and deserves criminal penalties."[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The answers are:[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Strongly Agree[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]40%[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Agree[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]7%[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Undecided[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]2%[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Disagree[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]8%[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Strongly Disagree[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]41%[/FONT]

That means that 40% strongly agrees, and 41% strongly disagrees. 8% disagree, and 7% agrees. That makes it 49% versus 47%. While yes, the numbers are still close, that poll is wrong, considering the numbers add up to 98%. Additionally, since the poll was taken on a website that is AGAINST abortion, the numbers are in the "Agree" favor. So no, that poll is not reliable. To get any kind of decent numbers in America, you need to ask people on the street.

Additionally, I'd still like to see you answer. You say that if people raise their voices about something, you need to compromise. What about all those anti-gay acts and anti-black groups? Shouldn't we change the law to say that being gay is wrong, and that being black is against the law? We need to compromise, remember?

Fuck can you read and stay in the conversation? Not gonna even bother arguing with you since you can't even follow the agument.

Let me answer you on this one since you seem to put your best if not half assed effort here.

The argument was that I stated that we should put into effect a law that makes THIRD TRIMESTER abortions illegal to appease the anti-choicers. You called those who oppose Third Trimester abortions MINORITY WHINERS.

Look back at the article on those in favor of third trimester abortions again. You can read and understand the article right?

Edit: I was gonna let you put your foot in your mouth again. But may as well settle this since you probably still do not get it. Look at where I stated the CBS poll. Your reading the "Third age Poll".

Take an english class, it will do you wonders.

 

[Uzor]

Fuck can you read and stay in the conversation? Not gonna even bother arguing with you since you can't even follow the agument.

Let me answer you on this one since you seem to put your best if not half assed effort here.

The argument was that I stated that we should put into effect a law that makes THIRD TRIMESTER abortions illegal to appease the anti-choicers. You called those who oppose Third Trimester abortions MINORITY WHINERS.

Look back at the article on those in favor of third trimester abortions again. You can read and understand the article right?

Edit: I was gonna let you put your foot in your mouth again. But may as well settle this since you probably still do not get it. Look at where I stated the CBS poll. Your reading the "Third age Poll".

Take an english class, it will do you wonders.

I believe you lost half of your brain, sir, since that article was about ALL abortions, not third-trimester abortions. I also never said the third-trimesters were minority whiners. I said the people COMMITING third-trimester abortions are a minority. I also said that the people AGAINST abortions are minority whiners.

Last I checked, even 47% are a minority. And a minority of those whine. So yes, the people that speak up about it are minority whiners.

Also, you mean the third-trimester poll, which, I'm sorry to tell you, isn't even about the discussion we're having. Because of several things.
1) it is poorly constructed
2) it doesn't tell us how many participated
3) it doesn't tell us who participated. For example, making a poll whether gay marriage should be legal or not will get completely different responses if you ask a group of gay people rather then a large anti-gay movement group.
4) it doesn't give you any "gray-scale" options
5) etc. etc.

The question is "Favour legal abortions during third trimester". It is not "Do you think abortions should be legal during third trimester? strongly agree/partially agree/don't know/partially disagree/strongly disagree". Hence, the poll doesn't really give us ANY information, other then that people aren't in favour of it. It doesn't necessarily tell us that people think it should be illegal. While yes, it does get more interresting with the second poll under that one, but it doesn't tell us if that's the same people, nor if its even asked at the same time. And, once again, it doesn't state where it were asked. The previous poll were asked on an anti-abortion site. Aren't you surprised why so many were anti-abortion on that one? Additionally, on the one you mentioned, a minority wanted increased restrictions, which goes against the "proof" you used with that poll. And ironically, it also contradicts itself, since a minority want it as readily available as it is now.

Hence, that poll is useless. Maybe you should take some classes where they teach you about public opinion and polls, since the majority of the time, they are made in favour of the results they want. You also can't assume that the public opinion is exactly what it says in the poll. Sure, it can be leading, but it is in no way entirely true. I'd also recommend some anger management classes.

 

[Zylia]

Maybe you should take some classes where they teach you about public opinion and polls, since the majority of the time, they are made in favour of the results they want. You also can't assume that the public opinion is exactly what it says in the poll. Sure, it can be leading, but it is in no way entirely true. I'd also recommend some anger management classes.

Exactly. I took two classes that focused on polls. Public Opinion and a Political Science Research Methods class. Theres alot of factors that skew poll results:

Origin of the poll
Question phrasing and answer mechanism (Yes or no answer, strongly/agree/disagree/strongly; general question or direct question)
Sample origin (population profile, is it college students, males, females, teens, unmarried middle aged women, anything that could be classified into a group)
Size of sample (10 people surveyed = nonsense poll, 10,000 = much more diverse representation)

If you take a poll from.. say Fox News website. The polls from that website will likely have the following profile:

Conservative audience = conservative results
Age group = Likely middle age/older citizens - unlikely to see voters 18-25 running to a poll on that website.
Possibility of poll being skewed - people voting more than once if poll isn't secured to only allow one vote.
The question, being from a conservative-leaning news organization, will likely be phrased something that is VERY leaning. Example:
Do you think a woman should have the right to destroy a her unborn child? (not identical, but something similar - would definitley lean more on spotlighting moral grounds)

Another more liberal organization may phrase the question - Do you support a woman's right to choose to terminate her own pregnancy? The question is much more light and doesn't focus on the issue of destroying human life. It doesn't spotlight it. While you would think it wouldn't make a difference, polling questions alone can sway those surveyed. They're as Uzor said, leading. Leading questions on their own can persuade an answer even if not believed wholeheartedly.

Data also shows that people are much more likely to tell the truth on anonymous polls, like a paper-based survey. When they are verbally asked a question, they're much more likely to give the socially acceptable answer (interesting tidbit though I know a lil irrelevant).

Clearly if you take a poll from a website that is anti-abortion, you'll end up seeing results that are massively leaning in favor of the website. Why would an anti-abortion website ever post a poll that showed what they believe in isn't popular? Yet the oblivious visitor to the website wouldn't know the difference if they trust completely that the poll is legit.

I think it was Gallup polling that gives a lot of details about their polling process and populations.

When you look at polls, before posting them as a factual representation of public opinion, make sure that the sample and the location that they came from is credible and independent of biased viewpoints. A strong religious website wont give credible data, but something that gives equal attention to all sides could very well give a very detailed poll.

 

[Darkdante]

I believe you lost half of your brain, sir, since that article was about ALL abortions, not third-trimester abortions. I also never said the third-trimesters were minority whiners. I said the people COMMITING third-trimester abortions are a minority. I also said that the people AGAINST abortions are minority whiners.

Wasn't quoting the WHOLE article knucklehead, just like I said.

You wanna start arguing about accuarcy? Ok. Nice way to cover up your stupidity for not following the conversation in the first place and going off onto a whole nother tangent.

You called minority whiners in reference to my argument. Not that bullshit that you just pulled out your ass.

Your arguing with me dude, I never called on your ideas or jumped down your throat, you jumped down my throat remember? And third trimester abortions is the basis of my entire argument. If your not aruging that then why even bother arguing with me?

Hence, the poll doesn't really give us ANY information, other then that people aren't in favour of it.

Isn't that why I said I posted it?

Why is it everytime you post a opinion poll that validates a point you get a single minded individual try to argue it? Everybody knows it's not 100% accurate, it's a small portion of the population, not the entire population.

But when your losing the argument with no evidence of your own I guess thats your only recourse huh?

lol Idiot.

 

[Uzor]

there's always people not in favour of things. Hell, everyone isn't in favour of george bush either. That doesn't mean you decide to murder him. Everyone isn't in favour of gay people either, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to live. Sepaking of which, you still didn't counter that argument.

And last I checked, you're the one losing the argument. Isn't that why you resort to calling everyone gay (Why that is an insult I'll never know. Obviously its an insult used by homophobic morons and extreme-christians.), idiots, morons etc.? And you still don't seem to understand anything about that poll. All you can come with is that, apparently, none of our aguments are about the topic at hand.

News flash; they are. You're the one going on about third-trimester abortions, and saying that the only thing every single anti-choice person wants, is for third-trimester abortions to be illegal. You're also statign that they do not claim it to be murder.

Did you even watch the video? Your only argument is that we're all morons, and that all of us don't understand anything, and that you're so much better then everyoen else because you're the only one that udnerstands. Oh, and let's not forget how none of us are on-topic.

Simple minded beings tend to think everything is black and white though.