Abortion "rights" unpopular

Kiamat (mostly) makes sound arguments. I respect his opinions although I don't agree with them on this issue.

Rugby with pregnant women?

I don't know if I respect his opinions but he certainly presents them with a bit more style and panache. These Kevn threads are just plodders.

yeah so we can have a new ball as soon as the previous isn't usable anymore

Kendra I can't believe you even typed that dribble.

Brought you in though

Kevn: "Blah, blah, blah, killing babies,
blah blah blah, ID, blah blah blah."

Anyone else: "Give it a rest already, we
know how you feel about it."

Kevn: "Blah blah blah, RED HERRING!!!"

Anyone else: "There goes Kevn again, pulling
"facts" out of his ass, or using outdated polls"

Kevn: "RED HERRING, Sweetie"

Anyone else: "Shut up already"


EDIT: If I left anything out, please feel free to add it. I have a horrid headache and am just not in the mood

I'm just trying to make sure this is clear. Kevn posted a "news article", refused to cite where he got it, and gave me a link to a poll that is a) 2 years old and b) doesn't reflect the original post at all.

Unless I'm missing something (intentional trolling?), there was absolutely no point to the initial post?

Sounds like ya got the point.

Not to talk about your dumb topic though.

On the other hand, if you were aiming to get people in to call your threads boring, then I consider myself duly pwned.

Taco Taco Taco....

Released: January 23, 2006
Support for Abortion in Sharp Decline

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1060

Tag!

Thanks!

oh wait again

Kevn, that's not the "article" that's the poll.

and it's a poll of 5,640 not 30,000 as listed in the "article".

all the statistics listed in the "article" are not reflected in the poll.


My question then becomes this: "Kevn, when you intentionally troll to piss off the lefties, are you too lazy to actually find real data to do so, or do you intentionally use bad data, knowing it will piss me off, like a double-troll?"

Thanks for any insight.

why?

Der, you always confuse descriptions of how the world is with how it ought to be or you would like it to be.

As you don't read anything written within the last millenium, you probably are not aware that the analysis was specifically disclaimed by its authors as a prescriptive, as were Levitt and Dubner. Indeed, they thought as a prescriptive it would be reprehensible eugenics. That doesn't mean that their observations were and casual analysis was incorrect. And I excerpt here for people who have the capacity to think:Don't even ask me to support those studies as I expect you to. Go read a book or two, its all in there, Der.

So I'm trying to stay on topic here, so I'll ask again.

Please show me the politicians who are using abortion rights as their platform.

Ok I did my own homework.

Kevn, I appreciate that you didn't make up the "article" yourself, or change the numbers.

It's the Baptist Press "news" organization that took a real poll and added their own numbers to it.

It's good though, that you try to find unbiased reporting in your news selection.

TY Taco, I actually find the "article" after that one to be more disturbing IF it's true.

Sally, that article quote you posted reminds me of something before, where it's posed which children should be aborted, citing some in history that were quite disabled in one form or another from poor families with too many kids to support already and a perfectly healthy one and asks the question which in your opinion should have been aborted and which should have been allowed to live. In the end of the story it turns out the disabled were some of the greatest minds, composers, etc, and the perfectly healthy one in a fine family was Hitler. While it is an extreme example, it does make a good point, and the remarks I saw here about minorities is a bit off. Because truthfully, when any child is born, there is no possible way of knowing for certain, what they will do with their lives. Some who have lived in squalor under horrible parenting have grown up to turn their lives around and become brilliant physicians, artists, etc. and caring people, while those who have been in comfortable families with good parents turn out being spoiled, bratty, cruel and sometimes downright hateful. While this isn't the norm, the truth is, you can never EVER tell. So, tell me, those who read this post, would you look at two mothers to be and say which one's child should or shouldn't live based solely on their station in society and the attitude of the parents?

No. I'd let each mother respectively decide for themselves, cause it would be none of my fucking business.

And what of the baby? Who's every inborn instinct is geared towards survival, though it's form too weak to defend itself without the protection of the mother? We aren't seaturtles that bury our eggs in the sand and abandon them to survive on their own. We are civilized, are we not? And in a civilized culture, shouldn't all lives be protected and given the right to have a chance at life? Not to mention doctors who take an oath to do all they are able to protect and preserve life, yet some go into the business of taking it. And we call ourselves civilized... where so many wouldn't even do what a lioness in the wild has done and taken in a baby not of her own species and raised it as her own, even lamenting the antelope calf when a male tried to steal it away from her to eat, too weak from being unable to hunt while watching after the calf. I'm left to wonder, where is the compassion and devotion in this human world anymore.

certainly not from you if you believe that Government has the right to decide for a woman what she does with her own body.

So given what was in that article... you mean to tell me when eating kagogi I really wasn't having chow puppy?

The child isn't the woman's body. Ask any doctor or scientist.

I didn't say it was.