Thursday, August 23, 2012

Julie: i just hope your daughter never needs contraception while having no (or inferior) medical insurance. because that's when women turn to PP - mainly for contraceptive solutions. black-and-white crusades are easy, it's much harder to contribute to solutions of social problems that contribute to proliferation of abortion. maybe if PP had MORE funding, there would be so few unplanned pregnancies that abortions would become virtually non-existent - ever consider that?

Me: ‎\\ just hope your daughter never needs contraception while having no (or inferior) medical insurance. \\

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Condoms are pretty cheap, and my own health insurance is pretty good and doesn't pay for them.

\\maybe if PP had MORE funding, there would be so few unplanned pregnancies that abortions would become virtually non-existent - ever consider that?\\

They have tons of funding already.
Why should anyone believe this is true? How does murdering children contribute to reducing unplanned pregnancies?

Julie: funding PP is not equivalent to funding abortions. so you think PP can be replaced with "cheap condoms," end of story? i love how you make things so simple, this country obviously needs it, judging by the level of political discourse and solutions offered.

Me: I didn't say that PP can be *replaced*. That wasn't what you proposed - you had said "contraception". I was responding to you on your terms.

May I ask what you'd think if someone said the following?
"You want to just OUTLAW rape? I love how you make things so simple. This country obviously needs it..."

That's not an argument, is it?

Bryan: Julie...if I may interject on your comments about "more" funding of PP and it being what is needed to end abortion. They perform 350,000 abortions per year at an average of $400 each. So you are saying if we give them more funding they will stop doing so? Julie: more funding is needed (PP or not PP) to promote contraceptive choices and women's health that go beyond "buy cheap condoms at your neighborhood store." because cheap condoms don't do it, i'm sorry to break the news. i don't think PP's abortion rate is constrained by funding, so i don't think they'd be performing more or less if funding changed. what they could do is to promote education, provide free counseling/contraceptive solutions to those who need it the most and who are most likely to get pregnant unplanned. all i am saying, if you guys cared about outcomes (fewer abortions), you'd work on reducing demand rather than outlawing the supply, because (a) it would be more efficient and (b) would be far more humane. it would be so much less fun though than the grandstanding you are engaged in. incidentally, same logic goes for the war on drugs, but that's a different topic. Julie: enough with idiotic analogies. i get it that you think abortion is an absolute moral wrong, to the exclusion of the woman's right to take care of her own health. i do get it. just because i disagree doesn't mean i like hitler, advocate euthanizing children, view rape as permissible, don't mind mass murderers doing what they want to do, etc. is it so hard to refrain from ascribing those positions to those who disagree with you? is that because "logic" (that you easily do away with in your own posts, see our other conversation today) requires that? Me: Why don't condoms do it? What do you have in mind instead? \\ i don't think PP's abortion rate is constrained by funding, so i don't think they'd be performing more or less if funding changed.\\ Which shows their heart and priorities. Sometimes they nearly lose$hundreds of thousands b/c they are an abortion provider, yet they turn around and (falsely) claim that abortions are only 3% of their activities. Why not just stop providing abortions, then? They don't want to - they seem to love it. Their opposition is well-earned.

\\what they could do is to promote education, provide free counseling/contraceptive solutions to those who need it the most and who are most likely to get pregnant unplanned.\\

I wouldn't really have a problem with them if that were all they did.

\\if you guys cared about outcomes (fewer abortions), you'd work on reducing demand rather than outlawing the supply\\

We can do both and do in fact do both.

\\it would be so much less fun though than the grandstanding you are engaged in. \\

Again with the emotion!

\\enough with idiotic analogies.\\

Please give me a reason to think it's idiotic. I don't think you can be consistent in your reasoning, and I'm asking you to prove me wrong.

\\to the exclusion of the woman's right to take care of her own health. \\

Nobody has a problem with a woman taking care of her health. We want that.
What we object to is a woman unilaterally deciding to end the health and life of her baby.

\\ is it so hard to refrain from ascribing those positions to those who disagree with you?\\

I ask the question as a thought experiment, to gauge how willing you are to be consistent.
So far, it would appear you are NOT willing to be consistent. Why not?

\\is that because "logic" (that you easily do away with in your own posts, see our other conversation today) requires that?\\

Well, you've asserted, but not demonstrated, that I "do away with" logic, so I reject the premise.
That's like three times now, BTW, that you've poked fun at my stated desire to argue logically. Would you prefer illogical argumentation?

Lisa: Julie, they have been promoting education across Africa actively for at least 10 years to "reduce the demand of abortions". That doesn't stop the fact that thousands of women across Africa alone are raped EVERY DAY... so much for your ideology of reducing demands.

Julie: Lisa, all i was trying to say that the returns, in terms of reducing the number abortions, to efforts of PREVENTING RAPE, which would REDUCE DEMAND for abortions - especially ones that follow rape - would be much higher than the returns to outlawing abortion, which Rhology advocates. (btw, hope you are not in the akin camp of those who think pregnancy after a "legitimate rape" is simply impossible. and by the way, that's yet another reason why "cheap condoms" simply don't do it.)

Rhology, your original question was, "May I ask what you'd think if someone said the following?
'You want to just OUTLAW rape? I love how you make things so simple. This country obviously needs it...'" my answer is (aside from "yes, you may ask") substantively: i wouldn't understand what this person is trying to say. i sense that you are IMPLYING that my statements were in some way equivalent, but you have done NO WORK demonstrating the equivalence. to make it clear: i am not really interested in exploring the implied equivalence (assuming you are willing to do the work in the future posts) or in continuing this meaningless debate. what i am interested in is that you have associated my views with some stupid and ill-conceived position ostensibly to "gauge how willing [I am] to be consistent." what you are doing sounds like a trivial attempt to bait or an intentionally misleading analogy. unacceptable either way, and a rule in much of what i see happening on your wall.

Me: ‎\\ i wouldn't understand what this person is trying to say. i sense that you are IMPLYING that my statements were in some way equivalent, but you have done NO WORK demonstrating the equivalence.\\

The equivalence is simple.
You are objecting to outlawing abortion b/c simply outlawing it is "so simple".
I am objecting to outlawing rape b/c simply outlawing it is "so simple".
This is application of YOUR OWN reasoning to a different issue. A reductio ad absurdum.

\\what you are doing sounds like a trivial attempt to bait or an intentionally misleading analogy. unacceptable either way, and a rule in much of what i see happening on your wall.\\

But you haven't SHOWN that it is misleading or a bad analogy. You've merely asserted it.

\\hope you are not in the akin camp of those who think pregnancy after a "legitimate rape" is simply impossible. and by the way, that's yet another reason why "cheap condoms" simply don't do it.\\

http://abolishhumanabortion.com/faq/#the-rape-exception
Once again, an otherwise intelligent and highly-educated pro-abortion person fails to apply her intellect and reasoning to the issue at hand. Rather, it's all emotion and a refusal to deal with even close to the best the other side has to offer. THAT is unacceptable. You want to give a slanted view of what occurs on my wall (while offering no evidence) but here you have demonstrably done the same thing of which you accuse me.