Welcome to Gaia! ::

Oh and Peer,

as cute as it is, the antics stop, now. I don't know if you are serious or not (I guess that's part of your charm, eh?) but this isn't a spit spewing debate. Address what i've said or I will gladly show you the door.

That's a promise, Orlando.

Adress my point too, please- Again, in the cases you make, it is risking a life for seemingly no purpose. However, in abortion, they would risk their lives for another life.

There is a clear difference here.

And even then, I think that misses the point further.

Life of the mother is irrelevant in the GENERAL abortion debate. For example, when arguing for elective abortion.

Is the fetus hitler?

We all know hitler to be despicable. You know that is a failing point, as it is entirely biased.

How about this, for an equally biased point, because I feel like sarcasm.

Abortion is like asking a peron if you could touch their clothing to save a basket of kittens/puppies. Who would say no to that?

Seriously though, your example was entirely retarded.

No. He really isn't.

I'm saying, stop justifying abortion for reasons it is not utilized for. I'm also telling you to stop justifying abortion when sex carries greater risk (in first world countries, anyway).

What I'm seeing happening is a form of birth control is being made legal under grounds that it can be considered "medicine" for a dangerous condition. I think that's your side trying to justify an issue with reasons it was not meant for.

But peer- Danger to the woman is NOT the reason most abortions occur. If it were, I would be fine with that.

And I'm pretty sure that your statistic on birth is bullshit. I'm pretty sure heart disease would kill more. Or cancer. Or car crashes.
You my be talking worldwide, but not in places with decent medical supplies.

And there's the dissent.

I'm addressing abortion as a method of birth control, one that affects lifestyles and the consequences caused by them. I am not addressing abortion as something necessary for one's own life to be healthy. That takes abortion out of the context that I choose to deal with it. If you choose to abort because you want to relinquish being a mother, I do not believe you should have that choice. If you choose to abortion to save your own life, that is quite different. Being a pro-lifer, I understand the value of life.

Am I justifying those abortions? Heck no, i'm just saying, they are different contexts. You are free to talk about autonomy, sex, and all that crap, but in a context where abortion kills fetus and unmakes mothers, as opposed to saving lives, that is what I'm addressing.



The easiest was to end this is for me to think of a new title, one that does not contain the word "irrelevant" because I do not feel that puts my point across as well. In any debate, nothing is irrelevant, just more off-topic.

So I will attempt to think of something.

Give me your numbers. How many woman die during pregnancy and birth worldwide each year. And I'll give you mine for how many abortions are done worldwide each year according to the AG institute (not to mention the UN studies, but right now, all I can find is the AGI numbers).

Females aborted each year: Millions. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
Women who die due to pregnancy or birth each year: 600,000 (including abortion deaths)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html

Meet your new number one killer of women (unless you don't count children in with women, in which case, take some numbers out of the maternal mortality rate as well, since there are plenty of young girls in there.)

So why are you saying that the deaths of 600,000 women (many of them dying due to poor healthcare for pregnancy from living in countries without the advantages you and I have) are more important than the deaths of MILLIONS of females, many of them being aborted just because they're female and their parents want that male baby? Add in the deaths of millions of male babies as well.

So wait. We've got a higher death toll. Abortion kills WAY more females than childbirth does. If abortion for any reason was done away with and women didn't abort, if we do the math (1% of legal abortions are done for health reasons) that's 19,600,000 lives saved as opposed to 400,000 lives lost. Let's cut numbers back and say, it's probably closer to only 15,000,000 lives saved and under 400,000 lives lost because the aborted fetuses might have miscarried anyway.

400,000 comes from (20,000,000/100)x2 (since usually the fetus dies too), which may be off since my math skills admittedly suck.

And you're saying all of those people should be told to die because they MIGHT go on to endanger their mothers? Or do you agree with KP in that life of the mother isn't the biggest reason to keep elective abortion around?