Roe v Wade is on deck

[Lion IRC]

So this is interesting. Really very interesting.

Firstly, 24% condoms plus 13% pill equals 39%
Where's the other 61% ? Long acting methods?

I honestly do not know if you are saying this because you truly do not have any idea what the other methods are, or if you are playing a game pretending you don’t know.

I'm asking why the data is opaque.

It specifies the exact percentage for condoms and the contraceptive pill - two very common methods of contraception - but I didn't find the percentages for any others.
Shouldn't they be clearer about this great big "other" slice of the pie chart? The 61%

You don’t appear to make any effort to find out what the others are, you just make a statement that seems to mock the data as bad, and tries to discredit it by implication.

You can't mock data which isn't provided.

So what’s the story? Do you REALLY not know what the other 61% might be?

What it "might be"?

You don’t know about sponges, diaphragms (even though I mentioned those right in front of you just here in this thread), gels, spermicides, vaginal rings, internal condoms, patches, shots, and cervical caps?

Am I supposed to speculate on which method the other 61% might have used?

The rhythm method?
The withdrawal method?
The..."my sex parter told me he had a vasectomy" method?
The..."I didn't think you could get pregnant while menstruating" method?

Then you write this:

Secondly, this (self-reported) anecdotal data of "almost half" is HUGELY at odds with the statistical empirical data showing contraceptive effectiveness of > 95%

And you write it with this wide-eyed “I’m shocked!”

Yes.
Its a big gap.

...unless youre going to make the comparable claim that contraceptives also fail ~ 50% of the time in the general population of women who DONT seek abortions.

Are you actually utterly ignorant of all the factors that change the “when used perfectly” statistics? Genuine question, not snark.

Are you admitting that the 24% who claimed to have "used" condoms probably werent "using" them properly? And the 13% who claimed they used the pill sometime in the month before they got pregnant probably didnt.

...Didnt use the pill.
...Didnt use the pill in the same way as all those other women who DIDNT get pregnant use their contraceptive pill.

Were you, for example aware of the example I gave earlier that antibiotics decrease the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives like the pill?

Yes.

Do you know that the birth control pill needs to be taken at the same time every day...

Yes.

From the way you post, I gather that you have very little knowledge of how birth control works.

It seems to me there's a pretty large cohort of women attending abortion clinics with 'very little knowledge' of how birth control works.
Or more specifically, how to "use" birth control the way everyone else does.

Either that or It could be that these people are merely claiming they "used" contraception - at some point during the month before they got pregnant. It's possible this claim might help assuage some sense of guilt.

...I tried not to get pregnant ...not my fault I got pregnant, ...not my fault I'm having an abortion.

The world is real. And your sense of entitlement in micro-managing all hours of every woman’s day is utterly unrealistic.

Try sticking to the topic.
Lion IRC isnt the topic.

Why is there a huge disconnect between the effectiveness of contraceptives and the number of unwanted pregnancy abortions.

Do you realize that a large number of abortions are married women with kids who don’t want more and who have failed birth control, but still expect to live in a world where they are allowed by you to have sex with their husbands!?

I'm not answering your 'women, husbands, sex' questions. That has nothing to do with me.

And I don't have anything to do with the reason women seek abortions. I make the reasonable assumption that women living in 21st Century USA know how to avoid unwanted pregnancy abortions. I make the reasonable assumption that they know how a condom is used and how to follow the fairly simple instructions on a box of contraceptive pill.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not answering your 'women, husbands, sex' questions. That has nothing to do with me.

Abortion has nothing to do with you, but that hadn’t stop you from posting responses. So what are you afraid of?

 

[Lion IRC]

l'm asking how these outlier women managed to hit the statistically improbable pregnancy jackpot that other women on (95% effective birth control) somehow avoided by using the exact same birth control.

There may be different reasons for failure..

Yes, one being failure to use.

Do you think that contraceptives also fail ~ 50% of the time in the general population of women who DONT seek abortions?

So our variables are nicely connected

No they aren't.
You overlook the variable that we have very subjective, motivated, self-reporting of what (ambiguously) constitutes "using contraception" at some point during a very short time span of one month.

There's your prior.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm not answering your 'women, husbands, sex' questions. That has nothing to do with me.

Abortion has nothing to do with you, but that hadn’t stop you from posting responses. So what are you afraid of?

See? That's where so many abortion supporters get it wrong.

They think the connection between sex and pregnancy/abortion is meaninglessly trivial.

They conflate abortion with contraception.

And so they expect pro-lifers to stand by and watch the deliberate destruction of human life as if its none of their business.

 

[Toni]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

 

[Lion IRC]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

 

[Rhea]

Its a big gap.

...unless youre going to make the comparable claim that contraceptives also fail ~ 50% of the time in the general population of women who DONT seek abortions.

OOOOOOOoooohhhh!

You think that “Of women who get abortions, 50% said they used contraceptives,”
Means
“Contraceptives fail 50% of the time.”

Oh. Oh oh oh.

I didn’t realize that was the part you were having trouble understanding.

 

[abaddon]

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

No it isn't because their potential to become "innocent humans" has to matter more than already-existing innocent humans for the sorts of restrictions pro-lifers want to put in place to be reasonable.

 

[Rhea]

Its a big gap.

...unless youre going to make the comparable claim that contraceptives also fail ~ 50% of the time in the general population of women who DONT seek abortions.

OOOOOOOoooohhhh!

I didn’t realize that was the part you were having trouble understanding.

40 million US women use contraceptives. (About 50% of women aged 15-50)
Contraceptives fail 5% of the time when used properly.
Therefore
5% of 40M is 2,000,000 women with failed contraception per year

1 million US women get abortions.
500,000 of those are the women whose contraception failed at the 5% rate.

The other 1.5 million women with (statistically) failed contraceptives don’t have an abortion.


So you can see, in no way did any of that data ever say or even suggest that contraceptives fail at a 50% rate.

Hope that helps.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not answering your 'women, husbands, sex' questions. That has nothing to do with me.

Abortion has nothing to do with you, but that hadn’t stop you from posting responses. So what are you afraid of?

See? That's where so many abortion supporters get it wrong.

They think the connection between sex and pregnancy/abortion is meaninglessly trivial.

They conflate abortion with contraception.

And so they expect pro-lifers to stand by and watch the deliberate destruction of human life as if its none of their business.

Ignoring the fact it is none of their business, prolifers have no problem putting the life of an actual human life (child bearing female) at risk or even death in order to preserve the potential of human life, so your argument is pretty weak.

Moreover, there is destruction of actual human life around the world but from it seems “ prolifers” act like it is none of their business.

So why the special intense focus on potential human life over actual human life?

 

[pood]

So why the special intense focus on potential human life over actual human life?

Because of the patriarchal religious desire to control and exploit women.

 

[Rhea]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Why does innocence matter?
Aren’t the women also innocent?
Or are you accusing every one of them of a crime?

And who died and made you judge to call the pregnant women not-innocent?
what exactly are they not-innocent of?

 

[Toni]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Whose?

 

[Rhea]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

And, this hasn’t been discussed much since it is not relevant, due to the fact that even if there were a human, and it were innocent, it still wouldn’t have a right to use someone else’s body without permission, but….


You have not and cannot establish that a fetus is entitled to personhood, especially before it even has a brain.

Reasonable, moral, thoughtful people disagree with your claim that an embryo is a person. It has none of the features that we consider persons to have, so, personhood is not a thing that can even be brought into the argument that it has a right to the use of another poerson’s body without their consent.


It is historically the position of men that women’s bodies may be used without the woman’s consent and no wrong is done. Indeed you claim here that it is you moral duty! to use women’s bodies without their consent. And catholics and other religionists and even many secular laws have said throughout history that women’s bodies belong to men and can be used as the men wish without her consent and no wrong is done.

But that is barbaric and monstrous.

 

[bilby]

And so they expect pro-lifers to stand by and watch the deliberate destruction of human life as if its none of their business.

It IS none of your fucking business.

And there's exactly nothing fundamentally wrong with "the deliberate destruction of human life"; That could equally well describe the removal of a cancer as the removal of a fetus.

The reason you don't picket oncology wards, is that you don't care about humanity, nor about life.

You care about souls. And souls aren't a real thing - they are an entirely made up excuse for religious people to meddle in everyone else's business.

Fucking up a complete stranger's entire life, on the basis of something totally made up, is seriously fucking evil.

 

[Lion IRC]

Its a big gap.

...unless youre going to make the comparable claim that contraceptives also fail ~ 50% of the time in the general population of women who DONT seek abortions.

OOOOOOOoooohhhh!

You think that “Of women who get abortions, 50% said they used contraceptives,”

Where did those quotation marks come from? I never said that. I think the opposite.
I think most women who have abortions DID NOT use contraception.

Here's where I said that if you'd like to use the quote function.

My question is, how is it that in the survey ~50% of women self-reported that their (alleged) contraceptive failed? Is it similarly claimed that the most widely used contraceptives in the general population ALSO fail 50% of the time?

Means
“Contraceptives fail 50% of the time.”

That's the question.

Are the 50% of women in the survey outliers compared to the general population of women using contraceptives.

Should we or should we not be surprised by their claim that they got pregnant despite a presumption that they used contraception in the way the wider population would likewise answer the same question about their use of contraception.

Oh. Oh oh oh.

I didn’t realize that was the part you were having trouble understanding.

I'm waiting for your explanation.
Then we can talk about whether I understand it.

 

[Rhea]

Sweetie. The research said the first quote. You thought it meant the second one.
(Also, your quote link is broken)

Read through my math to understand better.


Contraceptives DO NOT fail 50% of the time. No one said that but you.

 

[Lion IRC]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Why does innocence matter?

It either does matter or it doesnt.
If you dont think it matters then you wont care why I think it matters.

If you say its none of my business then you wont care why I think it is.

Aren’t the women also innocent?

Innocent of what?
If they were raped its not their fault they got pregnant. So that makes two innocent victims.

But we already discussed abortion ban exemptions for rape pregnancy and nobody is willing to trade away the absolute bodily autonomy claim of the pro-choice abortion-on-demand lobby.

Or are you accusing every one of them of a crime?

No. Not if they, like the unborn baby, are innocent victims of a circumstance they didn't cause.

And who died and made you judge to call the pregnant women not-innocent?

Where did I say that?

what exactly are they not-innocent of?

Show me the accusation. Use the quote function. Then we'll talk.

 

[Lion IRC]

Sweetie. The research said the first quote. You thought it meant the second one.
(Also, your quote link is broken)

Roe v Wade is on deck

Have I been unclear about my desire to end abortion - the deliberate homicide of unborn humans? Yes. You appear to have a desire to criminalise abortion, which is observed to be directly counter to any desire to reduce, much less end, abortions. Where abortion is lawful, it is less common...

iidb.org

Contraceptives DO NOT fail 50% of the time. No one said that but you.

I did not and I do not assert that contraceptives fail 50% of the time.
(See pood? Thats how easy it is to deal with someone you think doesn't understand what you wrote - or in this case, what I didn't write.)

Rhea is presumably now going to use the quote function to reproduce a quote from me saying that I think contraceptives fail 50% of the time.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, in that case, like any threat to the unborn baby's life, we have a moral obligation to act.

Where did this "moral obligation" come from?