How To Make Abortion Unnecessary

[PLC1]

The sad fact is that nearly a quarter of all pregnancies in the US end in abortion. Imagine the numbers of playful, happy children never had a chance to be, due to abortion.

We are doing better than some other countries, though, look at Russia!

How to make it unnecessary? Well, that's easy. Just keep all pants zipped until after marriage, and don't marry until you're ready to have children.

Easier said than done, you say? Yes, yes it is, but it is the only way to eliminate the need for abortions entirely. What we need to do is to work to discourage abortion as much as possible: Promote safe sex, promote adoption, promote parenthood, and make it easier for young mothers and fathers to raise children through access to day care and child health programs.

Not to mention demonstrating to the youth a faithful monogamous relationship.

Nothing other than what I just said will end abortion, not even an outright ban, but that 1/4 figure is way to high.

 

[vyo476]

1. Adoption should be encouraged more, perhaps with tax incentives. Out of all the possible solutions, this one has the most promise.

Excellent. Besides tax incentives, making the process a little less invasive would be a good way to encourage people to adopt.

2. Education is useless. Anyone in the US who is pregnant knows exactly how they became pregnant. They know the risks and how to prevent pregnancy. An unwanted pregancny is the result of carelessness and not lack of education or access to birth control.

I disagree. I had an abstinence-only education and it left a lot to be learned on the side. I think better education (and education in contraception) would be highly beneficial.

3. The negative side of abortion should be presented more. Did you know having an abortion increases a woman's chance for cancer? Did you know that most women have serious misgivings about their abortions, many lasting years?

The former I had heard in several places (by the way, I think pale rider has a link to the study that proved it somewhere...can't remember which thread that's in at this point, though). The latter is hardly surprising.

If you ask me, the best place to stress these things would be in an educational setting. Abortions aren't even touched on in abstinence-only sex-ed courses. Perhaps the reason people seem to think they're a positive thing is that they haven't been properly educated about what abortion entails - both physiologically and psychologically.

4. Sex education in school should give equal time to abstinence.

I suppose I agree. Like I've said, I got fed abstinence-only...a course that delivers all the facts would be preferable. Since abstinence would be one of those facts, giving it some time to shine in class would be preferable.

5. Celebrities should do PSA's presenting abortion as a "last resort" scenario.

Personally, I find most celebrity PSA's to be contrived and unconvincing. Do they ever work?

6. Woman, including celebrities, who regret their abortion decision should be encourgaged to speak out. This should be a topic for Oprah.

If it isn't too emotionally damaging, perhaps a few specialists in adoption could tag along to discuss how they might have gone about things differently.

7. Abortions should not be presented as a casual medical procedure. Abortions should also be very expensive.

Raising the cost would just send abortions back out into alleys with coathangers. I doubt any of us want to see that.

8. Counselling should include a presentation of the abortion from all sides, including the unborn and the father.

Or the father ought to be present for at least some sessions of the counselling.

9. Some limited legal consideration should be extended to the father and to the parents of an underage girl.

How limited are we talking?

 

[r0beph]

The sad fact is that nearly a quarter of all pregnancies in the US end in abortion. Imagine the numbers of playful, happy children never had a chance to be, due to abortion.

We are doing better than some other countries, though, look at Russia!

How to make it unnecessary? Well, that's easy. Just keep all pants zipped until after marriage, and don't marry until you're ready to have children.{1}

Easier said than done, you say? Yes, yes it is, but it is the only way to eliminate the need for abortions entirely. What we need to do is to work to discourage abortion as much as possible: Promote safe sex, promote adoption, promote parenthood, and make it easier for young mothers and fathers to raise children through access to day care and child health programs.

Not to mention demonstrating to the youth a faithful monogamous relationship.

Nothing other than what I just said will end abortion, not even an outright ban,but that 1/4 figure is way to high.{2}

1.} How about no? I will get married before I'm ready to have kids, I'll have sex before I'm married, and I'll enjoy my life (without kids) by being SAFE in my sexual practises....thank you, carry on.

2.} I'm sure you didn't intend on being correct in the context here, but....yes that 1/4 ratio is a bit high, and very incorrect. I quote; (256 per 1,000 live births) for the 48 reporting areas {via cdc.gov} do the math , 256:1256 is not 1/4, but rather right around 1/5th....

 

[palerider]

1.} How about no? I will get married before I'm ready to have kids, I'll have sex before I'm married, and I'll enjoy my life (without kids) by being SAFE in my sexual practises....thank you, carry on.

Idiotic statement. It shows a startling lack of depth in your thought. You will have sex before you are married, and you will enjoy your life without kids, and you will get married before you are ready to have kids.

You may as well say that you will step off a tall building but will not injure yourself on impact. If you have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy no matter how careful you are and you will have kids unless you are confident that you can bully your bimbo into having an abortion.

 

[r0beph]

Idiotic statement. It shows a startling lack of depth in your thought. You will have sex before you are married, and you will enjoy your life without kids, and you will get married before you are ready to have kids.

You may as well say that you attempt to circumnavigate the world but will not fall off the edge. If you have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy no matter how careful you are and you will have kids unless you are confident that you can bully your bimbo into having an abortion.

Oh if my girlfriend got pregnant I'd have a kid. I've not yet, I doubt I will, if I did I'd have one, simple as that. However I'm not going to let some codger make the statement that one should WAIT for marriage until they're READY to have kids. Secondly I'll not have someone telling me I'm wrong for having sex before I'm married, and lastly I'll enjoy the fact I have no kids. I'm sure if I had kids I'd just as well enjoy my life WITH kids. You're inability to think beyond your 1590's thinking is apparent as ever. I don't like abortions, I don't suggest them, but it is SOMEONES RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Don't you DARE assume I'd bully someone into having one, that is THEIR choice as well as my own and I hope I'd be consulted before my girlfriend made such a choice, ultimately however it is HER body, and HER choice. And I suggest you watch how you speak about my girlfriend, calling her a bimbo is edging very close to the edge, you pathetic little ****. I'm hoping the mods will take note of this.


Jumping off a building and not expecting to die on impact is a wee bit far from a comparison of having sex and not expecting a child. I don't expect a child, and in the past 16 years I've not had one, one day I will and that'll be fine by me, I like kids, but you're being ridiculous with this statement.

 

[palerider]

Oh if my girlfriend got pregnant I'd have a kid. I've not yet, I doubt I will, if I did I'd have one, simple as that.

So your entire statement was nothing but chest thumping on your part and had no basis in fact?

However I'm not going to let some codger make the statement that one should WAIT for marriage until they're READY to have kids.

Again, completely irrational. First, the codgers suggest that you wait until you are ready to have kids before you engage in sex. The marriage is for the benefit of the kids. And the suggestion is perfectly rational and sound. It is analogous to suggesting that you not step off a tall building until you are ready to die from deceleration trauma. Doing either before you are ready for the consequences is simply stupid and shows a startling lack of forethought or consideration of the consequences of one's actions.

Secondly I'll not have someone telling me I'm wrong for having sex before I'm married, and lastly I'll enjoy the fact I have no kids.

No one said that you were wrong; just stupid.

I'm sure if I had kids I'd just as well enjoy my life WITH kids. You're inability to think beyond your 1590's thinking is apparent as ever.

I am not the one thumping my chest making irrational statements. Do you believe that rational thinking and deeply considered arguments constitutes 1590's thinking, as opposed to your poorly thought out positions and arguments which apparently represent modern thinking?

And I suggest you watch how you speak about my girlfriend, calling her a bimbo is edging very close to the edge, you pathetic little ****. I'm hoping the mods will take note of this.

More chest thumping? Hold on while I tremble in fear...........ok. I'm done. You made the claim that you WOULD enjoy sex before you were married and you WOULD NOT have kids. The only rational conclusion to be made from that statement is that if your woman becomes pregnant, you would bully her into killing the child; or you were just bloviating which seems to be the case.

Jumping off a building and not expecting to die on impact is a wee bit far from a comparison of having sex and not expecting a child. I don't expect a child, and in the past 16 years I've not had one, one day I will and that'll be fine by me, I like kids, but you're being ridiculous with this statement.

Why? Both are rational consequences of the respective actions? And how do you know that you haven't fathered children who have been aborted? There is no way on earth that you could rationally make such a claim. The very best you can rationally claim is that you don't think you have a child's blood on your hands.

 

[r0beph]

So your entire statement was nothing but chest thumping on your part and had no basis in fact?

Not at all, and your reviling and antagonistic spiel is wearing me a wee bit thin. Birth control coupled with condoms used as birth control have a percentage less than 99.9%, which while I'll concede does not make it impossible, it is what we like to refer to as improbable. See the earth COULD be hit by a meteor, there's a chance. Planes face the risk of falling out of the sky every time they fly, but they usually don't and no one runs about saying it's not IF it's WHEN, as you're attempting to do with your nonsense. I find your skewing of the statistics to imply the "not if, but when" scenario quite refutable. I've done well for I guess, 12 years, without a single child, it's not irrational to assume one isn't knocking at the door since I'm following the same care with things as I have in the past. Everything we do is a risk, even breathing, if you want to play the game where 0% (or 100%) is the only "definite" then sure, you're right; statistics in this case however are in my favor and are generally accepted except by zealot nut jobs such as yourself who try to play silly games with facts.

Again, completely irrational. First, the codgers suggest that you wait until you are ready to have kids before you engage in sex. The marriage is for the benefit of the kids. And the suggestion is perfectly rational and sound. It is analogous to suggesting that you not step off a tall building until you are ready to die from deceleration trauma. Doing either before you are ready for the consequences is simply stupid and shows a startling lack of forethought or consideration of the consequences of one's actions.

Marriage is, sorry to trash you're ridiculous ideals here, not FOR THE CHILDREN, it's for a couple in love who wish to spend the rest of their lives together, if kids are part of that package, so be it. However to suggest that with adequate precautionary care it is STILL "careless" to have sex, is preposterous, as I made clear in my last paragraph, statistics is on my side. Your analogy is still only valid to retards on ventilators, anyone else would see it as invalid as I. No "protection" is 100%, not for sex and not for driving. I'm not ready to die by any means, but I've likely a higher chance of dying than impregnating my girlfriend, yet when I sit behind the wheel of my car, I don't sit down thinking, if I die, I'm ready to go! See I take precautions though, I buckle my seat belt, I drive the speed limit, I use my turn signals all to minimize the possibility of my death in this steel cage of kinetic energy and as with sex, it's sufficed thus far.

No one said that you were wrong; just stupid.

I say you're both wrong AND stupid.

I am not the one thumping my chest making irrational statements. Do you believe that rational thinking and deeply considered arguments constitutes 1590's thinking, as opposed to your poorly thought out positions and arguments which apparently represent modern thinking?

And I'm not chest thumping either, however I'm not calling your loved ones bimbos nor am I accusing you of being abusive towards them. Both of which you stated quite plainly. I find it disrespectful and a pathetic jab with no basis, grow up.

More chest thumping? Hold on while I tremble in fear...........ok. I'm done. You made the claim that you WOULD enjoy sex before you were married and you WOULD NOT have kids. The only rational conclusion to be made from that statement is that if your woman becomes pregnant, you would bully her into killing the child; or you were just bloviating which seems to be the case.

You made no such conclusion, I won't have kids because statistics says I won't, just as I won't win the lottery even though I buy a ticket each week. I mean I COULD, but you could choke to death on some meaty gristle whilst eating a chicken thigh, but you're not going to stop eating now are you. I'm by no effort trying to make anyone fear me, I could give a ****, I do want you to know however that I'm not keen on people being insulting where it is NOT warranted, you're just lucky I'm no mod as that comment directed at me or anyone else wouldv'e been an akill.

Why? Both are rational consequences of the respective actions? And how do you know that you haven't fathered children who have been aborted? There is no way on earth that you could rationally make such a claim. The very best you can rationally claim is that you don't think you have a child's blood on your hands.

What in the ****? lol, you really are reaching. I know because if someone I was dating became pregnant, they'd have told me. I don't just sleep with any random girl I come across, I'm not one for one night stands, and I'm to this day friends with most everyone I've ever dated. There is very MUCH a way on earth, and I'm doing it here, I have no blood on my hands....period. Not fetal and not of a child. You get wackier and wackier every thread. Did your lithium run out?

 

[palerider]

Not at all, and your reviling and antagonistic spiel is wearing me a wee bit thin. Birth control coupled with condoms used as birth control have a percentage less than 99.9%, which while I'll concede does not make it impossible, it is what we like to refer to as improbable. See the earth COULD be hit by a meteor, there's a chance. Planes face the risk of falling out of the sky every time they fly, but they usually don't and no one runs about saying it's not IF it's WHEN, as you're attempting to do with your nonsense. I find your skewing of the statistics to imply the "not if, but when" scenario quite refutable. I've done well for I guess, 12 years, without a single child, it's not irrational to assume one isn't knocking at the door since I'm following the same care with things as I have in the past. Everything we do is a risk, even breathing, if you want to play the game where 0% (or 100%) is the only "definite" then sure, you're right; statistics in this case however are in my favor and are generally accepted except by zealot nut jobs such as yourself who try to play silly games with facts.

Clearly you are over your head here robeth. The math must be too much for you so you live in a fantasy where you believe 99.9 (I doubt that you can support that statement) means never. The fact is that the earth has been hit by meteors and is hit by tons of them every single day. And it will continue to be hit by them so long as earth is in space. If you are speaking to the large variety, the earth has been hit by them and will be hit again. The only question is whether you will be alive to see it happen or not as if that really mattered.

And again, you can not say with anything that begins to amount to assuredness that you have not fathered children that have been aborted. Perhaps the girl didn't see you as worthy and decided to kill the child. You have no idea other than no woman has told you that you have gotten her knocked up.

Marriage is, sorry to trash you're ridiculous ideals here, not FOR THE CHILDREN, it's for a couple in love who wish to spend the rest of their lives together, if kids are part of that package, so be it.

You should research the subject before you speak, then it wouldn't be so obvious that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Anthropologically speaking, the institution of marriage came about because of the lenght of time it takes our young to mature to a level at which they can be on thier own. As cultures got more complex, it became clear that communal raising of children (as was the case with small hunter / gatherer groups) was not going to be practical and an arrangement would have to be made and supported by those in charge (chiefs, kings, government) that would create a relationship that would reasonably be expected to last long enough for the raising of children.

If our young were able to be on their own in less than a couple of years, the institution of marriage would simply never have formed as there would have been no need for it. Couples "in love" can live together forever without the need for marriage.

I say you're both wrong AND stupid.

Unless you can back it up with some fact, what you say doesn't mean much as you have very little credibility and are registering quite low on my RESPECT-O-Meter.

You made no such conclusion, I won't have kids because statistics says I won't, just as I won't win the lottery even though I buy a ticket each week.

You clearly don't understand statistics. The statistics say that you will, not that you won't. The fact is that the CDC says condoms fail 17% of the time and most birth control methods for women have a failure rate between 07 and 06%. If you are capable of doing the math, you will see that you are not operating in a world of 99.9%. Newsflash!! Not facing reality doesn't make reality go away.

What in the ****? lol, you really are reaching. I know because if someone I was dating became pregnant, they'd have told me. I don't just sleep with any random girl I come across, I'm not one for one night stands, and I'm to this day friends with most everyone I've ever dated. There is very MUCH a way on earth, and I'm doing it here, I have no blood on my hands....period. Not fetal and not of a child. You get wackier and wackier every thread. Did your lithium run out?

Do you know that? Perhaps women see that you have commitment issues and don't trust you to father their children. The fact is that you don't have a clue as to whether you have ever knocked up a girlfiriend or not.

The fact is robeth, that you are talking out of your ass. Suggesting that you know what others are thinking or doing when they are not within your sight is simply foolish. The only way that you can KNOW that you have not gotten a girlfriend pregnant is if you have not had sex. PERIOD.

You aren't very good at debate. You should analyze your statements to see if you are just thumping your chest or if you are making statements that you can substantiate and corroborate. So far, I don't see any that you could do either with. If I have missed one, feel free to bring it forward.

 

[palerider]

Not at all, and your reviling and antagonistic spiel is wearing me a wee bit thin. Birth control coupled with condoms used as birth control have a percentage less than 99.9%, which while I'll concede does not make it impossible, it is what we like to refer to as improbable. See the earth COULD be hit by a meteor, there's a chance. Planes face the risk of falling out of the sky every time they fly, but they usually don't and no one runs about saying it's not IF it's WHEN, as you're attempting to do with your nonsense. I find your skewing of the statistics to imply the "not if, but when" scenario quite refutable. I've done well for I guess, 12 years, without a single child, it's not irrational to assume one isn't knocking at the door since I'm following the same care with things as I have in the past. Everything we do is a risk, even breathing, if you want to play the game where 0% (or 100%) is the only "definite" then sure, you're right; statistics in this case however are in my favor and are generally accepted except by zealot nut jobs such as yourself who try to play silly games with facts.

Clearly you are over your head here robeth. The math must be too much for you so you live in a fantasy where you believe 99.9 (I doubt that you can support that statement) means never. The fact is that the earth has been hit by meteors and is hit by tons of them every single day. And it will continue to be hit by them so long as earth is in space. If you are speaking to the large variety, the earth has been hit by them and will be hit again. The only question is whether you will be alive to see it happen or not as if that really mattered.

And again, you can not say with anything that begins to amount to assuredness that you have not fathered children that have been aborted. Perhaps the girl didn't see you as worthy and decided to kill the child. You have no idea other than no woman has told you that you have gotten her knocked up.

Marriage is, sorry to trash you're ridiculous ideals here, not FOR THE CHILDREN, it's for a couple in love who wish to spend the rest of their lives together, if kids are part of that package, so be it.

You should research the subject before you speak, then it wouldn't be so obvious that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Anthropologically speaking, the institution of marriage came about because of the lenght of time it takes our young to mature to a level at which they can be on thier own. As cultures got more complex, it became clear that communal raising of children (as was the case with small hunter / gatherer groups) was not going to be practical and an arrangement would have to be made and supported by those in charge (chiefs, kings, government) that would create a relationship that would reasonably be expected to last long enough for the raising of children.

If our young were able to be on their own in less than a couple of years, the institution of marriage would simply never have formed as there would have been no need for it. Couples "in love" can live together forever without the need for marriage.

I say you're both wrong AND stupid.

Unless you can back it up with some fact, what you say doesn't mean much as you have very little credibility and are registering quite low on my RESPECT-O-Meter.

You made no such conclusion, I won't have kids because statistics says I won't, just as I won't win the lottery even though I buy a ticket each week.

You clearly don't understand statistics. The statistics say that you will, not that you won't. The fact is that the CDC says condoms fail 17% of the time and most birth control methods for women have a failure rate between 07 and 06%. If you are capable of doing the math, you will see that you are not operating in a world of 99.9%. Newsflash!! Not facing reality doesn't make reality go away.

What in the ****? lol, you really are reaching. I know because if someone I was dating became pregnant, they'd have told me. I don't just sleep with any random girl I come across, I'm not one for one night stands, and I'm to this day friends with most everyone I've ever dated. There is very MUCH a way on earth, and I'm doing it here, I have no blood on my hands....period. Not fetal and not of a child. You get wackier and wackier every thread. Did your lithium run out?

Do you know that? Perhaps women see that you have commitment issues and don't trust you to father their children. The fact is that you don't have a clue as to whether you have ever knocked up a girlfiriend or not.

The fact is robeth, that you are talking out of your ass. Suggesting that you know what others are thinking or doing when they are not within your sight is simply foolish. The only way that you can KNOW that you have not gotten a girlfriend pregnant is if you have not had sex. PERIOD.

You aren't very good at debate. You should analyze your statements to see if you are just thumping your chest or if you are making statements that you can substantiate and corroborate. So far, I don't see any that you could do either with. If I have missed one, feel free to bring it forward.

 

[r0beph]

Clearly you are over your head here robeth. The math must be too much for you so you live in a fantasy where you believe 99.9 (I doubt that you can support that statement) means never. The fact is that the earth has been hit by meteors and is hit by tons of them every single day. And it will continue to be hit by them so long as earth is in space. If you are speaking to the large variety, the earth has been hit by them and will be hit again. The only question is whether you will be alive to see it happen or not as if that really mattered.

First of all you're missing the point here. Statistics is simply a prediction of the possibility of an occurrence in terms of likelihood or unlikelihood approaching but not equaling infinity. (since infinity represents the number of occurrences in which would have to be performed to prove or negate a 100%/0% statistic) given this, and common knowledge that says there ARE NO DEFINITES PERIOD, we as humans have created an abstraction that allows us to say "it won't happen" since the chances of it not occurring greatly outweigh that in which they should occur. I'm saying it won't happen, just as I very well won't win the lottery, sure I COULD, but we can rest assured without much worry that I shalln't...if I do, I'll buy you platinum gilded bible with a cute little hammer to thump it with.

And again, you can not say with anything that begins to amount to assuredness that you have not fathered children that have been aborted. Perhaps the girl didn't see you as worthy and decided to kill the child. You have no idea other than no woman has told you that you have gotten her knocked up.

this quote contains 100% ad hominem (not a statistic, a fact just as, I shall not reply with anything except, yes I do know 100% I never have have impregnated someone.

You should research the subject before you speak, then it wouldn't be so obvious that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Anthropologically speaking, the institution of marriage came about because of the lenght of time it takes our young to mature to a level at which they can be on thier own. As cultures got more complex, it became clear that communal raising of children (as was the case with small hunter / gatherer groups) was not going to be practical and an arrangement would have to be made and supported by those in charge (chiefs, kings, government) that would create a relationship that would reasonably be expected to last long enough for the raising of children.

Is that the case. I'll not deny some of what you say, I don't care where "marriage" came from, the history behind it from 1 of a thousand cultures that exist in the world. Love is the undeniable bond to a marriage, kids obviously by the fact that only around 24% of women are married before their first child, have no bearing on your assumption that current day marriage is based on the intent to procreate. I don't care in the slightest about your "moral" idealism concerning "what marriage should be" that moral elitism is why so many marriages end in divorce....The unhappy relationship marrying due to kids rather than for love increases this incidence exponentially from the number of divorces we'd see if that was never the case. Divorce is pretty hard on kids too you know. When I marry it will be because I love her, not because I'm ready to pop out little roos...

If our young were able to be on their own in less than a couple of years, the institution of marriage would simply never have formed as there would have been no need for it. Couples "in love" can live together forever without the need for marriage.

Plenty of kids live today without marriage, in fact I'd postulate a majority do. Sure a couple in love can (I like the quotes...snarky) live together forever without marriage. But why NOT get married to express that love and bring the relationship to the ultimate affirmation of love; marriage. Marriage in which love is not the primary reasoning is quite likely to fail with a much worse outcome for the kids than not. In light of this, I must dispute your assertion.

Unless you can back it up with some fact, what you say doesn't mean much as you have very little credibility and are registering quite low on my RESPECT-O-Meter.

Ad hominem abound.

You clearly don't understand statistics. The statistics say that you will, not that you won't. The fact is that the CDC says condoms fail 17% of the time and most birth control methods for women have a failure rate between 07 and 06%. If you are capable of doing the math, you will see that you are not operating in a world of 99.9%. Newsflash!! Not facing reality doesn't make reality go away.

Wrong and wrong. First of all the CDC says no such thing (not in the context you're considering) Condom failure rates of 15-20% are for "typical-improperly used condoms for a static sexual relationship over the course of a year" This does NOT mean that every condom has a 17% chance of failing, much much less. Let's take the statistic that couples living together have sex around 146 times a year on average, now this failure statistic is a 17 out of a 100 women becoming pregnant, if those 100 women are couples who have sex on average (146 times a year) 17 failures occurred out of the entire condom usage over the determinant year, (which resulted in 17 pregnancies) so 146 x 100 is 14,600 this equates to 17:14600 %0.12 overall failure rate (99.88%) effective (note: 12%, this is condom usage which is considered "typical" which is defined as usage that is often not superb, such as failure to withdraw and remove correctly on completion of the act, etc.) with perfect usage (always following the correct usage 100% of the time) it's a 3:100 pregnancy rate. thus 3:14600 becomes a failure rate PER condom of %0.02 or 99.98% protection. If you care to converge the statistics with progesterone/estrogen birthcontrol go right ahead, no need for me to further my point.

Do you know that? Perhaps women see that you have commitment issues and don't trust you to father their children. The fact is that you don't have a clue as to whether you have ever knocked up a girlfiriend or not.

The fact is robeth, that you are talking out of your ass. Suggesting that you know what others are thinking or doing when they are not within your sight is simply foolish. The only way that you can KNOW that you have not gotten a girlfriend pregnant is if you have not had sex. PERIOD.

You aren't very good at debate. You should analyze your statements to see if you are just thumping your chest or if you are making statements that you can substantiate and corroborate. So far, I don't see any that you could do either with. If I have missed one, feel free to bring it forward.

wow, ad hominem after ad hominem... do you think attacking my integrity by supposing that someone may think me "unworthy" or that I'm foolish for trusting those I still to this day consider very good friends? tsk tsk...it is you that are not very good at debate. I do however crown you King of Ad Hominem.

 

[palerider]

Here robeth, learn something:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Clearly, you don't have a clue as to what is and is not an Ad Hominem attack. First learn what an Ad Hominem attack is, then kindly bring forward any example of such an attack against you by me.

Think you can manage that on your own ... bucky?

 

[r0beph]

Here robeth, learn something:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Clearly, you don't have a clue as to what is and is not an Ad Hominem attack. First learn what an Ad Hominem attack is, then kindly bring forward any example of such an attack against you by me.

Think you can manage that on your own ... bucky?

Perhaps it is you who do not understand ad hominem; Your whole line of reasoning about a girl who may have been pregnant and aborted her child because I was "unworthy" is a proxy ad hominem, since the main point is that I was discussing that sex was safe and pregnancy chances are approaching infinitesimally small and you decided diverging the conversation from the statistical proof I've thus provided to a conjecture stating that I couldn't possibly know if I've impregnated a girl before and following with an attack on my character by asserting that she could've found me unworthy and thus would have aborted the pregnancy and not told me, you've attacked my character in an attempt to disprove my point.

Following the standard ad hominem definition of:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

I, person A, claim that I know I've not impregnated any woman.
You assert that since (obviously) you feel I would be found unworthy, that there is a chance she'd not tell me.
Thus I cannot possibly know that I have never impregnated a woman.

and following this you are also asserting that since I'm wrong here, my claims that protection are indeed safe, must also be false since I very well may have had an ex who aborted a pregnancy and never told me, thus the birth control methods used would have HAD to fail.

multiple spaghettified fallacies all throughout your argument. And yet nothing proved.

 

[palerider]

I, person A, claim that I know I've not impregnated any woman.
You assert that since (obviously) you feel I would be found unworthy, that there is a chance she'd not tell me.
Thus I cannot possibly know that I have never impregnated a woman.

and following this you are also asserting that since I'm wrong here, my claims that protection are indeed safe, must also be false since I very well may have had an ex who aborted a pregnancy and never told me, thus the birth control methods used would have HAD to fail.

multiple spaghettified fallacies all throughout your argument. And yet nothing proved.

To begin with, your claim that you know that you have not impregnated any women is based upon a false premis. It assumes that you have not impregnated a girlfirend because none have told you but an assumption is not a valid basis for a claim. The claim is in and of itself is a post hoc fallacy. You have had protected sex. none of your girlfriends have told you that they have become pregnant. Therefore, you have never gotten one of your girlfriends pregnant. The claim also falls under the heading of a relativist fallacy in that it is true that other men have gotten women pregnant and been unaware of the fact, but you claim, with no rational basis with which to support the claim, that it is not true for you.

The very claim of an ad hominem attack is no more than a red herring that serves the purpose of diverting a discussion that you were losing.

I could argue that assumption as effectively (and as fallaciously) as you if I said that because you have had protected sex, and protection fails and none of your girlfriends has told you that you have gotten them pregnant, therefore you must be sterile. Of course, that would be a post hoc fallacy because I would have been stating it as a matter of fact in the same way you made your statement.

Of course, I never claimed that you had gotten a girlfriend pregnant which would not be a statement of fact. I stated that you could not know for sure that you have never gotten a girlfriend pregnant unless you have never had sex which is a fact.

The reasons they might not have told you could range from simply not wanting children to viewing you as unworthy as a lifetime mate or father to their children. Expressing possible reasons why someone may have taken a certain action doesn't constitute an attack on anyone.

Face it robeth, you are outclassed here. You have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight. You had to be dishonest to even set up your claim for an ad homenim attack on my part. The format that you laid out is not the order in which the discussion took place. There could be a multitude of reasons why a woman might not tell you that she is pregnant and that she might view you as unworthy is only one. The fact remains that you can not know that you have never gotten a woman pregnant unless you have never had sex. Unless, of course, you have her held prisoner somewhere so that she would not be able to abort the child without your knowledge, or you are congenitally sterile.

And my statement that birth control fails has nothing to do with anything except the FACT that it does fail and that hundreds of thousands of children per year are killed precicely because "safe" birth control methods have failed.

No claim that I have made has anything to do with you, my claims are simply statements of fact. The only way that you can know that you have not gotten a woman pregnant is if you have not had sex with her, unless, of course, you have her held prisioner, or are sterile.

So I am still waiting for you to bring forward any evidence of an ad homenim attack upon you by me. I do not engage in attacks in lieu of argument and you will find any logical fallacy on my part very rare indeed if you set out to prove one.