HHS moves to reclassify contraception as "abortion"

[Justforfun000]

*looks at Broomstick. Looks at MetaTwaddle*
Weren't we chewing on JustforFun a minute ago? Where'd this sudden attack on each other pop up from?

Shhhh... don't remind them..

I'm asking a general question here to understand what the proper form of debate would be when dealing with what I felt was a 'principle' argument.

If I simply want to state that girls having unprotected sex irregardless of the fact that they have received education and the ability to obtain contraception are being irresponsible and cause a burden to society that is both financial and potentially debilitating to children born to single mothers, how can I do so as just a moral opinion that is based on what is measurably a financial burden on the state as well as the generally accepted ideal family unit of at least two adults as caregivers that are in a committed relationship?

I am at a loss trying to understand how as Sir Nitram put it:

And once again, we come to the fact you don't have credibility, and have irreparably damaged any you had with your 'I DIDN'T MAKE THIS ABOUT NUMBERS'. There is no reason to believe what you say. How many times must this be repeated? Posting names won't even do it.

And what is this 'main point'? The 'Principle' of the thing?

To be fair, I wasn't trying to give any definitive percentage or amount to my argument. I used very vague terms like some and many because I have no clue what the statistics show, but I know very well that the number is far from zero. So why should this have anything to do with the argument above that I hope I laid out much more clearly?

Isn't it a logical enough argument to link truly irresponsible pregnancy to both the drain on financial resources the government has to come up with to deal with either abortion or supporting a stay at home mother on welfare?

I don't understand why an argument I'm making based on the consequences of said behavior is deemed irrelevant. Actually it seems to me on reflection that this wasn't even addressed. I was mainly being refuted because of my personal examples instead.

Anyway, I'd like to hear thoughts on this because I'm a little confused as to what is considered acceptable logic. I would have thought pointing out consequences and their effects on society and individuals to be reason enough to put forth an opinion.

[SirNitram]

Here we go again. 'Far from zero' implies it's a non-trivial amount, which would suggest you should get off your lazy ass and go find some numbers. Discussions of your personal desires for what should be done should not be taken with more than salt unless you've got something to back up why it's a good idea. As in evidence. Which you perpetually lack.

What about this is confusing?

[Metatwaddle]

To be fair, I wasn't trying to give any definitive percentage or amount to my argument. I used very vague terms like some and many because I have no clue what the statistics show, but I know very well that the number is far from zero.

Frankly, I'm not inclined to be charitable to you if you don't fucking read my posts. I looked up statistics for you, about your very own country, which has good birth control education. They showed that the maximum number we can possibly ascribe to these "loose slut" abortions, meaning repeat abortions and no birth control, was 14,000 per year in Canada.

Even that may be dubious, because second and subsequent abortion patients in this study were less likely than first-time patients to have learned about birth control in school. Repeat patients were more likely than first-time patients to have a history of abuse, too: 31% had a history of physical abuse by a male partner (compared to 14% for first-time patients) and 37% had been victims of sexual abuse (compared to 22% for first-time patients). This suggests that the sex that got the repeat patients pregnant may not have been consensual, even if it happened within a relationship. So the number can be whittled down even more, although we don't know how much because there's no cross-correlation in the study.

I gave you numbers and you claimed you had no idea what the statistics showed. What the hell is wrong with you?

how can I do so as just a moral opinion that is based on what is measurably a financial burden on the state

You don't get to throw around words like "measurably" on SDN unless you do the measurements yourself, or cite someone who's done them already. In this case the "someones" are the Canadian Medical Journal Association, Statistics Canada and Family Planning Perspectives, which I helpfully linked to in a previous post on page 3.

These abortions are costing the average Canadian six cents per year. I don't know why you don't get this.

[Elfdart]

The chicks at Feministing summed it up pretty well:

[Justforfun000]

Sir Nitram Wrote:

Here we go again. 'Far from zero' implies it's a non-trivial amount, which would suggest you should get off your lazy ass and go find some numbers. Discussions of your personal desires for what should be done should not be taken with more than salt unless you've got something to back up why it's a good idea. As in evidence. Which you perpetually lack.

What about this is confusing?

Actually...nothing. I think i fully understand you now. On the board here one should find at the very least some corroborating evidence to support their opinion objectively even if they themselves have a reasonable premise and conclusion. This is because many assertions can sound logical, or even technically 'be' logical in their format, but not necessarily correct.

Metatwaddle Wrote:

Frankly, I'm not inclined to be charitable to you if you don't fucking read my posts. I looked up statistics for you, about your very own country, which has good birth control education. They showed that the maximum number we can possibly ascribe to these "loose slut" abortions, meaning repeat abortions and no birth control, was 14,000 per year in Canada.

<snip>

I gave you numbers and you claimed you had no idea what the statistics showed. What the hell is wrong with you?

What's wrong with me is I still have to get it through my thick skull what I repeated back to Nitram above. I tend to focus too much on abstract principles even when they are sometimes borne out to me as fact in my personal experience, but this is irrelevant in a debate with others because they can't see your experiences so they cannot judge them. So I should have switched my focus on to the statistics issue since that's what YOU brought forth to rebut me and I said it didn't matter.

Fuck. I AM an idiot. I think I've got your points now at least.

You don't get to throw around words like "measurably" on SDN unless you do the measurements yourself, or cite someone who's done them already. In this case the "someones" are the Canadian Medical Journal Association, Statistics Canada and Family Planning Perspectives, which I helpfully linked to in a previous post on page 3.

These abortions are costing the average Canadian six cents per year. I don't know why you don't get this.

I get it now. I thought I had a good point in regards to abortion, but I concede I can't disagree with you. Now that you have me thinking, it'd be little different from banning smokers from lung cancer treatment.