As someone who is anti-abortion (rather than an authoritarian personality who abuses the word in order to hide from the stagnancy of morality coercion) I merely can refer to the evidence correctly. You can't. You can only misrepresent in order to hide from the consequences of your anti-choice position
I merely posted the data in graphical form, it is you who are insisting that the data itself cannot be trusted without pro abortion oriented tweaking. Again with the attempts at demonization? That is an obvious indication that your position is untenable.
No, you deliberately posted data that couldn't be used. I've informed you why, but only out of politeness. You already knew the reasons and how you were deliberately misrepresenting.
Weak nonsense. You know you cannot debate away the facts, so you resorted to trying to demonize those of us who oppose abortion. It is very plain to see.
Perhaps you want to try to discredit these statistics as well, go ahead take your best shot. http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp I especially like this contrast: 1972 (pre Roe) Total abortions 586,760 1995 Total Abortions 1,210,883
More deliberate misrepresentation. I've referred to reduction in abortion demand, that necessarily includes legal and illegal abortions. I've also referred to published analysis that is capable of isolating the abortion policy effect. You know this, making the nature of your morality coercion sing out off key
More insistance that facts are only credible after being spun by pro abortionists. Sad The factual data is what it is, and proves your "theory" wrong definitively!
Just more inane misrepresentation. I've referred to evidence from peer reviewed academic journal. You've deliberately used raw data to provide spurious conclusion.
I referred to objective peer reviewed analysis and you, given you know you can't, referred deliberately to spurious bobbins.
You simply cannot refute cold hard factual data Timex, All your bloviating does nothing to help your cause.
You've replied with your standard attempt to hide from the published evidence. It bores me, but its expected amongst the anti-choicers who ultimately don't give a rat's arse about abortion demand
I care, I don't want it minimized. It is a homicide and a serious issue. SO why don't you get back on track and explain why tyhe factual data is wrong.
You don't want it minimised as anti-abortion isn't your motivation. Its simply standard authoritarianism where, whilst ignoring the evidence (as shown here) on abortion demand, there's foot stamping and an inherent demand for terrible coercion
I guess honest discourse was too much to ask of you. Here you are making up wild accusations about the motivations of your opposition instead of explaining why your debate position is superior. Well the obvious conclusion to draw here is that it simply isn't!
As someone who is anti-abortion and who refers to the empirical evidence into how abortion demand can be minimised, its of course pertinent to try and understand how the anti-choice illogical position is derived. Rather than be restricted to opinion, its again important to derive an understanding through a perusal of the published evidence
I don't think a fetus is a person. So I don't think abortion is murder. I do think that having an abortion is traumatizing to the potential mother and that she needs much more concern than is being given. I am a man so my opinion is less pertinent. In my opinion the emotional well being of the woman should be everyones primary concern, not the right or wrong of the act.
Well your opinion that a fetus is not a human being defies logic. Such an opinion can only be held by a person desperately searching for a way to justify the horrific act of abortion. But I am curious, why do you think an abortion can be "traumatizing" to a woman if she isn't killing her child in utero?
So, lets get back in topic shall we, how do you reconciole your opinion with the published evidence I presented?
You've presented nothing of value, deliberately restricting the analysis to legal abortions and also ignoring the need to make international comparison to enable abortion policy effects to be isolated. Of course you already know that the evidence supports my anti-abortion position.
More dodging? Come on man, just answer the question. How do you reconcile your opinion with the cold hard facts that contradict it?
Continued (and deliberate) misrepresentation on your part. The facts are in my favour, as shown by the published analysis capable of isolating abortion policy effects. I'm anti-abortion and you're anti-choice
