No, our goal is not reducing auto accidents

Electric Skeptic

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Imagine if some group had this position:

We don't want to reduce auto accidents - we want to eradicate them entirely. We are opposed to driver safety programs - they just encourage people to drive more and to think they're immune to accidents. The more people know about safe driving, the more they'll want to drive and the more accidents there'll be. We don't want auto accidents to be stopped or lowered by some way of which we don't approve - the only way is for everybody to stop driving except for strictly controlled circumstances that we will tell them. We have no real strategy to make that happen, so we're just going to keep insisting people act that way until they all magically start to do it. And if you're for people being able to drive when and where they want, then you're for car crashes.​

We wouldn't hesitate to say how stupid such a position was, would we? Why, then, do we think that an analogous position in relation to abortion is rational or reasonable? There are groups who say that they don't want to reduce abortion - they want to eradicate it entirely. So they oppose the only things that have been proven to lower abortion rates - increased sex education and availability of contraceptives - because they imagine it will lead to increased licentiousness or some such nonsense. They don't want to lower abortion rates via methods that have been proven to be able to do so - they insist that abortion must be obliterated by their way or no way. And their way is...well...they don't really have one. Everybody just needs to stop having sex. And if you're pro-choice, then you're pro-abortion.

Why do people who claim to be pro-life even countenance such a ludicrous position? Because, of course, the vast majority of the pro-life movement isn't about abortion at all - it's about posturing and being holier-than-thou. It's pretty obvious that anybody who is against abortion would be for the proven best method of lowering its rate - yet the vast majority of pro-lifers are opposed to it. Why? Because it's not good enough for abortion to stop - it has to stop their way, which is not people being able to have sex with lowered risk of conception, it's about people not having sex at all!

I'll believe someone is truly opposed to abortion when they are for programs for increased mandatory sex education and increased availability of contraception. But knowing the pro-life crowd, I'm not expecting to that to happen any time soon.
 
E

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Electric Skeptic said:
Imagine if some group had this position:

We don't want to reduce auto accidents - we want to eradicate them entirely. We are opposed to driver safety programs - they just encourage people to drive more and to think they're immune to accidents. The more people know about safe driving, the more they'll want to drive and the more accidents there'll be. We don't want auto accidents to be stopped or lowered by some way of which we don't approve - the only way is for everybody to stop driving except for strictly controlled circumstances that we will tell them. We have no real strategy to make that happen, so we're just going to keep insisting people act that way until they all magically start to do it. And if you're for people being able to drive when and where they want, then you're for car crashes.​

We wouldn't hesitate to say how stupid such a position was, would we? Why, then, do we think that an analogous position in relation to abortion is rational or reasonable? There are groups who say that they don't want to reduce abortion - they want to eradicate it entirely. So they oppose the only things that have been proven to lower abortion rates - increased sex education and availability of contraceptives - because they imagine it will lead to increased licentiousness or some such nonsense. They don't want to lower abortion rates via methods that have been proven to be able to do so - they insist that abortion must be obliterated by their way or no way. And their way is...well...they don't really have one. Everybody just needs to stop having sex. And if you're pro-choice, then you're pro-abortion.

Why do people who claim to be pro-life even countenance such a ludicrous position? Because, of course, the vast majority of the pro-life movement isn't about abortion at all - it's about posturing and being holier-than-thou. It's pretty obvious that anybody who is against abortion would be for the proven best method of lowering its rate - yet the vast majority of pro-lifers are opposed to it. Why? Because it's not good enough for abortion to stop - it has to stop their way, which is not people being able to have sex with lowered risk of conception, it's about people not having sex at all!

I'll believe someone is truly opposed to abortion when they are for programs for increased mandatory sex education and increased availability of contraception. But knowing the pro-life crowd, I'm not expecting to that to happen any time soon.
Click to expand...
Abstinence - 60% of the time, it works every time!

A curious coincidence - I've always said that abstinence-only is akin to trying to reduce the number of people hit by cars by just telling them never to cross the road. Theoretically, it's perfect... but we live in the real world, where people have to cross the bloody road, and they're going to do it no matter what you tell them.
 
C

cjab

Well-known member
Electric Skeptic said:
There are groups who say that they don't want to reduce abortion - they want to eradicate it entirely. So they oppose the only things that have been proven to lower abortion rates - increased sex education and availability of contraceptives - because they imagine it will lead to increased licentiousness or some such nonsense.
Click to expand...
I think the evidence is incontrovertible that contraceptives and abortions lead to increased licentiousness.

"Odds ratio analysis indicated that ever having an abortion, sterilization, and/or methods of contraception increased the likelihood of divorce – up to two times."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The influence of contraception, abortion, and natural family planning on divorce rates as found in the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of contraception, abortion, and natural family planning (NFP) on divorce rates of US women of reproductive age. The variables of importance of religion and frequency of church attendance were also ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
Whateverman

Whateverman

Well-known member
Electric Skeptic said:
Imagine if some group had this position:

We don't want to reduce auto accidents - we want to eradicate them entirely. We are opposed to driver safety programs - they just encourage people to drive more and to think they're immune to accidents. The more people know about safe driving, the more they'll want to drive and the more accidents there'll be. We don't want auto accidents to be stopped or lowered by some way of which we don't approve - the only way is for everybody to stop driving except for strictly controlled circumstances that we will tell them. We have no real strategy to make that happen, so we're just going to keep insisting people act that way until they all magically start to do it. And if you're for people being able to drive when and where they want, then you're for car crashes.​

We wouldn't hesitate to say how stupid such a position was, would we? Why, then, do we think that an analogous position in relation to abortion is rational or reasonable?
Click to expand...
As a pro-choice advocate, the problem with that argument is precisely because it's unreasonable. However, I'm not sure I'd say that it's irrational (or a-rational); it simply is an argument which will ultimately fail to achieve any pro-life goal..

Electric Skeptic said:
There are groups who say that they don't want to reduce abortion - they want to eradicate it entirely. So they oppose the only things that have been proven to lower abortion rates - increased sex education and availability of contraceptives - because they imagine it will lead to increased licentiousness or some such nonsense. They don't want to lower abortion rates via methods that have been proven to be able to do so - they insist that abortion must be obliterated by their way or no way. And their way is...well...they don't really have one. Everybody just needs to stop having sex. And if you're pro-choice, then you're pro-abortion.

Why do people who claim to be pro-life even countenance such a ludicrous position? Because, of course, the vast majority of the pro-life movement isn't about abortion at all - it's about posturing and being holier-than-thou. It's pretty obvious that anybody who is against abortion would be for the proven best method of lowering its rate - yet the vast majority of pro-lifers are opposed to it. Why? Because it's not good enough for abortion to stop - it has to stop their way, which is not people being able to have sex with lowered risk of conception, it's about people not having sex at all!

I'll believe someone is truly opposed to abortion when they are for programs for increased mandatory sex education and increased availability of contraception. But knowing the pro-life crowd, I'm not expecting to that to happen any time soon.
Click to expand...
I forget where the videos came from, but several months ago, someone here linked to a YT channel of a Christian (pastor? minister?) explaining why the Christian position on abortion needs rethinking. The two videos I watched were reasonable and encouraging - pretty much the opposite of the Christians in these forums who argue against abortion.

Those videos were a reminder that the loudest voices aren't necessarily representative of their group. I can't tell you that there are more reasonable pro-life people than unreasonable ones - but I think it's a mistake to assume the opposite. If there's any hope of coming to a resolution of the problem, it must involve reasonable pro-choice people finding common ground with reasonable pro-life people - and assuming they're all unreasonable is counter-productive to that.

<$0.02 />
 
Electric Skeptic

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
cjab said:
Another instance of your blindness. The problem is you claim to be able to see, even though you are blind.
Click to expand...
Another instance of your blindness. The problem is you claim to be able to see, even though you are blind.
cjab said:
John 9:41 "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains"
Click to expand...
Pointless quote from a religious text.

And, of course, you provide none of the evidence you claim to be 'incontrovertible'.
 
Y

Yakuda

Well-known member
Eightcrackers said:
Abstinence - 60% of the time, it works every time!

A curious coincidence - I've always said that abstinence-only is akin to trying to reduce the number of people hit by cars by just telling them never to cross the road. Theoretically, it's perfect... but we live in the real world, where people have to cross the bloody road, and they're going to do it no matter what you tell them.
Click to expand...
What it's actually like is people standing in the middle of the road acting surprised that they got hit by a car then whining about the damage.
 
Whateverman

Whateverman

Well-known member
Yakuda said:
Prove I am this Iggy
Click to expand...
We neither have to, nor do we need to. Everyone who knows iggy recognizes that you post identically to him/her/it. If you don't want to be seen as this person, it's up to you to show us we're wrong.

We're not, though.
 
Y

Yakuda

Well-known member
Whateverman said:
We neither have to, nor do we need to. Everyone who knows iggy recognizes that you post identically to him/her/it. If you don't want to be seen as this person, it's up to you to show us we're wrong.

We're not, though.
Click to expand...
You made a claim so prove it. Oh that's right you won't because you can't. That's why I have no respect for you and you are entitled only to ridicule.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
Authentic Nouveau said:
The goal of every single abortion case is to cause one death.
Click to expand...
Not true.
The aim is to end the pregnancy. That's why it's called an abortion, because the pregnancy is aborted.
many times the mother also dies.
Click to expand...
A very good reason why abortion should be legal, easily available and cheap, so that women seeking abortions don't go to illegal practitioners with no medical training or expertise.
 
Whateverman

Whateverman

Well-known member
Yakuda said:
You made a claim so prove it.
Click to expand...
We neither have to, nor do we need to. Everyone who knows iggy recognizes that you post identically to him/her/it. If you don't want to be seen as this person, it's up to you to show us we're wrong.

We're not, though.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
Whateverman said:
We neither have to, nor do we need to. Everyone who knows iggy recognizes that you post identically to him/her/it. If you don't want to be seen as this person, it's up to you to show us we're wrong.

We're not, though.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. Iggy was despised because of their posting style. Anyone with the same posting style will be equally despised whether they admit to being Iggy or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top