Your info. I ignored your info because it was from a biased source. The burden of proof is on you if you want me to consider it.

So you admit that you are not considering the data simply because you feel the souce is biased. That's a weak defense.

But that brings me directly back to my last multiple comments on this. Just because you don't like the souce of the data doesn't make it invalid. I just means you don't like the news you're hearing.

Of course I admit it. It's the first thing I said.

This is all conjecture. He even states that it is an assumption which in no way denotes a fact. As such this is easily dismissed and in no way does anything beyond add some fuel to someones anti-abortion stance.

The Medical Science Monitor does not specifically state PP has done this. Please list a link where someone actually states that PP has pushed abortion on women. PP has suffered through many lawsuits derived from anti-abortion lobbyists. I am certain this is merely another one.



Any numbers gathered due to illegal activities can automatically be seen as very uncertain. Either side cannot in any way state absolute numbers. The pro people cannot state exact deaths nor can the anti. Numbers before it was legal will always be beyond us. How many women may have died due to complications from abortions done illegally and than given another cause of death due to lack of knowledge from a coroner?? We will never know. Smearing the credibility of certain pro-choicers from back in the seventies does not negate the credibility of those alive now.


Which could easily mean that the doctors doing the illegal abortions were good at what they were doing.

It is not a weak defense at all.

Say I was a business mogul with millions of dollars to invest and I wanted to invest them in pork. A statement from the pork industry citing very high profit margins would be seen as dubious due to its certainly biased source. As such I would ask for an unbiased source to relate the same information. That is not weak it is smart.

so how can you justify that as a valid response? That mentality is similiar to an ostrich with it's head in the sand. "If I can't see the threat, it can't see me."

So unless you can dispute those facts, or prove they are invalid, I can continue to quote them and/or ignore any other facts you list if I don't like the source.

You can't have a debate on a topic if one side simple refuses to accept facts.

When you present facts as facts from a source not on the opposing side of the argument, then they'll be taken as facts.

To clear up anything about statistics especially in relation to Abortions please read teh following--

"
Abortion statistics and other data is intended to improve the accessibility of abortion statistics. It is under continuing development. The reader should be aware that abortion statistics are often hard to obtain, and those statistics that are available are frequently inaccurate.
Official abortion statistics are often low due to incomplete reporting. In the United States, for example, not all states mandate such reporting. Even in those states that require or encourage reporting of abortion statistics, this reporting is incomplete (as demonstrated by higher numbers reported to abortion advocacy organizations). From 1988 to 1997, the total number of U.S. abortions reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control was 11.3% lower than the total number reported to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research branch of Planned Parenthood). In 1998 four states discontinued state-level gathering of abortion statistics, contributing to the 25.4% drop in CDC figures from 1997 to 1998.
In contrast, other organizations that provide estimates of abortion statistics may be motivated to inflate the numbers. Currently, the Alan Guttmacher Institute is an important source for estimates of both legal and illegal abortions worldwide. AGI is an extension of an organization engaged in intense political lobbying for the completely unrestrained practice of abortion. High abortion rates are in their political (and financial) interests for a number of reasons. For example, high numbers of illegal abortions are an element of their rationalization for legalized abortion.
Thus, when AGI estimates high rates of illegal abortions in the developing world these estimates bear scrutiny. Many such estimates are based on limited surveys. Some such surveys are limited to urban areas, which are not representative of rural areas. Other studies use compound assumptions to develop a figure for illegal abortions from data on hospitalizations for miscarriages.
Few pro-life organizations conduct their own statistical research, but such groups that make estimates of abortion numbers may also be inclined to accept higher figures as worst-case scenarios. ""

Abortion Statistics are not a very reliable source and should never be hoisted up as your one big gun during an argument about abortion. Rather you should base your argument on Morals, logic, and your base feelings on the issue.

The statistics weren't ment to be a 'smoking gun' but a support for my point of view. The fun thing about statistics is that you can take them and make them show either one side, the other or both depending on whose hands they are in.



Oh, and in answer to your question about Planned Parent hood, here is a list of news stories about PP and their immoral and illegal antics pushing abortion. my favorite is them suing an investgative reporter because she video taped them pushing abortion on her.
Michelle Malkin




http://www.euro.who.int/document/ENS/en59.pdf

After reading this report from 2005 by the World Health Organization, I still think the problem is just as bad worldwide as it is here. The introduction is blatantly anti-religion. But then, what else can you expect from the U.N. or WHO
and would make any information from them suspect to bias the exact opposite of the RTL crowd.. However that document sings the praises of abortion
when birthcontrol fails and discusses and implies that the eurorean countries that don't follow right along their party line are doing so because of lack of education or religious bigotry. but that article is decidely pro-abortion. So instead of discussing abistinence they want abortions for all and even hint that the US is failing the world because they don't want American money used to support it world wide.

It does, however have good statistics buried in it about worldwide illegal abortion deaths. But you have to read to find it. it's in PDF format.

I never said any different

However as you stated you were using them to support your point of view and as we have both declared they are at best unreliable and at worst completely wrong. So you cannot have it both ways. Either you support statistics and use them to support your POV or you do not support statistics and do not use them to support your POV. So far you have used them and suggested that we note them as fact. I am unable to do that both because they are unreliable and usually inflated to support a bias proposition.
So now that we have that cleared up how do you yourself feel about abortion without the statistics??

I myself feel that abortion is something that needs to be allowed legally in order to maintain economic growth and safety for our population. IE less folk on welfare and in prisons as well as less one parent families; safety for those who would have that abortion irregardless of legalities. Seeing as how according to my experience most women will only have one abortion in their lifetime it is worth it to provide them with a safe environment to have it at.

throwing all statistics out and working just from personal experience, there are women out there that will have multiples. During the 2 1/2 years I worked with the DR I mentioned above, we had nearly 50% of the patients come back multiple times. There was even the 18 year old who was on her 7th when I met her. I assisted in 3 more.

I think society and culture factor into that in a large way. It's too easy, cheap and readily available as a means of birth control.

From my personal experience, I think that abortion should only be available if the child isn't viable outside the womb or if the mother's life is in jepordy.

But since I have also done volunteer work with adoption agencies, I've also seen so many parent wanna-be's who can't have children get turned down for adopting because of stupid little things like a credit check.

I believe females should be able to chose to have it done, but I only condone having it done in certain situations... such as the baby being a result of rape.

Hmmm, what about tubular pregnancies?

Definitely, isnt abortion the only thing that can be done for that?

They can "TRY" to move it surgically. But most often it fails..

Even if they have the hope of TRYING, I'd still support abortion in that situation... Especially if it most often fails.

that should be part of sex ed to, if the pointing out of physical difficulties that can arise from an active sex lifestyle or even an incapability of understanding the emotional hell, why not educate them on the more, material pains of unplanned parent hood.

know what i heard about in sex ed...girls get periods, boys get more hair, that was the extent of my sex ed, it took me ten years to get things figured out and an unplanned birth at 24 before i was wisened up about the risks of uneducated sex.

why shouldn't i be thinking about abortion as the mother of two girls, something like that could very possibily be a situation i'd be presented with, if parents took more of an effort to do what they leave the government to do(rating systems are a good example).

if parents aren't aware what an m rating on a game represents, do you really think they're aware of what they're children are doing, i pointed the rating system out to a mother who was trying to rent def jam for two boys younger than my daughter, once she read the back and realized what it was about, she quickly limited them to e and t, appalled that her son was even looking at such a game, his friend wanted alvin and the chipmunks...who's parent do you think was most involved in their child's life?

and that was a video game, how aware do you think parents are about the youth and sexual activity today?

what do you propose we do if abortion does become illegal, shrug our shoulders and expect the government to pick up more tabs?

i'm for mandatory sterilization at birth and a gradual sterilization of society, with an option to reverse the process once some sort of application, child education and other procedures to see that only those who are capable of caring and raising a baby are able to afford them.

but not allowing mothers any options but to bear the children regardless of how young, old or ill equipped they are to bare a child, is just silly...do you really think back ally abortions are better for the health and well being of humanity?

why force an unwanted child to be born in the world, because the adult is dense?

According to the "bias" numbers back alley abortions were safe OR never happened very often whic