What are your important issues? (1 Viewer)

[wardorican]

Forget the current headlines. Forget the manufactured talking points. What are the big issues you care about? Or the small ones that don't get enough attention?

I'm just going to rattle off a few. I may dig into these more later. In no special order...

1. Infrastructure investment. The major categories being road transportation, flood protection / drainage, electrical grid resiliency, and better mass transit, especially rail. Our rail systems, outside of a few areas like Chicago, NYC, DC.. are just awful. They don't serve enough of the areas. They aren't tying the Suburbs, and towns nearby to the major city centers and major concentrations of Industry.
   1. A - I'd have much preferred no tax cut for the wealthy, and use that money towards Infrastructure. I don't mind some of the corporate tax cuts (not a fan of profitable companies finding ways to pay $0 in taxes.. that's unfair), but take a little back to go towards infrastructure and mass transit, which will boost productivity and lower congestion in major cities.
2. Wage growth. Not just min wage, all wages. Not sure what the government policy could be to drive this, but it's a huge pet issue for me.
3. Technology. Finding the balance between a company being large enough to have stability/security (think Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) to have things work well, but no so large as to stifle all competition and drive up prices. Also, who controls/owns our data. If my data is so valuable, why can't I be compensated for it?
4. Education funding. It's ridiculous how much the States cut from Colleges and how little they controlled their growth since the 1990's. That's why tuition is out of control. So, it's not just the funding issue, but also the lack of forcing public Universities to cap operating budget increases. In college, tuition increases was probably one of the biggest things I tried to fight against when in Student Government. We usually failed, but I did get one win on that topic, when I realized the committee that year was being somewhat dishonest about the increases, and called them out in public about it.

I care about a lot of other things, but I'm going to stop with these four.

 

[Lazybones]

So, I'm going to help you out here and give you an article that supports your claim, while simultaneously showing why understanding statistics is important.

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Facts and figures relating to the frequency of abortion in the United States.

abort73.com

Based on a survey cited here, only about 7% of abortions are related to health issues, 93% were related to things you'd probably label as convenience.

There are other surveys which show similar statistics. Using the data correctly would help you out in this instance.

As I said there are plenty of info out there. I was just quoting planned parenthood Nbrs. thanks for the other source. Not for me, but for the other people on here who have a different view of abortion.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I get that, but what he was citing was actually quite accurate and it seemed like you were trying to say it wasn't until he(or you) found a source saying so. I know we should not have to pull sources for others, especially if they prove our opponents right. But isn't it disingenuous to attempt to make another think they are wrong in their assertions when they were actually quite correct?

No, what he cited had nothing to do with the reasons for the abortions. That's what I'm trying to hammer home. He quoted numbers completely unrelated to the reason for abortions. There was not a single thing in the article he cited that had anything to do with why people had abortions.

This sort of thing is important. And it isn't a liberal or conservative thing.

 

[Intensesaint]

No, what he cited had nothing to do with the reasons for the abortions. That's what I'm trying to hammer home. He quoted numbers completely unrelated to the reason for abortions. There was not a single thing in the article he cited that had anything to do with why people had abortions.

This sort of thing is important. And it isn't a liberal or conservative thing.

There might have not been numbers in his article, but his supposition was fairly accurate based on the numbers you found.

 

[Incumbent]

I get that, but what he was citing was actually quite accurate and it seemed like you were trying to say it wasn't until he(or you) found a source saying so. I know we should not have to pull sources for others, especially if they prove our opponents right. But isn't it disingenuous to attempt to make another think they are wrong in their assertions when they were actually quite correct?

There are separate points of disagreement. One is speculation over the percentage of women seeking abortions out of convenience, and the other is confusing abortions performed by PP as falling within its statistics on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

If somebody mentioned preventing heart attacks, we would all essentially agree that has to do with addressing lifestyle factors in the hopes of avoiding a heart attack, and not the treatment that follows once a heart attack has been suffered. Analogously, an abortion occurring because pregnancy wasn’t prevented.

“Preventing unwanted pregnancies“ is sex education, planning, and prophylactic birth control - the diet and exercise to avoiding a heart attack.

 

[Lazybones]

No, what he cited had nothing to do with the reasons for the abortions. That's what I'm trying to hammer home. He quoted numbers completely unrelated to the reason for abortions. There was not a single thing in the article he cited that had anything to do with why people had abortions.

This sort of thing is important. And it isn't a liberal or conservative thing.

Jim, that just isn’t true. You know the info cited is correct, as you posted similar info. The basic statistics that you referenced and I applied to the article come out with very similar nbrs aS the articles you posted. To think this is the first time that I have broached this subject and that I don’t know what the nbrs say is just playing devils advocate.

 

[Lazybones]

There might have not been numbers in his article, but his supposition was fairly accurate based on the numbers you found.

The article actual does say the same thing. Not in the explicit words, but we can all add.

 

[Lazybones]

There are separate points of disagreement. One is speculation over the percentage of women seeking abortions out of convenience, and the other is confusing abortions performed by PP as falling within its statistics on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

If somebody mentioned preventing heart attacks, we would all essentially agree that has to do with addressing lifestyle factors in the hopes of avoiding a heart attack, and not the treatment that follows once a heart attack has been suffered. Analogously, an abortion occurring because pregnancy wasn’t prevented.

“Preventing unwanted pregnancies“ is sex education, planning, and prophylactic birth control - the diet and exercise to avoiding a heart attack.

The issue is that I’m correct and analyzed the info correct. I guess Jim wanted me to provide multiple sources to say exactly what the cnn article said.

The legitimacy of the claim, isn’t even being debated anymore by anyone who wants to be honest about the subject.

(Kind of like the “it’s ok to abort children who will be poor” excuse)

at least some have stopped arguing and have regulated themselves to emojis

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The article actual does say the same thing. Not in the explicit words, but we can all add.

No, it doesn't.

The article said that PP provided 10+ million services.
8.6 million were for pregnancy prevention (80% of the services)
300 thousand were for abortion. (3%)
The rest were things for like sti's and women's health issues like cancer screenings.

That's it.

 

[Lazybones]

No, it doesn't.

The article said that PP provided 10+ million services.
8.6 million were for pregnancy prevention (80% of the services)
300 thousand were for abortion. (3%)
The rest were things for like sti's and women's health issues like cancer screenings.

That's it.

so is your point that you don’t think abortion is pregnancy prevention? Why would it be listed together with all other services. Actually why would it be the first thing listed after the sentence saying 80% was pregnancy prevention. The very next sentence says that 324k abortions were performed.

 

[Incumbent]

The issue is that I’m correct and analyzed the info correct. I guess Jim wanted me to provide multiple sources to say exactly what the cnn article said.

The legitimacy of the claim, isn’t even being debated anymore by anyone who wants to be honest about the subject.

(Kind of like the “it’s ok to abort children who will be poor” excuse)

at least some have stopped arguing and have regulated themselves to emojis

This was the quote which set off this particular point of disagreement:

““With a focus on prevention, Planned Parenthood said that 80% of its patients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.”

As has been pointed out, abortion isn’t a procedure to “prevent” unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy understood to be the successful fertilization of an ovary. Abortion “treats” unwanted pregnancy, it doesn’t prevent it. Condoms, birth control pills and other contraceptives are used to “prevent” an unintended pregnancy.

You’ve apparently misinterpreted that 80% prevention figure to be a statistic meaning 80% of the women seeking abortive care through PP did so because they simply didn’t want to have a baby. That’s not what that paragraph means. Otherwise, the author is entirely confused about what it means to “*prevent* unwanted pregnancy”.

 

[wardorican]

I can provide other similar articles. However, it’s pretty clear. If 80% of what they do is prevent unwanted pregnancies and 3 % of what they do is abortions, that means 80% of the abortions are to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And I want to reiterate, this is only planned parenthood.

If someone had a better source that refuted what I have said above, please provide it.

Sorry, the engineer in me is twitching.

It's not saying 80% of everything they do is prevention of unwanted pregnancies, so you don't apply 80% to the 3% (which would mean 2.4% of abortions are to prevent unwanted pregnancies.. which is nonsensical since they're already pregnant... and 0.6% are just abortions for whatever). It's that 80% out of 100% is towards preventing unwanted pregnancies, then 3% is towards abortion, that means 17% is whatever else they do...

But can we agree that having an abortion cannot in anyway way prevent an unwanted pregnancy. They're already pregnant. All it does is prevent an unwanted birth/delivery. Which is a whole other argument.

 

[Lazybones]

This was the quote which set off this particular point of disagreement:

““With a focus on prevention, Planned Parenthood said that 80% of its patients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.”

As has been pointed out, abortion isn’t a procedure to “prevent” unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy understood to be the successful fertilization of an ovary. Abortion “treats” unwanted pregnancy, it doesn’t prevent it.

You’ve apparently interpreted that 80% prevention stat to be a statistic meaning 80% of the women seeking abortive care through PP did so because they simply didn’t want to have a baby. That’s not what that paragraph means. Otherwise, the author is entirely confused about what it means to “*prevent* unwanted pregnancy”.

umm, if you terminate a pregnancy, you parent it from happening. AND, the info and stats I provided have been substantiated by other articles (I can provide many examples).

so I would say the author knows exactly what it means. Planned parenthood nbrs are the same or at least very similar as the national average. if you trust the other articles are correct and 93% are for convenience, why would the article by CNN be disputed. Why would planned parenthood nbrs be different than other abortion providers?

 

[Incumbent]

umm, if you terminate a pregnancy, you parent it from happening. AND, the info and stats I provided have been substantiated by other articles (I can provide many examples).

so I would say the author knows exactly what it means. Planned parenthood nbrs are the same or at least very similar as the national average. if you trust the other articles are correct and 93% are for convenience, why would the article by CNN be disputed. Why would planned parenthood nbrs be different than other abortion providers?

That isn’t what prevent means. Avoid. Doesn’t happen.

Using a condom can help to prevent an unplanned pregnancy. Having an abortion is a procedure to terminate an unintended pregnancy once it has occurred.

I’m going by the wording of the information you provided.

 

[Lazybones]

Sorry, the engineer in me is twitching.

It's not saying 80% of everything they do is prevention of unwanted pregnancies, so you don't apply 80% to the 3% (which would mean 2.4% of abortions are to prevent unwanted pregnancies.. which is nonsensical since they're already pregnant... and 0.6% are just abortions for whatever). It's that 80% out of 100% is towards preventing unwanted pregnancies, then 3% is towards abortion, that means 17% is whatever else they do...

But can we agree that having an abortion cannot in anyway way prevent an unwanted pregnancy. They're already pregnant. All it does is prevent an unwanted birth/delivery. Which is a whole other argument.

let’s pretend you are correct. How do you rectify the other articles supporting the same thing that I said about this article?

 

[Lazybones]

That isn’t what prevent means. Avoid. Doesn’t happen.

Using a condom can help to prevent an unplanned pregnancy. Having an abortion is a procedure to terminate an unintended pregnancy once it has occurred.

I’m going by the wording of the information you provided.

again y’all are playing semantics and it’s not even a good argument. Because you are arguing against an already established position.

how do you justify the other articles making the same claim that I made about the article I posted?

 

[Incumbent]

No, what he cited had nothing to do with the reasons for the abortions. That's what I'm trying to hammer home. He quoted numbers completely unrelated to

let’s pretend you are correct. How do you rectify the other articles supporting the same thing that I said about this article?

again y’all are playing semantics and it’s not even a good argument.

how do you justify the other articles making the same claim that I made about the article I posted?

It’s not semantics. It’s understanding what was written.

Jim provided you with the data you’re meaning to cite.

I’m really not sure how there can be this much confusion over the meaning of preventive services but I do hope we can work through it.

 

[Lazybones]

It’s not semantics. It’s understanding what was written.

Jim provided you with the data you’re meaning to cite.

I’m really not sure how there can be this much confusion over the meaning of preventive services but I do hope we can work through it.

I’m not arguing with y’all any more.

most abortions are done for convenience, not health risk or rape and incest. Argue that

 

[SystemShock]

If someone believes all life is sacred and there is never a reason to take a life, then on the same logic if someone believes life is not sacred and can be ended just before birth due to inconvenience, then they can not have a moral argument against the death penalty.

I am just trying to make sense of the argument that is used all the time in the abortion debate. If you believe one thing, then you have to believe in this other unrelated thing and if you don't, you are being dishonest and your point is invalid.

The problem is that each side frames their arguments a certain way, but you really can't draw a 1:1 parallel between the two. Both arguments revolve around the term "human life" and "killing", but not all "human life" is equal, nor all killing is the same, and the circumstances between an abortion and an execution are very different.