The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum
=> Re: Some research for you.
| Re: Some research for you. |
|
Posted by
parhad
(Guest)
- Saturday, August 28 2004, 8:03:24 (CEST) from -  Windows XP -  Internet ExplorerWebsite: Website title: |
Paul Younan wrote: >>...why are scientific journals approprite when you need them? > >You asked for them, I gave them. Quit bitching. ...when habibi told you to reads some, you said tey weren't necessary...and thes eare not the stats she or I asked for...you know what? I'mnot gong to waste time on your games...you can post all you want to.... > >>..and the combined results of those who are too poor and immature,and able to see it are 42%...what does that tell you? > >It tells me it has nothing to do with the health of the mother, or with rape. > >>...you will have to tell us who Torres and Forrest are...who they work for...who funded whatever research this came from and from what school..the type of study it was...was it reviewed anywhere and how it stacks up against the rest of the literature in the field as well as its margin of error...and what religious affiliation the researchers have...and where they went to school..which, if they are valid researchers will be available with the text. > >Aida Torres and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest werwe members of, and financed by, Planned Parenthood, the abortion mill giant itself. > >Aida Torres and Jacqueline Sarroch Forrest conducted a survey of 1900 women with 1,773 responding. They then compiled a table taken from the responses of the women surveyed, of the most important reason each woman had obtained an abortion. When the percentages are added together, 93% of abortions were obtained for social reasons which do NOT include abortions for hard-case pregnancies. Their own analysis showed that so-called hard cases were, at most, 7%. These include abortions for: > >Rape or incest (1%) >Pregnancies which jeopardized health (3%) >Pregnancies in which the child had a potential disability (3%) > >Reference: Torres, Aida and Jacqueline Sarroch Forrest, Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 20, Number 4, July/August 1988, p. 170. > >Please note that the data comes from a publication of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood....in case you thought I was being biased. > >>...and even then it wouldn't matter... > >Of course, nothing in pragmatic morality matters. > >>...Courts can read too...and they read the stats on how many women die from illegal and unclean and botched abortions... > >This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. At what point do you draw the line? > >>...by quacks women have no choice but to resort to...you have discovered no "issue" here...no one who supports abortion is mindless of what they are doing..it would seem that you have no care for the women who will not take your advice...is a back alley abortion to be their punishment for that. > >I do care for women who will not take my advice. At one point in their lives they were unable to survive outside of the protection of their mother's womb, and they didn't get their brains crushed because their mother was poor. > >>I asked you what you would do if your wife was in a coma and you had to make the life and death decision...why do you dodge so many things while chastising others..are you godly too? > >I already told you in a different post, I feel that we have an obligation to save the mother's life, especially since the child will die with the mother anyway. If you can save both, great. If you can save one, it has to be the mother. > >But again, you are talking about 3% of the time. What about the other 97%? > >>...you know the naswer...the answer is that it is up to women to decide..fret and fume all you want to...these laws were put in place, not to make abortion free and fun..but to save the lives of women...at the cost of their fetuses...because that was the reality on the GROUND..not in heaven. > >That's 3% of the time. I'll concede that point. You keep mentioning "saving the lives of women" - ok already, how many times do I have to ask, will you support a law that prohibits abortions in all cases except those in which the life of the mother is in danger? > >>Answer the questons put to you or we will begin ignoring you entirely. > >I've answered every question - you do the same. > >-Paul --------------------- |
The full topic:
|
|
Content-length: 4834 Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, */* Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-language: en-us Cache-control: no-cache Connection: Keep-Alive Cookie: *hidded* Host: www.insideassyria.com Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf2/rkvsf_core.php?Re_Some_research_for_you-z3G4.RVvx.QUOTE User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) |
Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9