tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (07/03/85)
One of you folk posted a rejiooinder to the 99.9% effective argument that a woman has a 1 in 6 posibility of becoming pregnant inside a year even if she is using contraceptives. Bull pucky. Your argument is as flawed as a government contract. You are assuming that a woman is fertile 100% of the time. Wrong bucko. Go back to square one and start over. You would be closer if you said 1 in 6000. Tell me when you reach the 6000 mark in a year friend and you will get the horny of the century award. Especially since you perform only every other night. Whew! Anyone else catch this persons logic? What a bunch of baloney. Abortion for convenience sake is murder. T. C. Wheeler
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/04/85)
> Abortion for convenience sake is murder. [WHEELER]
You've already said more than once your views on "convenience": anything
done out of "convenience" is WRONG. Taking a car to work instead of walking
like your grampa did is WRONG. Using a refrigerator instead of eating fresh
fruit and vegetables each day grown in your backyard is WRONG. Using a
word processor or text editor instead writing and erasing by hand is WRONG.
Oh, I see, I've misunderstood your position. It's only those things you don't
happen to like done out of "convenience" that are WRONG. Is that it? If
I'm wrong I can't for the life of me figure out what you do mean. It's only
"wrong" (i.e., murder) if the object of the abortion is a living independent
human being, and we know that the objects of abortion, the fetuses, cannot
sustain themselves outside of the environment of the womb, thus they cannot
be "murdered". Since that is really the central core of the argument, not
"Oh my god, look what they do with the fetuses!" or "They do this out of
convenience, and not out of the hard working Puerile ethic I grew up with,
so it MUST be wrong!", I think we can skip the bold assertions that basically
amount to "It's wrong because I don't like it".
--
Like aversion (HEY!), shocked for the very first time...
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlrtw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (07/05/85)
That's right, Rosen, I don't like it so its wrong. You seem to like it, so you think its right. T. C. Wheeler
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/06/85)
> That's right, Rosen, I don't like it so its wrong. You seem > to like it, so you think its right. > T. C. Wheeler Correction: I seem to see nothing wrong with it meriting societal restrictions against it, so I think it's reasonable to allow people to do it. Big difference, my friend. Can you list the things you see as wrong with it that merit having restrictions against it, in a rational objective manner beyond "I don't like it". I doubt it. Until you can, don't expect your likes to dictate other people's lives. -- Like a sturgeon (GLURG!), caught for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/08/85)
>Abortion for convenience sake is murder. > >T. C. Wheeler So is war. (Currently called "military aid"). Seriously folks, opinions are opinions, but I think sensationalism should be avoided. It just degrades the argument. The fact that we have an army, some states have a death penalty and most americans eat meat says that some things are okay to kill. We are on this net to discuss whether or not this includes fetuses. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) (07/11/85)
> One of you folk posted a rejiooinder to the 99.9% effective > argument that a woman has a 1 in 6 posibility of becoming > pregnant inside a year even if she is using contraceptives. > Bull pucky. Your argument is as flawed as a government > contract. You are assuming that a woman is fertile 100% > of the time. Wrong bucko. Go back to square one and start > over. You would be closer if you said 1 in 6000. Tell me > when you reach the 6000 mark in a year friend and you will > get the horny of the century award. Especially since you > perform only every other night. Whew! Anyone else catch > this persons logic? What a bunch of baloney. I don't believe this logic is correct. The 99.9% (or any such number) is undoubtedly based upon the statistical occurrence of getting pregnant while using a particular form of birth control. This occurrence does not include only the subset of those cases when women were not fertile. The statistics must take into account all times of the cycle, because to do otherwise would be statistically nearly impossible to do (for example, it would mean that a women would have to know, and keep a record of, when she was fertile). Obviously, all methods of birth control would be improved if a women engaged in sex only when she were not fertile ( or, for that matter, even if she tried to have sex only when she were not fertile). It is still no clear, however, what set this probability includes. The simplest statistic to take would be to find the occurence of pregnancies of those women using a particular method of birth control. This statistic is independent of the number of times that a women engages in sex. A subset of this set is to find the occurrence of pregnancies for a given number of sexual encounters. I will assume that this is the subset which is reflected in the 99.9% figure. So, if the probability of getting pregnant is 1/1000, then the average number of pregnancies in N sexual encounters is N/1000. In 1000 sexual encounters the average number of pregnancies is one. If a women has sex 3 times a week, she will on average have an unwanted pregnancy once every 6.4 years. If we assume that a every women has at least one child in her life, then one of those unwanted pregnancies is wanted ( though possibly not planned, which is the assumption made here). This means that, if a women were to engage in this much sexual activity for her entire sexual life, she would have at least one, or more likely two, unwanted pregnancies in her life. Without abortions this would imply that the time for the doubling of the population of America would be multiplied by 2/3 or, more likely, 1/2. This is the situation that existed before the advent of frequent abortions. Before the widespread use of birth control, it was obviously much shorter. The rough conclusion is that without abortions America's population would double some where around the year 2005. Anyway, this is all very crude without more data. Bill Powers
mjv@ihu1e.UUCP (Vlach) (07/11/85)
> One of you folk posted a rejiooinder to the 99.9% effective > argument that a woman has a 1 in 6 posibility of becoming > pregnant inside a year even if she is using contraceptives. > Bull pucky. Your argument is as flawed as a government > contract. You are assuming that a woman is fertile 100% > of the time. Wrong bucko. Go back to square one and start > over. You would be closer if you said 1 in 6000. Tell me > T. C. Wheeler Please note that the statistical chance of an "average" woman becoming pregnant in a year is close to 1 in 20, given the ~95% effectiveness rate of the pill and IUDs. It would seem 1 in 20 is a lot closer to 1 in 6 than 1 in 6000, so why don't you investigate the facts before you start shouting BULL PUCKEY all the time...
GMP@psuvm.BITNET (07/19/85)
a simple response is no man could have sex that many times anyway
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/21/85)
> a simple response is no man could have sex that many times anyway
Who says that a woman has to have sex with the same man?
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophietw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (07/24/85)
Quite true Sophie, however, a woman having sex that many times would more than likely be in, shall we say, in business for herself. As such, would most likely be covered by insurance :-). I don't think most folks are talking about ladies of the evening getting pregnant. That is just one of the problems of running a business. What upsets many people are the self-centered twits who argue that they just can not be bothered with responsibility, as in the case of the young woman last year who stated that she was not going to upset her graduate school plans if she got pregnant. To me, her statement said that she was more interested in screwing her way through school than in taking any responsibility for her actions. Abortion was her answer to avoiding that responsibility. This is what I call convenience abortion. T. C. Wheeler p. s. OK Rosen, blather on.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/25/85)
> Quite true Sophie, however, a woman having sex that many times would > more than likely be in, shall we say, in business for herself. As > such, would most likely be covered by insurance :-). I don't think > most folks are talking about ladies of the evening getting pregnant. > That is just one of the problems of running a business. Amazing that Wheeler thinks that a woman who has sex "that many times" qualifies as a "lady of the evening". Is this an outgrowth of the same world view that leads you to believe all women have penis envy? > What upsets > many people are the self-centered twits who argue that they just > can not be bothered with responsibility, as in the case of the young > woman last year who stated that she was not going to upset her > graduate school plans if she got pregnant. To me, her statement > said that she was more interested in screwing her way through > school than in taking any responsibility for her actions. Abortion > was her answer to avoiding that responsibility. This is what I > call convenience abortion. What upsets certain people are self-centered twits who, for example, use screen editors instead of punch cards to enter their articles into the system! To me, this means they are more interested in taking the easy way out than working hard like I do. Screen editors are their answers to avoid the responsibility of using punch cards. This is what I call convenience writing. Did I convince anyone that screen editors are terrible awful things? No, of course not, not unless you were already convinced that they *were* that way. The same goes for Wheeler's bogus argument: only if abortion is already proven to be wrong does that argument mean anything substantial. To use it to prove abortion wrong strikes me as ridiculous. But, that's how Wheeler seems to argue. (Some self-centered twits feel the need to define for others what "responsbiility" should be; "I used to have to get up at 10 o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of dry poison, pay millowner tupence a week to work at the mill and when we got home at night our dad would kill us and dance on our graves..." ) > p. s. OK Rosen, blather on. Why bother, when you have the market on blathering so well cornered? Care to prove the awfulness of anything by assuming that it's awful? -- "Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON) (07/26/85)
I wish people would stop using the word responsibility in arguments
about abortion when not all people agree about what is a
responsibility. The use of the concept of 'convenience' to
differentiate between abortions is similarly clouded.
The real issue here is not what is 'right', since different people
have widely varying opinions about the subject, but whether or not the
government should legislate the legality of abortion.
Jim Gordon, Jrsophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/26/85)
> What upsets > many people are the self-centered twits who argue that they just > can not be bothered with responsibility, as in the case of the young > woman last year who stated that she was not going to upset her > graduate school plans if she got pregnant. To me, her statement > said that she was more interested in screwing her way through > school than in taking any responsibility for her actions. > > T. C. Wheeler > I really can't see what is irresponsible about wanting to be educated in order to be able to have a better job in order to support one's potential children better. I find that to be a very responsible position myself. I find it much more irresponsible to have children when one is not able to take care of them. "Screwing her way through school". I am just repeating that in case people missed it. Poor Mr Wheeler, don't you just wish that women went back to convents where they belong... Well, yes, we women will continue to "screw our way" through school and life even, and we will have children, and we will have abortions and we will have miscariages as our mothers and their mothers before them did because that's the way life is, and:w -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie