Santorum: Doctors Providing Abortions To Rape And Incest Victims Should Be Arrested - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30456233]you say its not a slanted system then you say it is a slanted system then you say there is a reason its slanted to justify it? its a double edge sword bro[/QUOTE] Yes, but the level you say it's slanted to and just assume it's slanted to is stupid. Yes, it's a double edged sword that you're not providing on. You're feeding into your own bullshit, you want us to give you proof and you give us none of your own?

Year after year the statistics reveal that black women and economically struggling women "who have above-average rates of unintended pregnancies" are far more likely than others to have abortions. [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/ns/health-womens_health/t/whos-getting-abortions-not-who-youd-think/[/url] See, it isn't the people that have access to money and high standards of living that are having abortions, it is the people that can't raise a child with the salaries that they are currently making. Another thing I would like to point out is. Poor people are likely to raise poor people and not functioning members of society. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty#Family_Background[/url] With those two points of evidence (poor people have abortions, and they raise poor adults) what is to say that allowing them to deny society of one more stone on it's ankle is a bad thing? Another thing: Enough people fail at life that I doubt highly that the approximated 1.37million abortions each year will have that much of an effect. And that number is from a 1996 statistic! [url]http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html[/url] Since millions of people have been aborted and our overall population is still on the rise, how can you say that the lower class will be wiped out by abortions? Even more reason for them to abort! All this was pulled from former arguments I have had on other forums. So shut the fuck up yawmwen.

[QUOTE=valkery;30456727]Year after year the statistics reveal that black women and economically struggling women "who have above-average rates of unintended pregnancies" are far more likely than others to have abortions. [URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/ns/health-womens_health/t/whos-getting-abortions-not-who-youd-think/[/URL] See, it isn't the people that have access to money and high standards of living that are having abortions, it is the people that can't raise a child with the salaries that they are currently making. Another thing I would like to point out is. Poor people are likely to raise poor people and not functioning members of society. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty#Family_Background[/URL] With those two points of evidence (poor people have abortions, and they raise poor adults) what is to say that allowing them to deny society of one more stone on it's ankle is a bad thing? Another thing: And you think that enough people will be aborted to entirely wipe out the lower class. Enough people fail at life that I doubt highly that the approximated 1.37million abortions each year will have that much of an effect. And that number is from a 1996 statistic! [URL]http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html[/URL] Since millions of people have been aborted and our overall population is still on the rise, how can you say that the lower class will be wiped out by abortions? Even more reason for them to abort! All this was pulled from former arguments I have had on other forums. So shut the fuck up yawmwen.[/QUOTE] shut the fuck up valkery you dont know shit about whats being argued [editline]14th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30456562]Yes, but the level you say it's slanted to and just assume it's slanted to is stupid.[/QUOTE] what level did i say it was slanted to? you can only infer from my posts that i believe its slanted [quote]Yes, it's a double edged sword that you're not providing on. You're feeding into your own bullshit, you want us to give you proof and you give us none of your own?[/quote]actually iv provided more sources than you have

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30456938]shut the fuck up valkery you dont know shit about whats being argued [editline]14th June 2011[/editline] what level did i say it was slanted to? you can only infer from my posts that i believe its slanted actually iv provided more sources than you have[/QUOTE] You've implied from who you've worded things that it's heavily slanted against men. Maybe in your location, but it is slanted to a degree. FOR A REASON. If it's a justified slant why is this a big deal? Your sources are irrelevant to our philosophical argument on rights and possessions.

[URL="http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l57/Chaos92/HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW.jpg"]I'm having a wonderful time just reading this arguement as Yawmwen constantly exclaims he's not misogynist in the least and blaming it on others yet expects a woman to submit to someone who impregnated her (through force or consent) if she wants to get an abortion just because he doesn't want her to. [/URL]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30454963]ok whatever it doesnt matter iv been talking about the 26-40 week period anyways[/QUOTE] Have you really? Because this sounds like desperate backpedalling to me.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30460519]You've implied from who you've worded things that it's heavily slanted against men. Maybe in your location, but it is slanted to a degree. FOR A REASON. If it's a justified slant why is this a big deal?[/QUOTE] sexism is never justified what if it was a slant against women? would that be alright? what if between a black parent and white parent fighting for custody the white parent always got it because they had a better chance of making money? [quote]Your sources are irrelevant to our philosophical argument on rights and possessions.[/quote]"you dont provide proof" "oh wait proof isnt important to our discussion" [QUOTE=Keyblockor;30460739][URL="http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l57/Chaos92/HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW.jpg"]I'm having a wonderful time just reading this arguement as Yawmwen constantly exclaims he's not misogynist in the least and blaming it on others yet expects a woman to submit to someone who impregnated her (through force or consent) if she wants to get an abortion just because he doesn't want her to. [/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ThisGuy0;30460846]Have you really? Because this sounds like desperate backpedalling to me.[/QUOTE] lol

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30460883]sexism is never justified what if it was a slant against women? would that be alright? what if between a black parent and white parent fighting for custody the white parent always got it because they had a better chance of making money? "you dont provide proof" "oh wait proof isnt important to our discussion" lol[/QUOTE] You don't have evidence for the only statistic i ever claimed you didn't have proof for. it's not sexism for fucks sakes.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30460933] it's not sexism for fucks sakes.[/QUOTE] yea it is

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30460883]lol[/QUOTE] Go ahead. Please explain why for the entireity of a discussion on abortion you talked purely about late term abortions that are a tiny part of the entire issue and never thought it may be a good idea to mention that you were speifically talking about such a specific subject? [editline]15th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;30460976]yea it is[/QUOTE] Get your head around this. You have no evidence of an institutional bias against men. More custody battles are won by the mothers becuase in most individual cases the mother is considered to be the better party to take custody. That is all.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;30460978]Go ahead. Please explain why for the entireity of a discussion on abortion you talked purely about late term abortions that are a tiny part of the entire issue and never thought it may be a good idea to mention that you were speifically talking about such a specific subject?[/QUOTE] no late term abortions are the big issue thats what most of the debate is centered around since there isnt a lot to debate with early abortions [editline]15th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ThisGuy0;30460978] Get your head around this. You have no evidence of an institutional bias against men. More custody battles are won by the mothers becuase in most individual cases the mother is considered to be the better party to take custody. That is all.[/QUOTE] um bullshit humanabyss even said there was a bias and then said that bias isnt sexist

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30461016]no late term abortions are the big issue thats what most of the debate is centered around since there isnt a lot to debate with early abortions.[/QUOTE] Really because last time I checked Santorum was arguing for all abortions to be illegal. [quote]It’s worth noting that Santorum’s statement that “life begins at conception” also indicates that he would make it a crime to provide many forms of birth control to victims of rape or incest.[/quote] The discussion in this thread was on all abortions. Regardles of whether late term abortions are the main focus of much abortion debate, they are not here, so my point stands.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;30461114]Really because last time I checked Santorum was arguing for all abortions to be illegal. The discussion in this thread was on all abortions. Regardles of whether late term abortions are the main focus of much abortion debate, they are not here, so my point stands.[/QUOTE] ok whatevs idc im talkin bout late term if you didnt know, now ya know

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30461016]um bullshit humanabyss even said there was a bias and then said that bias isnt sexist[/QUOTE] While it's true that there are issues with decent fathers having trouble gaining access to their kids, you seem completely unable to grasp that gender bias does not equal sexist if their is a legitimate practical explanation for it, which is in this case that in the majority of individual cases, the mother is considered a better candidate for child custody. That's not sexism, that's the people who determine custody doing their job.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;30461201]While it's true that there are issues with decent fathers having trouble gaining access to their kids, you seem completely unable to grasp that gender bias does not equal sexist if their is a legitimate practical explanation for it,[/quote] racial bias isnt racist then? should a black person who goes to trial have a bias put against him? [quote]which is in this case that in the majority of individual cases, the mother is considered a better candidate for child custody. That's not sexism, that's the people who determine custody doing their job.[/QUOTE] again, no its not, its fucking sexism provide proof that these parents are shitheads women are statistically more abusive to their spouses and to their children, so why do they win 75% of custody cases that goes against logic

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30461231] again, no its not, its fucking sexism provide proof that these parents are shitheads women are statistically more abusive to their spouses and to their children, so why do they win 75% of custody cases that goes against logic[/QUOTE] gender roles

[QUOTE=Lambeth;30461246]gender roles[/QUOTE] hurf durf i can say stuff without explanation

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30461231]racial bias isnt racist then? should a black person who goes to trial have a bias put against him? again, no its not, its fucking sexism provide proof that these parents are shitheads women are statistically more abusive to their spouses and to their children, so why do they win 75% of custody cases that goes against logic[/QUOTE] Start showing links to these statistics or you're bullshitting and your supposed facts will fall through as you cannot back them up with sufficent evidence.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30461256]hurf durf i can say stuff without explanation[/QUOTE] because I explained it to you already

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30461231]racial bias isnt racist then? should a black person who goes to trial have a bias put against him?[/QUOTE] I'm referring to an overall statistical bias, not them going 'oh he's a man he must be the worse parent,' which, while it may happen in some cases, is not the issue being discussed here. The fact that more women that men win custody is in no way the same as an individual on trial having a jury biased against them. One is statistics showing the combination of many cases, each of which may have been determined the way they were for any number of reasons which you cannot possibly know, and the other is deliberate discrimination toward an individual. I don't even see how you can think that the two are the same thing.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor;30461272]Start showing links to these statistics or you're bullshitting and your supposed facts will fall through as you cannot back them up with sufficent evidence.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.womenabusingmen.org/[/url] im sorry its about 50%

Okay, I've got an example. Toss a coin 100 times, and see how many times it comes out heads. With a 50% chance, you should statistically get 50 heads, but in effect that's not going to happen, so lets say you get 65 heads. Going by yawmwen logic, that proves that their is something in the coin toss that is biasing it in favour of heads. But that's not the case. Each toss is still a 50% chance - unbiased, it just happens that you got 65 heads. The overall statistical bias does not necessarily represent a bias in each individual toss.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;30461321]I'm referring to an overall statistical bias, not them going 'oh he's a man he must be the worse parent,' which, while it may happen in some cases, is not the issue being discussed here. The fact that more women that men win custody is in no way the same as an individual on trial having a jury biased against them. One is statistics showing the combination of many cases, each of which may have been determined the way they were for any number of reasons which you cannot possibly know, and the other is deliberate discrimination toward an individual. I don't even see how you can think that the two are the same thing.[/QUOTE] stop denying there is a bias in the court rooms, i have said it, humanabyss has said it, you are just denying the truth. if women are found to be better parents 75% of the time then women are inherently better at raising children, or there is sexism in the courts

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30461382]stop denying there is a bias in the court rooms, i have said it, humanabyss has said it, you are just denying the truth. if women are found to be better parents 75% of the time then women are inherently better at raising children, or there is sexism in the courts[/QUOTE] Hence why I used the word necessarily. I'm not saying there never is. I'm just trying to make you understand that a statistical bias does not prove a bias in individual cases. You need other evidence.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;30461375]Okay, I've got an example. Toss a coin 100 times, and see how many times it comes out heads. With a 50% chance, you should statistically get 50 heads, but in effect that's not going to happen, so lets say you get 65 heads. Going by yawmwen logic, that proves that their is something in the coin toss that is biasing it in favour of heads. But that's not the case. Each toss is still a 50% chance - unbiased, it just happens that you got 65 heads. The overall statistical bias does not necessarily represent a bias in each individual toss.[/QUOTE] if i flipped the coin several thousand times a year and got heads 75% of the time damn right there is a bias towards heads [editline]15th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ThisGuy0;30461401]Hence why I used the word necessarily. I'm not saying there never is. I'm just trying to make you understand that a statistical bias does not prove a bias in individual cases. You need other evidence.[/QUOTE] um yea it does for our case i really dont need to write a report from thousands of court cases to prove to you that there is bias in the courts. statistical evidence is plenty for an internet argument [editline]15th June 2011[/editline] and since you havent provided any evidence except anecdotal to oppose it you have no argument

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30461404]if i flipped the coin several thousand times a year and got heads 75% of the time damn right there is a bias towards heads[/QUOTE] That's just wrong. It's unlikely you'd get that with an unbiased coin, but it's perfectly possible. But that's beside the point since I never said that it was coincidence that women win the majority of custody cases, I'm saying that there are many reasons why that could be the case, you can't simply assume institutionalised sexism without significant evidence. [editline]15th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;30461404]and since you havent provided any evidence except anecdotal to oppose it you have no argument[/QUOTE] I haven't given any evidence since I've never been arguing evidence with you. I've simply been demonstarating how horribly flawed your logic is.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;30461467]That's just wrong. It's unlikely you'd get that with an unbiased coin, but it's perfectly possible. But that's beside the point since I never said that it was coincidence that women win the majority of custody cases, I'm saying that there are many reasons why that could be the case, you can't simply assume institutionalised sexism without significant evidence. [editline]15th June 2011[/editline] I haven't given any evidence since I've never been arguing evidence with you. I've simply been demonstarating how horribly flawed your logic is.[/QUOTE] your logic is flawed if you dont think there is institutionalized sexism lol

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30461507]your logic is flawed if you dont think there is institutionalized sexism lol[/QUOTE] Whether or not there is does not affect the fact that how you equate statistical bias to bias in each individual case is wrong. Just wrong. That's all I've been trying to argue, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

is yawmwen still harping on about that statistic as if it means anything on it's own

[QUOTE=Lazor;30462020]is yawmwen still harping on about that statistic as if it means anything on it's own[/QUOTE] not on its own but i provided more evidence you guys are just too narrow minded to accept that which challenges your worldview