Jump to content

Senate Republicans block bill that would federally enshrine right to contraception

Substatic

By Substatic,
in Forum

 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Goukosan

Goukosan 2,249

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Substatic said:

 

You're trying to debate with the wrong person, you're going to get absolutely fucked when going against me on an objective scientific debate.  I remember ass blasting a couple of your cronies on climate and covid a while back here.

 

Here are the sources for the specific claim I made,

 

Studies showing abortion restrictions or bans primarily have negative health results:

 

 

A few of those are the most comprehensive in the field. I'm not capable of finding any study showing abortion bans or restrictions as an objectively good thing on any medical or scientific level.  But that's your find to make, provide me with such studies to have a chance at getting anything but ass raped in this "debate".

 

Medical Experts:

 

 

Being for abortion bans and/or severe restrictions is objectively being in the wrong going by medical data and experts. We only see negative results. Republicans are objectively in the wrong here. Like many of them are/were for Climate and Covid.

 

 

 

 

 

@Saucer got destroyed as per usual. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54212

54212 432

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Substatic said:

Now you're just trying to get the last post in as if it changes this from not being countered yet

 

You lied when you said, "Abortion rates still remain high." As you said, you don't know.

 

Why did you lie?

 

18 hours ago, Substatic said:

Disprove or counter the above facts and experts.

 

If we accept the numbers for increased mortality rates for women due to abortion bans, the increased number of deaths pales to the number of children killed by abortion. It's not even close. It's around 60m in the US alone since Roe.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54212

54212 432

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Goukosan said:

 

He provided it and predictably you had nothing of substance. 

 

You're asking for a standard of proof that you yourself cannot come close to providing. 

 

Hold that L Saucer. 

 

He didn't even address my question. Reread it.

 

11 hours ago, Goukosan said:

You're asking for a standard of proof that you yourself cannot come close to providing.

 

He boasted he could objectively prove the pro-life position is a poor position to hold. That's on him, not me.

 

Meanwhile 60m children killed by abortion since 1973. 60,000,000.

 

11 hours ago, Goukosan said:

Hold that L Saucer. 

 

No I'll leave it on your forehead, thanks.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ike

Ike★ 2,906

Posted
Posted

So if he’s so worried about people turning to abortion, incel Saucer must be totally for a well-funded and comprehensive sex education program for public schools right? With classes on the proper use of birth control and free access for all those who wish to use it right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54212

54212 432

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ike said:

So if he’s so worried about people turning to abortion, incel Saucer must be totally for a well-funded and comprehensive sex education program for public schools right? With classes on the proper use of birth control and free access for all those who wish to use it right? 

 

I'm pro-choice, you fool. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Substatic

Substatic 420

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Saucer said:

 

You lied when you said, "Abortion rates still remain high."  

 

 

 

 

This isn't a lie. 

 

Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access (guttmacher.org)

What will and won’t happen when abortion is banned | Journal of Law and the Biosciences | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

 

Studies show Abortion bans/restrictions either don't lower the rates at all, or barely lower them. Other studies show they primarily have real negative health/economical outcomes.

 

I am incapable of finding any study showing the benefits of abortion or that the above/below studies are false. You have not provided such data. You are conceding by this.

 

Quote

If we accept the numbers for increased mortality rates for women due to abortion bans, the increased number of deaths pales to the number of children killed by abortion. It's not even close. It's around 60m in the US alone since Roe.

 

 

My original claim, which you doubted, has not been refuted. Abortions primarily have negative outcomes, and are an important facet of healthcare. This is my central argument, and is supported by the conclusions and Abstracts of multiple highly regarded studies and the medical community. Directly. Furthermore, if the studies aren't enough (they are), dozens of medical groups containing thousands of medical experts agree with this general analysis.

 

I am incapable of finding any study showing the benefits of abortion or that the above/below studies are false. You have not provided such data. You are conceding by this.

 

 

1 hour ago, Saucer said:

 

 

 

 

He boasted he could objectively prove the pro-life position is a poor position to hold. That's on him, not me.

 

 

 

 

 

It was on me. And I did.

 

 

And now it's on you to directly disprove these studies, with ones of your own directly saying Abortions are a positive.  Lets go Saucy, the ball's in your court.

Edited by Substatic
Link to post
Share on other sites
54212

54212 432

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Substatic said:

This isn't a lie. 

 

Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access (guttmacher.org)

 

Now you're flipflopping again. Did you lie about knowing or not knowing? It's now one of the other.

 

And don't do that bullshit where you cite a 68-page article and then ask me to go read it an find the info for you. Get real. Stop being lazy and posting a list of articles you found on the internet that you haven't even read. That's such a shit tactic.

 

7 minutes ago, Substatic said:

My original claim, which you doubted, has not been refuted. Abortions primarily have negative outcomes, and are an important facet of healthcare.

 

Abortions have kill 60,000,000 children in the US alone since 1973. Is that a negative health outcome? Because to the pro-life side it's the greatest episode of mass murder in history, and you ignoring the argument shows you won't debate in good faith.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Substatic

Substatic 420

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

 

Abortions have kill 60,000,000 children in the US alone since 1973. Is that a negative health outcome? Because to the pro-life side it's the greatest episode of mass murder in history, and you ignoring the argument shows you won't debate in good faith.

 

 

 

 

"Killed". "Children".  :drake: These are fucking charged political opinions.

 

You were supposed to link a peer reviewed study speaking of the benefits of Abortion restrictions and bans. Every post you make ITT without doing that is you just burying yourself.  Stop insulting me with Tucker Carlson talking points.

 

13 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

 

 

And don't do that bullshit where you cite a 68-page article and then ask me to go read it an find the info for you. Get real.

 

 

If you're unwilling to read one of the most comprehensive abortion studies in history and another Oxford Journal article, that isn't my problem. That's a you problem.

 

Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access (guttmacher.org)

What will and won’t happen when abortion is banned | Journal of Law and the Biosciences | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

 

If you want a summary and you're too lazy to read the prestigious studies I linked that fucking bury you to the ground:

 

"The data shows that abortion rates are roughly the same in countries where abortion is broadly legal and in countries where it isn't."

 

english_aww_abortion_rate_by_legal_statu

Edited by Substatic
Link to post
Share on other sites
54212

54212 432

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Substatic said:

english_aww_abortion_rate_by_legal_statu

 

This is what I was looking for. This one I will research. If that data holds, this is an important argument. I wouldn't have thought they'd be so close. Really interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Goukosan

Goukosan 2,249

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

He didn't even address my question. Reread it.

 

 

He boasted he could objectively prove the pro-life position is a poor position to hold. That's on him, not me.

 

Meanwhile 60m children killed by abortion since 1973. 60,000,000.

 

 

No I'll leave it on your forehead, thanks.

 

 

 

All that blabbling and you still can't provide the same standard you asked of him. 

 

He met it.. Now you do the same.

Put up or shut the fuck up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Impossible

Mr. Impossible 407

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

Abortions have kill 60,000,000 children in the US alone since 1973. Is that a negative health outcome? Because to the pro-life side it's the greatest episode of mass murder in history, and you ignoring the argument shows you won't debate in good faith.

 

 

I don't see how that would mean he's arguing in bad faith. Which is rich coming from you. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ike

Ike★ 2,906

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mr. Impossible said:

 

 

I don't see how that would mean he's arguing in bad faith. Which is rich coming from you. 

 

 

Seriously, the only anti-abortion arguments are all religious ones and I’m pretty sure there’s a thing in the constitution about that:

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“

 

The right really just wants the country to be ran like a Christian version of Afghanistan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jehurey

jehurey 3,227

Posted
Posted

yah, you guys noticed that Saucer initially tries to come in thinking he's got tons of information to overwhelm you with..............and then all you have to do is just push back against him a little to find out that it was all a facade, and he's got nothing.

 

I've literally caught him posting screenshots of sources..............and he omits the link, to where I have to google search and find the webpage, and I realized that he took a screenshot, and omitted the following paragraph that debunks the previous paragraph, and actually proves my claim correct.

 

He even tried to repost an OLD POST OF MINE..........and he intentionally cut off the post, because the sentence that I typed, he wanted me to believe it applied to the PREVIOUS sentence.

 

But in fact, the sentence applied to the NEXT LINE (which is exactly where he cut off the post), and he straight-up was trying mis-represent what I had typed.

 

And when I catch what he did (and I always catch it.......ALWAYS), he gets angry and basically screams his way out of the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...