I certainly wouldn't try to claim that people's choices of research topics aren't affected by their worldviews.

However, it doesn't seem particularly absurd to me that this data isn't available, because it doesn't seem that easy to get and it also doesn't seem that useful once you get it. From what was posted in the thread, it seems to be available in the UK as some artifact of the record keeping or their medical system and not because there were academics there studying it.


You're welcome.

Once again the activists are enlightening us. Showing us the way like a lighthouse in the fog or rudolph red nosed....

The women in the first video is great. Excellent use of taking the piss.

Second woman seems fine. Not sure why juan's feelings are hurting.

His high-T dom rage gets triggered because she's loud and aggro and doesn't know her place.

Yeah but about 50% of women are pro life. So that whole "men wanting to control women's bodies" argument is pretty disingenuous.

Shouldn't that already be obvious though? You have Pro-lifers literally calling it murder, clearly their motive is saving the babies life.

If the police were on a manhunt after a serial killer, would you ever frame that as "they only want control over the suspects body." Or would it be more accurate to say they are trying to save lives and prevent more harm.

Now whether you regard abortion as murder or not is irrelevant, because they do, and that is where they are coming from.

It's well under 50 percent, and women can want to control the bodies of other women, too.

And we know for a fact that the overwhelming majority pro life people don't consider abortion to be murder. For one, we know pro life people have their mistresses get abortions. And two, very, very few people recommend identical criminal sentences for abortion and murder.

Where they are coming from is largely scientific ignorance and faith in religion largely dominated by male leaders, both amplified by profiteering infotainers.

What I am talking about in this thread is abortion rights. I think human life is precious -- I am pro life. There is surely no significant percentage of the population that is anti life. Just because the the anti abortion-rights activists want to frame it as pro-life versus anti-life does not mean that's the reality of it. It's not.

I am pro abortion-rights. Polls show a majority of both women and men support abortion rights. Men have overwhelmingly disproportionate power in determining whether women have those rights. Hence, men controlling women's health care decisions.

These same people also are generally very opposed to many other things - such as increasing access to early childhood healthcare - that would also help support life. And are happy supporting guns which kill 30,000 a year. And wars. And the death penalty.

I take luckproof's point that "controlling a women's body" is not the rhetoric they use. But "pro-life" is not what they demonstrate in so many other aspects of their political life there is no reason to take their lofty rhetoric at face value.

(1) Not according to the surveys I've seen.

(2) Well they consider it taking an innocent life so... what would you call that?

(3) So what? Their are hypocrites on every side of every debate, great insight.

(4) This is true

I think they are on the side of science, the pro choice sides are the ones forced to draw arbitrary lines on where life begins. When it comes down to arguing each side I find that pro-lifers are more consistent, life begins at conception, therefor abortion is taking a life.
Yeah I hate the labels of Pro-choice and Pro-life
I'm not too concerned what the majority of people think in general, I'm more interested in the arguments put forth.

And you still seem to be missing the point with this last sentence. People who view abortion as taking an innocent life don't consider that "healthcare." In fact they consider it the opposite.

Yes I agree the right adopting the term pro life is hilarious. Supporting guns and the death penalty don't contradict the pro life stance though, the wars they push absolutely do.

It's entirely reasonable to consider a fetus alive and still be pro choice.

pro-life on the side of science.. lol

In your opinion

I’m referring to the argument that life begins at conception, not every view a pro lifer tends to hold.

Same question I ask to every pro lifer: do you think it is acceptable to forcibly take blood from an unwilling donor if doing so is necessary and sufficient for saving another life? How about instead of blood, bone marrow? A kidney?

Imagine if it was suggested that human life begins nine days after conception? Both side of the debate would find reason to be annoyed by such a conclusion.

Except, as I have previously written, that conclusion is actually the correct one. Embryos can split into twins during their first nine days. They are not destined to be a specific individual. Religious people might argue that it was God's plan to split the embryo so the the existence of both souls was preordained at the moment of conception. Except that such splitting need not be a natural process. Surgeons can do it to whichever embryos they choose.

Some sides of the debate would consider it of no importance whatsoever.

That includes those like me who don't care about conception at all and those who think the surgeons are doing gods (or the devils) work.

No. That is insanely immoral in my book.

FWIW I’m not religious at all. I lean pro life, I get where both sides come from. It’s an interesting debate with a lot of tough spots for sure.

Welcome to the pro choice team, comrade.

Going to have to show your work on that one, if you don’t mind

What is forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will other than the forcible donation of a woman's blood and use of her organs to another person against her will?

What would make it insanely immoral in your view? Wouldn't it be immoral to let a person die who could be saved?

That would only make sense if the woman was pregnant due to a rape.