[DerbyX]

Psudo wrote:

You did not prove my position lacked compromise. Standard pro-life rhetoric says to ban abortion. Standard pro-choice rhetoric says to stop all coercion. Your proposed policy was to ban all coercion, the standard pro-choice line. My proposed policy was to ban one specific kind of coercion. It has a treat for each side (fewer abortions, reduced coercion), but doesn't do everything either side wants. that is compromise.

It isn't compromise. It simply unfairly targets one side based entirely on your belief that somebody somewhere must be influencing women to get abortions for profit.

Psudo wrote:

If you still think I'm wrong, what's your definition of compromise? What compromise can there be between pro-life and pro-choice?

The problem is you view pro-choice as a non-compromise. They support whatever the women chooses, pro-life demands the women choose how they want. As for a compromise I have ALREADY said several times that if you are concerned about women being influenced to get abortions yo go after them. You enact laws restricting BOTH sides from bringing pressure to women to decide what their side wants.

To you the only possible compromise is for the "abortion" to be forced to decrease abortions. What about the pro-life side being forced to increase abortions because they will no longer be allowed to influence women to not get abortions?

Where is your compromise over the overwhelming pressure being brought by pro-lifers to discourage women not to get abortions.

Psudo wrote:

How do you propose law enforcement investigate why a woman changed her mind about abortion? Even if law enforcement does their best, many women don't want to talk about their accidental pregnancies or the time they were coerced. They can't revoke licenses if they don't know a crime has been committed.

Yet again it must be shown to you that the onus is on you to prove coercion. In fact you know that abortion providers aren't coercing women. The law doesn't bend to your inability to prove your case. If abortion providers are pressuring women (spare me the belief they have changed their mind and are being forced) to get abortions then you can bet there will be complaints. They can easily send in undercover investigators.

The fact still remains the onus is on you to prove malfeasance.

Psudo wrote:

Removing the motivation for a crime is a basic principle of prevention. It's why convenience stores put out signs stating "Less than $50 in register" on their bullet-proof glass windows. It's why banks have vaults with timers, so a robber cannot intimidate a teller into opening them. If there's nothing to be gained, most people won't commit the crime.

Again, you simply miss the point that "profit" will still be realized by billing for time served thus eliminating your goal. You ignore completely the % of non-profit groups that preform abortions and that those that are for profit almost certainly offer services that will be more profitable from the women having the baby. Even using your own numbers I showed that "corrupt" abortion providers were about 2 dozen or so.

Psudo wrote:

I don't know how to legislate away concern for public appearances, the motive behind families coercing their daughters into abortions. I don't know how to legislate away the mob mentality that motivates pro-life attacks on abortion clinics. I don't know how to take away the motivation for pro-lifers to browbeat women into keeping their unwanted pregnancies. Those things are clearly wrong. If you have prevention ideas, let me know.

There are no correct answers but trying to make legislation that unfairly targets providers sure ain't it.

Psudo wrote:

But I do know how to take away the motivation for abortion providers to maximize their customer base: make it financially irrelevant to them. If the number of abortions they provide has no bearing on their financial situation then we can be certain that financial concerns are not motivating abortions. That's the goal.

They are called patients and it shows that you continually believe that abortion providers are in it for the money. Think all doctors are?

Once again, I must explain to you that no matter what your goal is the so called corrupt ones will still profit per abortion. Why not fully fund abortion clinics with taxpayer funds and keep abortion doctors on a fixed salary? No private options allowed but make the government ensure fully funded, freely available, and numerous abortion clinics exist. No women has to pay for an abortion so the poorer and thus neediest group aren't affected. No per abortion profit exists since the staff are salaried rather then service fee funded.

You might find it distasteful to provide taxpayer money for abortions but this solution will achieve your goal without hurting honest abortion providers.

Psudo wrote:

Many abortion providers already work that way, providing abortions regardless of the patient's ability to pay and covering the costs through charitable donations or profit from other medical services. Others do not. What I am proposing is that it be a licensing requirement to do so. Maybe profit-motivated abortions are extremely rare and little will change. Maybe they're common and a lot will change. However a law would need be written to best eliminate profit as a motivation for abortion, that is how it should be written.

Or as I have repeatedly explained it will simply drive out abortion providers who although they profit from abortion, do nothing unethical in influencing women to choose an abortion.

Psudo wrote:

You tell me that more than half of providers already don't make any profit, then tell me that a vast majority would lose their profit. Make up your mind.

I said that your numbers alone show the vast majority of abortion providers were honest so why target them to get at a few? I used your math assumptions. I'm aware that for profit abortions exist but just because they are profiting doesn't mean they are doing it unethically.

Psudo wrote:

Maybe the ban would only stop a very small amount of corruption. That's better than none.

Or it will drive out abortion providers (you keep ignoring this fact) thus making it more difficult to obtain one and forcing some wanted abortions into not happening. Why wouldn't a for profit organization decide to focus its attention elsewhere if it becomes no longer worth it? That of course is the entire premise of your proposal.

Psudo wrote:

I do not intend to reduce abortion availability with this ban.

Yet I have shown that in all likelihood it will.

Psudo wrote:

Lower price would slightly increase availability, but a reduction of profit could potentially reduce it.

A diminishing pool of providers will decrease it (and force more back alley abortions and a decrease in profits will simply be sidestepped by the dishonest ones anyway. If they are dishonest enough to influence women for profit motivations then they'll not be squeamish about getting paid under the table or finding other ways to make up the lost revenue. You have already said you think law enforcement will have a tough time policing my plan but then again they'll have the same problem assuring your profit ban is enforced.

Psudo wrote:

I've offered financial aid to help abortion clinics financially restructure without failing as institutions or discontinuing their abortion services. I think that should pretty much eliminate the concern that abortion providers would be eliminated, but if you disagree I'm open to other amendments.

I keep telling you that your amendments will negate any possible goal because the dishonest ones are going to claim they are honest and use them to retain that revenue stream. I keep explaining to you that you cannot effectively target "profit" when they'll call it salary.

Where do you think the profit is? You already said material cost isn't included (although some will argue the companies who provide the material are in essence profiting from abortion). The doctor charges a per visit fee that you have already said won't be affected (lest you force providers to do abortions for free). That per visit fee will still remain as the prime source of income. More abortions, more per visit fees.

Psudo wrote:

Pro-lifers might initially be opposed to financial aid for abortion clinics, but I think they would be persuaded to pay some money to save some unborn lives, or maybe they could think of it as paying abortion profiteers to change their ways. I might lose some pro-lifer support, but I think I'd keep a majority.

Why don't you pro-lifers put more effort into providing affordable medical care for all the already born and needy people?

Psudo wrote:

The murder rate is about 5 per 100,000 (0.005%) in the USA, yet we have laws against murder. Everyone in the country is subject to a law that only a trivial minority breaks. Every taxpayer pays for the investigation, arrest, housing, trials and appeals, the imposition of the sentence, and the costs of paroling those few. Why shouldn't both laws be enforced on the same principle?

Yet everybody is afforded the innocent until guilt is proven position, something you need to recognize you are not doing.

I have no problems with laws preventing pressure for AND against but you need to prove a case exists. It is not enough to state that it must be happening mathematically as a reason to attack ALL providers.

Psudo wrote:

There are lots of possible ways. I'll provide one, but I ask that you read the whole thing before writing a response.

Jamie is the office manager at an abortion clinic. They're a little short of funding that month, and she knows it. After work, she takes a friend to dinner. The friend confesses she has accidentally become pregnant. She details how it is an awkward time, and she's very worried about the future. Jamie consoles her and recommends her friend consider abortion. She explains a few advantages and offers to set an appointment for her. Her friend is persuaded, attends the appointment, and eventually has the abortion. The finances of the clinic recover. Did Jamie recommend what was best for her friend or for her employer?

It's called a conflict of interest. It can't be conclusively proven Jamie did anything wrong, but you can't be sure she didn't, either. Maybe abortion was the right course, maybe not. Maybe the friend would have chosen abortion anyway, or maybe not. But Jamie gave potentially one-sided advice to an emotionally distraught woman who trusted her, and benefited from it. The only way to be sure there is no manipulation in this story is to remove any financial benefit from the decision. If there's no money to be made then the money interest can't conflict with any other interest.

Aside from the fact that abortion clinics have counseling services to help ensure the women is making up her own mind you still seem to think that the law should err on the side of guilt rather then innocence. You made her a friend and therefore personal feelings and not profit are from and center. Did she receive a finders fee for bringing in a "customer"? Was the lack of funding because of hysterical pro-life groups demanding funding be denied to them?

The problem is your hypotheticals always assume the worst position and that no matter how remote you use the emotional argument that |if it saves one single life) it is worth it.

What about if I agree and that your proposal does indeed prevent say 1000 abortions a year because there is no profit but it also prevented 3000 abortions for women who desperately wanted them?

Is that fair?

Psudo wrote:

Medical clinics of all kinds are already required to keep detailed and accurate financial records. It would be far easier to prove how much an operation cost and how much was charged than to prove what motivated Jamie's advice.

Sure because dishonest ones won't get paid under the table right? You keep ignoring the fact that they'll bill the patient for materials and the doctors time. They won't have any profit in the records because it'll all be salary.

How can you prevent the fact that as long as they can charge fees on a per visit basis they'll still profit?

No matter how you term it you are proposing a bill designed to not only make an entire group of people pay the price for the supposed misdeeds of a few but also has the potential to harm the innocents more then the guilty.

If you are truly concerned about abortion for profit then as I said make it free and readily available. Pay abortion providers the same regardless of whether they sit around all day and do nothing or perform 30 abortions a day. That would certainly eliminate the for profit motivation, just make sure that the money is good enough to prevent pushing providers out.

[Psudo]

DerbyX wrote:

The problem is you view pro-choice as a non-compromise.

I'm looking for common ground between pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-choice is not compromise between itself and anything else.

DerbyX wrote:

Where is your compromise over the overwhelming pressure being brought by pro-lifers to discourage women not to get abortions.

The word for that is concession, not compromise. If I give you that concession, what concession will you give me?

DerbyX wrote:

"profit" will still be realized by billing for time served thus eliminating your goal.

And people still steal, rape, and kill despite the laws against those things. They should still be illegal. Doctors are typically paid on salary, and it would be reasonable to mandate that abortion doctors be paid on salary as part of the ban on profit. It's the clinic, not the doctor, whose profit would be at stake.

DerbyX wrote:

You ignore completely the % of non-profit groups that preform abortions

They're already non-profit services. A ban on for-profit abortion doesn't affect providers of non-profit abortions.

DerbyX wrote:

those that are for profit almost certainly offer services that will be more profitable from the women having the baby.

That kind of provider that can operate as a for-profit clinic while offering non-profit abortion is exactly the kind of institution this proposal seeks to promote: diversified women's health centers. The goal is to make the abortion cover it's costs and nothing more, which will neither help nor harm these institutions. It's not a punishment to break even.

DerbyX wrote:

Even using your own numbers I showed that "corrupt" abortion providers were about 2 dozen or so.

1.5 million abortions every year provided by 1,800 clinics. That's about 830 abortions per clinic. If there are 24 corrupt clinics (your estimate), that's 20,000 abortions from corrupt providers. Your earlier estimate of 13 corrupt clinics would provide 10,800 abortions. Per year. That's not negligible.

It's also reasonable to assume that abortion clinics that are actively recruiting patients would be doing more abortions than average.

DerbyX wrote:

you continually believe that abortion providers are in it for the money. Think all doctors are?

Not all, but certainly some. There are a lot of rich doctors out there. Most of them don't get rich by destroying something akin to a human life, though.

DerbyX wrote:

Why not fully fund abortion clinics with taxpayer funds and keep abortion doctors on a fixed salary?

Because not all taxpayers want their money going towards that purpose. If you can get that money from voluntary charitable donations then there is no forcible funding, no profit-based coercion, and no one turned away due to inability to pay. That's a pretty good pro-choice/pro-life compromise.

Incidentally, that's already the case in a lot of places across the USA. I think a ban on abortion for profit would encourage the creation of more places like that.

DerbyX wrote:

just because [abortion providers] are profiting doesn't mean they are doing it unethically.

It means they could act unethically and law enforcement couldn't do anything about it.

DerbyX wrote:

it will drive out abortion providers (you keep ignoring this fact)

No it won't. Now you say, "Yes it will." Then I'll say, "No it won't." See why I keep ignoring it?

DerbyX wrote:

Why wouldn't a for profit organization decide to focus its attention elsewhere if it becomes no longer worth it?

You told me most abortionists were principled pro-choicers looking to provide what they believe is an essential public service. I prefer all abortionists are like that rather than wondering whether there is some manipulation of women occurring.

I'm willing to provide financial aid to convert the morally dubious for-profit kind of abortion clinic into the principled public service kind to ensure there is no interruption in availability despite the fact that I personally oppose their operation. That is compromise.

It would make sense to put a time limit on the funding, say two years. That way government is paying for the restructuring, not perpetually funding abortion.

DerbyX wrote:

If they are dishonest enough to influence women for profit motivations then they'll not be squeamish about getting paid under the table [...]

Even if they get away with it, at least that's something they have to hide and that can endanger their license. At least doing the wrong thing will be illegal. And they're not all going to get away with it.

DerbyX wrote:

[...] or finding other ways to make up the lost revenue.

This is exactly what I want: clinics to find revenue from somewhere other than abortion.

DerbyX wrote:

I keep telling you that your amendments will negate any possible goal because the dishonest ones are going to claim they are honest and use them to retain that revenue stream. I keep explaining to you that you cannot effectively target "profit" when they'll call it salary.

Ever heard of forensic accounting? The IRS? Accountants can tell when people lie in their financial documents. After getting away with everything else, it's what Al Capone went to jail for. Nothing is more enforcible than financial documents. It's a lot like filming yourself committing a crime.

DerbyX wrote:

Why don't you pro-lifers put more effort into providing affordable medical care for all the already born and needy people?

More than what? They already put a lot of effort into that. Even when I qualified for financial assistance and turned it down so that someone in real need can use that money.

DerbyX wrote:

Yet everybody is afforded the innocent until guilt is proven position

Innocent people pay for the prisons, trials, parole, and executions of the guilty. Innocent clinics having to pay for not profit because of the guilty clinics is not very different.

DerbyX wrote:

Aside from the fact that abortion clinics have counseling services to help ensure the women is making up her own mind[...]

That's what pro-choicers believe they're for. Pro-lifers often believe they're for talking her into it and imagine themselves providing an unbiased alternative in the form of crisis pregnancy centers. Even if I go with the pro-choice version, they're not perfect. They're going to miss some. In the example I gave, there's no particular reason the friend would even recognize she had been coerced, let alone someone interviewing her.

DerbyX wrote:

[...]you still seem to think that the law should err on the side of guilt rather then innocence.

Guilt still has to be proven in a court of law. Avoiding conflicts of interest is an accepted practice in English common law (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc). Judges are required to recuse themselves in certain situations. Corporate board-members are "conflicted out of" voting on issues where they have a personal stake. Surgeons are typically not allowed to operate on family members. Congress has enough ethics rules to fill a dozen volumes. This is more of that.

DerbyX wrote:

You made her a friend and therefore personal feelings and not profit are from and center.

You don't know that. People sell out their friends sometimes. Even if you're right, possible unemployment is an issue of personal feelings for Jamie.

DerbyX wrote:

The problem is your hypotheticals always assume the worst position

That was nowhere near the worst position. A far worse position would be a doctor claiming the fetus was medically doomed when it was perfectly healthy. I intentionally avoided such radical, conspiratorial thinking and gave the story of basically good people doing basically normal things. You don't have to be some kind of evil, criminal, malicious person to succumb to a conflict of interest. We all face them.

If you object to the worst case being portrayed as typical, stop using that tactic in characterizing pro-lifers and other right-wingers. Not every pro-life protest is a violent riot. Not every crisis pregnancy center is an abusive coercion center. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

DerbyX wrote:

What about if I agree and that your proposal does indeed prevent say 1000 abortions a year because there is no profit but it also prevented 3000 abortions for women who desperately wanted them?

If that happened, the bill would have been a failure. If I thought that outcome were likely I would oppose the bill. I find it unbelievable that a woman who desperately wants an abortion could not get a perfectly legal one anywhere in the country unless she were physically restrained.

DerbyX wrote:

How can you prevent the fact that as long as they can charge fees on a per visit basis they'll still profit?

I want them to still profit, just not from abortions. If a woman visits a clinic seven times and only one of them is an abortion procedure, I want the clinic to get a profit six of those times. I'm not trying to shut down the clinic or prevent profit generally.

[Caelon]

Quote:

Psudo

Quote:

DerbyX wrote:

What about if I agree and that your proposal does indeed prevent say 1000 abortions a year because there is no profit but it also prevented 3000 abortions for women who desperately wanted them?

If that happened, the bill would have been a failure. If I thought that outcome were likely I would oppose the bill. I find it unbelievable that a woman who desperately wants an abortion could not get a perfectly legal one anywhere in the country unless she were physically restrained.

Take a look at Canadian history on abortions. Canada has always been more liberal than than the US yet anytime there was any restriction put on the system the access for women was reduced and the back alley abortions went up. What you have proposed is a restriction on a system that is already less than many countries allow. The US is barely up to the 1960's let alone to the new millenia and yet you propose to further restrict access.

You state you are looking for a compromise and yet your proposal would be somewhere between 1940 to 1960. The issue really boils down to the fact that there is a significant portion of the US population that is what would be termed right wing Christian, not a majority, just a significant proportion. So what you call a compromise is viewed as a regressive step by most of the western world.

It is too bad you cannot put womens rights as a priority instead of imposing a personal religious view. A fundemental aspect for the western world is the freedom of religion and as such it is abhorent for one religious group to impose their views on others. From your arguements it is apparent that freedom of religion and choice is not a tenent that you would be comfortable supporting.

[Psudo]

You can't give a date to the "progressiveness" of values. Marijuana was legal in the USA until the hippy movement of the 60s made it controversial, and the sexual revolution of the 1960s was based on the utopian free love movements of the 1830s. Before the 1920s women's suffrage movement, there was a revolution of politicization and empowerment of women in the early 1800s (these women mostly provided havens for abused women, protested the evils of liquor, and petitioned for the abolition of slavery). Technology has been more or less a steady progression since Rome fell, but cultural values rise and fall like the tide.

Canada federally decriminalized abortion in 1968, but the choice was up to doctors rather than women. After Roe v. Wade, Canadian women in areas with pro-life obstetricians traveled to the United States for abortions well into the 80s. The Canadian Supreme Court didn't eliminate restrictions on abortion until 1988. The USA has been more liberal on abortion than Canada at times, and it's modern policy is more liberal than Canada circa 1987. Dating us to the 1960s is simply not factual.

Even if I pretend that morality is determined by a popularity contest across the western world, the claim that my policy loses that contest is not obviously true. First off, I doubt that "most of the western world" has heard of any plan like mine, let alone formed an opinion of it. Secondly, there are only 3 out of 25 Western European countries with no restrictions on abortion (Iceland, Norway, and Sweden); there is no expectation of complete deregulation by "most of the western world." More westerners would be surprised by utterly unregulated abortion than by a financial regulation dwarfed by the vast regulatory requirements behind their nations' universal health care systems.

Believing a fetus is alive is not a religious belief. The bible barely hints at the issue. However, it is medically beneficial to use analgesics (painkillers) on a fetus before surgery because of the physiological pain reaction. At 26 weeks gestation, the pain sensory system is fully intact. A 24-week-old fetus has a reasonable chance to survive to adulthood outside the mother's body without major medical aid. These factors scientifically suggest that a fetus is something other than innate biomass, something more akin to an infant than an organ, well before birth. There is no empirical justification for the moment of birth to coincide with the attachment of legal rights. It is a known and intentional bias toward pro-choice views based on the reasoning that it is impossible to precisely determine when legal personhood should attach but birth is the last moment that it could possibly be.

Even if I were choosing my position on abortion based on some blind faith in a religious argument, this policy is not banning abortion. Regulating finances and providing financial aid to abortion clinics is not an attack on abortion as an institution. Whatever basis I have for opposing abortion generally, I've set it aside in the search for a policy that leaves at least 90% of (and, in my view, all) abortion availability unaffected.

Why do people argue against some exaggerated caricature of some imaginary extremist with some vague traits I sorta almost share instead of the actual, specific statements I've actually made?

[DerbyX]

Psudo wrote:

I'm looking for common ground between pro-life and pro-choice.

No you are not. You are seeking to enshrine your misconceptions that abortions are pushed for reasons of profit in law. That is not compromise.

Psudo wrote:

Pro-choice is not compromise between itself and anything else.

Yes, actually it is. In fact it is the compromise between pro-life which seeks to ban all abortions to pro-abort (the term pro-life retards use) which as the polar opposite (and held by nobody I might add) seeks to abort all babies.

Pro-choice is right between the two. Ban no abortions and simply let the mother choose, the only truly acceptable position to have. Her womb, her choice.

Psudo wrote:

The word for that is concession, not compromise. If I give you that concession, what concession will you give me?

We won't frog march women into abortion centres to have forced abortions? See how you aren't truly seeking a compromise or a concession. Its not a concession to prevent the overwhelming harassment done by the anti-choice activist. It should have been the first thing on your agenda if you want to prevent the pro-choice side from "influencing" as a necessary first step. You should be out there with a baseball bat ready to clobber all those anti-choice activists telling them nobody should be influencing women. Then you'd be able to tell women they should feel perfectly free to have the baby and not be "talked into" an abortion.

Psudo wrote:

And people still steal, rape, and kill despite the laws against those things. They should still be illegal.

An irrelevant argument because it is illegal to coerce people as I have already said and your lame example was in no way an example of a women being talked into it. It was a women who went to her friend for advice and in the end made her own choice up freely.

Psudo wrote:

Doctors are typically paid on salary, and it would be reasonable to mandate that abortion doctors be paid on salary as part of the ban on profit. It's the clinic, not the doctor, whose profit would be at stake.

And if the clinic isn't receiving a cut of abortion fees per se? How about if they simply get paid a flat fee by the medical staff they allow operate in the clinic or that they are contracted to receive 10% of all billing done by the doctor? They have NO SAY in what the doctor is treating or prescribing. They get their 10% regardless whether he is prescribing flu medicine or abortion babies. That would count as profit but the doctor will still make more money if he can bill for as many abortions as he can handle. Your solution will fail. Assuming the doctor can still make money but the clinic may not profit they might decide to get rid of or mandate a maximum amount of abortion services. In other words exactly what I said would happen, in that abortion providers are being restricted regardless of honesty or not.

Psudo wrote:

They're already non-profit services. A ban on for-profit abortion doesn't affect providers of non-profit abortions.

Yet those clinics are repeatedly attacked and accused of doing just what you say in that they influence abortions for profit, the same myth you have bought into.

Psudo wrote:

That kind of provider that can operate as a for-profit clinic while offering non-profit abortion is exactly the kind of institution this proposal seeks to promote: diversified women's health centers. The goal is to make the abortion cover it's costs and nothing more, which will neither help nor harm these institutions. It's not a punishment to break even.

Then I'll further illustrate my example. Dr Perry Cox works at a clinic specializing in womens health. They have 5 doctors and Dr Cox is 1 of their abortion specialists. To avoid conflicts of interest they only accept abortion referrals from certified women centers who have already counseled pregnant women and found them to genuinely want one. The clinic doesn't therefore counsel women one way or another save for a treatment day required agreement that the women has chosen freely to terminate her pregnancy. The doctors are paid by a contracted salary but as treating physicians they are in charge of their patients. The clinic bills the patients directly based on their price list of services. One of their more profitable services offered is in fact abortion because they cater to more wealthier clients because they have an excellent reputation of being competent and discrete. As a result of the profit from richer clients with great insurance they can offer discounted services to needier clientele during off-peak hours in an arrangement that sees high paying clients getting more convenient time slots with those paying less coming in during off hours or having to wait longer. As a result of your legislation the "profit" realized by the clinic was eliminated. As a result the clinic has decided to replace Dr Cox and perform less abortions and instead focus on services that turn a profit. Since they are no longer realizing a profit they decided to decrease those services and expand other services (or charge more).

It is very easy to see how honest abortion providers will be pushed out and how services will be restricted.

Psudo wrote:

1.5 million abortions every year provided by 1,800 clinics. That's about 830 abortions per clinic. If there are 24 corrupt clinics (your estimate), that's 20,000 abortions from corrupt providers. Your earlier estimate of 13 corrupt clinics would provide 10,800 abortions. Per year. That's not negligible.

Then lets revisit the math shall we? While I said 2 dozen or so I meant a dozen or so referencing your numbers but I'll use the 12 dozen. 24 corrupt clinics at 830 abortions clinic per year but how many of them will be unjustly influenced? The vast majority of them will be perfectly willing women and that is to say nothing that the ones being "influenced" still make up their own mind since nobody is actually coercing them and your example comes no where near even a tame description of "talking them into it". Shall we use your 10% value? That leaves 2000 abortions or 1800. You'll no doubt claim any number of prevented abortions is significant but its 0.13% of the total. Mathematically & statistically insignificant especially when you consider the exceedingly higher number of coerced women prevented from obtaining abortions.

Psudo wrote:

It's also reasonable to assume that abortion clinics that are actively recruiting patients would be doing more abortions than average.

No, it isn't. In fact it is more reasonable to assume the non-profit ones who charge lower fees will draw a disproportionate number of patients.

Oh, and actively recruiting? By how? Simply advertising their services?

Psudo wrote:

Not all, but certainly some. There are a lot of rich doctors out there. Most of them don't get rich by destroying something akin to a human life, though.

How many are dedicated enough to perform a service that people kill them for or bomb their clinics? Yeah, you look them in the eye and tell them they are only allowed to break even.

Psudo wrote:

Because not all taxpayers want their money going towards that purpose. If you can get that money from voluntary charitable donations then there is no forcible funding, no profit-based coercion, and no one turned away due to inability to pay. That's a pretty good pro-choice/pro-life compromise.

Too bad. Many of them don't like their taxes being used to subsidize religious organizations or any number of things.

If the goal is preventing abortions for profit and if its accomplished then so what. Funny how you think it is perfectly OK to curtail private funding but balk at public funding. Where is your compromise there?

Psudo wrote:

Incidentally, that's already the case in a lot of places across the USA. I think a ban on abortion for profit would encourage the creation of more places like that.

No it won't because you'll encourage for profit minded people to leave the profession and limit the ones who may want to get into it. I've explained why many times.

Psudo wrote:

It means they could act unethically and law enforcement couldn't do anything about it.

NO IT DOES NOT. I have already shown that there are laws to prevent this and acting unethically can get their license revoked no different then doctors acting unethically prescribing unneeded medication or more profitable but riskier treatments. The fact you keep dredging up scenarios in your mind where it is all but impossible to prove does not prove anything. Any clinic unduly influencing abortions for profit can be successfully investigated because just as you say their finances are audited. They'll pick out the higher % of women choosing abortion per counseling visit in profit vs non-profit. Patients will complain that they were being browbeaten into getting abortions just as women complain about that happening in crisis pregnancy centers. The problem is your threshold for talking a women into it is so ridiculously that abortion clinics must absolutely speak a word of encouragement or support lest they cross your line. Even in your own example the "friend" offered nothing but truth and advice. The women was still able to decide for herself.

Psudo wrote:

No it won't. Now you say, "Yes it will." Then I'll say, "No it won't." See why I keep ignoring it?

Only I keep proving my case. I can provide compelling reasons how your law can hurt providers and drive them out. I can provide examples how for profit abortion services will still find a way and I can provide examples whereby honest single doctor practices providing abortion services as its bread and butter can be harmed.

How are you to tell these people "f*ck you, you aren't allowed to make only money. You can only break even". You can't even guarantee it since you are opposed to public funding that might otherwise be used to help these people.

Hell I can even provide examples whereby your law will cause more abortions because unscrupulous providers make less per abortion and therefore need more clients. More money per client means less clients and a better and more thorough service. Less money means you need to do volume sales ala the Wallmart method.

Psudo wrote:

You told me most abortionists were principled pro-choicers looking to provide what they believe is an essential public service. I prefer all abortionists are like that rather than wondering whether there is some manipulation of women occurring.

You are wondering because you are clouded in your judgement. You have bought wholesale into the abortion for profit myth pro-lifers hawk everyday because they can't accept that reality of the situation.

Psudo wrote:

I'm willing to provide financial aid to convert the morally dubious for-profit kind of abortion clinic into the principled public service kind to ensure there is no interruption in availability despite the fact that I personally oppose their operation. That is compromise.

I'll compromise right back then. I'll agree to replacing all private funding for public revenue provided your law does not restrict the earning potential of the providers to prevent them from leaving for more lucrative fields AND you agree to ban all crisis pregnancy centers that use coercive methods to scare women into not getting abortions and enshrine a law banning all unrelated third parties from using undue influence to affect a womens decision to obtain an abortion whether for or against.

Pure pro-choice. The womens choice is the final say and her choice will be protected by law.

Psudo wrote:

It would make sense to put a time limit on the funding, say two years. That way government is paying for the restructuring, not perpetually funding abortion.

No it will not. Public funding will be used to establish abortion clinics in every city and distributed to service the population as best it can. They will be staffed with salaried and licensed staff at attractive enough salaries to retain competent people from leaving for the private sector. They will not be paid on a per patient basis beyond a nominal visit fee and their counseling service will provide only facts. Abortions will be free and since the staff is salaried they will receive no extra money if the women chooses abortion or if she decides to walk out the door and never come back.

No abortion for profit. That is my compromise.

Psudo wrote:

Even if they get away with it, at least that's something they have to hide and that can endanger their license. At least doing the wrong thing will be illegal. And they're not all going to get away with it.

Amazing how you see exactly how they can be policed under your law but can't see it as it already exists.

Psudo wrote:

This is exactly what I want: clinics to find revenue from somewhere other than abortion.

Except that the providers who perform abortions everyday will be forced to provide other services to make up the difference and will thus have less time for abortions. In fact why even offer them when you can simply stop doing them and only provide services you can make a profit on.

You keep demanding that abortion providers be forced to only break even. No matter how you describe it, by forcing them to limit what they charge per abortion they will either make less money or be forced to provide other services, services done by the abortion doctor, in order to make up that revenue.

Psudo wrote:

Ever heard of forensic accounting? The IRS? Accountants can tell when people lie in their financial documents. After getting away with everything else, it's what Al Capone went to jail for. Nothing is more enforcible than financial documents. It's a lot like filming yourself committing a crime.

I have already illustrated how you can determine malfeasance in clinics that profit from abortions. Forensic accountants will see that in those corrupt clinics they see 40% of women being billed for a first visit are subsequently billed for abortion during their second visit whereas the % of women getting abortions Vs counseling visit in non-profit is only 20% Explain why? From there they investigate and find the corruption.

You have no problem with investigations when it fits your argument but suddenly when it concerns abortion influence for profit you proclaim there is no way to police it properly so the only solution is to ban all profit.

Your inability to visualize this isn't the problem of the medical professionals who practice abortion. They are already policed by their own licensing requirements.

Psudo wrote:

More than what? They already put a lot of effort into that. Even when I qualified for financial assistance and turned it down so that someone in real need can use that money.

Then feel free to back eliminating all for profit medicine and provide quality medical care for all the little children that'll be born under your law.

Psudo wrote:

Innocent people pay for the prisons, trials, parole, and executions of the guilty. Innocent clinics having to pay for not profit because of the guilty clinics is not very different.

No, innocent people pay to police and punish guilty people but those that are guilty must be proven in a court of law. The courts don't work under the "you are statistically likely to be guilty". Innocent clinics already pay for malpractice insurance that pays for the incompetent ones. They don't need further financial burdens.

Psudo wrote:

That's what pro-choicers believe they're for.

That is because they are.

Psudo wrote:

Pro-lifers often believe they're for talking her into it and imagine themselves providing an unbiased alternative in the form of crisis pregnancy centers.

That is because they need to believe that in order to reconcile perfectly moral people choosing abortion. Its like wife beaters reconciling their actions with "she deserved it".

Psudo wrote:

Even if I go with the pro-choice version, they're not perfect. They're going to miss some. In the example I gave, there's no particular reason the friend would even recognize she had been coerced, let alone someone interviewing her.

I'll again refer you to the legal description of coerce.

Quote:

The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

At no time in your scenario did you describe anything remotely close. Stop using the term coercion.

What happened is a pregnant friend went to her closest friend (you don't confide this stuff to acquaintances). Her friend happened to work in an abortion clinic and very likely sought her out for information on abortion. Her friend provided that information and went along with her friend for moral support. In fact her clinic might very well have excluded her from the counseling because of the conflict of interest and asked the pregnant girl to get support from somebody else. The friend subsequently choose to get an abortion. Your threshold for considering it influence for an abortion is so ridiculously low
it becomes impossible to prove otherwise. Its like using evidence to convince a conspiracy nut. Their threshold for evidence is so high it can never be reached.

BTW, even in your example I can see the flaw. Can you? They are still going to charge her for the abortion because they need the funds no matter how little profit they'll get (if any). They'll still make more money for counseling+abortion then counseling alone unless they are fully funded and make the same either way.

Psudo wrote:

Guilt still has to be proven in a court of law. Avoiding conflicts of interest is an accepted practice in English common law (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc).

It is only a conflict of interest in your extremely narrow scenario of a pregnant women going to her friend for advice who happens to work in an abortion clinic.

What % of abortions preformed fit that? 1 out of 1.8 million?

Psudo wrote:

Judges are required to recuse themselves in certain situations. Corporate board-members are "conflicted out of" voting on issues where they have a personal stake. Surgeons are typically not allowed to operate on family members. Congress has enough ethics rules to fill a dozen volumes. This is more of that.

Pro-lifers have a conflict of interest when it concerns laws regarding abortion. They are prejudiced against one side and should recuse themselves from the debate. See how easy it is?

Oh, and you have done no research to see in abortion clinic have the same rules about conflicts of interest and I think they do because they will be licensed under the same laws as the doctors above.

You just want to believe that the heartless abortion clinic worker would decide to pimp out a close friend so a clinic could make more money. By that logic abortion clinic should refuse to provide birth control supplies and education because it will only lower their "client base".

Psudo wrote:

You don't know that. People sell out their friends sometimes. Even if you're right, possible unemployment is an issue of personal feelings for Jamie.

No YOU don't know that. In order for you to justify your law you have to have the worst opinion of abortion providers possible.

Psudo wrote:

That was nowhere near the worst position. A far worse position would be a doctor claiming the fetus was medically doomed when it was perfectly healthy.

Ever hear of medical records? Second opinions? They find cases of malpractice years after the fact. If the doctor can determine that, then he'll obviously have records and thus can be policed. What about the abortion doctors working under your law who need to keep working to justify his salary or position in a clinic? If demand drops below a certain number of patients per week then he'll be terminated and the clinic will simply refer patients elsewhere. Same thing.

Psudo wrote:

I intentionally avoided such radical, conspiratorial thinking and gave the story of basically good people doing basically normal things.

yes, becasue its normal for women to tell their friends to get abortion so they can profit.

Psudo wrote:

You don't have to be some kind of evil, criminal, malicious person to succumb to a conflict of interest. We all face them.

Yes but we don't demand everybody suffer unreasonably because of it.

Psudo wrote:

If you object to the worst case being portrayed as typical, stop using that tactic in characterizing pro-lifers and other right-wingers. Not every pro-life protest is a violent riot. Not every crisis pregnancy center is an abusive coercion center. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

Every pro-life protest is designed to influence women to avoid that choice. Every crisis pregnancy center refuses to refer women to abortion clinics and brings exceedingly more pressure to bear on pregnant women to choose any option but abortion.

Psudo wrote:

If that happened, the bill would have been a failure. If I thought that outcome were likely I would oppose the bill. I find it unbelievable that a woman who desperately wants an abortion could not get a perfectly legal one anywhere in the country unless she were physically restrained.

I find it unbelievable that a women who didn't truly want an abortion can be influenced in the manner you say. I find it very believable that a women can be terrified into not getting an abortion by the crisis pregnancy center threatening to make her intentions publicly known and advertised kinda like this (although as an after event) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... &TEMPLATE=

Again, the threshold for the kind of influence you claim is so exceedingly low you can't see how it doesn't happen daily.

Psudo wrote:

I want them to still profit, just not from abortions. If a woman visits a clinic seven times and only one of them is an abortion procedure, I want the clinic to get a profit six of those times. I'm not trying to shut down the clinic or prevent profit generally.

Except (as I keep explaining to you ..... patiently) all 6 of those visits she was seen by staff who provide a service the clinic can profit on and in the seventh visit they see no profit so therefore they stop offering that service. No matter how you look at it, there is no reason for a clinic to offer services they won't profit from. They'll no longer offer abortion services and instead focus entirely on the services they provided in the other 6 visits.

On top of all this is the unequivocal fact that you have no right telling a qualified and honest abortion specialist who makes their money performing abortions that you demand he earn no profit for his troubles just because you have a moral problem with his services.

I have nullified each and every single one of your points. Your law will either be ineffective at its goal and at worst do harm to honest providers and work to decrease their number.

[Psudo]

DerbyX wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Pro-choice is not compromise between itself and anything else.

Yes, actually it is. In fact it is the compromise between pro-life [and] pro-abort

I said pro-choice is not compromise between pro-choice and anything else. Prove comprehension and we'll talk again.

[DerbyX]

Psudo wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Pro-choice is not compromise between itself and anything else.

Yes, actually it is. In fact it is the compromise between pro-life [and] pro-abort

I said pro-choice is not compromise between pro-choice and anything else. Prove comprehension and we'll talk again.

We don't need to. I've defeated all your points. As I said, you keep expecting pro-choice to compromise with pro-life when we view ourselves as the true compromise in the abortion debate. When you put forth legislation that seeks to decrease the abortions you say are influenced AND seeks to ensure women who want them can freely get them then you'll have your compromise.

[ShepherdsDog]

Psudo wrote:

I said pro-choice is not compromise between pro-choice and anything else. Prove comprehension and we'll talk again.

It is and it isn't, because there are many people who are pro choice who would never choose abortion, yet they would not deny someone else the right to choose this course.

[Murray_Smith]

Pro-choice and pro-life are both compromises. Pro-choice is a compromise between being pro-abortion and pro-life. Pro-life is a compromise between pro-choice and anti-abortion. Pro-life is not a compromise between pro-life and anything else. Pro-choice is not a compromise between pro-choice and anything else.

DerbyX wrote:

Nurrey you are being so pathetically predictable.

Of course I am. That is what being logical is. Durrby you are being so inherently ignorant and inconsistent. And, "Nurrey"? Apparently that's some sort of insult. If not, then please learn to spell.

DerbyX wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

DerbyX, you are only hurting your position. I hope you let that sink in. Oh, wait, you won't because you refuse to even consider that some pro-lifers, Psudo included, are willing to compromise. Hell, I don't like the idea of for-profit abortion, and I view life itself as little more than a sustained chain reaction that exists for its own sake.

I have already explained that it isn't a compromise. Its not a compromise when it attacks only one side.

It is a compromise if it outlaws something that both sides agree is bad. I agree with Psudo that people should not profit from abortion.

Quote:

My counter proposal was designed to attack any undue influence yet he refused to consider that because he thinks the influence being generated is akin to that of selling goods.

Your counter-proposal needs to define the term "undue influence" in order for it to be meaningful. If you define it only as "influence for the woman to maintain her pregnancy", then you are not being pro-choice, only pro-abortion.

And, yes, one could legally define abortion as a service, and as such can theoretically be sold. I could think of a dozen different ways a woman can be pressured into getting an abortion. Psudo went so far as to name some of those ways in his response to herbie.

DerbyX wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

I study mathematics, and while Psudo actually takes the time to crunch numbers and link to sauces, you have done almost nothing but repeat the same tired (but true) pro-choice rhetoric. I'll bet a couple of loonies that you think I'm pro-life just for agreeing with Psudo against you.

It turned out I was completely correct about him too. His so called math proof was simply not evidence of wrong doing and can be used to support just about any argument under the sun as I showed.

You are being extremely naïve if you think that 100% of clinics are 100% honest, 100% of the time. Psudo wants to minimize dishonesty. I agree with him.

Psudo used numbers to show that even assuming there was a .1% chance that a given clinic was being corrupt, there is a near 100% chance that some clinic is corrupt. He used accepted mathematical logic to reach his conclusion.

DerbyX wrote:

On the contrary though I took the time to actually explain to him why his proposal was deeply flawed and that it only served to attack the honest ones while leaving the dishonest ones to get around it.

You, by contrast, stated that you could justify shooting anyone by noting that you didn't know whether that person would try to kill you at some point in the future.

HERE IS WHERE YOUR ANALOGY FAILS; PAY ATTENTION: You didn't use any numbers whatsoever to support your case. Professionals almost always treat sufficiently small numbers (e.g., the chances of the person you killed killing you otherwise) as being equal to 0.

Also, a court of law is not a session of legislature. The prosecution requires a burden of proof, whereas a legislator passing a law requires little more than a feeling in his gut and an ability to sway others. Remember this?

Psudo wrote:

Deciding what should be illegal has a much more lenient standard of proof than convicting specific perpetrators of specific crimes in a court of law. Haven't you ever seen one of those websites that list stupid laws? It's illegal to see a UFO in Connecticut. In British Columbia, it's illegal to kill a sasquatch. What standard of proof did they use before passing those laws? Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure I've met it plus some. [emphasis added]

DerbyX wrote:

ON the other had he and you simply dismissed all my arguments under a blanket "he doesn't agree with me so therefore he is being unreasonable", ironically showing you to be the unreasonable ones.

That's exactly what I'm saying about you.

DerbyX wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

Yeah, that's kinda the definition of "pro-life".

Hence I was right about him and his position not being an actual compromise.

So, by definition, all pro-lifers are uninterested in compromise? Nonsense. Many of them see the current set of U.S. laws as a compromise, and are okay as long as they don't change. You see your own position as a compromise. What disallows the pro-lifers from seeing their position the same way?

DerbyX wrote:

It isn't a position designed to find a solution but a position designed to narrowly attack one side of the issue. Once again, he is not concerned with any amount of undue influence and pressure against abortion.

This is because almost no one ever makes money off of that influence.

DerbyX wrote:

Middle ground would be a willingness to eliminate all pressure on the women but he won't support that.

That is because it is impossible. Case in point: There is no law (nor should there be) preventing family members from voicing their opinions, either for or against. Additionally, would you disagree that there may be more pressure on a woman to get an abortion (or not) simply by virtue of where she lives? You say you want to reach a middle ground, yet the middle ground you propose is unfeasible.

DerbyX wrote:

He supports only a law designed to hurt one side of the debate and you think that any unwillingness to accept this is being unreasonable.

The only people this law would directly hurt are people who profit from abortion and coerce women into abortions in order to keep a larger margin than they would otherwise.

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR THOSE SKIMMING MY POSTS
Psudo and I agree on four key points:
1. A minority of clinics (close to 0%) participate in this kind of behavior.
2. Irregardless of whether this behavior actually occurs, it is unethical.
3. Laws have been passed before with flimsier causes than the above two points.
4. "Irregardless" is not a word; I should have used "regardless" in point #2.

DerbyX wrote:

Says it all about you pal.

Indeed!

DerbyX wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

The fact that you demonize any pro-life opinion as much as you do should show you how you are just as closed-minded as you claim Psudo to be.

On the contrary, being pro-choice is entirely open-minded.

I said you were being closed-minded because you refused to believe that a pro-life person was open for compromise. I said nothing about your position being closed-minded.

DerbyX wrote:

I accept that it is their choice whatever they decide and not mine. That is not what the pro-lifers are about. They feel they have the right to decide for a womern. Not even close to the same thing.

The more reasonable pro-lifers out there (like Psudo) understand that it is ultimately up to the womern to decide for herself, but consider the preservation of life to be of top priority.

What I just did there is something called, "Understanding where the other side is coming from." You would do well to emulate that, as understanding does not necessitate agreement.

DerbyX wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

I am amazed that a Republican from Utah has the more open mind in this debate.

That is because you have a close-minded opinion on the debate.

If you had read my opinion on life itself (quoted near the top of this post), you would not say that.

DerbyX wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

It is blindingly obvious that you only read up until the first pair of dashes. Psudo (I assume) considers it unethical for a woman to be talked out of abortion in extreme cases (rape, incest, preservation of mom's life/reproductive health). Psudo understands that a sweeping ban on all abortion would be extremely counter-productive.

It is blindingly obvious you are making no attempt to even read what is written. Psudo made no such statement that talking a women out of abortion is unethical.

Psudo confirmed that my assumptions were correct, which is effectively the same thing.

In my opinion, convincing a woman not to abort is unethical only if it would jeopardize the mother's health.

DerbyX wrote:

In fact he has resisted the obvious common ground attacking pressure either way because that will eliminate the coercive tactics that I referenced.

No, he rejected your "common ground" on the grounds that it is not feasible. Psudo understands that there will still be coercion for a womern to get an abortion (or not). All he's proposing is to take away the motive of profit concerning coercion towards termination. If there were a similar motive of profit concerning coercion against termination, I would like to think Psudo would have addressed it.

DerbyX wrote:

He hasn't condemned any of them and in short would agree that talking a women out of abortion is the moral thing to do.

Only when it does not endanger the mother's health; PAY ATTENTION.

DerbyX wrote:

That is why there is no middle ground approach to his tactics. He considers the very thing he accuses abortion providers are doing to influence for abortion is exactly what should be done to prevent abortions in almost all cases.

So what if he understands a sweeping ban wouldn't work. Clearly his proposal still heaps all the blame and responsibility on one side. That is not middle ground.

There is a very real difference between removing one possible motive, and "heaping blame".

DerbyX wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

Honestly, it's like you're trolling him.

No, you are trolling me. I have explained in detail my reasons for disagreeing with his proposal and he and you consider that fact to be I'm the unreasonable one. Either [that, or] I agree with the unproven accusation he leveled at abortion providers and agree that morally we should try and erase any profit because its wrong.

In a way, I am trolling you, because when you and Psudo argue about something, you arehell-bent on proving him wrong about whatever he's talking about, and you stubbornly stick to whatever talking-points, even as other liberals disassociate from your side of the argument.

DerbyX wrote:

Hell you completely missed the fact I said that even if I agreed with his premise I'd still find his proposal deeply flawed and explained why.

I have no trouble re-explaining to you that the passage of a law requires no burden of proof. I'd like to see the part where you hypothetically agreed with him, because you go out of your way not to.

DerbyX wrote:

I have in fact explained each and every point I've made and all he has done is grow increasingly shrill because I won't simply agree with him.

You are the one being shrill. Psudo's been playing a solid defense this whole time.

DerbyX wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

You are far more of a bigot than Psudo. But then, all teenagers are. You'll grow out of it.

See, trolling.

It's true. All I have to do is agree with Psudo, and you're all over me like a coked-up badger.

DerbyX wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

Satan on toast. You go from "X never happens" to "You can't prove X happens" to "Statistics doesn't prove anything about X" to "I think laws require a burden of proof despite numerous counterexamples".

DerbyX, you simply aren't being logical here.

Bolloxs. I'm saying he hasn't proven X happens, not he can't.

He hasn't proven X happens because he doesn't need to. He wants to pass a hypothetical law, not prove something in court. The former requires ZERO PROOF TO DO. The latter requires a standard of proof that is roughly, "Convince twelve laypeople, or one very competent lawyer, that a specific person/entity did something wrong."

DerbyX wrote:

Understand the difference sunshine? Your failure to grasp basic concepts is not my problem.

Yes, call me by a diminutive nickname. That will certainly convince me that you are correct.

DerbyX wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

You expect me to comb through thirteen pages of your tripe just to find your alternative? At least Psudo has the roddamn common courtesy to link to his older posts.

I didn't expect you to do anything moron, it wasn't posted to you but I'll answer anyway. If you expect to jump in at this stage then yes I expect you to read the debate (and it is present you didn't judging by your narrow-minded responses). In fact I repeated my alternative was to make laws preventing undue pressure and influence illegal but I guess you missed that.

I missed the part where you defined "undue influence". Before you say, "Look it up, [petty namecall]," understand that anyone who knows anything about legislation will tell you that it is not that simple. Depending on how one defines undue influence, we could have a law whose scope is far too broad to enforce or too narrow to be relevant.

DerbyX wrote:

The problem is here sunshine is that psudos opinion on the "pressure" to get abortion is so broad and vague it becomes impossible to show otherwise (like convincing conspiracy nuts). He used the term "coerce" until I showed him that there were actual laws against this. He downgraded it to "talking a women into it" and I countered that by explaining that the various support they offer women does not constitute talking a women into it.

You are confusing the people in the system for the system itself.

DerbyX wrote:

He then tried a ridiculous advertising theory in that women are being subtly influenced to get abortions, yet again something he offers no evidence for.

It wasn't an advertising theory; PAY ATTENTION. People can be influenced by as something as simple as a counselor using certain words and phrases.

DerbyX wrote:

Again, we can see the pro-life side owns that part of it. They have graphic signs depicting aborted fetuses all over. The mantra "abortion is murder" is repeated ad nauseum. They hold constant protests and have to be legally preventing from physically preventing women going into abortion clinics.

Pro-lifers don't make a dime holding these protests. They do that out of what they genuinely believe to be the goodness of their hearts. I admire their resolve, but find it thoroughly misplaced.

DerbyX wrote:

They use the worst in coercive tactics yet Psudo claims that somehow throughout all of that women are being cruelly convinced to get abortions? How?

The parents and the baby-daddy can have influence in more than one direction.

DerbyX wrote:

Are there "choose abortion" signs? Do we hold "get abortions now" rallys? Nope. At best there are ads promoting the fact they do actually perform abortion services.

You're distracting from the argument by ridiculing an extreme version of what Psudo claims. And you wonder why I side with the Republican here.

DerbyX wrote:

In fact the point that abortion providers seek to hammer home is that it is the womerns choice.

And you think that they are incapable of hypocrisy? I dare you to make less sense.

DerbyX wrote:

From all that he thinks it is perfectly fair to deny any ability to profit because he thinks that somehow somewhere a women who didn't really want an abortion (yet went to the clinic anyway) was convinced to get one no different then a salesman getting you to purchase options you didn't really want.

And you think that's never happened? Even if you are right, the fact that it almost certainly happens some of the time (the chance that it never happens is well within most margins of error) is more than enough reason to make it illegal to profit from abortion.

DerbyX wrote:

All of this ignores the fact that a large % [specific number?] of abortions are being done by non-profit groups and that the ones that really profit are the ones that would profit more if the women decides to keep the baby and receive longer care.

Not if their sole for-profit service is abortion.

DerbyX wrote:

Yet, I'm unreasonable because I won't agree with that BS.

You're unreasonable because you aren't interested in any agreement. You have proven, time and time again, that you do not read the posts of people you disagree with. Instead you defer to talking points and demonization because Psudo dares identify as a pro-lifer. You have put so many words into Psudo's mouth it's like you're arguing with yourself. Your arguments are steeped in fallacies: ad hominem, ad misercordiam, ad populum, non sequitur, ad ridiculum, hasty generalization, and more straw men than a scarecrow convention. You're being unreasonable because this issue has more room for compromise than you want to think it does.

DerbyX wrote:

Psudo wrote:

I said pro-choice is not compromise between pro-choice and anything else. Prove comprehension and we'll talk again.

We don't need to. I've defeated all your points.

You haven't defeated diddly.

Quote:

As I said, you keep expecting pro-choice to compromise with pro-life when we view ourselves as the true compromise in the abortion debate.

That is a biased opinion and you damn well know it.

Pro-lifers view themselves as the true compromise between whether abortion should even exist. "Pro-life" means that life is the preferable option. I know you would call that biased; how is what you said any different?

DerbyX wrote:

When you put forth legislation that seeks to decrease the abortions you say are influenced AND seeks to ensure women who want them can freely get them then you'll have your compromise.

That is exactly what his proposal does. PAY ATTENTION.