Abortion

[palerider]

Pale, Have you ever wondered why we have not been persuaded, and why we have not shifted to your POV, if your POV is so rock solid?

The first thing I notice in your statements is that you have no confidence at all in your ability to defend your position. This is evidenced by your repeated use of the pronoun "we" as if everyone who holds to an invalid position does so for the same reason.

I beleive that you have not changed your position because you are not a thinking person. You hold your position as an article of faith. You present no evidence to either support your position or rebutt mine. You simply hold on without regard to any evidence put before you or any evidence that your statements in support of your position represent logical fallacy. That is not the action of a thinking person.

A thinking person will attempt all manner of ploys to defend a position even if it isn't supported by the facts and depending on how intellecutally honest they are and how much of a thinker they are vs how much of an emotionalist they are will eventually come round to accept the facts and modify thier position to reflect the facts.

The fact we have not done so should tell you something. If you think your arguments are so undeniable, then tell us why you think you appeals have been so futile.

It tells me a great deal, but the arguments that each of you put forward in defense of your position tells me a different thing about your thinking process. Top gun, for instance is a thinker, but his thinking self is vastly outweiged by his emotional self. He recognizes that he is unable to argue against the facts so his arguments have become restricted to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. You, on the other hand defend your failure to accept the facts by pretending that everyone who hasn't come around does so for the same reason in an attempt to save your individual reasons for being exposed.

The only rational reason for rejecting an argument for a differing positon and holding to your own is the ability to present a greater body of evidence in support of your own position. Clearly, neither you nor any of your pro choce compadres have done that so none of your reasons for remaining pro choice, as varied as they may be are rational.

That ought to be interesting.

Interested?

 

[palerider]

An evolution denier as well? Pale, you amaze me. ALL FOSSILS ARE TRANSITIONAL.

I suggest that you learn something about palentology. If your skeleton exists in a million or so years as a fossil and it is dug up, are you suggesting that you would be a transitional fossil? Exactly what sort of transitional creature are you? Your DNA says flatly that you are a human being and not some sort of hybrid.

By the way, I deny nothing. I merely pointed out that no transitional fossils have been found to illustrate that your logical fallacy (red herring) was wrapped in another logical fallacy in that you had to beg the question to make it work.

If you aren't up to speed on a subject, it might be a good idea to do a bit of research (credible sources) before attempting to argue it.

In any event, this line of thought represents nothing more than a red herring as it has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

 

[palerider]

One needs not defend after they have won. The highest court in the land heard both side clearly and decided this case 4 decades ago. And as you've mumbled & fumbled I've personally told you for 3 years now... women will not ever be forced back to the hanger nor the alley.

But you have not won. So long as the court can reverse itself, you have not won. The court has reversed itself some 200 times since its inception and the bulk of those reversals happened after a case had stood for far longer than roe.

Further, you can not rationally defend the decision any more than the court could. The court decided roe based on an assumption and they admitted it. In addition, the majority acknowledged that should their assumption be proven wrong, that roe must be struck down as unconstituional.

And no... I just want the Creeper arrested legally. If I killed people just because I didn't like them I'd be one of your compadres. And that's never happing!

So you want them to be denied thier constitutional right to peacefull protest.

Personally, I want to see roe overturned by legal means. People on both sides resort to violence and if you do a thorough analysis of the facts, you will find that it is the pro choice crowd that resorts to violence far more often than the anti abortion side. Protestors are regularly physically assaulted, run over on the sidewalk, and scattered by people attempting to run over them. Arson is a regular event perpetrated by pro choicers very often burning churches where anti abortion meetings are being held.

The fact is that if I were to turn to violence, then I would be like one of your compadres. And that is never happening.

And no again... It's well documented that I want every woman FREE to be able to choose to make her own decision. I have no say in the matter whatsoever... and that's as it should be.

Do you also believe that husbands should be able to choose to make their own decisions with regard to beating their wives or abusing their children? You seem to be under the impression that one should be able to disregard the inherent human rights of another and take any action they want so long as they call it a choice?

If you support allowing anyone to choose to do anything then while you are wrong, at least you are consistent. You however are not consistent. You only want choice in this particular matter even though you can't rationally defend that want.

That's the difference between your side and mine. You want to impose your will on others... and I and the Supreme Court of the United States say NO!

 

[palerider]

So you maintain that Pro-abortion suporters are all stupid, irreponsible, childish or evil?

That's exactly the sort of response I would expect from the likes of you, Bobby.

And you continue to make absolutely no defense of your position because it would involve standing alone and pitting your idea against someone else's idea and taking the risk that the reasoning behind your position would be found wanting. Exactly the sort of response I predicted from you.

 

[palerider]

A minor question. How many people have you ever seen persuaded on anything on this board, or any other board? I can recall few such events. A handful, if that many. I have seen people sometimes reach some temporary rapport on their ideological or theological disagreements, but even those are rare events.

Not too many people involved in arguments will admit to being wrong and publicly alter their stance. There just aren't that many intellectually honest people out there. Coyote did it and I commend her intellect and integrity for doing so. There are, however, quite a few people who are swayed. They are for the most part, people who never engage in the discussions. I average about 7 or 8 private messages per year on this board and others from people who read the arguments and come down on the side of anti abortion.

They see pro choice arguments exposed as logical fallacies, half truths, misdirections, misinformation, and just plain lies and having never publicly expressed an opinion are not under any emotional pressure to hold a position out of pride. I argue as much, and perhaps more for those who just read as for those whom I am arguing against. There is a reason that the US is becoming more and more anti abortion. The truth is getting out and the internet is a great dissiminator of information. A large number of people read your weak arguments and see that you make no attempt to rationally defend your position. They see that you are unable to present any fact at all to support your arguments and it has an effect. Probably a great deal more than you have ever considered.

So what do we accomplish on these boards? We air our opinions, and see how they fly. We communicate, somewhat more openly and honestly than we do in our usual public discourse with other people, even if still limited somewhat by the rules of the forums. We get an opportunity to talk more frankly than usual to people we disagree with in every way, and to see who our allies, are and what their opinions are on subjects of interest to us.

And other people read it and weigh one argument against the other and make decisions. It doesn't really matter to me that you are not intellectually mature enough to accept the facts and alter your position to accept them so long as there is the possibility that someone who is more mature can examine our exchange and see that you hold your position as a matter of faith while I hold my position because I was brought to it by a perponderance of the facts.

 

[palerider]

A conception is not a child. Not until quickening, if then.

Of course it is a child. A child, by defninition is an immature human being and even federal law recognizes an unborn, at any stage of development as a child. I wholeheartedly welcome and encourage you to provide some credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything other than a human being.

Again, you beg the question and make assumptions rather than present fact to support your position.

Why do women have abortions? Do you have any ideas, other than your seemingly deep-seated misogyny, as to why they do?

The vast vast vast majority have abortions for reasons of convenience. Two percent or less have abortions for rational reasons. Before you start, killing for convenience is not rational. So we don't have any misuderstandings, here is how the dictionary defines convenience:

convenience - n . 1. the quality of being convenient.
2. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc.
3. a convenient situation or time.
4. advantage or accommodation.

Now I welcome you to describe a situation in which a woman's life or long term health is not in danger that does not meet the definition of convenience.

 

[palerider]

AH! I thought it was a pre-emptive "what about rape" question to beat the Obliviots to the punch.

Just curious; can you (or pandora who seems to be of the same mind) offer up a rational argument in support of killing a child for the crime of its father? I mean, a child of rape is no less human, and no less deserving of having its inherent human rights protected than any other child.

I always ask whenever an anti abortion sort makes an exception for rape. To date, I have not heard a rational argument in support of killing a child for the crime of its father.

 

[palerider]

I think what I like most about our pale friend is that he isn't so broadminded that he can't see things from his own perspective. He is correct and everyone else is wrong no matter what.

translation = our pale friend isn't willing to disregard fact in favor of fantasy when it comes to protecting human rights.

All you need to do to prove me wrong mare is provide a body of fact that outweighs the very credible materials that I have provided over the years. To date, you have provided nothing more than your opinion to counter references from medical school textbooks, white papers, respected medical journals, and statements by leaders in the fields of embryology, genetics, obstetrics, fetology, etc.

It isn't that I am simply stating that you and yours are wrong. You prove that you are wrong every day by your inability to provide a single bit of substantial, credible evidence to support your argument.

 

[palerider]

Would it make things better for you if everyone who supports women being allowed to own their bodies was to agree with you in the bolded part of the paragraph above?

That is a statement that I couldn't argue with. At least it is honest. Of course anyone who makes such a statement is openly admitting that they are a sociopath but that is a discussion for another subject, not abortion.

What if they agree that women are more important that fetuses. Thus the woman gets to decide the fate of the fetus inside her body. Would that kind of straight forward version of honesty make you feel better?

That, in an of itself is a logical fallacy. It begs the question and simply assumes that one human being's life is more important than another human being's life. Can you prove that to be fact? Or is it simply more unsupported, unsubstantiated opinion?

...but I disagree with you in that I don't feel that I have the right to tell all the other women of the world how they have to behave--no matter how strongly I feel about the subject.

Do you feel that you have the right to tell husbands that they may not abuse their wives or children simply because they are larger and stronger? Do you feel that you have the right to tell others that they may not drive at a high rate of speed through school zones when children are present? Do you feel that you have the right to tell one individual that they may not simply help themselves to the belongings of another individual? Do you feel that you have the right to tell a man with power issues that he may not have sex with a woman against her will in order to satisfy his own need?

Depending on how you answer, you either have no actual problem with telling people how they must behave which invalidates your argument or you are a sociopath in which case your argument has no meaning anyway.

You have an adamantine position that brooks no examination, you take a god-like position announcing to the whole world that PALE is correct and everyone had best toe the line. My ego isn't that big. Yours apparently is.

I have a position based solidly in the facts and am willing to put it to the test every time I voice it. The fact that no one presents any fact to rebutt or counter my argument is examination enough. If you provided clear and credible evidence that unborns are less human, or less alive than you or I, then I would need to thoroughly examine the evidence you presented against the evidence that I have presented. There is, however, no need to examine your unsubstantiated opinion against hard fact. There is nothing to be gained by that at all and it has nothng at all to do with ego and everything to do with your inability to adequately defend your argument or your position.

 

[palerider]

You are completely the old fashioned sexist male, aren't you? An embryo is not yet a someone.

More logical fallacy. Again you beg the question and simply assume that unborns are not yet someone. Someone is defined as "a human individual". Can you provide any credible proof that an unborn is something other than a human individual?

It seems that your entire postion is founded firmly in logical fallacy and untruth. I see why you might be unwilling to test yourself openly and individually in the arena of ideas.

 

[palerider]

One last thing, don't underestimate your ego, it's frickin' HUGE!

You got that dead on right. Anyone who believes that they are right in the face of an overwhelming mountain of hard, credible science that states explicitly that they are wrong is by definition either a drooling cretin or a meglomaniac.

 

[top gun]

It's all the woman's responsibility? Oh come on.

I guess you were never young, and always behaved responsibly.

A conception is not a child. Not until quickening, if then.

Why do women have abortions? Do you have any ideas, other than your seemingly deep-seated misogyny, as to why they do?

What is this nonsense about 'innocence'? Is it wrong to be an adult? Is sex evil? Your attitudes seem to be medieval.

Not only has Bob evidently never been young, I'm going to go waaay out on a limb here...

He's never been raped...

He's never had incest forced on him...

He's never had a life/death/or major health condition that some stranger tried to prevent him from addressing...

He's never been forced to raise a severely retarded or handicapped child...

Hell... he's never been forced against his will to even have a child!

Thankfully this women's reproductive rights issue was settled correctly after full deliberation by THE COURT OF LAST RESORT in a reasonable manor by reasonable justices 4 decades ago.

When you look at the make up of the Anti-Choice crowd as a whole you'll notice a few glaring things. As much as they rant often from some holier than thou perspective they're not pushing for:

more sex education, more medical research money for birth control, more easily assessable and cheaper birth control products, more money for ADC, more money for WIC, more money for childcare services, on & on & on....

Basically if it helps prevent pregnancy or helps give children any support services so women had a fighting chance & help in raising families alone they're "agin it!"

Bottom line: Women can abort anytime they choose legal or illegal because someone else cannot control the bodily functions of another. Abortion has ALWAYS happened all throughout the beginning of time.

Women being forced again to jam coat hangers into themselves, throw themselves down a flight of steps or drink drain cleaner to miscarry or have to go with some non-sterile back ally or back car seat abortion would not only be wrong it solved no problem whatsoever and stopped abortion in no way.

The Anti-Choice crowd is looking for vengeance not a solution. They see criminalizing women or killing women that have abortions as some kind of sick pay back.

There's too many women voters and men that love them. I'm a father of 2 daughters so I know. Anyone believing that they can now put this genie back in the bottle is simply wasting a lot of time that could be spent more productively actually trying to help prevent abortions.

Women are not going to be forced back 4 decades in their reproductive rights and control over what transpires inside their own personal body.

I, nor you, nor Bob, nor the government should decide. It's the individual woman in the actual circumstance that must be left with the burden to decided.

 

[dahermit]

Obviously we're not talking about rape cases Pandora, but then again in the case of a rape, when the woman goes to the hospital for treatment the physician can give her RU-486, or in cases where RU-486 is not available a D&C can be performed, and in either case pregnancy does not occur, so in reality it's a non-issue.

I am surprised that no one has corrected poor Bob on this...

Bob, Bob, Bob, RU-486 is the abortion pill. A D&C terminates a pregnancy.

If conception (pregnancy) has not occurred, there would be no reason to take that pill or have a D&C. They are both abortions.

 

[top gun]

I am surprised that no one has corrected poor Bob on this...

Bob, Bob, Bob, RU-486 is the abortion pill. A D&C terminates a pregnancy.

If conception (pregnancy) has not occurred, there would be no reason to take that pill or have a D&C. They are both abortions.

Not only that but even today's safe and effective REGULAR Birth Control Pill often causes abortions. The egg is already fertilized but the Pill contaminates the womb so it cannot implant hence flushing (aborting) it.

But this would be the next illogical next step for the Anti-Choice crowd.

Criminalize women first and dictate by law what someone else tells them they must carry inside their body and then go back to microscopic 2 cell events and try to outlaw the Birth Control Pill.

It's a very misguided Sharia Law group.

 

[top gun]

But you have not won. So long as the court can reverse itself, you have not won. The court has reversed itself some 200 times since its inception and the bulk of those reversals happened after a case had stood for far longer than roe.

This case has been decided and not only will it not be overturned... hasn't been overturned in 4 decades under both Liberal & Conservative administrations but there's the final trump card always available to women.

A Constitutional Amendment. This is exactly why the Republicants talk about abortion for the benefit of their extremists but really do nothing. They fully know that the second anyone touched Roe that would be the death-nail for supporting politicians to not get re-elected. The other side would rally on the basis of they are taking away your reproductive rights and an Amendment would quickly be brought forward and passed. At the longest overturning Roe could only last until the end of whatever current election cycle was at hand.

So you want them to be denied thier constitutional right to peacefull protest.

I want Domestic Terrorist groups arrested... I want the FACE ACT fully and aggressively enforced.

Personally, I want to see roe overturned by legal means. People on both sides resort to violence and if you do a thorough analysis of the facts, you will find that it is the pro choice crowd that resorts to violence far more often than the anti abortion side. Protestors are regularly physically assaulted, run over on the sidewalk, and scattered by people attempting to run over them. Arson is a regular event perpetrated by pro choicers very often burning churches where anti abortion meetings are being held.

Well Mr. clinic creeper let me tell ya I have family that has to deal with your ilk. My wife's niece would much rather be anywhere else but she volunteers simply because you guys are DOCTOR MURDERING, CLINIC VANDALIZING & BOMBING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.

And if having to go out in groups to shelter some poor and distrested young lady or woman from you nutbags sometimes having to push them away as they try and block legal access is "violence" being committed by women's clinic protection volunteers... yes please, sign me up!

Do you also believe that husbands should be able to choose to make their own decisions with regard to beating their wives or abusing their children? You seem to be under the impression that one should be able to disregard the inherent human rights of another and take any action they want so long as they call it a choice?

If their wives or children are taking up space inside their own personal body against their will or health, yes.