NationStates Jolt Archive

Please explain to me:

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?

How can Conservatives want to destroy Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, and Public Education, but then call it "Reform"?

How can politicians call themselves "Evangelicals" or the "Religious Right", but then be pro-Christian and anti-Muslim?

How can Conservatives think it's wrong for a person to die if their husband wants it, but it's okay for a person to die if they can't afford it (Bush's Texas bill in 1999)? Is "the right to life" a luxury that only the rich can have? Does Bush only "err on the side of life" if the person can afford it?

How can Conservatives defend Schiavo so fiercely, by giving her special legislation and protesting, but when there was an identical case, five years ago, no one mentioned it or cared? Are uber-Christians "better" than others, and do you have to see something on Fox news for it to be important?

How can Conservatives want our schools to be safe, but then want to turn them into a war-zone, by fully arming all of our teachers? Why don't they propose allowing guns into the Post Office too?

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?

How can Conservatives say "every politician puts out propaganda", but then claim their party isn't a bunch of liars?

How can they claim to be pro-American, but then hate so many people in their country, who just want the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what our country was founded upon?

This is why both liberal and conservative ideology stink - go libertarian, the only ideology that wants maximum freedom period

This is why both liberal and conservative ideology stink - go libertarian, the only ideology that wants maximum freedom period
aka "Anarchism"

hello, mr. unabomber.

The only thing that I understand from both of these threads is that neither Liberals nor Conservatives can spell "Hypocrisy".

Sorry. Just a passing observation.

Conservatives are much like liberals in that they are only human. Expecting consitency from humans is like expecting nature to be lovely: sometimes it's there, sometimes it isn't.

aka "Anarchism"
hello, mr. unabomber.
Umm libertarianism isn't anarchy. When will you learn this? Oh, and libertarians aren't the technophobes that the unabomber was. Not to mention we're against killing people like he did

How can liberals be anti-war and pro-abortion? :eek:

aka "Anarchism"

hello, mr. unabomber.
You honestly think that libertarianism=anarchism, you liberal ideologue. I see a pattern in all your threads.

How can liberals be anti-war and pro-abortion? :eek:

By actually looking at what does harm ?

Abortion: you end the foetus life before it has begun. Without a neural net it has had no experiences - so for the early foetus itself there is no difference between being aborted and never being concieved. The mother otoh that really wants an abortion would be harmed by denying her this.
Conclusion: abortion of foetusses in early stages of pregnancy harms no-one directly. Not allowing abortion harms the mother. Therefor one should be pro-choice.

Anti-war: people die in a war. Those people have had experiences, hopes and dreams, friends and family. Unless they were depressed killing them is therefor placing them in a worse position then they occupied before the event: which is harming them.
Conclusion: war harms people directly. It may benefit more people, but one should not go to war lightly.

By actually looking at what does harm ?

Abortion: you end the foetus life before it has begun. Without a neural net it has had no experiences - so for the early foetus itself there is no difference between being aborted and never being concieved. The mother otoh that really wants an abortion would be harmed by denying her this.
Conclusion: abortion of foetusses in early stages of pregnancy in harms no-one directly. Not allowing abortion harms the mother. Therefor one should be pro-choice.

And having an abortion harms the mother too. Not all abortions was because the mother was in dire medical need of one. It is a "quick fix" however, it is anything but a quick fix. It is very detremental to the mother and can cause depress, suicidal thoughts, and cancer.

Anti-war: people die in a war. Those people have had experiences, hopes and dreams, friends and family. Unless they were depressed killing them is therefor placing them in a worse position then they occupied before the event: which is harming them.

And if anyone is pro-war is an idiot!

Conclusion: war harms people directly. It may benefit more people, but one should not go to war lightly.

agreed!

By actually looking at what does harm ?

Abortion: you end the foetus life before it has begun. Without a neural net it has had no experiences - so for the early foetus itself there is no difference between being aborted and never being concieved. The mother otoh that really wants an abortion would be harmed by denying her this.
Conclusion: abortion of foetusses in early stages of pregnancy harms no-one directly. Not allowing abortion harms the mother. Therefor one should be pro-choice.

Anti-war: people die in a war. Those people have had experiences, hopes and dreams, friends and family. Unless they were depressed killing them is therefor placing them in a worse position then they occupied before the event: which is harming them.
Conclusion: war harms people directly. It may benefit more people, but one should not go to war lightly.
Yep.

And having an abortion harms the mother too. Not all abortions was because the mother was in dire medical need of one. It is a "quick fix" however, it is anything but a quick fix. It is very detremental to the mother and can cause depress, suicidal thoughts, and cancer.

Which is why I said "the mother that really wants". I should perhaps have emphasised the "really" there...

It's not hypocrasy..

Anti-Abortion + Pro-War makes perfect sense.

Why do you want to abort a potential soldier?

Umm libertarianism isn't anarchy. When will you learn this? Oh, and libertarians aren't the technophobes that the unabomber was. Not to mention we're against killing people like he did
True. Libertarianism is often just wacko, though. Open-immigration, legalizing all drugs, not gonna debate here and now, though.

True. Libertarianism is often just wacko, though. Open-immigration, legalizing all drugs, not gonna debate here and now, though.
I made a thread for that.

I made a thread for that.
I saw it.

And if anyone is pro-war is an idiot!
"I am a war President."
-George W. Bush

"I am a war President."

I'm disappointed that he didn't say "I are a war president" :(

I'm disappointed that he didn't say "I are a war president" :(
"I is a war president."

"I am a war President."
-George W. Bush

And we are in a war thus the statement is correct.

How does it make one pro-war? It doesn't. FDR was a war President! Does that make him pro-war too?

And we are in a war thus the statement is correct.

How does it make one pro-war? It doesn't. FDR was a war President! Does that make him pro-war too?

Are you seriously telling the people on these boards that Bush's agenda doesn't include waging war? That for him and his friends war isn't profitable? That the oil and weapons deals don't bring anyone profit?

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?

Conservatives are not *Pro war* in the sense "Lets go look for a fight somewhere, anywhere". But they are prepared to use force, thats the diffrence between Liberals and Consevatives, Liberals dont want to use any force ever. Also, in a democracy where millitary service is volentary it means the people in that army have made a choice where they know it is possible they will die, that is not true of a featus.

Are you seriously telling the people on these boards that Bush's agenda doesn't include waging war? That for him and his friends war isn't profitable? That the oil and weapons deals don't bring anyone profit?

It doesn't include waging war. Companies are being punished for War Profiteering! This was for oil? Proof please?

As for Oil and weapons deals, should ask the French and Russians that. They had deals with Saddam of just that even though it was illegal by UN Resolutions.

Are you seriously telling the people on these boards that Bush's agenda doesn't include waging war?

Yes!
That for him and his friends war isn't profitable?

Since they aren't benefiting, yes! BTW: Did you know that companies that were operating with the Coalition Provisional Authority are being investigated for War Profiteering? You gotta watch the news more.

That the oil and weapons deals don't bring anyone profit?

For France and Russia it was till Saddam was ousted from power. I still wonder if Iraq got their money back for those GPS jammers they bought to protect buildings that were destroyed by GPS guided bombs.

I don't why, but I felt this needed a bump.

Please explain to me:

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?

That vastly over-simplifies the nature of "War" into nothing but a pointless conflict with no goal and that occurs only to test which side has bigger guns and better aim. Seeing as War does have a real goal, often to save lives, the two views are in no way contradictory.

How can Conservatives want to destroy Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, and Public Education, but then call it "Reform"?

Newsflash: They don't wish to destroy, they wish to Reform. Something about getting the money where it needs to be instead of into bloated administration salaries.

How can politicians call themselves "Evangelicals" or the "Religious Right", but then be pro-Christian and anti-Muslim?

They don't call themselves just "Evangelicals" and just "Religious Right" they use the word "Christian" far to much. Sorry, but there is no contradiction.

How can Conservatives think it's wrong for a person to die if their husband wants it, but it's okay for a person to die if they can't afford it (Bush's Texas bill in 1999)? Is "the right to life" a luxury that only the rich can have? Does Bush only "err on the side of life" if the person can afford it?

Right to life is to life that you yourself can provide.

How can Conservatives defend Schiavo so fiercely, by giving her special legislation and protesting, but when there was an identical case, five years ago, no one mentioned it or cared? Are uber-Christians "better" than others, and do you have to see something on Fox news for it to be important?

People have to be made aware of something before they can run up a protest about it.

How can Conservatives want our schools to be safe, but then want to turn them into a war-zone, by fully arming all of our teachers? Why don't they propose allowing guns into the Post Office too?

Eh? You might want to check up on that one seeing as people used to have gun racks in their cars and rifles in their lockers with school shooting teams. Arming teachers, or even students, doesn't turn a school into a war-zone.

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?

Conservatives don't support corporate subsidies. Politicians do. Bloody bastards.

How can Conservatives say "every politician puts out propaganda", but then claim their party isn't a bunch of liars?

They don't. They do on occasion call their own party a bunch of liars.

How can they claim to be pro-American, but then hate so many people in their country, who just want the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what our country was founded upon?

You'll find that the Conservatives don't hate very many people. Indeed it is often the Left that uses the word "hate" quite a bit more than the Right.

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?

Anyone who is pro-war is an idiot! I've stated it before.

How can Conservatives want to destroy Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, and Public Education, but then call it "Reform"?

Becuase it is reform? The systems are outdated and don't take into account the growing life-expectancy. BTW: FDR never intended SS to be a fully government runned program.

How can politicians call themselves "Evangelicals" or the "Religious Right", but then be pro-Christian and anti-Muslim?

Their anti-muslim? Proof please?

How can Conservatives think it's wrong for a person to die if their husband wants it, but it's okay for a person to die if they can't afford it (Bush's Texas bill in 1999)? Is "the right to life" a luxury that only the rich can have? Does Bush only "err on the side of life" if the person can afford it?

That'll be 2001 :rolleyes: You don't even know when the PResident was elected? Doesn't everyone have the right to live?

How can Conservatives defend Schiavo so fiercely, by giving her special legislation and protesting, but when there was an identical case, five years ago, no one mentioned it or cared? Are uber-Christians "better" than others, and do you have to see something on Fox news for it to be important?

Maybe because it wasn't a big newsflash? Terri Shiavo made the news unfortunately. It took up valuable TV time and away from something that took place in Iraq that was even more important. As for the Fox News comment, nope.

How can Conservatives want our schools to be safe, but then want to turn them into a war-zone, by fully arming all of our teachers? Why don't they propose allowing guns into the Post Office too?

Good idea. It'll make the post offices safer but the post offices really don't need protection. The schools do. It is either arm the teachers or have armed security guards.

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?

Somethings do need a government hand? Amtrak is one of them as is the Airline industries (at least recently) Sometimes its necessary to keep the country moving. Socialism controls everything whereas subsidies is lending a helping hand but not controling said industry.

How can Conservatives say "every politician puts out propaganda", but then claim their party isn't a bunch of liars?

Never heard them say that they aren't liars. Proof please?

How can they claim to be pro-American, but then hate so many people in their country, who just want the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what our country was founded upon?

Because many people don't care about it? Also, name me a liberal that wants the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Abortion: you end the foetus life before it has begun. Without a neural net it has had no experiences - so for the early foetus itself there is no difference between being aborted and never being concieved. The mother otoh that really wants an abortion would be harmed by denying her this.
Conclusion: abortion of foetusses in early stages of pregnancy harms no-one directly. Not allowing abortion harms the mother. Therefor one should be pro-choice. What an idiotic statement. How is it that you know when life begins? Hmmm?

Please explain to me:

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?

How can Conservatives want to destroy Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, and Public Education, but then call it "Reform"?

How can politicians call themselves "Evangelicals" or the "Religious Right", but then be pro-Christian and anti-Muslim?

How can Conservatives think it's wrong for a person to die if their husband wants it, but it's okay for a person to die if they can't afford it (Bush's Texas bill in 1999)? Is "the right to life" a luxury that only the rich can have? Does Bush only "err on the side of life" if the person can afford it?

How can Conservatives defend Schiavo so fiercely, by giving her special legislation and protesting, but when there was an identical case, five years ago, no one mentioned it or cared? Are uber-Christians "better" than others, and do you have to see something on Fox news for it to be important?

How can Conservatives want our schools to be safe, but then want to turn them into a war-zone, by fully arming all of our teachers? Why don't they propose allowing guns into the Post Office too?

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?

How can Conservatives say "every politician puts out propaganda", but then claim their party isn't a bunch of liars?

How can they claim to be pro-American, but then hate so many people in their country, who just want the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what our country was founded upon?

i'm totalitarian, and i understand what you mean. all those people you were talking about should die. and i'm also against welfare and healthcare and all that(except public schooling, public schools are much better than private schools cause you get to teach the students into why they should support the government(not the american one)), but my reasoning is entirely different than them, i think that those things should be removed cause if they aren't going to help the government they desearve to die. and since some of you say that those people who need welfare aren't capable, not that they're unwilling, if they aren't capable they're no use to government either. abortion should be illegal unless the person would be threatened by death and would be able to help the government more than if they died. you'd implied too that fox news was republican, well that's cause it's a bad biased news station, the only republican one i know cause the rest of those american ones are all biased towards liberalism and still bad. why don't they just have government controlled news?

Anyone who is pro-war is an idiot! I've stated it before.



Becuase it is reform? The systems are outdated and don't take into account the growing life-expectancy. BTW: FDR never intended SS to be a fully government runned program.


[QUOTE=Corneliu]Their anti-muslim? Proof please?
Freerepublic.com, which is strongly Conservative, has a "religious" section. They have sections for each religion, but in each, there is only Christianity.

If you do some googling, you'll find there are an enormous amount of racial slurs on their website. The racial slurs which is most common, however, is... you've guessed it! Anti-Muslim slurs!
http://www.google.com/search?q=raghead%20site%3Afreerepublic.com
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=towelhead+site%3Afreerepublic.com&btnG=Search

That goes to show you that an overwhelming amount of Conservatives are racist, particularly against Muslims. The owners of FreeRepublic.com could be considered racist, for allowing such flamebaiting material up. I'm not racist, but I mentioned a bunch of racial slurs in one post. It was allowed, but only because of the reasoning I had for it, and because it was clear I'm nto racist. But if I was ACTUALLY racist and kept calling a certain group by a racial slur, I'd certainly be warned and banned by the moderators. Why else would FR allow it, other than that they're racist too?

That'll be 2001 :rolleyes: You don't even know when the PResident was elected? Doesn't everyone have the right to live?
It's amusing when someone who is ignorant rolls their eyes at you.

No, the law he passed was when he was governor of Texas, in 1999. Apparently, you don't watch the news, though, because this was mentioned in several places. They even mentioned it on Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor."

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11195230.htm

Maybe because it wasn't a big newsflash?
Maybe the family weren't Bible-thumpers, so it wouldn't have been useful, politically?

Good idea. It'll make the post offices safer but the post offices really don't need protection. The schools do. It is either arm the teachers or have armed security guards.
Armed security guards are a good idea, but only lethal weaponry. Because they'd be less likely to use lethal weaponry unless they really had to. If you give them tasers or pepper spray, though, they might just go nuts with it and use it, when there's a fight in the lunchroom. In my opinion, schools should have the same security government buildings do. Armed security guards and metal detectors. Arming teachers is idiotic, for the same reason that they don't allow Postal workers to have guns or non-security in airports or government buildings to have guns. When you have armed security, you can do psych evaluations that you don't do with teachers. There's a good chance teachers might go nuts and kill people too (a lot of teachers are disgruntled, remember--high school teaching is can be a pretty shitty job). Plus, even if you did psych evaluations, doing them for all teachers would be more expensive than just doing it with the security.

Somethings do need a government hand? Amtrak is one of them as is the Airline industries (at least recently) Sometimes its necessary to keep the country moving. Socialism controls everything whereas subsidies is lending a helping hand but not controling said industry.
Incorrect. Government subsidies and public education are socialist ideals. You can oppose Pure Socialism, where the government completely controls the economy, but Conservatives have no problem with somewhat regulating the economy, just as a Socialist would.

Never heard them say that they aren't liars. Proof please?
Don't need to. Very rarely, if ever, do you see a Conservative admit most of their politicians are liars. With Bush, for example... Before Iraq, he said we were going to war over WMD's. Now, though, there's been no evidence of WMD's, and now he says, "We went to war to free Iraq." Conservative bought into his bullshit. First he said WMD's, now he says freedom? There's a lot of countries with less civil rights than what the Iraqis had, but we don't go to war with them. The only other reason left, then, is oil.

Because many people don't care about it? Also, name me a liberal that wants the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
:confused:

Many people don't care about the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

Both liberals and conservatives want life, but conservatives say you should have to work for it.

Both liberals and conservatives want liberty, but conservatives say the rich should have more liberty than the poor.

And both liberals and conservatives want happiness, but while conservatives measure happiness with dollar signs, liberals do not.

It's not hypocrasy..

Anti-Abortion + Pro-War makes perfect sense.

Why do you want to abort a potential soldier?
OMG!!!!111!! I like totally see the ligth!n Like...OMG!!!11!! ur SO rite!

*eyeroll* and it's hypocrisy. There is no "A" in it, eh! ^_^

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?

This is the only one that wasn't an outright shit question. If you want to get something accomplished don't aske loaded questions that you actually know the answer too.

This is the only one that wasn't an outright shit question. If you want to get something accomplished don't aske loaded questions that you actually know the answer too.
Hear, hear! *sounds of gracious applause*

Hear, hear! *sounds of gracious applause*

Thank you, thank you.

I really like the quote in your signature, btw.

This is the only one that wasn't an outright shit question. If you want to get something accomplished don't aske loaded questions that you actually know the answer too.
No, you don't ask loaded questions if you want objective answers or the truth. Often, on these forums, when someone makes a post which is outright attacking one group, with loaded questions (or the post is just generally idiotic in nature), a person makes a post opposite of it, sometimes satirical. I simply continued the tradition. Yes, they're loaded questions and "shit questions", but so are the questions in the "Liberal Hypocracy" thread as well.

But regardless--if you look beneath the surface of the loaded questions and try to get at the heart of the issue, you can debate them. Loaded questions require criticism, not a lack of an answer. And since that first post, there have been very many relevant statements made.

Are you seriously telling the people on these boards that Bush's agenda doesn't include waging war? That for him and his friends war isn't profitable? That the oil and weapons deals don't bring anyone profit?

If that was true, he wouldn't embroil himself in a FULL-SCALE WAR, requiring hundreds of thousands of troops. He would intervene in SMaller areas, so he could go to war more often..

Freerepublic.com, which is strongly Conservative, has a "religious" section. They have sections for each religion, but in each, there is only Christianity.

Oh so because Freerepublic only has a Christian in its religious section, Conservatives are anti-muslim? Give me a break.

If you do some googling, you'll find there are an enormous amount of racial slurs on their website. The racial slurs which is most common, however, is... you've guessed it! Anti-Muslim slurs!
http://www.google.com/search?q=raghead%20site%3Afreerepublic.com
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=towelhead+site%3Afreerepublic.com&btnG=Search

See post above.

That goes to show you that an overwhelming amount of Conservatives are racist, particularly against Muslims. The owners of FreeRepublic.com could be considered racist, for allowing such flamebaiting material up. I'm not racist, but I mentioned a bunch of racial slurs in one post. It was allowed, but only because of the reasoning I had for it, and because it was clear I'm nto racist. But if I was ACTUALLY racist and kept calling a certain group by a racial slur, I'd certainly be warned and banned by the moderators. Why else would FR allow it, other than that they're racist too?

Its a website and doesn't contain all conservatives. Some people are idiots and how do you know that all people on there are conservatives? You don't and I highly doubt that they are all conservatives. As for allowing it, because its a free internet?

It's amusing when someone who is ignorant rolls their eyes at you.

Your opinion.

No, the law he passed was when he was governor of Texas, in 1999. Apparently, you don't watch the news, though, because this was mentioned in several places. They even mentioned it on Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor."

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11195230.htm

Ah yes. I did hear about that. BTW: It happened when he was governor and I'm sure that there are other circumstances regarding what the law states. Do you have a full copy of the law? I would like to see it.

Maybe the family weren't Bible-thumpers, so it wouldn't have been useful, politically?

Stop showing your ignorance. It didn't make news because there weren't hundreds of lawsuits. It was the lawsuits that brought the Shiavo case to the forfront.

Armed security guards are a good idea, but only lethal weaponry. Because they'd be less likely to use lethal weaponry unless they really had to. If you give them tasers or pepper spray, though, they might just go nuts with it and use it, when there's a fight in the lunchroom. In my opinion, schools should have the same security government buildings do. Armed security guards and metal detectors. Arming teachers is idiotic, for the same reason that they don't allow Postal workers to have guns or non-security in airports or government buildings to have guns. When you have armed security, you can do psych evaluations that you don't do with teachers. There's a good chance teachers might go nuts and kill people too (a lot of teachers are disgruntled, remember--high school teaching is can be a pretty shitty job). Plus, even if you did psych evaluations, doing them for all teachers would be more expensive than just doing it with the security.

I agree 100%

Incorrect. Government subsidies and public education are socialist ideals. You can oppose Pure Socialism, where the government completely controls the economy, but Conservatives have no problem with somewhat regulating the economy, just as a Socialist would.

Public Education isn't a socialist idea. Neither are government subsidies. I suggest you look them up and prove to me that they are. Also prove to me that conservatives are socialists.

Don't need to. *snip*

Never heard them say that they aren't liars. Proof please?

[quote]:confused:

[quote]Many people don't care about the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

Seems to me the liberals don't

Both liberals and conservatives want life, but conservatives say you should have to work for it.

You think the government should provide it? I'm glad I aint a liberal then.

Both liberals and conservatives want liberty, but conservatives say the rich should have more liberty than the poor.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Proof please?

And both liberals and conservatives want happiness, but while conservatives measure happiness with dollar signs, liberals do not.

Proof that conservative measure it in dollar signs? I'm conservative and I'm happy with my paycheck. My father is conservative and is happy with his paychecks. Care to show me proof?

Now, name me a liberal that believes in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!

And we are in a war thus the statement is correct.

How does it make one pro-war? It doesn't. FDR was a war President! Does that make him pro-war too?
So was Clinton (look it up - CEASING HOSTILITIES SIGNED et cetera) He didn't carry the same air of self-import that Bush does with that obtuse statement.
Besides, as the statement goes ....


Intelligence on Iraqi weapons 'dead wrong'
-Washington Post (Walter Pincus, Peter Baker)
Week of April 1, 2005

Washington - U.S. intelligence agencies were "dead wrong" in their prewar assessments of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and today know "disturbingly little" about the capabilities and intentions of other potential adversaries such as Iran and North Korea, a presidential commission reported Thursday.
...the commission's report offered a withering critique of the government's collection of information leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, calling its data "either worthless or misleading" and its analyses "riddled with errors," resulting in one of the "most damaging intelligence failures in recent American history."
... the panel that Bush appointed under pressure in February 2004 said it was "not authorized" to explore the question of how the commander in chief used the faulty information to make perhaps the most critical decision of his presidency. As he accepted the report Thursday, Bush offered no thoughts {EDIT: SURPRISE} about relying on flawed intelligence to launch a war and took no questions from reporters {EDIT: they hadn't signed a loyalty oath}.
-
Some Democrats complained that the commission effectively ducked the central issue of how Bush decided to go to war in Iraq to eliminate weapons that were not there. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the report "fails to review an equally important aspect of our national security policy-making process - how policy makers use the intelligence they are provided."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was even sharper. "The president's decision to go to war in Iraq was also dead wrong," she said. "The investigation will not be complete unless we know how the Bush administration may have used or misused intelligence to pursue its own agenda."
...
At the same time, it exonerated Bush and Vice President Cheney from allegations of pressuring analysts to conclude that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.

-
Tied with ...

Prime informant was crazy, U.S. was told before war
-Los Angeles Times (Greg Miller, Bob Drogin)
Week of April 1, 2005

Washington- Prewar claims by the United States that Iraq was producing biological weapons were based almost entirely on accounts from a defector who was described as "crazy" by his intelligence handlers and a "congenital liar" by his friends.
The defector code-named "Curveball" spoke with alarming specificity about Iraq's alleged biological weapons programs and fleet of mobile labs. But postwar probes showed he wasn't even in the country at times when he claimed to have taken part in illicit weapons work.
Despite persistant doubts about his credibility, Curveball's claims were included in the Bush administration's case for war without so much as a caveat (EDIT: replace "caveat" with "reach-around"). And when CIA analysts argued after the invasion that agency needed to admit it had been duped, they were forced out of their jobs.
...
Curveball even influenced assessments in areas where he claimed no inside knowledge, the commission said. One analyst told the panel that Curveball's descriptions of biological weapons activity in Iraq "pushed" chemical weapons experts to be more aggressive in their judgments.

-
Note, little dots (....) are parts of the story somewhat irrelevant or not as to the point, hence i didn't bother typing them. Edits and italics are mine, noted.

You might conclude, given this and many, many other articles and facts, that Bush is pro-war. Your choice i guess.

So was Clinton (look it up - CEASING HOSTILITIES SIGNED et cetera) He didn't carry the same air of self-import that Bush does with that obtuse statement.
Besides, as the statement goes ....


*snip*

Note, little dots (....) are parts of the story somewhat irrelevant or not as to the point, hence i didn't bother typing them. Edits and italics are mine, noted.

You might conclude, given this and many, many other articles and facts, that Bush is pro-war. Your choice i guess.

I do know what they stated. You don't have to tell me that. And as I've just constently the President can only make decisions based on the intel that he gets. If its wrong, it isn't the President's fault.

why don't they just have government controlled news?
You mean, like when Putin pointed out publicly to Bush over the issue of CBS news manipulation in the memo regarding Bush's "service"?
I've gotten the impression from "some people" that was a kind of uncomfortable issue in that last meeting they had ....

the President can only make decisions based on the intel that he gets. If its wrong, it isn't the President's fault.
It's not quite so cut-and-dry NOT his fault when Executive Orders are involved, you know .... :rolleyes:
Executive Orders very specifically are the directive of whom? Yes, he can make those decisions, therefore making them his fault for doing so. Just thought i'd point that out.

EDIT: does that desk in the OO still have that little plaque/placard that reads "The Buck Stops Here" or something like that ... buckaroo, or something ....
Argh. Irony. Nah, Bush probably tossed that in his wood shredder too.

*I'm highlighting a permanent grump of mine, here and on the liberal hypocrisy thread. I'm going to put forth basically the same statement, only with some words moved.*

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?

How can they claim to be pro-American, but then hate so many people in their country, who just want the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what our country was founded upon?
Yeah i really want to hear the answers to these ones.

How does it make one pro-war? It doesn't. FDR was a war President! Does that make him pro-war too?
Do you expect people to defend FDR from this charge? He obviously was very pro-war.

It's not quite so cut-and-dry NOT his fault when Executive Orders are involved, you know .... :rolleyes:
Executive Orders very specifically are the directive of whom? Yes, he can make those decisions, therefore making them his fault for doing so. Just thought i'd point that out.

Can you show me an executive order? Produce it. Provide proof.

Can you show me an executive order? Produce it. Provide proof.
I don't need to provide proof, you might just be not reading the post, so i'll reproduce it for you.

-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corneliu
the President can only make decisions based on the intel that he gets. If its wrong, it isn't the President's fault.


It's not quite so cut-and-dry NOT his fault when Executive Orders are involved, you know ....
Executive Orders very specifically are the directive of whom? Yes, he can make those decisions, therefore making them his fault for doing so. Just thought i'd point that out.

EDIT: does that desk in the OO still have that little plaque/placard that reads "The Buck Stops Here" or something like that ... buckaroo, or something ....
Argh. Irony. Nah, Bush probably tossed that in his wood shredder too.

- So what don't you understand about who is in charge of an Executive Order?
Are you saying i need to prove to you they exist? :rolleyes:
Note: AT NO TIME DID I SAY BUSH USED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING THE WAR IN IRAQ. That wasn't my point, WHICH I STATED. Do you understand now? If i feel the wherewithal sometime i may see if there are, but i haven't really tried that hard.
Here's one that caught my eye, though ... Executive Order 32066 (not Bush). Look it up or something and maybe ask me your question again.

It's not quite so cut-and-dry NOT his fault when Executive Orders are involved, you know .... :rolleyes:
Executive Orders very specifically are the directive of whom? Yes, he can make those decisions, therefore making them his fault for doing so. Just thought i'd point that out.
You do understand how Executive Orders work, don't you?

Regards,
Gaar

Pffft. Just like Marrakech, you know the answer to all of this; you're just trying to goad conservatives. But I'll bite.

Please explain to me:

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?In war, you're shooting at people shooting at you - that's different from an unborn human child who hasn't done anything to you yet, wouldn't you say? The same reasoning goes for the death penalty; you lose your right to life once you murder another person or do something equally or more horrendous. Unborn children are innocents. They haven't done anything wrong. They deserve life as much as the child who isn't aborted.

How can Conservatives want to destroy Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, and Public Education, but then call it "Reform"?Conservatives are all over the the spectrum when it comes to this stuff. They want to be rid of social security, welfare and public healthcare primarily because these government programs don't tend to work the way they're supposed to; they're abused, and promote reliance on these systems, as opposed to self reliance. And as this reliance increases, we become a welfare state where everyone uses the government as a crutch - which our Founding Fathers did not intend. As for Public Education, conservatives recognize that throwing money at education doesn't solve the problem; so they don't bother to do it.

How can politicians call themselves "Evangelicals" or the "Religious Right", but then be pro-Christian and anti-Muslim?The anti-Muslim politicians are few and far between, and don't characterize the conservatives who are sane in this country at all.

How can Conservatives think it's wrong for a person to die if their husband wants it, but it's okay for a person to die if they can't afford it (Bush's Texas bill in 1999)? Is "the right to life" a luxury that only the rich can have? Does Bush only "err on the side of life" if the person can afford it?I haven't heard any conservatives make an excuse for this. It's obviously a place where conservatives and Bush part on policy. Liberals aren't the only ones who fight amongst themselves, you know.

How can Conservatives defend Schiavo so fiercely, by giving her special legislation and protesting, but when there was an identical case, five years ago, no one mentioned it or cared? Are uber-Christians "better" than others, and do you have to see something on Fox news for it to be important?How were they supposed to know about the case? How am I, Joe Pennsylvania, supposed to know about a woman who is in a PSV and whose spouse is fighting for euthanasia if the news doesn't report it to me? I certainly don't spend all my free time scouring the countryside for euthanasia situations to battle over.

How can Conservatives want our schools to be safe, but then want to turn them into a war-zone, by fully arming all of our teachers? Why don't they propose allowing guns into the Post Office too?Mandatorily arm our teachers with firearms? Yeah, I haven't heard any conservatives advocate this; the ones who have are just gun-nuts, and not characteristic of the Right in America.

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?Corporate subsidies support our industry and strengthen our economy, whereas socialism does the opposite; so goes the conservative mantra.

How can Conservatives say "every politician puts out propaganda", but then claim their party isn't a bunch of liars?Propaganda and lies are different things. Look 'em up.

How can they claim to be pro-American, but then hate so many people in their country, who just want the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what our country was founded upon?Because they believe that the interpretation of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that their opponents have is fundamentally flawed and not what the Constitution gives them. On every issue there are radically different ways of viewing it based on one's values, science, beliefs, religion, whatevah.

Look, you knew all this. Why goad someone to answer questions you already knew the answers to?

You do understand how Executive Orders work, don't you?

Regards,
Gaar
Are you asking me a question? As i recall i lobbed at least 3 very specific points your way and you dodged out and EVEN asked why you should bother.
*wondering about protocol*

Potaria
Galaxian warrior
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Houston, Texas (soon to be Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Posts: 2,713
Straughn, I would make you a special award, but as I've said before, I don't have the skills or the tools to do so. It's the thought that counts, right?I'm glad that you see just how difficult Urantia can be.

Regards,
Memory Jogger

*my apologies to Potaria and mods if this is reprinted out of intended context*

You people are all idiots, you know, except those who aren't. Other people have responded to the questions already well enough that I wont deal with it now... I just wanted to say one thing...


There is no such thing as a liberal, or a conservative, like your talking about. Not that you can generalize so much. It's an arch-type, and anyone who fully supports everything anyone in their party says to them without finding their own answer is just an idiot.

I should also point out that liberal and conservative are not even political, and thus libertarion isn't in opposition to them. The political parties in question are democrat and republican, which your archtypes don't even fit anymore.

Open your minds, nobody is perfect as we find our humanity in err.

For instance I'm generally conservative, but as far as the Terry Shiavo goes, I'm not in a hissy fit that she's not still alive. She seems to have been more or less a vegetable anyways. But I'm not glad she's dead either. I just think it's stupid that that got so much coverage, and that the government got so involved.

You can't make carbon-copy gingerbread men out of everyone like that.

How can liberals be anti-war and pro-abortion? :eek:

Pro-abortion means, inherently, that liberals wish for all fetuses to be destroyed. A more correct nomenclature would be prochoice, as they support the option, or choice, of having an abortion.

You people are all idiots, you know, except those who aren't.

Hey, thanks, uh, i think ....
:confused:
:razz:

Pro-abortion means, inherently, that liberals wish for all fetuses to be destroyed. A more correct nomenclature would be prochoice, as they support the option, or choice, of having an abortion.

Even though its been medically proven that it is detremental to the woman's health?

How can texas have the largest number of teenage pregnancys and at the same time abortion? Why does texas blow up abortion facilities?

This is what we call, hipocracy. However, it is up to you conservatives to realize your so called, "morals."

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?

Conservatives are not *Pro war* in the sense "Lets go look for a fight somewhere, anywhere". But they are prepared to use force, thats the diffrence between Liberals and Consevatives, Liberals dont want to use any force ever. Also, in a democracy where millitary service is volentary it means the people in that army have made a choice where they know it is possible they will die, that is not true of a featus.

Conservatives are not *Pro war* in the sense "Lets go look for a fight somewhere, anywhere". But they are prepared to use force, thats the diffrence between Liberals and Consevatives, Liberals dont want to use any force ever. Also, in a democracy where millitary service is volentary it means the people in that army have made a choice where they know it is possible they will die, that is not true of a featus.
Hey, wasn't this near-exact situation and order of words posted by someone else on one of today's current threads? Just wondering. Seems like you might be carrying a torch of misconception (some of it).

Are you asking me a question? As i recall i lobbed at least 3 very specific points your way and you dodged out and EVEN asked why you should bother.
*wondering about protocol*
You asked me questions here? I'm sorry, I must have missed them...

And if they were not here, may I ask what relevance it has to the discussion we are having now?

And might I also ask that you submit a link to any question I have neglected to address, in these Forums, so I may do so? Because I will gladly address any Issue you believe is still outstanding.

Potaria
Galaxian warrior
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Houston, Texas (soon to be Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Posts: 2,713
Straughn, I would make you a special award, but as I've said before, I don't have the skills or the tools to do so. It's the thought that counts, right?I'm glad that you see just how difficult Urantia can be.

Regards,
Memory Jogger

*my apologies to Potaria and mods if this is reprinted out of intended context*
And again, what does what anyone else "feels" about any discussion matter?

If you would like something addressed, please either state your question or provide a link to where I might find it, please.

I wouldn't mind keeping the personal shit out of it, if you don't mind?

Thanks,
Gaar

Edit: Anyone else see the "Hypocracy" in this Thread where the Conservative is asking to keep the hypocracy out of the Thread?

Unborn children are innocents. They haven't done anything wrong. They deserve life as much as the child who isn't aborted.

Did they deserve to be concieved ? If so, why did thepersons that would have resulted from the other few million sperm cells in the race not ? Or would it be a grave sin if the parents had never met at all ?
If not - what is the difference for the foetus itself between not having existed at all and a short existence without *any* experiences or sensations whatsoever ?

Even though its been medically proven that it is detremental to the woman's health?

Depends what is the greater harm. Bearing the child can also be detrimental. Both physically and mentally. In some societies it may lead to an undesirable social situation. So an sich being detrimental alone (which is quite often not the case) is not enough as a counterargument.

You asked me questions here? I'm sorry, I must have missed them...

And if they were not here, may I ask what relevance it has to the discussion we are having now?

And might I also ask that you submit a link to any question I have neglected to address, in these Forums, so I may do so? Because I will gladly address any Issue you believe is still outstanding.


And again, what does what anyone else "feels" about any discussion matter?

If you would like something addressed, please either state your question or provide a link to where I might find it, please.

I wouldn't mind keeping the personal shit out of it, if you don't mind?

Thanks,
Gaar
Yes, that quote very specifically comes from the last "conversation" you and i engaged in. That's why i bottom lined it "Memory Jogger", to wit, i obviously failed my roll. *sigh*
It already says it, the post is pretty self-explanatory. If you take offense to Potaria's post (even though i've already qualified why it's there), then i apologize for that. The pertinence is that you haven't qualified the last three points i made to you specifically, you instead "opted" out by saying "why should i bother?"
So i'll remind you ...

-SECOND POSTING-
During those six months Bush got permission from his National Guard superiors to attend non-flying drills in Montgomery. Also during that time he was officially grounded after he failed to take an annual physical examination required to maintain flying status. But the records show Bush received no pay or credits between April 16 and late October.
The Boston Globe reported Feb. 12 that Bush’s suspension from flight duty while he was in Alabama “should have prompted an investigation by his commander” in Houston under Air Force regulations in effect at the time. The Globe also said “It is unclear whether Bush's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, ordered any inquiry, as required.” Killian is deceased.
That tends to support Bush's statement that he did perform duty in Alabama, though it falls short of conclusive proof.
On Feb. 13, the White House released hundreds of additional pages from Bush’s military records. Nothing in those files, however, provided any further documentation of Bush’s presence at Donnelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama beyond the single dental examination record.
The Dallas Morning News reported Feb. 12 an allegation that Bush documents were discarded in 1997. The News said a retired Guard Lieutenant Colonel, Bill Burkett, said that in 1997 he overheard then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, tell the chief of the National Guard to get the Bush file and make certain "there's not anything there that will embarrass the governor." The newspaper quoted Burkett as saying that a few days later he saw Mr. Bush's file and documents from it discarded in a trash can, and that he recognized the documents as retirement point summaries and pay forms.
The trash-can allegation is puzzling because the type of documents alleged to be discarded are the same type of documents that the White House produced Feb. 10 after receiving copies from and Air Force Reserve storage facility in Denver, and which the White House now cites as proof of Bush’s service.
The New York Times also quoted Burkett Feb. 12 as saying he overheard Bush aides requesting a review of Bush’s personnel files in 1997, but the Times did not report any allegation from Burkett that documents had been discarded. Both the Times and Dallas Morning News reported denials from various Guard officials and Bush aides that any documents had been destroyed.
On Feb. 13, moreover, the Boston Globe reported that Burkett’s account is contradicted by a key witness, a friend of Burkett who was present at the time and place Burkett claims to have seen documents discarded.
The Globe reported:
But a key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false.
George O. Conn, a former chief warrant officer with the Guard and a friend of Burkett's, is the person whom Burkett says led him to the room where the Bush records were being vetted. But Conn says he never saw anyone combing through the Bush file or discarding records.
"I have no recall of that," Conn said. "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada."

-

Remember now, when you said the memo occurred because of "some liberal who hates Bush". Remember that whole link? Remember about providing so much as ONE specific administration link?
I don't really feel like digging up the thread, only jogging your memory.
Point already having been made ....

What really amazes me is that Bush can call himself Christian at all...

I seem to recall one of the commandments being something like:
Thou shalt not kill.

Hmm... Isn't war killing? Isn't giving the order to go to war the same as pulling all the triggers? All Christians are taught the ten commandments from an early age. They're supposed to mean something. Not guidelines to be thought about and ignored. Okay, he's probably a God fearing Christian in some regards, but he seems to have forgotten most of the basic tenants. *shrugs*

How does this tie in with hypocrisy?
Conservatives are also often linked with the "religious right". Liberals are usually not. Yet, somehow, Liberals tend to view warfare as a Really Bad Thing(tm)...please note, I said "tend to view"...and Conservatives tend to view warfare as something that must be done from time to time. If the conservatives are religious right, and specifically Christian...then shouldn't that be the reverse?!

Admittedly, not all conservatives are Christian or religious right. Not all liberals are pacifists either. But I think it's safe to say that just about all of the "Moral Majority" are conservatives, and just about all pacifists are liberal.

I don't get it. How can so many supposedly devout Christians forget one (or two or three) of the ten commandments? Talk about hypocrisy....

Remember now, when you said the memo occurred because of "some liberal who hates Bush". Remember that whole link? Remember about providing so much as ONE specific administration link?
I don't really feel like digging up the thread, only jogging your memory.
Point already having been made ....
Actually no...

And now that YOU have chosen to "quote me" on the matter, I am going to ask you to find the post of mine where I said such a thing.

Thanks,
Gaar

EDIT: And again, since you chose not to address this part... What does any of this have to do with what is being discussed in this Thread?

*snip*
Because, as all Christians know, it is written... 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and Render unto God that which is God's'.

Clearly defining the actions of the Government as something different than those actions an Individual takes when they follow God.

Sometimes Governments must fight Wars.

Regards,
Gaar

Actually no...

And now that YOU have chosen to "quote me" on the matter, I am going to ask you to find the post of mine where I said such a thing.

Thanks,
Gaar

EDIT: And again, since you chose not to address this part... What does any of this have to do with what is being discussed in this Thread?
You know, your discourse allthemore qualifies my inclusion of Potaria's post.
I've already said this TOO MANY times. Why should i indulge you if you don't indulge me?
If your "debate" tactics are unchanged, unaltered, unimproved from the last time, i see little sense in engaging as such. Unless i see you deal with what i posted last, i shouldn't indulge your sideline.

And again, since you chose not to address this part...
Well, here we are, in a brown paper bag. Methinks the charity doth end here ....
Executive Order - A rule or order having the force of law, issued by the President. (inforeg glossary)
Executive Order - A direct order from the chief executive that has the force of law. (mhanet)
Executive Order - n. a President's or Governor's declaration which has the force of law, usually based on existing statutory powers, and requiring no action by the Congress or state legislature.
(legal-explanations)
Context ventured, context gained.

Well, here we are, in a brown paper bag. Methinks the charity doth end here ....
Executive Order - A rule or order having the force of law, issued by the President. (inforeg glossary)
Executive Order - A direct order from the chief executive that has the force of law. (mhanet)
Executive Order - n. a President's or Governor's declaration which has the force of law, usually based on existing statutory powers, and requiring no action by the Congress or state legislature.
(legal-explanations)
Context ventured, context gained.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Executive%20Order

executive order
Function: noun
: an order issued by a government's executive on the basis of authority specifically granted to the executive branch (as by the U.S. Constitution or a congressional act) <the National Security Agency was created by an executive order> —compare

NOTE: An executive order from the president does not have the force of law until it is printed in the Federal Register.
___________________________________________

I believe you forgot that last part, in that description of yours...

Care to discuss what it takes to be "printed" in the Federal Register?

Regards,
Gaar

Years ago I came to a startling conclusion... its best to be a centrist(hey... that rhyms).

Want to know why? Here is some simple math.

Conservatives(SP?)=right-wing
Fascists=right-wing
Therefore conservatives=fascists.

Now before the conservatives flame me... here is some more math!

Liberals=left-wing
Communists=left-wing
Therefore liberals=communists

Its quite simple you see... now both conservatives and liberals may flame me.

Hey, wasn't this near-exact situation and order of words posted by someone else on one of today's current threads? Just wondering. Seems like you might be carrying a torch of misconception (some of it).

I have posted it twice now, thats why. People seem to be ignoring what I post, so I will say it again

Conservatives are not *Pro war* in the sense "Lets go look for a fight somewhere, anywhere". But they are prepared to use force, thats the diffrence between Liberals and Consevatives, Liberals dont want to use any force ever. Also, in a democracy where millitary service is volentary it means the people in that army have made a choice where they know it is possible they will die, that is not true of a featus.

Years ago I came to a startling conclusion... its best to be a centrist(hey... that rhyms).

Want to know why? Here is some simple math.

Conservatives(SP?)=right-wing
Fascists=right-wing
Therefore conservatives=fascists.

Now before the conservatives flame me... here is some more math!

Liberals=left-wing
Communists=left-wing
Therefore liberals=communists

Its quite simple you see... now both conservatives and liberals may flame me.
And people who paint the World in two colors are usually called Bigots...

Is three any better?

Regards,
Gaar

I think 1 color is MUCH better, thank you very much. Want to know what color that is? Why simple... its GREY!

Liberals=left-wing
Communists=left-wing
Therefore liberals=communists


Heres some similar maths for you

Conservatives = Right wing
Facists = Right wing
Therefore Conservatives = Facists

Beware the dangers of oversimplistic deductive logic

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Executive%20Order

executive order
Function: noun
: an order issued by a government's executive on the basis of authority specifically granted to the executive branch (as by the U.S. Constitution or a congressional act) <the National Security Agency was created by an executive order> —compare

NOTE: An executive order from the president does not have the force of law until it is printed in the Federal Register.
___________________________________________

I believe you forgot that last part, in that description of yours...

Care to discuss what it takes to be "printed" in the Federal Register?

Regards,
Gaar
Look, >INSERT EUPHEMISM HERE< , i'm not jacking the thread. Not to suit your means, especially since you *STILL* aren't dealing with what i said, and i did qualify what context it was. You want something else, go somewhere else. I don't care for your smokescreen, bait-and-switch arguments under any circumstances and i called you on them. So, no, whyTF should i bother discussing what you want if a)it's impertinent to the thread, and b)you specifically can't deal with the stuff i post?

Here, last one, i'm hungry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urantia II
What is the sense?


To qualify your arguments. You didn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Urantia II
You dismiss out of hand eye witness accounts simply because of who gave the name to a reporter...


His testimony was contradictory to a few others, not just one, AND as i said and as the record points out, the two people WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER FOR THE TIME IN QUESTION.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Urantia II
So, if you can just dismiss first hand knowledge, what is it I could offer that would be any more valid than that?


You COULD try dealing with what i posted. Apparently you are poorly equipped to deal with the subject matter, even though i asked more than once. And pointed out specifically what i meant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Urantia II
You obviously have a bias in the matter and will disregard anything that doesn't support it.


You have said just about nothing in a factual basis to support your statements, and i called you on it. Put up, or ... well, you probably know the rest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Urantia II
So why would I waste my time with you?


Because you thought that your smokescreening might stand as a legitimate argument. Furthermore, why waste your time arguing semantically with people who don't deal with things on a purely semantic level? You've done better before, it's just that on this topic, you really can't pass muster.
Besides, you probably come here to waste time anyway, as a great many also do. Do you feel good that you haven't changed my mind?

And as i'd said, i'll indulge you when you indulge me.

EDIT: And again, since you chose not to address this part... What does any of this have to do with what is being discussed in this Thread?
You really are some kind of piece of work.

I think 1 color is MUCH better, thank you very much. Want to know what color that is? Why simple... its GREY!
Yeah, people who paint it in Black and White tend to get Grey in the middle...

The problem becomes when those standing in any particular one of those colors starts pointing at the other two and tell them how wrong they are because they are so right...

When in reality they are standing on a Rainbow and just refuse to see all of the different colors for what they are, rather than what they believe them to be.

Regards,
Gaar

True. Libertarianism is often just wacko, though. Open-immigration, legalizing all drugs, not gonna debate here and now, though.

Both by far the most easily defended, sane standpoints of libertarianism.

Anyways, what's wrong with any political party? Sure, conservatives might be hypocritical, but that's only because liberals can't deal with the real world, and need to hear half-truths so things don't look so bad.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Executive%20Order

executive order
Function: noun
: an order issued by a government's executive on the basis of authority specifically granted to the executive branch (as by the U.S. Constitution or a congressional act) <the National Security Agency was created by an executive order> —compare

Originally Posted by Corneliu
the President can only make decisions based on the intel that he gets. If its wrong, it isn't the President's fault.
Executive Orders very specifically are the directive of whom? Yes, he can make those decisions, therefore making them his fault for doing so. Just thought i'd point that out. (post #40)

Well, now, don't we feel better that we know that ONE OF US *poke* isn't paying attention? Aren't we all the better for going through all of this?


Care to discuss what it takes to be "printed" in the Federal Register?
As i'd said ... blah blah blah ... jack a different thread.

As i'd said ... blah blah blah ... jack a different thread.
I'm sorry, does any of that address how something get's printed in the Federal Registry? If so, I must have missed it...

Regards,
Gaar

TG me if you feel it's necessary. IRL-based priorities.
*stomach grumbles*

I'm sorry, does any of that address how something get's printed in the Federal Registry? If so, I must have missed it...

Regards,
Gaar

He's not trying to adress it, he is explaining its not relevent to the current discussion. If you want to make it relevent then make a new thread. But dont be patronising to people who are showing that you are hijacking a thread

I'm sorry, does any of that address how something get's printed in the Federal Registry? If so, I must have missed it...

Regards,
Gaar
Missed it?
:headbang:
You can't possibly be that dense. I'm gonna have to just go along with the idea that you're funning me along, to wit i would give you a few points of favor.
Else .... (note above post)

[quote]
And if anyone is pro-war is an idiot!


What about world war two, the invasion of the Falklands, invasion of Kuwait, Napoleons rampage across Europe, so you’re saying we should simply surrender to tyrants and allow our lives to become worse than they are…

Pro war is a necessity, it is a must. Being Pro war is not idiocy but common sense.

You just have to use your nogging.

Pro war is a necessity, it is a must. Being Pro was is not idiocy but common sense.

I think what they mean is that anyone looking for any excuse to start a war is an idiot. If you use force when apropriate you are sensable. They key here is knowing when it is and is not apropriate.

He's not trying to adress it, he is explaining its not relevent to the current discussion. If you want to make it relevent then make a new thread. But dont be patronising to people who are showing that you are hijacking a thread
Thank you Neo. *bows*
Alas, i should apologize myself for patronizing behaviour. I aspire for better than that ... lest the situation calls for it.

He's not trying to adress it, he is explaining its not relevent to the current discussion. If you want to make it relevent then make a new thread. But dont be patronising to people who are showing that you are hijacking a thread
So it's On-Topic for several pages of discussion, until I ask for someone to support their assertion, and then it is suddenly Off-Topic?

How does that work?

Regards,
Gaar

I think what they mean is that anyone looking for any excuse to start a war is an idiot. If you use force when apropriate you are sensable. They key here is knowing when it is and is not apropriate.

I disagree entirely.

War causes death and destruction however it out of the ashes new technologies, better civilisations arise.

Look at the Roman Empire, with its “warmongering” it brought, law, health, hygiene, security, trade to Europe, through war the human race develops, it spurs great scientific achievements.

I am not going to be a liberal here and simply say war is bad because it kills human life, yes that is a negative aspects and I wretch at the prospect of it, the images on T.V, yes war is truly a horrible thing, but it is also a good thing.

War, by the British Empire allowed us to create an Empire strong enough to defeat Germany twice.

War has seen great developments in science. Atomic Fission, new methods of communication, vast bounds in medical research such as the Nazi experiments.

Indeed war is evil, but in a paradox it is also good, only in the long term.

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?

How can Conservatives want to destroy Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, and Public Education, but then call it "Reform"?

How can politicians call themselves "Evangelicals" or the "Religious Right", but then be pro-Christian and anti-Muslim?

How can Conservatives think it's wrong for a person to die if their husband wants it, but it's okay for a person to die if they can't afford it (Bush's Texas bill in 1999)? Is "the right to life" a luxury that only the rich can have? Does Bush only "err on the side of life" if the person can afford it?

How can Conservatives defend Schiavo so fiercely, by giving her special legislation and protesting, but when there was an identical case, five years ago, no one mentioned it or cared? Are uber-Christians "better" than others, and do you have to see something on Fox news for it to be important?

How can Conservatives want our schools to be safe, but then want to turn them into a war-zone, by fully arming all of our teachers? Why don't they propose allowing guns into the Post Office too?

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?

How can Conservatives say "every politician puts out propaganda", but then claim their party isn't a bunch of liars?

How can they claim to be pro-American, but then hate so many people in their country, who just want the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what our country was founded upon?

1) Pro-war is a gross generalization. Allowing for the possiblity of war sounds better, and seems to be what you are getting at. The general idea is that war is horrible, but there are things worse than war. It sucks to kill 30,000 Iraqis, but it sucks even more to have 200,000 killed by their own leader. It is the respect for human life which allows for war, plus the idea of an absolute system of morality.

2) Under the older version of conservativism, all of those things weren't part of the government's job, with the possible exception of education. Then it was generally the state's job, not the federal government. So "Reform" means to get rid of it because private groups can do it better than the government.

3) Evangelical is a type of Christian. Christians do not always agree with Muslims, although we have more in common with them than with atheists.

4) I'm not fully informed on the law that you mentioned, so I can't comment.

5) Again, I haven't heard of the other case, but I do know that Jeb Bush took an interest in the Schaivo case a number of years ago, so it's not just something that showed up over night.

6) It's only a very small group that wants to arm teachers. I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, and I think it's stupid.

7) Corporate subsides are generally a bad idea, and it's not just conservatives that push them. It's a tendency of almost every member of Congress to get special breaks and funding for people in their district. It might also be noted that some things won't get done without government help. The railroads weren't interested in building the Transcontinental Railroad until the government offered free land for it. The Internet got its start as a Defense Department project.

8) Every party does put out its own spin, but that doesn't mean that it's a flat out lie. I don't accuse the Democratic Party of lying. Most news agencies also put spin on stuff, but that doesn't mean that they lie.

9) Are you talking about Affermative Action? Or illegal immigration? What exactly are you refering to? Most conservatives (including myself) are just tired of programs that say that they are trying to stop racism, but explicitly use race to do it, such as Affermative Action.

yea

Depends what is the greater harm. Bearing the child can also be detrimental. Both physically and mentally. In some societies it may lead to an undesirable social situation. So an sich being detrimental alone (which is quite often not the case) is not enough as a counterargument.

Depression is worse! Suicide is worse! An increase in cancer is very bad. If the mother didn't want a baby then she should've refrained from sex!

Did they deserve to be concieved ? If so, why did thepersons that would have resulted from the other few million sperm cells in the race not ? Or would it be a grave sin if the parents had never met at all ?
If not - what is the difference for the foetus itself between not having existed at all and a short existence without *any* experiences or sensations whatsoever ?Sperm cells are not the same as developing children. Have you perhaps not taken Biology yet?

Its a website and doesn't contain all conservatives. Some people are idiots and how do you know that all people on there are conservatives? You don't and I highly doubt that they are all conservatives. As for allowing it, because its a free internet?
It does contain only Conservatives. Pretend to be a liberal and post there, or even better, find a friend who is a liberal and see how long they last. They don't allow for freedom of thought. I'm not kidding. If you post, "I'm a liberal and I disagree", literally, within 60 seconds, all of your posts will be deleted and you'll be banned. This is NOT even an exaggeration. That's why the website is a perfect example of Conservative demographics.

Ah yes. I did hear about that. BTW: It happened when he was governor and I'm sure that there are other circumstances regarding what the law states. Do you have a full copy of the law? I would like to see it.
"Ah, yes", then why did you say 2001, roll your eyes at me, and imply I'm ignorant? Did your brain go through a sudden momentary lapse of failure?

I could never find the original law, but the current law is here.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm

It was just a change in the health codes, so anything which has "Added by Acts 1999" is something Bush added. I don't know what's been modified since then. However, it doesn't matter, because the most important part (the doctor's ability to override a patient's or patient's guardian's wishes) is still in there. It's long and hard to read. I'd found the exact part and quoted it, either here or elsewhere, but I'm not doing it again, because reading laws is annoying.

Stop showing your ignorance. It didn't make news because there weren't hundreds of lawsuits. It was the lawsuits that brought the Shiavo case to the forfront.
#1. There weren't "hundreds" of lawsuits.
#2. There was a lawsuit, actually, but it was settled by a judge (yes, one judge) and there were no appeals. In my opinion, it wasn't important because we had a liberal president and there was nothing to be politically-gained, from a non-Christian family's dispute. But the Bible-thumping Schindlers.. Oh yes.. Just as the Republican memo said, it was "great for politics." ;)

Public Education isn't a socialist idea. Neither are government subsidies. I suggest you look them up and prove to me that they are. Also prove to me that conservatives are socialists.
Public education = Socialization of education, by definition
Government subsidies = regulation of the economy



You think the government should provide it? I'm glad I aint a liberal then.
There goes your "right to life" bullshit thrown out the window. Yeah, a fetus and a half-dead Schiavo deserve the right to live, but minorities and foreigners don't deserve shit, huh?

It is the right to life, not the privilege.

Both liberals and conservatives want liberty, but conservatives say the rich should have more liberty than the poor.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Proof please?
Because Conservatives support more freedoms for corporations, which mostly benefits the rich, while also giving the rich tax cuts (Bush gave the largest in history) and cutting funding to social programs that benefit the poor.

Proof that conservative measure it in dollar signs? I'm conservative and I'm happy with my paycheck. My father is conservative and is happy with his paychecks. Care to show me proof?
No, he's happy because he has a family and enough food to eat.

"The Protestant Ethic" has been warped into corporate-led hedonism.

To give you the true definition of 'pursuit of happiness', here are two Benjamin Franklin quotes:

"The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
-Benjamin Franklin

"Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants. "
-Benjamin Franklin

In other words, it is not money alone which produces happiness, but a good life and love. (As Socrates said, "Happiness is a life well-lived.") Well, we cannot guarantee every American a good life, but we should give every American the opportunity to have a good life, through education and anything required to get 'em on their feet. Even if social programs cause people to be dependent, cutting them and letting the people suffer is not the answer. Because if it was only DETERMINATION which affected whether or not a person "makes it" in the U.S., then the majority of the poor would not be minorities.

One major problem with our economy is that it's based around the concept of winners and losers. Even if all of the minorities suddenly became hardworking (as if they already aren't) and got grades just as good, or better, than white males, then our economy would be screwed. There'd be no one to take lower-paying jobs and instead, we'd have a huge amount of over-qualified people out of work. Massive unemployment.

It's required that there be people that "fail." That's why our current way of doing things is not good (also why I think Conservatives sustain them). Because, although money does bring happiness, enough to live on is required. I'd like to see statistics on this, but in my experience, the amount of people who live on minimum wage are not high school students. There are people who take two or three minimum wage jobs, just to get by. I've known people like that, and they're far more hardworking than the corporate fat cat who sits on his ass, answering phones, and taking three month vacations. To get a job beyond minimum wage, you need either a skill or a college education. Both of those require money, money that a person on minimum wage does not have.

In war, you're shooting at people shooting at you
And any innocent civilians that get in the way, or that your soldiers shoot, because (just like Vietnam) some of them have emotional problems.

Propaganda and lies are different things. Look 'em up.
Propaganda is deceptive half-truths. If a politician would use propaganda, there is no reason why they would not lie.

Conservatives are not *Pro war* in the sense "Lets go look for a fight somewhere, anywhere". But they are prepared to use force, thats the diffrence between Liberals and Consevatives, Liberals dont want to use any force ever.
Exactly. Liberals don't want to use force. They'd support it, just as liberals have supported bombing Afghanistan. But Conservatives are far more trigger-happy. Hussein was not a "grave threat." There was no smoking gun, no mushroom cloud, no WMDs, nada. Our intelligence did not show that, either. We should've waited for the U.N., plain and simple.

And any innocent civilians that get in the way, or that your soldiers shoot, because (just like Vietnam) some of them have emotional problems.War is hell. Civilians die. It's a natural consequence of the act of war. It happened in WWII. In WWI. In the Spanish-American war. In the Civil War. In the Revolutionary War. To support abortion because civilians die in war is a little round-about, don't you think?


Propaganda is deceptive half-truths. If a politician would use propaganda, there is no reason why they would not lie.propaganda

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
They aren't the same. Everyone with an axe to grind uses propaganda.


Exactly. Liberals don't want to use force. They'd support it, just as liberals have supported bombing Afghanistan. But Conservatives are far more trigger-happy.You're generalizing. Conservatives are no more "trigger happy" than the liberals in Congress that voted for war in Iraq are. Please stop.

War is hell. Civilians die. It's a natural consequence of the act of war. It happened in WWII. In WWI. In the Spanish-American war. In the Civil War. In the Revolutionary War. To support abortion because civilians die in war is a little round-about, don't you think?


They aren't the same. Everyone with an axe to grind uses propaganda.


You're generalizing. Conservatives are no more "trigger happy" than the liberals in Congress that voted for war in Iraq are. Please stop.
You used a very all-encompassing definition. By that same measure, the sign listing food at McDonald's drive-thru is "propaganda", because it is "information" put out with the intention of further the cause of selling hamburgers. No, sorry, that's not the definition of propaganda. Not very common, anyway.

The main one is the first one at Dictionary.com:
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
That is propaganda. And an American politician has never gotten caught using taxmoney to do it.

You're generalizing. Conservatives are no more "trigger happy" than the liberals in Congress that voted for war in Iraq are. Please stop.
The Liberals in Congress were lied to.

You used a very all-encompassing definition. By that same measure, the sign listing food at McDonald's drive-thru is "propaganda", because it is "information" put out with the intention of further the cause of selling hamburgers. No, sorry, that's not the definition of propaganda. Not very common, anyway.

The main one is the first one at Dictionary.com: 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.It's the same thing. One is simply wordier. The systematic - that is, consistent - propagation - or spread - of a doctrine or cause - that is, an axe to grin d - of information reflecting the views and interests - that is, information from soruces which are favorable to the cause that you are supporting - of those advcoating such a doctrine or cause - liberal or conservative think tanks. Rare indeed is the politician who uses unbiased, neutral sources. Skapdroe is a good example of someone using liberal propaganda from a news source that possesses an agenda.

The Liberals in Congress were lied to.In this particular matter, the validity of that statement is irrelevant. They voted for a war. They were pro-war. They knew what a war entailed. There is no denying this. Simply because the original motivation of the war may have been falsified is unimportant in regards to the situation at hand: liberals voted for war. It's that simple.

Depression is worse! Suicide is worse! An increase in cancer is very bad.

These would be relevant if they were caused by abortion. They are not.

Depression and suicide rates are lower for abortions than for births.

There is no statistically significant link between abortion and cancer.


If the mother didn't want a baby then she should've refrained from sex!

Yeah for Puritanism!

Of course, this doesn't address cases were there is rape or where a pregancy is initially wanted but circumstances change.

Regardless, pregnancy as punishment is hardly a compelling argument. What punishment do you prescribe for the men involved?

These would be relevant if they were caused by abortion. They are not.

Depression and suicide rates are lower for abortions than for births.

There is no statistically significant link between abortion and cancer.

Recent studies have shown that women are 63% more likely to receive mental care within 90 days of an abortion compared to delivery (www.afterabortion.org)

Long-term studies have shown dramatic increase in mental health problems after abortion persist for years

In general, death rate for women abortingis higher than for women delivering live babies.

There was a Finland study that showed that suicide rates were seven times higher for the post-abortive group; other death rates increased also, speculatively due to substance abuse or lack of concern for general health associatied with depression

www.afterabortion.org
www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap

Of course, this doesn't address cases were there is rape or where a pregancy is initially wanted but circumstances change.

If circumstances change then adopt. If the health of the mother is clinically provin and confirmed by a doctor then fine! I also don't mind it in the case of rape.

Recent studies have shown that women are 63% more likely to receive mental care within 90 days of an abortion compared to delivery (www.afterabortion.org)

Long-term studies have shown dramatic increase in mental health problems after abortion persist for years

In general, death rate for women abortingis higher than for women delivering live babies.

There was a Finland study that showed that suicide rates were seven times higher for the post-abortive group; other death rates increased also, speculatively due to substance abuse or lack of concern for general health associatied with depression

www.afterabortion.org
www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap


These sources are ridiculously biased and your "facts" are wrong. Here are facts from unbiased and reliable sources:

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women. The risk
of death associated with abortion is approximately 0.6 per 100,000 abortions, and the risk of major complications is less than 1%. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf); American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html)).

Abortion is safer than childbirth. The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion. Each year, about 10 women, on average, die from induced abortion, compared with about 260 who die from pregnancy and childbirth.(Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf); American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html)).

Further, from the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html) -- a neutral, authoritative, professional source:

"Abortion may avoid negative health consequences, especially for teenage mothers. Unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health consequences, including greater chances for illness for both the mother and child. The adverse consequences of teenagers’ inability to control their childbearing can be particularly severe. Teenage mothers are more likely to suffer toxemia, anemia, birth complications, and death. Babies of teenage mothers are more likely to have low birth weight and suffer birth injury and neurological defects. Such babies are twice as likely to die in the first year of life as babies born to mothers who delay childbearing until after age 20 (Russo & David, 2002)."

"Low risk of psychological harm. Well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low. Some women experience psychological dysfunction following abortion, but post-abortion rates of distress and dysfunction are lower than pre-abortion rates. Moreover, the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age. A recent study showed not only that rates of disorders, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), were not elevated in a large sample of 442 women followed for two years post-abortion, but also that the incidence of PTSD was actually lower in women post-abortion than the rate in the general population (Adler et al., 2002)."

"Positive emotions more often experienced. Freely chosen legal abortion, particularly in the first trimester, has not been found to be associated with severe psychological trauma, despite the fact that it occurs in the stressful context of unwanted pregnancy. The time of greatest stress is before the abortion. A woman’s emotional responses after experiencing an unwanted pregnancy terminated by abortion are complex and may involve a combination of positive and negative emotions. Positive emotions are more often experienced, and they are experienced more strongly than negative emotions, both immediately after the abortion and during the months following it (Russo & Zierk, 1992)."

Finally, although you will reject the source as biased (despite it being no more biased than your source, these factsheets from Planned Parenthood document the safety of abortion -- within extensive references to neutral sources: The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-010600-emoteff.xml); Medical And Social Health Benefits Since Abortion Was Made Legal In The U.S. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-medical-social-benefits.xml).

Talk about a biased source, Planned parent hood is also biased.

I suggest you do more research Cat-Tribe!

Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion by Theresa Burke with David Reardon

I also have a list here of other boocks and articles for Psychological Risks of Abortion if you want it.

Depression and suicide rates are lower for abortions than for births.
Just because you say it we are supposed to believe it, right Cat?!?!

Care to do a bit of "Research"...

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_suicide.asp

Yet all the studies done on this issue show that pregnancy is actually correlated with a dramatic decreased rate of suicide compared to non-pregnant women. This has led some psychiatrists to suggest that pregnancy somehow serves a psychologically protective role. The presence of another person to "live for" appears to reduce the suicidal impulses of a mentally disturbed or deeply depressed woman.(1)

Although pregnancy weakens suicidal impulses, there is strong evidence that abortion dramatically increases the risk of suicide. According to a 1986 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota, a teenage girl is 10 times more likely to attempt suicide if she has had an abortion in the last six months than is a comparable teenage girl who has not had an abortion.(2) Other studies have found similar statistical significance between a history of abortion and suicide attempts among adults. Thus, the actual data suggests that abortion is far more likely to drive an unstable woman to suicide than is pregnancy and childbirth.

This abortion/suicide link is well known among professionals who counsel suicidal persons. For example, Meta Uchtman, director of the Cincinnati chapter of Suiciders Anonymous, reported that in a 35 month period her group worked with 4000 women, of whom 1800 or more had abortions. Of those who had abortions, 1400 were between the ages of 15 and 24, the age group with the fastest growing suicide rate in the country.

EDIT: And so I am not accused of just using "one source" for my information...
http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/pasbig.htm
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9901/22/abortion.01/
http://www.teenshelter.org/data.htm
http://www.silentscream.org/suicidelinked.htm

*snip*
http://www.afterabortion.info/news/deaths_smj.html

New Study Shows Women's Death Rate Following Abortion Much Higher than Previously Known

Researchers examined death records linked to Medi-Cal payments for births and abortions for approximately 173,000 low income Californian women. They discovered that women who had abortions were almost twice as likely to die in the following two years. They also discovered that the elevated mortality rate of aborting women persisted over at least eight years. Over the eight year period studied, women who aborted had a 154 percent higher risk of death from suicide, an 82 percent higher risk of death from accidents, and a 44 percent higher risk of death from natural causes.

But cat Man< He POSTED from Abortionfactrs. Com somewan Made That Sight it Is In The Internet Its True "And" afterabortion. INFO which The Internet GUANRANTEED Gives :"info"

Cdc AMERICAN spcyhopath Institution ARE Liars uranita Is Rite Ur "Wrong" ITS Proved

Sperm cells are not the same as developing children. Have you perhaps not taken Biology yet?

A fully grown human, or even a newborn baby is not the same as a clump of cells without any organs either. Hell, a 5 month old foetus differs enormously from a 1 day old - which in fact resembles a sperm (or to be more precise: a cancer cell) much more. So what is your point ? Why put the line at such an arbitrary point, while "can it be harmed" is the important question ?

A fully grown human being is not the same as a clump of cells without any organs either. So what is your point ?I thought you would be able to infer my meaning. My mistake.

The agregate of cells that makes up the human fetus is in the process of developing into a full-grown human; it posseses, however, all the genetic material of a human being. The sperm cell does not. The sperm cell is only half of the human being, in terms of chromosomes; the egg cell in the mother is the other half. That agregate of cells is destined to be a fully developed human being, complications aside. The sperm cell is not.

To elaborate on the issue at hand, this is the difference between sperm cells and the human fetus. To imply that sperm and human fetuses are the same is to imply that one of my hairs is the same as a human fetus. It's a ridiculous statement in the first place, and sound science won't back it up.

And this is one raeson why it can be considered morally impermissable to abort a human fetus: because it will be a fully-developed human being unless the process of development is somehow interfered with.

In addition, I would note that we don't define human beings as having lungs, or a heart, or even a brain; many children are born lacking such organs. Being a human being involves more than flesh, and more than organs, and if perhaps you're religious, more than sentience.

IThe agregate of cells that makes up the human fetus is in the process of developing into a full-grown human; it posseses, however, all the genetic material of a human being. The sperm cell does not. The sperm cell is only half of the human being, in terms of chromosomes; the egg cell in the mother is the other half. That agregate of cells is destined to be a fully developed human being, complications aside. The sperm cell is not.

Is a child that results from the genetic material of only 1 parent (cloning) human ?

Is a child that results from the genetic material of only 1 parent (cloning) human ?Yes. What is your point? That sperm is not needed in order to produce a human being? You're right. But two chromosomes are. And that's the purpose of the sperm cell: to provide the second chromosome. I fail to see where you're going with this, though.

Yes. What is your point? That sperm is not needed in order to produce a human being? You're right. But two chromosomes are. And that's the purpose of the sperm cell: to provide the second chromosome. I fail to see where you're going with this, though.

The point is that every cell contains the complete genetic material of a human being. So it is not an argument.

The point is that every cell contains the complete genetic material of a human being.No. No it doesn't. A sperm cell doesn't. An egg cell doesn't. They're only HALF of what it takes. You need two chromosomes. Sperm cells have on chromosome. Egg cells have the other chromosome. 1+1=2. That's the way they're biologically meant to work. Cloning works in the same way, extracting the chromosome of a cell and placing it in the egg - this works the same way as a sperm cell, but you're sitll only getting half of what you need from one cell and the other half from the other cell.

you're sitll only getting half of what you need from one cell and the other half from the other cell.

In some (not all) cloning techniques only the genetic material of one donor is actually used. You place it in an egg, but that does not contribute. So, calling a fertilised egg a human being and sperm - or even a skincell - not is somewhat arbitrary.

Which is why I avoided the "when is something a human being" entirely and instead focussed on "when can it suffer/be harmed". That stance also works wonderful when talking about animal rights or euthanasia.

So it's On-Topic for several pages of discussion, until I ask for someone to support their assertion, and then it is suddenly Off-Topic?

How does that work?

Regards,
Gaar
You're about a flaming *expletive*. I am basically convinced now that you should have a tutor when attempting to engage in these kinds of conversations/debates. I'd offer up my services, for merely a pittance ...
merely renounce your soul, or what you think you have as one. No problem.
You were given everything you needed to think your way out of your quandry, and STILL this is the result. *sigh*
You weren't on topic for your attempt to hijack it. There's nothing i posted that allots your assertion to go the way you want it to go. I provided context and meaning for my statements AND THEIR HOME SOURCES and you STILL don't get it. Tsk.

You're about a flaming *expletive*. I am basically convinced now that you should have a tutor when attempting to engage in these kinds of conversations/debates. I'd offer up my services, for merely a pittance ...
merely renounce your soul, or what you think you have as one. No problem.
You were given everything you needed to think your way out of your quandry, and STILL this is the result. *sigh*
You weren't on topic for your attempt to hijack it. There's nothing i posted that allots your assertion to go the way you want it to go. I provided context and meaning for my statements AND THEIR HOME SOURCES and you STILL don't get it. Tsk.

I've already tried to teach him Straughn. It is very hard to get through to him, especially when your on the same side as him! Believe me I've tried as have several others.

I've already tried to teach him Straughn. It is very hard to get through to him, especially when your on the same side as him! Believe me I've tried as have several others.
OMG! You truly, TRULY have my condolences. BTW, my respect for you just kicked up a notch. *bows*

OMG! You truly, TRULY have my condolences. BTW, my respect for you just kicked up a notch. *bows*

Thanks. My respect for you has also went up a notch too.

And we are in a war thus the statement is correct.

How does it make one pro-war? It doesn't. FDR was a war President! Does that make him pro-war too?

The difference is that FDR didn't start the war, it was brought to our shores. Iraq never attacked us.

The difference is that FDR didn't start the war, it was brought to our shores. Iraq never attacked us.

FDR Declared War after pearl true, but look at his pre-war activities. He was most definitely involved prior to our involvement in WWII. He wanted to come into the war but the people did not.

And yes, Iraq did attack us. On several occassions they've attacked us. You just have to watch the news more before this one took them out. Besides that, we were still legally at war with Iraq and could go back to war with them if they violated the cease-fire. They did violate it but it took years to do something about it.

You're about a flaming *expletive*. I am basically convinced now that you should have a tutor when attempting to engage in these kinds of conversations/debates. I'd offer up my services, for merely a pittance ...
merely renounce your soul, or what you think you have as one. No problem.
You were given everything you needed to think your way out of your quandry, and STILL this is the result. *sigh*
You weren't on topic for your attempt to hijack it. There's nothing i posted that allots your assertion to go the way you want it to go. I provided context and meaning for my statements AND THEIR HOME SOURCES and you STILL don't get it. Tsk.
Really?

I was pointing out the fallacy in YOUR argument that you had been discussing for several pages...

It was YOU that brought something completely "Off-Topic" into this Thread, right? And if YOU had supplied a link to the first "quote" you had of mine, we could have went to that Thread to continue, if you believe your questions were not addressed, could we not?

Or do I need to link to the posts in THIS THREAD? Or do you think you can find them on your own? How is it “hijacking” a Thread on my part, when each of my posts have been in direct response to something YOU have posted? Were You “Off-Topic” when you posted what you did?

And again... Can we keep the personal stuff out of it please? The minute I respond in kind I will be cited for bad behavior, since it seems most of the Mod's agree with you and not me, and seem to allow such things a bit more from people whom they agree.

So I will not "go there" with you and hope you can keep the personal attacks to a minimum, so we can concentrate on a discussion, ok?

Regards,
Gaar

Depression is worse! Suicide is worse! An increase in cancer is very bad. If the mother didn't want a baby then she should've refrained from sex!
Maybe she should have refrained, but I cannot see how it is the government's job to take personal responsibility into its own hands.

Public Education isn't a socialist idea. Neither are government subsidies. I suggest you look them up and prove to me that they are. Also prove to me that conservatives are socialists.
Public education is socialist. It is a matter of all people being taxed to pay for education instead of the individuals paying for their education. Government subsidies to corporations are socialist because they are on the same road as nationalisation of those corporations.

Having reviewed this thread, I can happily say that no official warnings need to be handed out today.

However, there are certain matters which need to be adressed;

Urantia II, the very incidents you're complaining about seem to be direct responses to your own confrontational, belligerent attitude. Can it.

Straughn, falling to personal attacks against Urantia II makes nobody look very good - least of all yourself. Can it.

Both of you, if you cannot debate civilly I suggest you do not debate at all. If you are such annoyances to each other that it is unavoidable, Jolt does have an ignore feature.

iUnlock.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Talk about a biased source, Planned parent hood is also biased.

I suggest you do more research Cat-Tribe!

Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion by Theresa Burke with David Reardon

I also have a list here of other boocks and articles for Psychological Risks of Abortion if you want it.

I pointed out in advance that you would complain about Planned Parenthood, without reading the internal documentation of those links.

More importantly, you conveniently ignore the Centers for Disease Control and the American Psychological Institute. Care to explain how they are wrong or biased?

I provided multiple, authoritative, neutral sources for my information. You posted extremely biased crap.

David Reardon, btw, is a pro-life hack who makes a living from his diatribes against abortion. He has little or no qualifications and has been thoroughly discredited.

But cat Man< He POSTED from Abortionfactrs. Com somewan Made That Sight it Is In The Internet Its True "And" afterabortion. INFO which The Internet GUANRANTEED Gives :"info"

Cdc AMERICAN spcyhopath Institution ARE Liars uranita Is Rite Ur "Wrong" ITS Proved

:D

As a general rule, I no longer respond to "Gaar." He has proven to be impervious to facts or logic. I only respond for my own amusement. If left to his own devices, he argues himself into a corner anyway.

Please explain to me:

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?
Last-time i checked that blob of jelly didn't have a bomb strapped to it with the intention to kill you, and if you're so damn peace-loving why are you killing babies in the first place? just shutup, you've already proven you're an idiot..

How can Conservatives want to destroy Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, and Public Education, but then call it "Reform"?
Actually president Bush is trying to revitalize healthcare, I for one am always ranting that our goverment doesn't do enough for our well-being but after the whole Shaivo thing i don't trust our goverment worth a shit. Rather have none at all at this point..

How can politicians call themselves "Evangelicals" or the "Religious Right", but then be pro-Christian and anti-Muslim?
Because like you, Americans in general are very VERY stupid..

How can Conservatives think it's wrong for a person to die if their husband wants it,
Don't go there i'm warning you now, don't go there. he's a murderer and an asshole. (I know cause i've met him.) he has a scheme that evil bastard and because you and the rest of liberal Americas have your heads so far up your ass you won't see that. Atleast the independant party like Ralph Nader is still relativly sane..
but it's okay for a person to die if they can't afford it (Bush's Texas bill in 1999)? Is "the right to life" a luxury that only the rich can have? Does Bush only "err on the side of life" if the person can afford it?
What the hell is he talking about here? Could someone post me a link or something?


How can Conservatives defend Schiavo so fiercely, by giving her special legislation and protesting, but when there was an identical case, five years ago, no one mentioned it or cared? Are uber-Christians "better" than others, and do you have to see something on Fox news for it to be important?
Here's my simple question and don't dodge it like your kind seems to ALWAYS do.
Why did she have to starve to death?
Why wasn't she given morphine or some other kind of pain reliver?
Why did she have to die if her parents were willing to pay for it?

How can Conservatives want our schools to be safe, but then want to turn them into a war-zone, by fully arming all of our teachers? Why don't they propose allowing guns into the Post Office too?
I say school is bullcrap and a waste of tax-payer's money. Private/home schools could be encouraged by schooling as a whole no longer be manditory.

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?
Because conservatives are stuck on the notion that socialism=evil evil communism! Go away communism! BLARGH! As i said, Americans are stupid..

How can Conservatives say "every politician puts out propaganda", but then claim their party isn't a bunch of liars?
Here's the real differance dude..
Democrats think you're stupid and will do anything they tell you. (Which half of the time they're right.)
Everyone thinks republicans are stupid but they're ussualy scheming something to thier own bennefit. (And half of the time it's conviant for us.)

How can they claim to be pro-American, but then hate so many people in their country, who just want the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what our country was founded upon?
Biggotry has no logic or reasoning, I cannot help that. I am for gay-marriage, and think everyone IS equal. However i also think affirmative action is a big heap of bullshit. If we're so equal we don't need you pointing out how differant we are and how we're being abused for said differances..

I pointed out in advance that you would complain about Planned Parenthood, without reading the internal documentation of those links.

More importantly, you conveniently ignore the Centers for Disease Control and the American Psychological Institute. Care to explain how they are wrong or biased?

I provided multiple, authoritative, neutral sources for my information. You posted extremely biased crap.

David Reardon, btw, is a pro-life hack who makes a living from his diatribes against abortion. He has little or no qualifications and has been thoroughly discredited.

I will post something my brother sent me:

www.afterabortion.org

At that website, you will learn what abortion is. You will learn about Post-Abortion Syndrom (Something that the Pro-Choice movement is now admitting exists), Psychological Risks as well as physical risks of Abortion. It also has testimonals too. Quite compelling. It also has studies done complete with citiations from medical journals.

I pointed out in advance that you would complain about Planned Parenthood, without reading the internal documentation of those links.

More importantly, you conveniently ignore the Centers for Disease Control and the American Psychological Institute. Care to explain how they are wrong or biased?

I provided multiple, authoritative, neutral sources for my information. You posted extremely biased crap.

David Reardon, btw, is a pro-life hack who makes a living from his diatribes against abortion. He has little or no qualifications and has been thoroughly discredited.

I had this fight in another thread. There is compelling evidence of what my sister is claiming.

There have been studies about the depression, nerological disorders, and suicide as well as drug and substance abuse regarding those that have abortions. They have been documented in:

British Journal of Ob&Gyn
Canadian Medical Association Journal
British Medical Journal
British Journal of Medicine
American Journal of Drug and Alcholol Abus
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Social Science and Medicine
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Family Planning Perspectives

I will post something my brother sent me:

www.afterabortion.org

At that website, you will learn what abortion is. You will learn about Post-Abortion Syndrom (Something that the Pro-Choice movement is now admitting exists), Psychological Risks as well as physical risks of Abortion. It also has testimonals too. Quite compelling. It also has studies done complete with citiations from medical journals.

I am quite familiar with that website. It is David Reardon's site. It consists almost entirely of half-truths, propaganda, and lies. It is only compelling in the sense it is compellingly despicable and disgusting.

You apparently have paid so little attention to documentation that you fail to realize this is the site you already cited (as did Urantia II).

Your claim that the "Pro-Choice movement is now admitting" that Post-Abortion Syndrome exists is as erroneous as your other claims.

I am quite familar with "what Abortion is" and the physical and psychological effects of abortion. You are the one that is not.

You continue to dodge facts from authoritative, neutral sources because they are not convenient to your views. That is unfortunate.

I had this fight in another thread. There is compelling evidence of what my sister is claiming.

There have been studies about the depression, nerological disorders, and suicide as well as drug and substance abuse regarding those that have abortions. They have been documented in:

British Journal of Ob&Gyn
Canadian Medical Association Journal
British Medical Journal
British Journal of Medicine
American Journal of Drug and Alcholol Abus
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Social Science and Medicine
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Family Planning Perspectives

Ah. You are related. That explains a lot.

Care to provide these "documents"?

Care to explain why they have been rejected by authoritative, neutral organizations?

Again, the CDC and the APA are just two neutral, authoritative sources refuting these silly claims. There are well-financed groups such as David Reardon's that do psuedo-scientific "studies" in order to publish pro-life views. These "studies" are thoroughly discredited.

Simply repeating untruths and ignoring my documented facts does not make you right. It only makes you less credible.

I had this fight in another thread. There is compelling evidence of what my sister is claiming.

There have been studies about the depression, nerological disorders, and suicide as well as drug and substance abuse regarding those that have abortions. They have been documented in:

British Journal of Ob&Gyn
Canadian Medical Association Journal
British Medical Journal
British Journal of Medicine
American Journal of Drug and Alcholol Abus
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Social Science and Medicine
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Family Planning Perspectives

Investigate it further Cat-Tribe! Obviously you don't have a clue as to what Post-Abortion Syndrom is!

Investigate it further Cat-Tribe! Obviously you don't have a clue as to what Post-Abortion Syndrom is!

I know a great deal about this pseudo-syndrome created out of thin air by pro-life advocates.

I have already provided documentation that there is no such thing. Simply ignoring the truth does not make it go away.

Perhaps you are the one that should do a bit more homework.

Ah. You are related. That explains a lot.

Care to provide these "documents"?

Care to explain why they have been rejected by authoritative, neutral organizations?

Again, the CDC and the APA are just two neutral, authoritative sources refuting these silly claims. There are well-financed groups such as David Reardon's that do psuedo-scientific "studies" in order to publish pro-life views. These "studies" are thoroughly discredited.

Simply repeating untruths and ignoring my documented facts does not make you right. It only makes you less credible.

Citations from an article I have: (these are a few of them)

1. Ashton, "They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of OB&Gyn. 87:1115-1122, 1980
2. Ibid
3. DCRardon et. al., "Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortions and childbirt" Canadian Medical Association Journal 168(10): May 13, 2003
4. DC Reardon, JR Cougle, "Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth: a cohort study," British Medical Journal 324:151-2, 2002
5. Gisslet, Hemminki, & Lonnqvist, "Suicides after pregnancy in Findland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine 313:1431-4, 1996
6. skipped--to long
7. DC Rardon, PG Ney, "Abortion and Subsequent Substance Abuse," American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 26(1)61-75, 2000
8. PK Coleman et. al., "A history of induced abortion in relation to substance abuse during subsequent pregnancies carried to term," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1673-8, Dec. 2002

There are many more citations. I will post them all if you like but that'll take up several pages and I will have to do it when I have free time. I can either email you all of them or I can post them all here but typing out each one of these will take time.

I know a great deal about this pseudo-syndrome created out of thin air by pro-life advocates.

Hate to break it to ya but the Pro-Choice people are admitting that the Post-Abortion Syndrom exists.

I know a great deal about this pseudo-syndrome created out of thin air by pro-life advocates.

If you actually followed the links, you would see that it really does exist. Even the people that aren't pro-life are admitting it exists.

I have already provided documentation that there is no such thing. Simply ignoring the truth does not make it go away.

So we are supposed to believe you when the evidence is out there?

Perhaps you are the one that should do a bit more homework.

My homework is done :p Perhaps it is you that needs to go back and do more homework?

Citations from an article I have: (these are a few of them)

1. Ashton, "They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of OB&Gyn. 87:1115-1122, 1980
2. Ibid
3. DCRardon et. al., "Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortions and childbirt" Canadian Medical Association Journal 168(10): May 13, 2003
4. DC Reardon, JR Cougle, "Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth: a cohort study," British Medical Journal 324:151-2, 2002
5. Gisslet, Hemminki, & Lonnqvist, "Suicides after pregnancy in Findland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine 313:1431-4, 1996
6. skipped--to long
7. DC Rardon, PG Ney, "Abortion and Subsequent Substance Abuse," American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 26(1)61-75, 2000
8. PK Coleman et. al., "A history of induced abortion in relation to substance abuse during subsequent pregnancies carried to term," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1673-8, Dec. 2002

There are many more citations. I will post them all if you like but that'll take up several pages and I will have to do it when I have free time. I can either email you all of them or I can post them all here but typing out each one of these will take time.

Gee. Do you notice how many of those are from Reardon?

No thank you on the endless citations. If you bothered to check, I have already provided links to more, more reliable sources.

Gee. Do you notice how many of those are from Reardon?

No thank you on the endless citations. If you bothered to check, I have already provided links to more, more reliable sources.

What planned parenthood? They provide the majority of abortions so I don't consider them a very reliable source!

Everyone here is arguing about what psychological effects an abortion can have on a woman, and if it is true that psychological problems can occur, we should do all we can to help women cope with them.

But what I have to ask, is what does it matter? If a woman is properly informed about the risks of abortion, it still remains her choice as to what is best for her body and her mind.

You can keep stretching for reasons, but it pretty much comes down to the fact that you want the woman to suffer unnecessary consequences for her mistake.

If you actually followed the links, you would see that it really does exist. Even the people that aren't pro-life are admitting it exists.

Try to follow along.

I. Followed. Your. Links. They. Are. Bullshit.

The Campus Crusade for Christ, Texans for Life, and David Reardon's Elliot Institute are a tad pro-life. You have yet to provide a single scrap of unbiased or authoritative evidence.


So we are supposed to believe you when the evidence is out there?


Bogus evidence is just that -- bogus.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you do not believe the Centers for Disease Control, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, and the American Psychological Association.

My homework is done :p Perhaps it is you that needs to go back and do more homework?

That you continue to regurgitate the same arguments and ignore objective evidence makes it clear that reasoning with you is pointless.

Apparently your mind is closed. That is unfortunate. Hopefully you will grow out of it.

What planned parenthood? They provide the majority of abortions so I don't consider them a very reliable source!

The APA is about as reliable a source as one can find.

What planned parenthood? They provide the majority of abortions so I don't consider them a very reliable source!

<sigh>

Try reading sometime. Its fun!

Centers for Disease Control

The Alan Guttmacher Institute

American Psychological Association.

I provided evidence from all three. I then through in additional links from Planned Parenthood. That you choose to only refer to the later speaks either of a lack of reading comprehension or deliberate dishonesty.

Well, conservative hypocrasy is a common misspelling of the phrase "conservative hypocrisy." Usually a term used by non-conservatives to highlight the failings of a pure conservative point of view.

But in this case, "Conservative Hypocrasy" means virtually nil. Unless hypocrasy has a meaning, thus it is a conservative sort thereof.









(sorry, I had to do it :D )

Try to follow along.

I. Followed. Your. Links. They. Are. Bullshit.

The Campus Crusade for Christ, Texans for Life, and David Reardon's Elliot Institute are a tad pro-life. You have yet to provide a single scrap of unbiased or authoritative evidence.

Then I guess you are missing the facts that they are published in major medical journals. Yea! Ok fine. whatever. Your an idiot for not even bothering to listen.


Bogus evidence is just that -- bogus.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you do not believe the Centers for Disease Control, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, and the American Psychological Association.

Sorry but when they appear in Major medical Journals, it tends to be F-A-C-T!

BTW: here's an article that isn't done by Reardon!
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/GisslerAJOG.htm Dated March 4, 2004!

That you continue to regurgitate the same arguments and ignore objective evidence makes it clear that reasoning with you is pointless.

Apparently your mind is closed. That is unfortunate. Hopefully you will grow out of it.

My mind is open! It is yours that is closed. How unfortunate.

Then I guess you are missing the facts that they are published in major medical journals. Yea! Ok fine. whatever. Your an idiot for not even bothering to listen.




Sorry but when they appear in Major medical Journals, it tends to be F-A-C-T!

BTW: here's an article that isn't done by Reardon!
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/GisslerAJOG.htm Dated March 4, 2004!



My mind is open! It is yours that is closed. How unfortunate.

Everything that appears in a medical journal is a fact? How naive.

Of course, all of my sources link to articles in medical journals. Try not to think to hard about that. I don't want your head to explode.

You clearly have no idea who the Centers for Disease Control or the American Psychological Association are. And you clearly do not care to educate yourself.

There is no point discussing this with you further. You believe what you believe regardless of authoritative evidence to the contrary.

I'd wish you happiness in your little universe, but it appears to be very angry there.

Everything that appears in a medical journal is a fact? How naive.

That goes for you too.

Of course, all of my sources link to articles in medical journals. Try not to think to hard about that. I don't want your head to explode.

It'll take me forever to find links to them all. I do have my schooling to think about you know. That comes first. Speaking of which, I should be off to bed.

You clearly have no idea who the Centers for Disease Control or the American Psychological Association are. And you clearly do not care to educate yourself.

I do know what they are. I also know that they publish journals too. "Everything that appears in a medical journal is a fact? How naive."

There is no point discussing this with you further. You believe what you believe regardless of authoritative evidence to the contrary.

Same goes for you.

I'd wish you happiness in your little universe, but it appears to be very angry there.

I'm not angry at all.

That goes for you too.



It'll take me forever to find links to them all. I do have my schooling to think about you know. That comes first. Speaking of which, I should be off to bed.



I do know what they are. I also know that they publish journals too. "Everything that appears in a medical journal is a fact? How naive."



Same goes for you.



I'm not angry at all.

Dear girl, try to find anyone who thinks the Centers for Disease Control or American Psychological Association are biased or unreliable.

I sincerely doubt you even looked at these sources. You simply refused to believe anything that did not fit your cramped little view.

Now, try explaining how either Campus Crusade for Christ or The Elliot Institue are objective.

When you learn the difference between authoritative and unreliable and between objective and biased, try again.

In the meantime, I rest my case.

Everything that appears in a medical journal is a fact? How naive.

Of course, all of my sources link to articles in medical journals. Try not to think to hard about that. I don't want your head to explode.

You clearly have no idea who the Centers for Disease Control or the American Psychological Association are. And you clearly do not care to educate yourself.

There is no point discussing this with you further. You believe what you believe regardless of authoritative evidence to the contrary.

I'd wish you happiness in your little universe, but it appears to be very angry there.

Post Abortion Syndrome:

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionissues/a/blunaborpas.htm
http://www.ramahinternational.org/post-abortion-syndrome.html
http://www.postabortionsyndrome.com/
http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/seepas.htm

That should suffice for now!

In the meantime, I rest my case.

Post Abortion Syndrome:

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionissues/a/blunaborpas.htm
http://www.ramahinternational.org/post-abortion-syndrome.html
http://www.postabortionsyndrome.com/
http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/seepas.htm

I open up the defense's case beginning with Post Abortion Syndrome Evidence.

Post Abortion Syndrome:

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionissues/a/blunaborpas.htm
http://www.ramahinternational.org/post-abortion-syndrome.html
http://www.postabortionsyndrome.com/
http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/seepas.htm

That should suffice for now!

A) more crap != evidence. I have Google too. Just because (a) something is on the Internet and (b) you agree with it does not make it true.

B) still ignoring neutral, authoritative evidence

C) did you even read your own "sources"

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionissues/a/blunaborpas.htm
Experts disagree on the cause and even whether it should be considered a distinct diagnosis. Some believe it is a form of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Others think it is the same as Post-Partum Depression, thought to be caused by the abrupt hormonal changes that occur when pregnancy ends (for any reason). Still others believe post abortion syndrome is caused by whatever stressors caused the women to choose abortion.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/seepas.htm

Post-abortion syndrome is not officially recognized by the psychiatric community as an actual malady.

D) I can provide more citations to sources that explain the fraud of PAS, but why bother? You already ignore overwhelming, objective evidence.

There is no need to discuss this further. You are as impervious to facts as Gaar.

A) more crap != evidence. I have Google too. Just because (a) something is on the Internet and (b) you agree with it does not make it true.

So I come up with proof that it exists and you reject it out of hand? Nice! I see where you stand nice debating with you!

B) still ignoring neutral, authoritative evidence

C) did you even read your own "sources"

No I'm not and Yes I did.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionissues/a/blunaborpas.htm


http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/seepas.htm



D) I can provide more citations to sources that explain the fraud of PAS, but why bother? You already ignore overwhelming, objective evidence.

Sorry but how does this prove that it doesn't exist?

So I come up with proof that it exists and you reject it out of hand? Nice! I see where you stand nice debating with you!



No I'm not and Yes I did.



Sorry but how does this prove that it doesn't exist?

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Again ... Try. Reading. Up. The. Thread.

I provided evidence, with links from objective, authoritative sources.

I've looked at your "proof." It is biased and unreliable -- and mostly stems from the same handful of discredited "researchers."

You are turning into Gaar II.

How much longer can this continue.. I say to 1,000.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Again ... Try. Reading. Up. The. Thread.

I provided evidence, with links from objective, authoritative sources.

I've looked at your "proof." It is biased and unreliable -- and mostly stems from the same handful of discredited "researchers."

You are turning into Gaar II.

Again, take your head out of your collective butt and actually read something for a change. Your a closed mind and you accused my sister of it.

I'm 22 yo and I've done research into this. I can tell you flat out right now, that the advisor for the group that I belong too here on campus suffers from this. She suffers from it every Febuary for the last THIRTY YEARS!!!!! Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've seen it. When she recalled the story to us, she started to tear up. It is having that long of an impact on her.

You want to villify me for posting something that is probably true then be my guest but I suggest you read more about things before you villify someone for posting evidence that it COULD exist.

I also provided links but you choose to ignore it. You want me to prove it to you that Post-Abortion Syndrome exists? I just told you what my group advisor goes through. You know what? She ain't the only one but since your mind is closed to the possibility of it existing because it isn't stamped by the APA that it exists then that is your own problem.

Again, take your head out of your collective butt and actually read something for a change. Your a closed mind and you accused my sister of it.

I'm 22 yo and I've done research into this. I can tell you flat out right now, that the advisor for the group that I belong too here on campus suffers from this. She suffers from it every Febuary for the last THIRTY YEARS!!!!! Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've seen it. When she recalled the story to us, she started to tear up. It is having that long of an impact on her.

You want to villify me for posting something that is probably true then be my guest but I suggest you read more about things before you villify someone for posting evidence that it COULD exist.

I also provided links but you choose to ignore it. You want me to prove it to you that Post-Abortion Syndrome exists? I just told you what my group advisor goes through. You know what? She ain't the only one but since your mind is closed to the possibility of it existing because it isn't stamped by the APA that it exists then that is your own problem.

Wow, you are 22? That definitely proves you are right. :rolleyes:

If your advisor had an abortion 30 years ago, was it legal? Do you think the social and legal atmosphere at the time might be relevant? (FYI, studies show they are relevant.) Apparently perpetuating a fraudulent syndrome has not helped the woman. Perhaps actual therapy and treatment would. But I do not know her and cannot judge. Regardless, one anecdote is not evidence of a syndrome.

Once again, I'll state that I read the garbage you posted. I have read The Elliot Institutes site as well.

If you had read what I posted, you would know your error. Some women do suffer depression, etc., after abortions. But less suffer psychological effects after abortion than after giving birth. Stastically abortion is safer than childbirth.

One troubled woman does not create a syndrome. Many, many authoritative studies have been done on the issue. Every major medical and psychological group in the US agrees that abortion is safer than childbirth. That is not a reason to have an abortion. It is a refutation of your anecdotal evidence and biased sources.

And, for the record, I am 35. I know several women that have had abortions. I have been to clinics with women that have had abortions. I have known women very well who never suffered any adverse effects from having had an abortion. Being 22 barely makes you an adult, let alone an authority. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

If your advisor had an abortion 30 years ago, was it legal? Do you think the social and legal atmosphere at the time might be relevant? (FYI, studies show they are relevant.) Apparently perpetuating a fraudulent syndrome has not helped the woman. Perhaps actual therapy and treatment would. But I do not know her and cannot judge. Regardless, one anecdote is not evidence of a syndrome.

Yes it was legal :rolleyes: It took place right after Roe v wade. BTW: "Roe" is pro-life!

She regrets her decision of having said abortion. She struggles with it on the anniversary of said abortion. And it isn't fraudulent. BAH!!! Why argue with a closed minded individual.

Once again, I'll state that I read the garbage you posted. I have read The Elliot Institutes site as well.

And what garbage are you refering too. I guess you didn't read the stories of women who had abortion or of women who knew what women who had abortions went through (like kin!)

If you had read what I posted, you would know your error. Some women do suffer depression, etc., after abortions. But less suffer psychological effects after abortion than after giving birth. Stastically abortion is safer than childbirth.

I did read what you posted. Its garbage. Your links come from Planned Parenthood. Sorry but i don't call them credible! At least you admit that some do suffer depression from abortions. There is hope for you yet. As for you last comment. False as usual. I suggest you read what women suffer when they had their abortions. But then again, you'll think its propaganda and falsly written.

One troubled woman does not create a syndrome. Many, many authoritative studies have been done on the issue. Every major medical and psychological group in the US agrees that abortion is safer than childbirth. That is not a reason to have an abortion. It is a refutation of your anecdotal evidence and biased sources.[/quotes]

Sighs! She isn't the only one either. I heard more than one story regarding abortion including a story about a woman who was supposed to have been aborted but survived somehow. She does public speaking btw.

[quote]And, for the record, I am 35. I know several women that have had abortions. I have been to clinics with women that have had abortions. I have known women very well who never suffered any adverse effects from having had an abortion. Being 22 barely makes you an adult, let alone an authority. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

Sorry but when you decide to actually do research into this area, give me a shout.

I'm a fiscal conservative and I do not support corporate subsidies. Corporations should get along without government funds.

This will be my last exchange with you on this topic. You are increasingly incapable of intelligent discussion.

I did read what you posted. Its garbage. Your links come from Planned Parenthood. Sorry but i don't call them credible! At least you admit that some do suffer depression from abortions. There is hope for you yet. As for you last comment. False as usual. I suggest you read what women suffer when they had their abortions. But then again, you'll think its propaganda and falsly written.

Now you are a liar.

I gave 4 different sources. One was Planned Parenthood.

The other three were: Centers for Disease Control, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, and American Psychological Association.

If you had read them, you would know that. You didn't. You lied instead.


Sighs! She isn't the only one either. I heard more than one story regarding abortion including a story about a woman who was supposed to have been aborted but survived somehow. She does public speaking btw.

Wow. You've heard stories about abortion. I'm so impressed. :rolleyes:

Find a dictionary. Look up "anecdotal."

*snip*

I'm so glad your done because you really are closed minded. I at least have proof that it exists whereas you did not and you attacked me.

Talk about incapability of an intelligent debate.

There is one thing I have noticed that no one has talked about, or maybe they did and I didn't see it, but it's the most important thing of all

Republican theft of the elections

alright, now I know what you are going to say
"prove it!"

alright... here we go
I must warn you that, as I am 13, I could not get top-secret documents that I would wish for. But...
here we go
this mainly talks about 2004

BEFORE THE ELECTION
Democrats attack electronic voting machines, warning that they may tilt the election to either side. Republicans say that they want to keep the machines because they help old people vote.

One man proposes a "true vote" machine, which is extremely reliable with paper proof and everything. Right before the election, the man is killed in an "accidental" car crash.

The secretaries of state of the crucial states of Ohio and Florida are appointed heads of the re-election campaign in their respective states. If you don't already know, one of the purposes of the secretary of state is to moniter elections.

DURING THE ELECTION
during the day, the exit polls come in. These polls propose a heavy Kerry victory. and the later exit polls propose an even greater victory. (we only heard the early ones). The rate of error is +/- 4%. Then the supposed "real votes" come in. in some places, the change is up to 15%. And always, always in favor of Bush.

during the election, there are over 10,000 election irregularities.

In a town in Ohio that was crucial to a Republican Victory, terror alert is put on high, or on 10. Officials go into the place that holds the machines that count the votes, and then, magically, there is no terror attack, and bush wins in a landslide.

If anyone ever looks at the numbers of the votes, you will notice something odd. There is, in a lot of places, phantom votes. for votes than registered voters. And always, always in favor of Bush

2 hours before Florida is announced in favor of Bush, carl rove announces that they have won the election

The companies that make the voting machines are all heavy Republican supporters, and have made their machines extremely easy to hack. For hackers, they have provided easily accesible codes to the machines "blackboxes" or information stores, on, of all places, the internet. They have also, to appease the public, provided safety stickers on the machines. But, as one guy showed us on national television, I think it was ABC, you can peel the things right off. How safe

Finally, cheating without the machines: republicans in Ohio and other places establish heavily armed "guards" to scare people away. And then theres the thing with the voting booths. In heavily Republican areas, which are usually less populated, there are plenty of booths. However, in heavily populated Democratic ares, there are maybe, 2 booths. This causes many people not to vote, because they have families to take care of and work to do. Remember those huge, long lines we saw on TV? With people standing in the rain? That was those things. They were'nt there to vote against gay marriage, as some have suggested.

In Ohio, kerry's votes among women were about 58%, and among men 53%. So unless there is a third gender... maybe a large population of hermaphodites or something... Kerry won.

AFTER THE ELECTION

One woman investigates. She goes to a voting place and asks to see the votes. They give her votes... fake votes. She can tell from the date. She asks for the real votes. They tell her to come back to tommorrow, at, say, 10AM. She goes back at 9AM. There, she sees someone throwing something into the dumpster. She goes and looks. The "garbage" is votes. Actual votes. The people shoo her away, and she pretends to go, but then she hides. The same guy comes out dumps another bag of votes. She's seen enough, and leaves

2 women try to launch a lawsuit against the election. It is heard by a republican judge. the judge immediately dismisses the case, with a speech basically saying "we won, bastards"

Investigative Reporters are effectively labled by the mainstream, republican media as "conspiricy theorists", making no one listen to them.

With the situation in Ukraine, Americans don't see any connection. When pollster... oh god, that famous pollster... he had an odd name... anyway, I'm blanking out, but when ______ is interviewed, and asked if the situation in Ukraine and America are at all alike, he says absolutely not. When asked why, he says "they're just different". This makes me think people have what's called in Psychology, cognitive dissonance, which is where people just refuse to face the facts because the facts are too troubling.

So yeah. That's all I can remember. There's much, much more, but I'm not looking off a sheet.

Nice rant! Very nice. I will aplaud you for your rant. However, are you looking at a specific county?

Now do you actually have proof as to what your ranting about?

Honestly? I don't fucking get it... in some cases, I'm all for postnatal abortion!

Say hello to Mr. Heckler and Mr. Koch :sniper:

I'm so glad your done because you really are closed minded. I at least have proof that it exists whereas you did not and you attacked me.

Talk about incapability of an intelligent debate.

All right. My irritation with the smug ignorance of you and Formal Dances has overcome my better judgment against responding to you.

Here is the evidence I posted before:

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women. The risk
of death associated with abortion is approximately 0.6 per 100,000 abortions, and the risk of major complications is less than 1%. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf); American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html)).

Abortion is safer than childbirth. The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion. Each year, about 10 women, on average, die from induced abortion, compared with about 260 who die from pregnancy and childbirth.(Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf); American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html)).

Further, from the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html) -- a neutral, authoritative, professional source:

"Abortion may avoid negative health consequences, especially for teenage mothers. Unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health consequences, including greater chances for illness for both the mother and child. The adverse consequences of teenagers’ inability to control their childbearing can be particularly severe. Teenage mothers are more likely to suffer toxemia, anemia, birth complications, and death. Babies of teenage mothers are more likely to have low birth weight and suffer birth injury and neurological defects. Such babies are twice as likely to die in the first year of life as babies born to mothers who delay childbearing until after age 20 (Russo & David, 2002)."

"Low risk of psychological harm. Well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low. Some women experience psychological dysfunction following abortion, but post-abortion rates of distress and dysfunction are lower than pre-abortion rates. Moreover, the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age. A recent study showed not only that rates of disorders, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), were not elevated in a large sample of 442 women followed for two years post-abortion, but also that the incidence of PTSD was actually lower in women post-abortion than the rate in the general population (Adler et al., 2002)."

"Positive emotions more often experienced. Freely chosen legal abortion, particularly in the first trimester, has not been found to be associated with severe psychological trauma, despite the fact that it occurs in the stressful context of unwanted pregnancy. The time of greatest stress is before the abortion. A woman’s emotional responses after experiencing an unwanted pregnancy terminated by abortion are complex and may involve a combination of positive and negative emotions. Positive emotions are more often experienced, and they are experienced more strongly than negative emotions, both immediately after the abortion and during the months following it (Russo & Zierk, 1992)."

Finally, although you will reject the source as biased (despite it being no more biased than your source, these factsheets from Planned Parenthood document the safety of abortion -- within extensive references to neutral sources: The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-010600-emoteff.xml); Medical And Social Health Benefits Since Abortion Was Made Legal In The U.S. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-medical-social-benefits.xml).

Here is additional evidence (including multiple studies by a variety of experts published in medical journals) that Post-Abortion Syndrome is pure bullshit:
Psychological implications of abortion — highly charged and rife with misleading research (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/10/1257)
Wellbeing and mental growth-long-term effects of legal abortion. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15081205)
The Psychological Effects of First Trimester Abortion (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research4.asp)
The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/148/5/578)
The effects of induced abortion on emotional experiences and relationships: a critical review of the literature. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14624822) Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (http://www.msmagazine.com/aug01/pas.html)
Therapeutic abortion and its psychological implications: the Canadian experience (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/113/8/754)
The Psychological Effects of Abortion for Adolescents (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research3.asp)
The Relationship of Abortion to Well-Being. Do Race and Religion Make a Difference? (http://www.nlsbibliography.org/qauthor.php3?xxx=RUSSO,+NANCY+FELIPE)
Abortion (http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic5.htm)
Abortion and its Health Effects (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research1.asp)
Abortion perils debated (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/169/2/101-c?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Abortion+and+Psychiatric+Illness+&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1112588833053_5636&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=cmaj)
When urban adolescents choose abortion: effects on education, psychological status and subsequent pregnancy. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2620716&dopt=Abstract)
Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/2/243)
Abortion, Reproductive History and Substance Abuse (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research2.asp)
Unwanted childbearing, health, and mother-child relationships. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10513146&dopt=Abstract)Adolescents and adjustment to abortion: are minors at greater risk? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12953681)
The Public Health Impact of Legal Abortion: 30 Years Later (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3502503.html)
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research5.asp)
Testimony of Nada L. Stotland, MD, MPH to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space (http://www.prch.org/advocacy_policy/stotland.shtml)
Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10920466&dopt=Abstract)
Psychological responses after abortion. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2181664&dopt=Abstract)
Study Challenges Abortion Trauma (http://www.libchrist.com/other/abortion/trauma.html)
Psychological factors in abortion. A review. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1443858&dopt=Abstract)
The Context for the Development of 'Post-Abortion Syndrome' (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_coun9.asp)
Is abortion a health risk? There is no evidence that abortion poses a risk either to women's mental or physical health. (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000054E4.htm)
The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1404747&dopt=Abstract)
Emotional response to abortion: a critical review of the literature. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12316615&dopt=Abstract)
Abortion Psychological Sequelae: the debate and the research (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_coun3.asp)
Psychiatric sequelae to term birth and induced early and late abortion: a longitudinal study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=4156672&dopt=Abstract)
Pregnancy decision making: predictors of early stress and adjustment (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12345377&dopt=Abstract)
Psychological Responses of Women After First-Trimester Abortion (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/8/777)
Psychological alterations following induced abortion (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6789186&dopt=Abstract)
Mental health consequences of abortion and refused abortion (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6989474&dopt=Abstract)
Abortion and the Null Hypothesis (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/57/8/785)
Psychosocial consequences of therapeutic abortion (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/1/74?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1112592868160_5389&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=10&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1)
The psychological complications of therapeutic abortion (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/6/742?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion&searchid=1112592976946_695&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance)
The psychiatric consequences of spontaneous abortion (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/155/6/810?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion&searchid=1112592976946_695&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance)

You might note that these sources do not come from a handful of biased "researchers."

I'd suggest that you had more homework to do, but you'll ignore all this evidence anyway.

All right. My irritation with the smug ignorance of you and Formal Dances has overcome my better judgment against responding to you.

Here is the evidence I posted before:

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women. The risk
of death associated with abortion is approximately 0.6 per 100,000 abortions, and the risk of major complications is less than 1%. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf); American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html)).

Abortion is safer than childbirth. The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion. Each year, about 10 women, on average, die from induced abortion, compared with about 260 who die from pregnancy and childbirth.(Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf); American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html)).

Further, from the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html) -- a neutral, authoritative, professional source:

"Abortion may avoid negative health consequences, especially for teenage mothers. Unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health consequences, including greater chances for illness for both the mother and child. The adverse consequences of teenagers’ inability to control their childbearing can be particularly severe. Teenage mothers are more likely to suffer toxemia, anemia, birth complications, and death. Babies of teenage mothers are more likely to have low birth weight and suffer birth injury and neurological defects. Such babies are twice as likely to die in the first year of life as babies born to mothers who delay childbearing until after age 20 (Russo & David, 2002)."

"Low risk of psychological harm. Well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low. Some women experience psychological dysfunction following abortion, but post-abortion rates of distress and dysfunction are lower than pre-abortion rates. Moreover, the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age. A recent study showed not only that rates of disorders, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), were not elevated in a large sample of 442 women followed for two years post-abortion, but also that the incidence of PTSD was actually lower in women post-abortion than the rate in the general population (Adler et al., 2002)."

"Positive emotions more often experienced. Freely chosen legal abortion, particularly in the first trimester, has not been found to be associated with severe psychological trauma, despite the fact that it occurs in the stressful context of unwanted pregnancy. The time of greatest stress is before the abortion. A woman’s emotional responses after experiencing an unwanted pregnancy terminated by abortion are complex and may involve a combination of positive and negative emotions. Positive emotions are more often experienced, and they are experienced more strongly than negative emotions, both immediately after the abortion and during the months following it (Russo & Zierk, 1992)."

Finally, although you will reject the source as biased (despite it being no more biased than your source, these factsheets from Planned Parenthood document the safety of abortion -- within extensive references to neutral sources: The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-010600-emoteff.xml); Medical And Social Health Benefits Since Abortion Was Made Legal In The U.S. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-medical-social-benefits.xml).

Here is additional evidence (including multiple studies by a variety of experts published in medical journals) that Post-Abortion Syndrome is pure bullshit:
Psychological implications of abortion — highly charged and rife with misleading research (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/10/1257)
Wellbeing and mental growth-long-term effects of legal abortion. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15081205)
The Psychological Effects of First Trimester Abortion (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research4.asp)
The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/148/5/578)
The effects of induced abortion on emotional experiences and relationships: a critical review of the literature. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14624822) Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (http://www.msmagazine.com/aug01/pas.html)
Therapeutic abortion and its psychological implications: the Canadian experience (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/113/8/754)
The Psychological Effects of Abortion for Adolescents (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research3.asp)
The Relationship of Abortion to Well-Being. Do Race and Religion Make a Difference? (http://www.nlsbibliography.org/qauthor.php3?xxx=RUSSO,+NANCY+FELIPE)
Abortion (http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic5.htm)
Abortion and its Health Effects (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research1.asp)
Abortion perils debated (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/169/2/101-c?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Abortion+and+Psychiatric+Illness+&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1112588833053_5636&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=cmaj)
When urban adolescents choose abortion: effects on education, psychological status and subsequent pregnancy. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2620716&dopt=Abstract)
Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/2/243)
Abortion, Reproductive History and Substance Abuse (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research2.asp)
Unwanted childbearing, health, and mother-child relationships. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10513146&dopt=Abstract)Adolescents and adjustment to abortion: are minors at greater risk? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12953681)
The Public Health Impact of Legal Abortion: 30 Years Later (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3502503.html)
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research5.asp)
Testimony of Nada L. Stotland, MD, MPH to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space (http://www.prch.org/advocacy_policy/stotland.shtml)
Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10920466&dopt=Abstract)
Psychological responses after abortion. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2181664&dopt=Abstract)
Study Challenges Abortion Trauma (http://www.libchrist.com/other/abortion/trauma.html)
Psychological factors in abortion. A review. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1443858&dopt=Abstract)
The Context for the Development of 'Post-Abortion Syndrome' (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_coun9.asp)
Is abortion a health risk? There is no evidence that abortion poses a risk either to women's mental or physical health. (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000054E4.htm)
The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1404747&dopt=Abstract)
Emotional response to abortion: a critical review of the literature. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12316615&dopt=Abstract)
Abortion Psychological Sequelae: the debate and the research (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_coun3.asp)
Psychiatric sequelae to term birth and induced early and late abortion: a longitudinal study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=4156672&dopt=Abstract)
Pregnancy decision making: predictors of early stress and adjustment (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12345377&dopt=Abstract)
Psychological Responses of Women After First-Trimester Abortion (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/8/777)
Psychological alterations following induced abortion (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6789186&dopt=Abstract)
Mental health consequences of abortion and refused abortion (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6989474&dopt=Abstract)
Abortion and the Null Hypothesis (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/57/8/785)
Psychosocial consequences of therapeutic abortion (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/1/74?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1112592868160_5389&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=10&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1)
The psychological complications of therapeutic abortion (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/6/742?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion&searchid=1112592976946_695&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance)
The psychiatric consequences of spontaneous abortion (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/155/6/810?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion&searchid=1112592976946_695&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance)



This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

"Head goes under the foot like shoe-dirt"

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

"Head goes under the foot like shoe-dirt"


:D

Cat-Tribre,

Forget it.

Its obvious your stuck in your ways. You are not seeing the otherside of this debate and that is sad.

Have a nice day and I look forward to debating you on another topic.

Conservatives are not *Pro war* in the sense "Lets go look for a fight somewhere, anywhere". But they are prepared to use force, thats the diffrence between Liberals and Consevatives, Liberals dont want to use any force ever. Also, in a democracy where millitary service is volentary it means the people in that army have made a choice where they know it is possible they will die, that is not true of a featus.

I've seen both this post and the post about liberal hypocrisy, and I think I can safely ask you: Please explain both Conservative and Liberal hypocrisy. Instead of working together in the interests of world peace, ending poverty, dealing with natural disasters, and protecting the planet, conservatives and liberals are squabbling over matters such as whether same-sex marriages should be allowed.
- Conservatives invoke religion, but are doing little to help the poor, which was one of Jesus's major teachings (cf. New Testament).

- The No Child Left Behind Act was implemented by a President that has trouble speaking.

- Conservatives call their foes "murderers of unborn children", while liberals call their opponents "killers of mothers." In the abortion issue, why can't they reach a sensible middle ground (i.e. abortions should be illegal except when a pregnancy directly threatens the mother's life)? It's almost as though they prefer arguing to helping the 10 people per thousand who die due to abortion.

- Conservatives want to outlaw homosexual marriages, when 18% of their vote came from homosexuals—at the same time, many liberals are also against homosexual marriages but want "civil unions" instead—whatever those may happen to be.

- No one is mentioning "real" issues like ending poverty and illiteracy in the world. The U.S. insists on leaving 100,000 soldiers in Iraq when the "war" ended 21 months ago. Currently, 145 Americans have died during the war, while over 1,000 have been slain in a period of "occupation" or "civil unrest", which is virtually the same thing.

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?

Democrats have been pro-war as well - take Lyndon Johnson for example. That being said, not all conservatives are anti-abortion.
How can Conservatives want to destroy Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, and Public Education, but then call it "Reform"?
How would privatizing Social Security "destroy" it? I see. You want a later Congress to have the liberty of being able to raid the Social Security Trust Fund - something that would not be possible with a privatized system.
How can politicians call themselves "Evangelicals" or the "Religious Right", but then be pro-Christian and anti-Muslim?
I'm an evangelical, and I'm not anti-Muslim.
How can Conservatives think it's wrong for a person to die if their husband wants it, but it's okay for a person to die if they can't afford it (Bush's Texas bill in 1999)? Is "the right to life" a luxury that only the rich can have? Does Bush only "err on the side of life" if the person can afford it?
You need to get a grip - not all conservatives are Bush.
How can Conservatives defend Schiavo so fiercely, by giving her special legislation and protesting, but when there was an identical case, five years ago, no one mentioned it or cared? Are uber-Christians "better" than others, and do you have to see something on Fox news for it to be important?
I don't recall defending Schiavo, and I'm a conservative Christian.
How can Conservatives want our schools to be safe, but then want to turn them into a war-zone, by fully arming all of our teachers? Why don't they propose allowing guns into the Post Office too?

Here in Virginia, since 1995, we've had a liberalization of concealed carry laws - and we've seen a drop in violent crime that isn't matched by any state that forbids concealed carry. Last July, we started allowing open carry without a license, and violent crime and murder has dropped even further. Just because more people are legally carrying guns on our street doesn't mean that our streets became a war zone - in fact, it's just the opposite. Want to know why? Because criminals carried guns anyway. You know, people who are criminals don't care about breaking the law. So before 1995, the only people in a social situation with a gun were criminals. Makes it kind of one-sided. But now, criminals can't be sure who has a gun. So our crime has dropped faster and further than states where you can't carry a gun.

33 other states have followed suit, and seen identical results.

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?
I'm a conservative, and you'll find that a lot of conservatives oppose corporate subsidies.
How can Conservatives say "every politician puts out propaganda", but then claim their party isn't a bunch of liars?
You would like to say that every Republican is a liar, but it's not true. Some would like to say that every Democrat is a liar, but it's not true. When a politician gets caught in a lie, they're lying. What I want to know is why Republicans want to give a Republican candidate a free pass on a lie, just as Democrats want to give a Democrat candidate a free pass on a lie.
How can they claim to be pro-American, but then hate so many people in their country, who just want the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what our country was founded upon?
You're confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.

I might as well ask why so many people from Moveon.org hate US soldiers - millions of US citizens have served as US soldiers. I, and they, were doing what they chose and wanted to do - serve their country - and the people who spat on the returning Vietnam veteran were not Republicans. They were Democrats. I've seen enough crap on Democratic Underground to know that they can't wait to spit on us now. They've been waiting and waiting, knowing that it wasn't popular to do so at the last Gulf War - but they oppose war with a knee-jerk reflex - just so they can hate us.

There's plenty of hate to go around. Stop thinking that it's only the province of Republicans.

As for my liberty, I've seen plenty of Democrats oppose my free speech, and want to take away my liberty. Why don't we ask why a Democratic administration shot a woman in the head while she was doing nothing more than hold her baby and look out a doorway?

Cat-Tribre,

Forget it.

Its obvious your stuck in your ways. You are not seeing the otherside of this debate and that is sad.

Have a nice day and I look forward to debating you on another topic.

A typical response of yours to proof you are wrong.

I am very familiar with the "otherside of this debate." It just happens to be wrong. Every major medical, psychiatric, and psychological organization in the US agrees with me.

Either learn to deal with facts inconvenient to your view or changes your views.

Cat-Tribre,

Forget it.

Its obvious your stuck in your ways. You are not seeing the otherside of this debate and that is sad.

Have a nice day and I look forward to debating you on another topic.



Whoooooooa there Mr Falwell, You provided three links and he read them and brought up specific quotes that you REFUSED TO DISCUSS

He then posted something like 20 sources, and not from sites like "postabortionsyndrom.com.

Did you read a single one? God as your witness and judge did you read a single one?

Did you respond to a single one?

Did you have the crass, bizzare conceit to accuse him of being 'set in his ways' regardless of evidence?

The Pope lies in state, so for Christ's sake be reasonable.

There are none, really. The same way that there are no inherent problems with liberals. The problem is not what they stand for, but the ways in which they try and carry out their actions. Libertarianism is the way to go, though. Full freedom, politically and socially. Minimal government with private propertry paramount in the eyes of this government. No laws that force beliefs or ways of life on to citizens. It's fun!

A typical response of yours to proof you are wrong.

I am very familiar with the "otherside of this debate." It just happens to be wrong. Every major medical, psychiatric, and psychological organization in the US agrees with me.

Either learn to deal with facts inconvenient to your view or changes your views.

No you don't see the otherside. You've attacked me when I presented the otherside.

Attacks on me I don't tolerate.

If you did see the otherside then you wouldn't have attacked me for what I posted. Now I'm done on the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

No you don't see the otherside. You've attacked me when I presented the otherside.

Attacks on me I don't tolerate.

If you did see the otherside then you wouldn't have attacked me for what I posted. Now I'm done on the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

Reading and understanding the other side of a disagreement does not mean agreement. Perhaps you've misunderstood the term "debate."

You are wrong. I can't help that -- but have tried to correct your errors. I don't have to agree with you. I don't have to "tolerate" inane arguments and biased falsehoods. I can call them what they are. If you do not wish to have your views challenged, either do not post them or become better informed.

You and your sister repeated referred to me as an idiot, as close-minded, etc. -- all while ignoring objective, reliable evidence that you were wrong.

I "attacked" you when I pointed out that you had lied about reading my sources. You haven't even bothered to deny that you lied.

Before I leave though:

Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City, MO: Sheed &Ward, 1987

C. Haignere, et al., "HIV/AIDS Prevention and Mulitple Risk Behaviors of Gay Male and Runaway Adolescents," Sixth INternational Conferenceon AIDS: San Francisco, June, 1990

N. Campbell, et al., "Abortion in Adolescence," Adolescence 23(92):813-823, 1988

H. Vaughan, Canonical Variates of Post-Abortion Syndrome (Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1991)

B. Garfinkel, "Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota," Responding to High Risk Youth, (Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, 1986)

Benedict, et al. "Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse" Child Abuse and Neglect 9:217-224, 1985

P.G. Ney "Relationships between Abortion and Child Abuse," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 24:610-620, 1979

Shepard, et al., "Contraceptive Practice and Repeat Induced Abortion: An Epidemiological Investigation," J. Biosocial Science 11:289-302, 1979

M. Bracken, "First and Repeated Abortions: A Study of Decision-Making and Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives 20(4):158-168, 1988

D. Sherman, et al., "The Abortion Experience in Private Practice," Women and Loss: Psychobiological Perspectives ed. W.F. Finn, et al., (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1985) 98-107;

E.M. Belsey, et al., "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study-IV" Social Science and Medicine 11:71-82, 1977

E. Freeman, et al., "Emotional Distress Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abortions," Obstetrics and Gynecology 55(5):630-636, 1980

C. Berger, et al., "Repeat Abortion: Is it a Problem?" Family Planning Perspectives 16(2):70-75 (1984)

Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City, MO: Sheed & War, 1987)

Belsey, et al., "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study-IV" Social Science & Medicine 11:71-82, 1977

And NONE of these are done by Reardon. These are all citations from the Pamphlete Psychological Risks of Abortion

Have a nice day.

Before I leave though:

Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City, MO: Sheed &Ward, 1987

C. Haignere, et al., "HIV/AIDS Prevention and Mulitple Risk Behaviors of Gay Male and Runaway Adolescents," Sixth INternational Conferenceon AIDS: San Francisco, June, 1990

N. Campbell, et al., "Abortion in Adolescence," Adolescence 23(92):813-823, 1988

H. Vaughan, Canonical Variates of Post-Abortion Syndrome (Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1991)

B. Garfinkel, "Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota," Responding to High Risk Youth, (Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, 1986)

Benedict, et al. "Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse" Child Abuse and Neglect 9:217-224, 1985

P.G. Ney "Relationships between Abortion and Child Abuse," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 24:610-620, 1979

Shepard, et al., "Contraceptive Practice and Repeat Induced Abortion: An Epidemiological Investigation," J. Biosocial Science 11:289-302, 1979

M. Bracken, "First and Repeated Abortions: A Study of Decision-Making and Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives 20(4):158-168, 1988

D. Sherman, et al., "The Abortion Experience in Private Practice," Women and Loss: Psychobiological Perspectives ed. W.F. Finn, et al., (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1985) 98-107;

E.M. Belsey, et al., "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study-IV" Social Science and Medicine 11:71-82, 1977

E. Freeman, et al., "Emotional Distress Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abortions," Obstetrics and Gynecology 55(5):630-636, 1980

C. Berger, et al., "Repeat Abortion: Is it a Problem?" Family Planning Perspectives 16(2):70-75 (1984)

Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City, MO: Sheed & War, 1987)

Belsey, et al., "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study-IV" Social Science & Medicine 11:71-82, 1977

And NONE of these are done by Reardon. These are all citations from the Pamphlete Psychological Risks of Abortion

Have a nice day.

And have you read any of these? Or just the pamphlet -- published by whom?

(I note that only a handful of these are from peer-reviewed journals.)

What a waste, you two spent Lord knows how many posts arguing something that doesn't matter.

What a waste, you two spent Lord knows how many posts arguing something that doesn't matter.

:D

Like anything argued on these forums "matters."

:D

Like anything argued on these forums "matters."

True, but post-abortion syndrome has absolutely no relevance to the abortion debate, so there is no reason to prove whether it exists or not.

True, but post-abortion syndrome has absolutely no relevance to the abortion debate, so there is no reason to prove whether it exists or not.

It is irrelevant in the sense that, even if post-abortion syndrome existed, that would not justify infringing a woman's right to choose.

The fraudulent allegations of post-abortion syndrome are relevant in at least three ways: (a) they are used by pro-lifers to scare women away from abortion, (b) they are used to justify restrictions on abortion, (c) they are used as arguments for the ban on abortion. That these allegations bear no merit whatsoever should be brought to light.

True, but post-abortion syndrome has absolutely no relevance to the abortion debate, so there is no reason to prove whether it exists or not.

Actually it can be quite relevent. Especially if and when it can be proven that it exists.

It is irrelevant in the sense that, even if post-abortion syndrome existed, that would not justify infringing a woman's right to choose.

The fraudulent allegations of post-abortion syndrome are relevant in at least three ways: (a) they are used by pro-lifers to scare women away from abortion, (b) they are used to justify restrictions on abortion, (c) they are used as arguments for the ban on abortion. That these allegations bear no merit whatsoever should be brought to light.

I guess it is relevant for (a), but it cannot be logically used for situations (b) and (c).

You could have saved a lot of time and effort and just said, "It doesn't matter."

Actually it can be quite relevent. Especially if and when it can be proven that it exists.

How does possible side effects affect this topic whatsoever?

How does this argument relate to a woman's right to choose?

And have you read any of these? Or just the pamphlet -- published by whom?

(I note that only a handful of these are from peer-reviewed journals.)

Yes I have read a few of them. Ones that I can actually find! It is a demanding process you know.

Still reading them. I'm actually reading an abstract from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that indicates women are more likely to use drugs than women that don't.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9P-483BF9D-1H&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=37ab34cdb9e6a49469cd038eb3a013bf

If you like, I can continue to look at these and give you the links to look at them.

I'm moving on though. I do have other things to do as well as a meeting to get to in about 30 minutes.

Please explain to me:

How can Conservatives be pro-war, but anti-abortion? You mean to tell me a the life of a fully-grown, fully-conscious person is worth less than a blob of jelly, vaguely resembling a human being?

How can Conservatives want to destroy Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, and Public Education, but then call it "Reform"?

How can politicians call themselves "Evangelicals" or the "Religious Right", but then be pro-Christian and anti-Muslim?

How can Conservatives think it's wrong for a person to die if their husband wants it, but it's okay for a person to die if they can't afford it (Bush's Texas bill in 1999)? Is "the right to life" a luxury that only the rich can have? Does Bush only "err on the side of life" if the person can afford it?

How can Conservatives defend Schiavo so fiercely, by giving her special legislation and protesting, but when there was an identical case, five years ago, no one mentioned it or cared? Are uber-Christians "better" than others, and do you have to see something on Fox news for it to be important?

How can Conservatives want our schools to be safe, but then want to turn them into a war-zone, by fully arming all of our teachers? Why don't they propose allowing guns into the Post Office too?

How can Conservatives support corporate subsidies, but oppose socialism?

How can Conservatives say "every politician puts out propaganda", but then claim their party isn't a bunch of liars?

How can they claim to be pro-American, but then hate so many people in their country, who just want the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what our country was founded upon?

Wahhhhh, Waaahhhhhh, Waaahhh

I actually wrote a legitimate reply to this, but then I realized what would come of it anyway, more whining. So I thought I'd just cut out the middle man and go straight to it.

Waaahhhhhh Wahhhhh Wahhhhh.

I guess it is relevant for (a), but it cannot be logically used for situations (b) and (c).

You could have saved a lot of time and effort and just said, "It doesn't matter."

They would, of course, disagreed with that. :D

I could have saved a lot of time and effort if I had simply chosen not to disagree with them at all. But they were wrong. And spreading hateful lies.

I see no reason to let ignorance and misinformation go unchallenged.

I knew that it would be impossible to get through to either of them. My point was to challenge their misinformation with objective evidence. My mission was accomplished and I don't consider my time wasted.

(But I appreciate the advice. :D )

Yes I have read a few of them. Ones that I can actually find! It is a demanding process you know.

Still reading them. I'm actually reading an abstract from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that indicates women are more likely to use drugs than women that don't.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9P-483BF9D-1H&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=37ab34cdb9e6a49469cd038eb3a013bf

If you like, I can continue to look at these and give you the links to look at them.

I'm moving on though. I do have other things to do as well as a meeting to get to in about 30 minutes.

I thought you'd already done extensive study on the subject. :confused:

You might note that (a) that is a Reardon study and (b) it shows only a correlation between drug use and abortion -- no causation. :rolleyes:

Feel free to post whatever links you like. I notice you continue to ignore objective evidence that disagrees with your view, however. ;)

They would, of course, disagreed with that. :D

I could have saved a lot of time and effort if I had simply chosen not to disagree with them at all. But they were wrong. And spreading hateful lies.

I see no reason to let ignorance and misinformation go unchallenged.

I knew that it would be impossible to get through to either of them. My point was to challenge their misinformation with objective evidence. My mission was accomplished and I don't consider my time wasted.

(But I appreciate the advice. :D )

I see why you continued the argument, and it is nice to see an abortion thread that isn't about pro-choice/anti-choice rhetoric, but this whole debate got bogged down in fallacies.

The abstract isn't done by Reardon. The Article I linked too isn't done by Reardon. The Abstract and Article are done by PK Coleman.

True. Libertarianism is often just wacko, though. Open-immigration, legalizing all drugs, not gonna debate here and now, though.

legalizing drugs, what a horrible idea, until you think about it. Here is an article from CATO with stats:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html

and here is an intro to immigration...
http://www.freetrade.org/issues/immigration.html

the funny thing is that most libertarian ideas are based on rational solutions to reality(prohibition of drugs/alchohol increases crime AND drug dealer profits), whereas most conservative/liberal ideas are based on things that just seem to make sense(give money to poor people, ban drugs, etc.)


I see no reason to let ignorance and misinformation go unchallenged.

I knew that it would be impossible to get through to either of them. My point was to challenge their misinformation with objective evidence. My mission was accomplished and I don't consider my time wasted.


same here...

The abstract isn't done by Reardon. The Article I linked too isn't done by Reardon. The Abstract and Article are done by PK Coleman.

Here are the authors:

Priscilla K. Coleman PhDa, David C. Reardon PhDb, Vincent M. Rue PhDc and Jesse Cougle MScd

Read the second name out loud to yourself.

And Dr. Coleman is a co-author of many of Reardon's studies. In fact, if you do a search of that site (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=QuickSearchListURL&_method=list&_aset=V-WA-A-W-Z-MsSAYWW-UUW-U-AAACWBECZV-AAAWYWUBZV-WZBAEUEZ-Z-U&_sort=d&view=c&_st=13&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_userid=10&md5=dc06d23566c81baac76bed89c2e91521) alone, you'll find 6 articles involving Coleman -- 4 of the 5 relating to abortion are co-authored by Coleman, Reardon. All four also have Jesse Cougle as a co-author and 3 involve Vincent Rue.

All 4 of these authors are anti-abortion activists.

:D

Like anything argued on these forums "matters."

I will agree with you here! :D

I know you don't care but here is where I stand on some the issues mentioned by whoever started this thread:

The War: Probably was the wrong war at the wrong time....Iraq didn't really pose any real threat and Bush and his advisors probably did have a plan to invade Iraq for quite a while even though I nor do any of you know for sure....

Abortion: I am pro-choice but I don't like the idea of killing any innocent being for any reason....The only reason I am pro-choice is because I don't think it is right for me to dictate my beliefs on any others and that includes a mother who is pregnant and considering an abortion.

Terri Schiavo: If she really wanted to die and said so when she was in good health and sound mind then I say they should have probably give n her a lethal injection letting her starve to death doesn't seem right that is something they wouldn't do to a dog why does this woman deserve it... Hell why were at it why not just make Euthanasia legal as long as the person wishing to kill themselves has a terminal illness and is in sound mind when they make the request.....

Religion: Isn't it wrong to work religion into politics anyway? I am pretty sure God wouldn't approve.......

I will agree with you here! :D

:D

Common ground at last! ;)

:D

Common ground at last! ;)

You have to start somewhere.

We may have different beliefs but we can still be friends! :)