NationStates Jolt Archive

haha. that's a joke right? there is an article by doctors in that list. they should be pretty reputable

Oh yeah, because doctors can't be politically motivated. They're all robots.

It was only a semi-joke. If you'd quoted wikipedia, you would've earned some kudos instead of some obviously biased right-wing financed groups. Or, as mentioned before, the AMA or WHO or someone without an agenda.

And the Charge of the Light Brigade. Oh, wait again... (or was that 400?)

600. :)

Those "studies" are laughable. A sample of 280 women who died within a year of giving birth/having an abortion? THAT is their representative sample?

I fucking love studies like this. "200 women died within a year of having an abortion or giving birth, and 80 died within a year of giving birth, so having an abortion is more dangerous"

No, seriously, read the link your own fucking selves if you don't believe me. Their representative sample was LESS THAN 300 WOMEN.

And did they count only medical complication deaths? No, ALL death swere counted. Including women who died BY ACCIDENT, as wlel as suicide (interesting correlating element to abortion, but hardly causation proving).

300 women this test was based on. THREE HUNDRED.

want more sites? I'm given more sources than you are.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf13html

want more sites? I'm given more sources than you are.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf13html

The entirety of your source:

Despite the use of local anesthesia, a full 97% of women having abortions reported experiencing pain during the procedure, [81] which more than a third described as "intense," [82] "severe" or "very severe." [83] Compared to other pains, researchers have rated the pain from abortion as more painful than a bone fracture, about the same as cancer pain, though not as painful as an amputation. [84]

Studies also reveal that younger women tend to find abortion more painful than do older adults, [85] and that patients typically found abortion more painful than their doctors or counselors expected. [86] The use of more powerful general anesthetics can reduce the pain, but significantly increases the risk of cervical injury or uterine perforation. [87]

Complications such as these are common, as are bleeding, hemorrhage,[88] laceration of the cervix, [89] menstrual disturbance, [90] inflammation of the reproductive organs, [91] bladder or bowel perforation, [92] and serious infection. [93]

Even more harmful long term physical complications from abortion may surface later. For example, overzealous currettage can damage the lining of the uterus and lead to permanent infertility. [94] Overall, women who have abortions face an increased risk of ectopic (tubal) pregnancy [95] and a more than doubled risk of future sterility. [96] Perhaps most important of all, the risk of these sorts of complications, along with risks of future miscarriage, increase with each subsequent abortion. [97]

The particular type and severity of complications depend a great deal on the experience of the abortionist and the particular abortion method used. Given that most abortions are performed at abortion clinics rather than by a woman’s regular ob-gyn, [98] the doctor performing the abortion is likely to be a stranger of whose skill and experience a woman knows very little. [99] Such things as an inadequate gynecologic examination prior to the operation, the carelessness of the abortionist, or the retention of fetal and placental tissue can all bring on complications. These kinds of complications can usually be treated and generally subside (though not always), [100] but few women ever return to the clinics for crucial post-operative examinations. [101]

There is strong evidence that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. A study of more than 1,800 women appearing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 1994 found that overall, women having abortions increased their risk of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. For women under 18 with no previous pregnancies, having an abortion after the 8th week increased the risk of breast cancer 800%. Women with a family history of breast cancer fared even worse. All 12 women participating in the study who had abortions before 18 and had a family history of breast cancer themselves got cancer before age 45. [102]

Of course, death of the mother is the most serious of all complications. Over 200 women have died from legal abortions since 1973. [103] The risk of death increases according to the duration of pregnancy [104] and the complexity of the abortion technique employed. [105]



None of which in any way compares to statistics of childbirth. Your source only claims that a medical procedure has risks. Well, no shit. That in no way invalidates the claim that childbirth has more risks

want more sites? I'm given more sources than you are.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf13html

Thats where I've been going wrong - I always thought it was the accuracy of the sources that counted. Apparently its volume.

Oh you're a guy, are you? I'm a woman. I must be oppressing myself.
You a communist? they're good at intolerance and complete disregard of freedom of speech, and the right to have an opinion. you'd get along with them.
oh, and you're swearing. Now I'm scared. Honestly, how old are you? if you're mature enough, you should be able to carry on a conversation with resorting to being blatantly obnoxious.
I'm a woman, too. Yay, sistahood.

And I curse like a fucking sailor.

And I'm 45.

And yet I still try to say things that are factually accurate, still try to lay out the reasoning behind all my arguments, never lie (on this forum), and when I cite sources, I do my best to choose ojective ones, rather than biased ones that are guaranteed to support my views.

You should try it.

600. :)
Oops. *blushes*

Thank you, Poli. :)

Oops. *blushes*

Thank you, Poli. :)

well, it's the rear reserves of the light brigade.

The entirety of your source:



None of which in any way compares to statistics of childbirth. Your source only claims that a medical procedure has risks. Well, no shit. That in no way invalidates the claim that childbirth has more risks

I especially like the part where it points out that abortion can be painful. Hey, can anyone think of something that's really, really famous for being excruciatingly painful? Here's a hint: it rhymes with "schmildbirth"!

want more sites? I'm given more sources than you are.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf13html

Hate to continue with the pile-on, but how many women do you think will die each year from attempting to abort using a clothes' hanger? Or, from traveling to Mexico to get a sub-par medical procedure?

I bet it'd be a helluva greater percentage than die from sterile, clinical procedures performed by trained OB/GYNs.

and if you doubt what I said:



Their representative sample was 281.

Then:



20% of the women who died, died as a results of accidents, totally unrelated to any medical procedure.

I'll let that sink in.
Oh, come on, honey, everybody knows that if a woman gets an abortion and then gets hit by lightning on a golf course three months later, it's because god disapproved of her sluttery. So it counts as an abortion-related death. I mean, really, sheesh.

Oops. *blushes*

Thank you, Poli. :)

One never knows when one's knowledge of Victorian poets will come in handy. :)

Oh, come on, honey, everybody knows that if a woman gets an abortion and then gets hit by lightning on a golf course three months later, it's because god disapproved of her sluttery. So it counts as an abortion-related death. I mean, really, sheesh.

pft, worthless sluts.

Although you gotta love the argument the "study" uses. Because more women who died in accidents had an abortion, apparently giving birth makes you "more risk averse" because you have a child to look after.

Funny, considering the majority of women who have abortions already have at least one child.

I'm a woman, too. Yay, sistahood.

And I curse like a fucking sailor.

And I'm 45.

And yet I still try to say things that are factually accurate, still try to lay out the reasoning behind all my arguments, never lie (on this forum), and when I cite sources, I do my best to choose ojective ones, rather than biased ones that are guaranteed to support my views.

You should try it.

just because a site doesn't support your opinion does not mean it's biased or subjective.
oh and you curse. good for you. want a medal?

want more sites? I'm given more sources than you are.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf13html

And none that comes close to the CDC source for sample size, impartiality, or reliability of data... right?

So - which is more important - the quality of your evidence, or the quantity?

Hate to continue with the pile-on, but how many women do you think will die each year from attempting to abort using a clothes' hanger? Or, from traveling to Mexico to get a sub-par medical procedure?

I bet it'd be a helluva greater percentage than die from sterile, clinical procedures performed by trained OB/GYNs.

everyone's asking me for sources. do you have some for the "clothes hanger" theory?

just because a site doesn't support your opinion does not mean it's biased or subjective.
oh and you curse. good for you. want a medal?

True. Of course, when the site has a name like "Thus-and-Such For Life," it does tend to mean it's biased or subjective, seeing as, you know, it tells you its bias right in the name.

pft, worthless sluts.

Although you gotta love the argument the "study" uses. Because more women who died in accidents had an abortion, apparently giving birth makes you "more risk averse" because you have a child to look after.

Funny, considering the majority of women who have abortions already have at least one child.
I think it's more likely that women who have had abortions are more distracted by the constant haranguing of anti-choicers and thus more likely not to see that on-coming truck or cliff edge. Women with new babies tend to miss the haranguing because the screaming of the baby drowns it out temporarily -- and they're too tired to go anywhere anyway.

And none that comes close to the CDC source for sample size, impartiality, or reliability of data... right?

So - which is more important - the quality of your evidence, or the quantity?

people have only been commenting on the quality of ONE of the sources.

everyone's asking me for sources.

We're still waiting for some real ones.

everyone's asking me for sources. do you have some for the "clothes hanger" theory?

Sure! http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib12.html

pft, worthless sluts.

Although you gotta love the argument the "study" uses. Because more women who died in accidents had an abortion, apparently giving birth makes you "more risk averse" because you have a child to look after.

Funny, considering the majority of women who have abortions already have at least one child.

Source? Everything else you say makes sense, but I haven't heard the last fact. It's probably true, but I'd still like to know where it comes from.

True. Of course, when the site has a name like "Thus-and-Such For Life," it does tend to mean it's biased or subjective, seeing as, you know, it tells you its bias right in the name.

so all sites that have pro-choice in them become biased too. but what's in a name? if they evidence they give is supportable, and can stand apart from the name, then how does it remain slanted evidence?

The pain, expense, danger, or risks in the procedure are irrelevant. To my mind, there is only one thing that makes abortion right or wrong. Is the fetus human? Or more precisely, is it a person? If it is, then aborting it is murder. The right to life trumps the right to "do whatever you want with your body". If it isn't a human or a person, than who gives a crap?

Well, there is no debate that the fetus is human. It has a separate DNA than the mother. For the fetus to develop, a hormone must be produced by the women to prevent her body from rejecting it as foreign tissue. Its size, looks, or stage of its metal development does not change the fact that it is still human in every way.

Is it a person? Because law states (in almost every country), that murder is the killing of a person, the fetus must be considered a person for it to be murder to abort it. Well, since a person cannot be discriminated against by size, race, sex, mental development, or the ability to look after themselves, there doesn't seem a large amount of ground the say that the fetus isn't a person.

You cannot say "its a blob of tissue", because that is what you are (no offense of course).

You cannot say it isn't human because it depends on the mother, because it does so after birth as well.

You cannot say it doesn't look human, because our looks do not define who we are.

You cannot say it isn't as smart as humans, because no matter what stage of development a person is at, they are still considered human.

We're still waiting for some real ones.

why so you can talk about how f***ing stupid you think they are?

people have only been commenting on the quality of ONE of the sources.

The CDC source? (i.e. not one of yours?)

The only really reliable source so far, has been the CDC source - which argues against your argument. You've nothing that approaches the sample size, nothing that comes close to the lack of partisanship.

Why would someone disclude the CDC, for any number of 'platform' sources?

so all sites that have pro-choice in them become biased too. but what's in a name? if they evidence they give is supportable, and can stand apart from the name, then how does it remain slanted evidence?

Pro-life or pro-choice - the point is that either would be partisan.

Which is why the CDC is preferable to either.

so all sites that have pro-choice in them become biased too. but what's in a name? if they evidence they give is supportable, and can stand apart from the name, then how does it remain slanted evidence?

Of course a specifically pro-choice site is also biased, which is why NA didn't quote stats from a pro-choice site. He used the CDC.

And indeed, IF the evidence they give is supportable, it's not slanted evidence. Except, see, you haven't given us such evidence. Which is sort of the whole point.

so all sites that have pro-choice in them become biased too.

Quite possibly, or at least, the hint of bias is there.

However you will notice, at no point does the term "choice" appear in the name "center for disease control"

Source? Everything else you say makes sense, but I haven't heard the last fact. It's probably true, but I'd still like to know where it comes from.

From the Guttmacher institute, a semi-autonomous branch of planned parenthood:

Women’s sense of responsibility for their existing and future children influences their decision to seek an abortion, according to “‘I Would Want to Give My Child, Like, Everything in the World:’ How Issues of Motherhood Influence Women Who Have Abortions,” by Rachel Jones et al., published in the January 2008 issue of the Journal of Family Issues. The majority (61%) of U.S. women who have abortions are already mothers, more than half of whom have two or more children.

Source (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/07/index.html)

the inefficiency of both the "illiegal abortions" and "abortions are safer" arguments: http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/numbers.asp

From the Guttmacher institute, a semi-autonomous branch of planned parenthood:



Source (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/07/index.html)

Thank you. I was a little surprised, but the more I think about the more sense it makes.

EDIT: Although, after reading more of the article, I'm more upset by this fact. These women are getting abortions because of either an unreached and probably unreachable ideal or because of a very real economic problem. I think both of those could (or at least should) not happen with education and government aid. Of course, those who oppose abortion in government are the same who oppose those two. It's kind of a catch-22.

just because a site doesn't support your opinion does not mean it's biased or subjective.
oh and you curse. good for you. want a medal?
I'd settle for a little honesty.

Are you seriously going to try to argue that your sources are unbiased?

Afterabortion is the site of the Elliot institute, a religious anti-abortion organization,. Here's their "Mission and Ministry" brochure:
http://www.afterabortion.org/Resources/Our_Mission_and_Ministry_Brochure.pdf

Physiciansforlife:
Physiciansforlife.org exists to draw attention to the issues of abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, cloning, infanticide, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, out-of-wedlock sexual activity and the medical merits of risk elimination through sexual abstinence.
The American Life League:
American Life League is a 501(c)(3) organization co-founded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death.

(Man, I love the "about us" and "contact us" buttons.)

And National Right to Life? Unbiased? Please. Give me a break. They're frikkin' special interest lobbyists.

EDIT: Neo Art posted a most excellent source: The Center for Disease Control, a recognized authority with no stake in either promoting or banning abortion. I suggested you might try the NIH (National Institutes for Health), WHO (World Health Organization), AMA (American Medical Association), etc. All of these organizations are about health and medicine in general, not a specific viewpoint on a specific topic.

the inefficiency of both the "illiegal abortions" and "abortions are safer" arguments: http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/numbers.asp

I picked a random article and read. This is utterly ridiculous:

But isn’t abortion safer than childbirth?

Pro-abortion people commonly say that it is. "Maternal mortality" is listed as deaths of women per 100,000 pregnancies. This figure has been commonly listed as eleven, compared to deaths from induced abortion, which are listed as one or two. Therefore, they say abortion is seven times safer. Not so! Maternal mortality, in recent years, has dropped to seven, not eleven.

But more important is the fact that, included in maternal mortality, are all deaths from induced abortions and ectopic pregnancies. Included also in maternal mortality are all women who die while pregnant from almost any cause that is in any way related to pregnancy. Different states require longer or shorter lengths of post-partum time, but, typically, maternal mortality also includes any related death within one year after delivery.

Maternal mortality also includes deaths from caesarean section. To compare comparable risks, one would have to compare the risk of being pregnant in the first three months with the risk of having an abortion within the first three months. When compared in this fashion, abortion is many times more dangerous. Actually, it is probable that induced abortion is more dangerous than carrying a baby to term.

So, essentially, they admit that abortion is much less risky than childbirth, but explain that that shouldn't count because abortion is not actually less risky than being pregnant provided you don't actually stay pregnant long enough to give birth. Anyone see something a wee bit wrong with this line of reasoning?

I picked a random article and read. This is utterly ridiculous:



So, essentially, they admit that abortion is much less risky than childbirth, but explain that that shouldn't count because abortion is not actually less risky than being pregnant provided you don't actually stay pregnant long enough to give birth. Anyone see something a wee bit wrong with this line of reasoning?

you see, giving birth is perfectly safe, as long as you ignore all those things that cause risks to women giving birth.

Wee bit? No.

Indeed. I think that argument broke my brain. :p

I picked a random article and read. This is utterly ridiculous:



So, essentially, they admit that abortion is much less risky than childbirth, but explain that that shouldn't count because abortion is not actually less risky than being pregnant provided you don't actually stay pregnant long enough to give birth. Anyone see something a wee bit wrong with this line of reasoning?

Ya wtf???? was that meant to actually be an argument . . . .I think if anything it convinced me that they had no idea what they were talking about.

So, essentially, they admit that abortion is much less risky than childbirth, but explain that that shouldn't count because abortion is not actually less risky than being pregnant provided you don't actually stay pregnant long enough to give birth. Anyone see something a wee bit wrong with this line of reasoning?

Wee bit? No.

Seriously, I love that line of argument. "come on, you can see how these statistics are unfair, when counting deaths resulting in pregnancy, they're actually counting all deaths that are somehow connected to being pregnant! It's totally unfair that, when discussing how prenancy is risky, we count all deaths that result from being pregnant!"

I picked a random article and read. This is utterly ridiculous:



So, essentially, they admit that abortion is much less risky than childbirth, but explain that that shouldn't count because abortion is not actually less risky than being pregnant provided you don't actually stay pregnant long enough to give birth. Anyone see something a wee bit wrong with this line of reasoning?
Heck, obviously, getting an abortion is exactly the same as being pregnant, as long as you abort the pregnancy. Duh. ;)

Seriously, I love that line of argument. "come on, you can see how these statistics are unfair, when counting deaths resulting in pregnancy, they're actually counting all deaths that are somehow connected to being pregnant! It's totally unfair that, when discussing how prenancy is risky, we count all deaths that result from being pregnant!"

Personally, I think the best part is how they explain that the risks are much less if you're only pregnant for one trimester. Hey, kids, can anyone tell me how one stops being pregnant after the first trimester?

EDIT: Neo Art posted a most excellent source: The Center for Disease Control, a recognized authority with no stake in either promoting or banning abortion. I suggested you might try the NIH (National Institutes for Health), WHO (World Health Organization), AMA (American Medical Association), etc. All of these organizations are about health and medicine in general, not a specific viewpoint on a specific topic.

In fact, the CDC is an executive agency under the auspices of an executive that is extremely hostile towards abortion rights. The very fact that the CDC, under the current administration, still supports that viewpoint is extremely telling I think

And Mur, check your TGs, heh

In fact, the CDC is an executive agency under the auspices of an executive that is extremely hostile towards abortion rights. The very fact that the CDC, under the current administration, still supports that viewpoint is extremely telling I think

And Mur, check your TGs, heh
Sir, yes, sir! (I have too many things to check!!)

Sir, yes, sir! (I have too many things to check!!)

what the fuck is that from....

I picked a random article and read. This is utterly ridiculous:



So, essentially, they admit that abortion is much less risky than childbirth, but explain that that shouldn't count because abortion is not actually less risky than being pregnant provided you don't actually stay pregnant long enough to give birth. Anyone see something a wee bit wrong with this line of reasoning?

They're not saying that at all. they're saying that the "maternal mortality" used to say that abortion is safer than childbirth, is not actually the rate of deaths caused strictly by childbirth, which is what pro-abortion statistics claim. And this rate has gone done over the past few years, as they state

Personally, I think the best part is how they explain that the risks are much less if you're only pregnant for one trimester. Hey, kids, can anyone tell me how one stops being pregnant after the first trimester?

Not having an abortion, obviously.

what the fuck is that from....
My fevered, non-air-conditioned brain.

My fevered, non-air-conditioned brain.

I think I was thinking of "I'm having trouble with the radar sir..."

check this out. real shocker. apparently CDC admits to flawed information
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/CDCdeathswrong.htm

I think I was thinking of "I'm having trouble with the radar sir..."
What the fuck is that from?

TG'd back, btw.

check this out. real shocker. apparently CDC admits to flawed information
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/CDCdeathswrong.htm

Let's see what your link ACTUALLY says:

Dr. Julie Louise Gerberding, director of the CDC, wrote in July of 2004, that maternal mortality rates and abortion mortality rates are conceptually different and are used by the CDC for different public health purpose

As much as your biased site tries to spin it, what she said was:

maternal mortality rates and abortion mortality rates are conceptually different and are used by the CDC for different public health purpose

Which is to say that two different statistics, detailing two different things, are actually different, and are used for different purposes.

No fucking shit.

Whether abortion is safer, riskier, more or less painful, better or worse for the women, or easier/harder then childbirth is irrelevant. To me, it all comes down to one question. Is a fetus human? Or more specifically, is it a person? If it is a person, than its right to life trumps the right of the women to "do whatever she wants with her body".

There is no argument against the fetus being human. Tigers breed tigers, snakes breed snakes, humans breed humans. A fetus has a separate DNA than the mother. The mother must produce a hormone that disallows her body to reject the fetus as foreign or alien tissue. Therefore, a fetus is both human, and separate from the mother.

But is it a person? Well, since a human is standardly a person, lets see if there is any difference between a fetus and another person. The law forbids us to discriminate in regards to size, sex, and race. Therefore, the fetus cannot be considered unhuman just because of its size. You cannot say "its a lump of tissue", because that is what you are (no offense obviously). We are all a collection of molecules. Therefore, size is irrelevant.

Mental development is also a non-issue. We are not given status as a person because of our mental development. A new born baby has no more mental capacity than a fetus. Being stupid does not change the fact that you or I am human.

Dependency on the mother is also not an issue. After the child is born, it is just as dependent. There are many people who are living on life support, having a machine breath for them, having other people feed them through solutions injected into their body. According to the law these people are just as human as you are.

What the fuck is that from?

spaceballs

check this out. real shocker. apparently CDC admits to flawed information
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/CDCdeathswrong.htm
Ah, so the CDC adjusts some numbers and your intellectually dishonest and socially biased "source" uses that to spin a claim for future victories. Riiight...

spaceballs
Ah. :)

You know, it occurs to me that, whenever someone says something that seems to be a quote, it's safe to assume Mel Brooks. ;)

check this out. real shocker. apparently CDC admits to flawed information
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/CDCdeathswrong.htm

First - did you look at the summary for the source "Methods for identifying pregnancy-associated deaths: population-based data from Finland 1987–2000"?

It says: "In total, 405 deaths (96.7%) were identified in registers other than the Cause-of-Death Register. Without data linkages, 73% of all pregnancy-associated deaths would have been missed..."

See the problem? They claim that ANY death that occurs within a year of pregnancy, birth or abortion is 'pregnancy-associated'.

So - getting run over on a zebra crossing, 11 months after the birth of your third child... is 'pregnancy-associated'.

That's just bad science. Worse - it looks like it's dishonest AND bad science... I hate to think they don't realise what they are doing... so I have to assume it's deliberately bad.

Second: The source you presented makes a lot of claims about what the CDC might have said or done, but the CDC is not presented as one of the sources cited.... where can we corroborate their assertions?

It's funny when you act so condescending while being so wrong.

I am not villifying the unborn.

I am villifying the poster I was responding to.

Obviously, it is impossible for a fetus to enslave anyone because they are not born and have no ability to control anything in the world. But it most certainly is possible for people or a government to enslave people -- happens all the time. The UN has whole committees sitting round wondering what to do about it.

You know perfectly well -- or should know -- from previous arguments between us on this subject, that I do consider the argument that a woman has to submit her body to pregnancy whether she wants it or not because what someone else wants takes precedence over her right to self-determination, to be an argument in favor of slavery. It is also an argument based on a fiction, because the "person" whose "needs" are said to take precedence over the woman's does not actually exist, and therefore has no ability to declare any needs, let alone enforce them. No, it is the anti-choicers themselves who would cast pregnancy as a kind of servitude and bind women into it. Fetuses have nothing to do with it, except to the extent they are used by the anti-choice faction to place these restrictions on women.

Now, I know perfectly well from our previous arguments, that you disagree with this point of view. However, I also know that you have never once mounted a successful counter-argument. In every previous encounter, you have resorted after a while to mere insulting and disrepectful behavior. I see that this time, you've decided to cut to the chase and get right to dissing me, rather than waste your time proving that you don't know what the word "slavery" means. Again.

Riiight. :rolleyes:

With every post you make that satirical post more applicable. I wouldn't have you stop for all the tea in China. By all means keep going so that in the future when people ask me for examples of ridiculous pro-choice hyperbole I can recall back to this thread.

Servitude. Good grief.

Now you're villifying pro-life people while simultaneously ignoring their stated and honest goal. But I guess if you ACTUALLY listened to what they're truly about you might lose face, and we can't have that, can we?

check this out. real shocker. apparently CDC admits to flawed information
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/CDCdeathswrong.htm

Besides the obvious problem NA already pointed out, I looked at that article's references. They are:

1. The abstract of that same Finnish study that was already pointed out as ridiculous.

2. An article citing that Finnish study as a legal argument for why Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

3. A book by a man with absolutely no medical expertise, claiming that he is better able to determine women's cause of death by READING ARTICLES ABOUT THEM than were the doctors who actually examined them (he really says this!), and who describes his book with such quotes as this: "Contrary to the media image of the good-hearted doctor who performs abortions to be a servant to women, the doctor who performs abortions does so almost exclusively for the money -- and some have become obscenely rich" and "I don't have to pass judgment on the abortion providers themselves. The public record proves objectively that many of them are at best substandard doctors, and at worst, the scum of the earth."

Wow. Just....wow.

Ah, so the CDC adjusts some numbers and your intellectually dishonest and socially biased "source" uses that to spin a claim for future victories. Riiight...

Intellectually dishonest means what exactly? And why are we worrying about what the CDC says???? Finally I'd say that the fact that ANY scientific agency, and especially one that deals with bio-terrorism and Infectious diseases, "Adjusts" is pretty ridiculous if not downright scary.

Riiight. :rolleyes:

With every post you make that satirical post more applicable. I wouldn't have you stop for all the tea in China. By all means keep going so that in the future when people ask me for examples of ridiculous pro-choice hyperbole I can recall back to this thread.

Servitude. Good grief.

Now you're villifying pro-life people while simultaneously ignoring their stated and honest goal. But I guess if you ACTUALLY listened to what they're truly about you might lose face, and we can't have that, can we?
Yeah, "servitude." It's a word. You might want to look it up. And when you've done that, you might read the thread and get caught up. We've moved on to a critique of informational sources.

And no, I'm not going to respond to your baiting, and I'm not going to assist you in hijacking this thread to be about the posters rather than their arguments. If you want to do that, you'll have to make it be about you again, not about me.

Let's see what your link ACTUALLY says:



As much as your biased site tries to spin it, what she said was:



Which is to say that two different statistics, detailing two different things, are actually different, and are used for different purposes.

No fucking shit.

I'm sorry; what's your problem with the source? if you can stop the totally unnecessary and completely immature language long enough to explain

I'm sorry; what's your problem with the source?

Mainly? That it takes something that someone in the CDC said, and tried to use that to support the claim of something radically and fundamentally different from what she actually said.

I thought I explained this to you already. I'll use smaller words next time.

Ah, so the CDC adjusts some numbers and your intellectually dishonest and socially biased "source" uses that to spin a claim for future victories. Riiight...

ok, so how is this site biased? because you disagree with it?

ok, so how is this site biased?

Because it takes something that someone in the CDC said, and tried to use that to support the claim of something radically and fundamentally different from what she actually said.

I thought I explained this to you already. I'll use smaller words next time.

Mainly? That it takes something that someone in the CDC said, and tried to use that to support the claim of something radically and fundamentally different from what she actually said.

I thought I explained this to you already. I'll use smaller words next time.

oh thanks. I need small words. like f*ck and sh*t. you're good at those

oh thanks. I need small words.

evidently. Wait. Too big. Obviously.

No...that won't do it either.

So it would appear.

Nah...still too complicated....ok, I got it.

Duh.

like f*ck and sh*t. you're good at those

fuck yeah I'm good at that shit. But here's the thing. I can swear up a storm and STILL run your pathetic "arguments" into the ground.

ok, so how is this site biased? because you disagree with it?

From their homepage: "Abortion is the UnChoice. Unwanted. Unsafe. Unfair."

Would you really like to argue that they don't have an agenda? Really?

Intellectually dishonest means what exactly? And why are we worrying about what the CDC says???? Finally I'd say that the fact that ANY scientific agency, and especially one that deals with bio-terrorism and Infectious diseases, "Adjusts" is pretty ridiculous if not downright scary.

Sigh.

1) "Intellectually dishonest" is a polite way of saying the source is a bunch of crap, without implying that one is calling any individual person a liar to their face. What it actually implies is that the reasoning of the other's argument is deliberately twisted.

2) We worry about what the CDC says because they are an authoritative office of the US government.

3) Yeah, it's terrifying when a scientific agency updates data. Right. And it's absolutely nightmare-inducing when a scientific agency states its methodology (how it uses its numbers) so that others will understand it, which is actually what the CDC was doing in the statement afterabortion claims to be an admission of faulty data.

I'm sorry; what's your problem with the source? if you can stop the totally unnecessary and completely immature language long enough to explain

The problem with the source is - it claims a source it doesn't cite. You can't corroborate thier data. Add to that - what they do quote, they misrepresent.

That's all it takes. Source = no good.

Because it takes something that someone in the CDC said, and tried to use that to support the claim of something radically and fundamentally different from what she actually said.

I thought I explained this to you already. I'll use smaller words next time.

ok fair enough the reply was over the top but the fact remains that the CDC altered information. But what does this have to do with Abortion exactly????? Honestly this was about morals right???? so unless the CDC is some how deterministic or your moralistic choices then why does it matter whether or not its a credible source????

ok fair enough the reply was over the top but the fact remains that the CDC altered information. But what does this have to do with Abortion exactly????? Honestly this was about morals right???? so unless the CDC is some how deterministic or your moralistic choices then why does it matter whether or not its a credible source????

what information did they alter exactly? Where is any actual indication that they altered anything?

At best, they reconsidered their statistical analysis and took into accounts data they did not before.

How is that ALTERING anything?

This thread has brought up some interesting points in my mind. One of them is that a pro-choice individual who finds abortion to be morally wrong is not the same as a pro-life individual who finds abortion to be morally wrong. The pro-choice person in this scenario finds abortion to be ethically wrong, but they do not put it on the same plane as murdering a post-birth human being. The act is therefore wrong to them from a philosphical perspective, and is not morally reprehensible enough to be legally prohibited. The pro-life individual, on the other hand, considers abortion to be one in the same as murdering a post-birth human being, and therefore wants to see it be made a criminal act. Therefore, pro-life individuals and pro-choice individuals can be broken up into two separate camps for each belief. For pro-life individuals: a) those who believe that abortion is akin to murdering an infant, a child, or a full-grown human being and b) those who do not believe abortion to be full-fledged murder, but wish to see their views forced upon everyone in society. Meanwhile, pro-choice individuals can be broken up into two camps as well: a) those do not find abortion to be morally objectionable at all and b) those who find abortion to be wrong, but who do not find it to be morally objectionable enough to be legally prohibited.

ok, so how is this site biased? because you disagree with it?
I'll explain (again) how all of your source sites are biased:

First, go the sites and click on the "about" buttons, or for American Life League (which doesn't have an "about" button), click the "contact" button. These will take you to the sites' mission statements in which they tell you who they are and what they are about.

All of them state clearly that they are dedicated to opposing abortion politically and socially. They declare themselves "pro-life." Two of the four state the religious foundation of their views. All of them list their political activities against legal abortion. Physiciansforlife mentions several other social morality issues as well, including support for abstinence and opposition to extra-marital sex, neither of which are medical issues.

All of this adds up to a stated agenda towards a given end -- ending abortion. This is a political and social agenda. It is NOT a medical or scientific one.

The fact that they are advocates for a specific social/political agenda creates the suspicion of bias in them. Add that to an analysis of their posted statements (as has been done in this thread), and that suspicion is confirmed. They are twisting and/or cherrypicking data to support their agenda. In other words, they are not being honest. Therefore, they are not trustworthy.

Now, compare that to sources like the CDC, which have no stake in any outcome of any political or social postion viz abortion.

Whose numbers seem more objective? The source that doesn't care one way or the other? Or the source that has a definite stake in one outcome rather than the other?

Sigh.

1) "Intellectually dishonest" is a polite way of saying the source is a bunch of crap, without implying that one is calling any individual person a liar to their face. What it actually implies is that the reasoning of the other's argument is deliberately twisted.

2) We worry about what the CDC says because they are an authoritative office of the US government.

3) Yeah, it's terrifying when a scientific agency updates data. Right. And it's absolutely nightmare-inducing when a scientific agency states its methodology (how it uses its numbers) so that others will understand it, which is actually what the CDC was doing in the statement afterabortion claims to be an admission of faulty data.

1)...you couldn't just have gone for dishonest? I mean is there any difference at all?

2)Yes but how does that affect your morals exactly?

3)Ok first off the articles of both sides are being spun to fit their agendas agreed? Secondly I have no doubt that Afterabortion is selectively using bits of the article to attempt to back its own interpretation. That being said it doesn't mean that the CDC did not, in fact, misrepresent data. IF it did then I;d say that was a major problem. Wouldn't you?

ok fair enough the reply was over the top but the fact remains that the CDC altered information. But what does this have to do with Abortion exactly????? Honestly this was about morals right???? so unless the CDC is some how deterministic or your moralistic choices then why does it matter whether or not its a credible source????

I like my morality to have relevance to the real world, so yeah, if I'm going to actually live by my morals, then I want the information that supports it to be true. I mean that, when deciding whether something is right or wrong, I like to know the truth about the thing I'm judging.

what information did they alter exactly? Where is any actual indication that they altered anything?

At best, they reconsidered their statistical analysis and took into accounts data they did not before.

How is that ALTERING anything?

sorry I was quoting from above ... the Poster above said it had been altered and seeing as how he was arguing that the CDC was right I figured I'd go along with it. Altering=Changing . . . .therefore changing their data is altering their data no? They changed, or altered, their data in order to take into account new data (According to them) or to spin the info their way (According to AfterAbortion. Either way they altered their data

1)...you couldn't just have gone for dishonest? I mean is there any difference at all?
I enjoy typing "intellectually."

2)Yes but how does that affect your morals exactly?
I answered this in response to another of your posts.

3)Ok first off the articles of both sides are being spun to fit their agendas agreed?
So? First off, no one has posted anything overtly pro-choice, unless you count the Guttmacher site, which I know some anti-choice people would.

Second, corresponding biases do not cancel each other out. If pro-choice sites are biased, that does not make Eye of the Hawk's sites reliable.

Secondly I have no doubt that Afterabortion is selectively using bits of the article to attempt to back its own interpretation. That being said it doesn't mean that the CDC did not, in fact, misrepresent data.
Only it didn't. Read the actual article that afterabortion cited. It is very clear what the CDC officials says. You can see for yourself whether they misrepresented anything. They did not.

IF it did then I;d say that was a major problem. Wouldn't you?
Of course. Only it didn't happen.

I like my morality to have relevance to the real world, so yeah, if I'm going to actually live by my morals, then I want the information that supports it to be true. I mean that, when deciding whether something is right or wrong, I like to know the truth about the thing I'm judging.

I agree but the article is about the effects of abortion right? That was what I understood so how does that actually affect the morality of abortion. I would have thought that was more based on whether or not the fetus is actually alive or has a "soul" if you believe in one. Or whether a lack of abortion rights will affect the other rights of women. no?

I agree but the article is about the effects of abortion right? That was what I understood so how does that actually affect the morality of abortion. I would have thought that was more based on whether or not the fetus is actually alive or has a "soul" if you believe in one. Or whether a lack of abortion rights will affect the other rights of women. no?
Don't ask me. I'm not the one who made claims of fact about how medically damaging abortion is and, when asked to back them up, came up with those biased sources. Ask Eye of the Hawk why she felt the need to hijack the thread.

And as I said, if I am to live in reality according to my morals, then my morals must have a relationship to reality. Part of my moral code includes honesty. Honesty demands that I do my best not to make moral judgments based on lies and fables. It also demands that I not allow obvious falsehoods to go out unchallenged.

sorry I was quoting from above ... the Poster above said it had been altered and seeing as how he was arguing that the CDC was right I figured I'd go along with it. Altering=Changing . . . .therefore changing their data is altering their data no? They changed, or altered, their data in order to take into account new data (According to them) or to spin the info their way (According to AfterAbortion. Either way they altered their data
Not if afterabortion is lying about it. All you have to do is read the CDC source and use your own judgment as to who is telling the truth about the CDC here.

I'll explain (again) how all of your source sites are biased:

First, go the sites and click on the "about" buttons, or for American Life League (which doesn't have an "about" button), click the "contact" button. These will take you to the sites' mission statements in which they tell you who they are and what they are about.

All of them state clearly that they are dedicated to opposing abortion politically and socially. They declare themselves "pro-life." Two of the four state the religious foundation of their views. All of them list their political activities against legal abortion. Physiciansforlife mentions several other social morality issues as well, including support for abstinence and opposition to extra-marital sex, neither of which are medical issues.

All of this adds up to a stated agenda towards a given end -- ending abortion. This is a political and social agenda. It is NOT a medical or scientific one.

The fact that they are advocates for a specific social/political agenda creates the suspicion of bias in them. Add that to an analysis of their posted statements (as has been done in this thread), and that suspicion is confirmed. They are twisting and/or cherrypicking data to support their agenda. In other words, they are not being honest. Therefore, they are not trustworthy.

Now, compare that to sources like the CDC, which have no stake in any outcome of any political or social postion viz abortion.

Whose numbers seem more objective? The source that doesn't care one way or the other? Or the source that has a definite stake in one outcome rather than the other?

Ok, so what's the agenda behind my "biased" sources?

Don't ask me. I'm not the one who made claims of fact about how medically damaging abortion is and, when asked to back them up, came up with those biased sources. Ask Eye of the Hawk why she felt the need to hijack the thread.

And as I said, if I am to live in reality according to my morals, then my morals must have a relationship to reality. Part of my moral code includes honesty. Honesty demands that I do my best not to make moral judgments based on lies and fables. It also demands that I not allow obvious falsehoods to go out unchallenged.

Forgive the hijacking. I was under the impression that freedom of speech was allowed in these forums. Do we have to fill out a form or something so we can be official posters? sorry for just trying to join the discussion.
And you have yet to prove how my sources are "lies" and "fables". the info on these sources could stand by itself without their supposed biased label

Ok, so what's the agenda behind my "biased" sources?

*throws shoe at Eye of the Hawk*

"Pro-Life" "Anti-Abortion" THAT'S their agenda, you insufferable individual!

I have stated this now -- what? four times so far? Kindly do not ask me the same question again.

Forgive the hijacking. I was under the impression that freedom of speech was allowed in these forums. Do we have to fill out a form or something so we can be official posters? sorry for just trying to join the discussion.
Take it up with DaWoad. Just like I'm not the one who made medical claims about abortion, I'm also not the one who objected that this conversation was not about morality, as the OP requested.

And you have yet to prove how my sources are "lies" and "fables". the info on these sources could stand by itself without their supposed biased label
No, it couldn't. Neo Art and Grave_n_Idle have shown why. I do not need to repeat their work. I refer you to it.

what information did they alter exactly? Where is any actual indication that they altered anything?

At best, they reconsidered their statistical analysis and took into accounts data they did not before.

How is that ALTERING anything?

becuz it proofs dey wer wrong lol only the word of GOD is unchanging and rite


That physically hurt to type.

Forgive the hijacking. I was under the impression that freedom of speech was allowed in these forums. Do we have to fill out a form or something so we can be official posters? sorry for just trying to join the discussion.
And you have yet to prove how my sources are "lies" and "fables". the info on these sources could stand by itself without their supposed biased label

Another, more reliable, non-partisan site has been presented that strongly calls into question the assertions made by your sources.

No one has to 'prove' your sources to be lies or fables, they just don't measure up against the evidence presented against them.

Even if you ignore the partisanship, the CDC just has better data - and, based on some of the sources you supplied, interprets the data more honestly. That's not impinging on your 'freedom of speech' (incidentally, no - you don't have free speech on this forum - you have whatever fits the rules allowed by Jolt), it's the basic reality of debate. You present arguments, you present sources. The sources either reinforce or support your argument, or they show flaws in opposing arguments (or contradict 'opposing' sources).

Pointing out that a better source contradicts your source isn't refusing you freedom of speech.

*throws shoe at Eye of the Hawk*

"Pro-Life" "Anti-Abortion" THAT'S their agenda, you insufferable individual!

I have stated this now -- what? four times so far? Kindly do not ask me the same question again.

so what's the anti-abortion agenda? and just because someone's pro-life, that makes everything they say on the topic completely biased?

btw, you throw like a girl. :p

btw, you throw like a girl. :p

Maybe he is a girl.

Woops, too late now, that was the only chance you had to impress her and you messed up. It's all over, no blossoming romance, no frolics in the fields, no child-support, no restraining order.. you missed out on a lot due to that inane comment.

Take it up with DaWoad. Just like I'm not the one who made medical claims about abortion, I'm also not the one who objected that this conversation was not about morality, as the OP requested.


No, it couldn't. Neo Art and Grave_n_Idle have shown why. I do not need to repeat their work. I refer you to it.

why, because Neo Art gave one source that might have flawed information in it? THAT completely nullifies all the arguments I've made about the dangers of abortion for women?

why, because Neo Art gave one source that might have flawed information in it? THAT completely nullifies all the arguments I've made about the dangers of abortion for women?

Any source MIGHT have flawed information in it.

I've explained to you why the CDC source is 'better'. I've explained to you how (at least one of) the sources you presented didn't even come up with logical conclusions based on the evidence they DID have.

That's all it takes. I've shown why your sources are both inferior, and unreliable.

so what's the anti-abortion agenda? and just because someone's pro-life, that makes everything they say on the topic completely biased?

btw, you throw like a girl. :p

She is a girl.

Maybe he is a girl.

Woops, too late now, that was the only chance you had to impress her and you messed up. It's all over, no blossoming romance, no frolics in the fields, no child-support, no restraining order.. you missed out on a lot due to that inane comment.

lol my bad. but I'm pretty sure she is a girl. so am I, so I wasn't looking for blossoming romance. sorry to disappoint, seems like you were looking forward to a real tragic heart-break story:p

Any source MIGHT have flawed information in it.

I've explained to you why the CDC source is 'better'. I've explained to you how (at least one of) the sources you presented didn't even come up with logical conclusions based on the evidence they DID have.

That's all it takes. I've shown why your sources are both inferior, and unreliable.

that's your opinion, and you have the right to it

so what's the anti-abortion agenda?
*poisons Eye of the Hawk's soup*

and just because someone's pro-life, that makes everything they say on the topic completely biased?
Yes, especially when it can be demonstrated that they twist evidence to support their views.

btw, you throw like a girl. :p
I poison like one, too.

Maybe he is a girl.
She is.

Woops, too late now, that was the only chance you had to impress her and you messed up. It's all over, no blossoming romance, no frolics in the fields, no child-support, no restraining order.. you missed out on a lot due to that inane comment.
Eye of the Hawk is a girl, too. I don't swing that way, so no loss there.

why, because Neo Art gave one source that might have flawed information in it? THAT completely nullifies all the arguments I've made about the dangers of abortion for women?
A) His source is better than yours. Grave_n_idle explained why.

B) CDC might have flawed data. Your sites definitely have flawed data. Is it your argument that we should reject the source that could be either wrong or right in favor of the one we definitely know to be wrong?

C) I also posted a source, and a much more lay-person-friendly-one, which you have seen fit not to acknowledge. Let's go back to the beginning. You claimed that abortion is more harmful to women than pregnancy. I gave you a list of information about pregnancy risks. My source is a relatively non-biased one. It certainly is not a "pro-abortion" site. I asked you to show me a comparable list of risks from abortion to prove that abortion is more dangerous. What you gave me was a bunch of opinions and redundant and faulty citations that do not say what you think they say (again, as shown by Neo Art and GnI).

So I ask you again. Show me how abortion is more dangerous and harmful than pregnancy. Show me some risks of abortion that are not also risks of pregnancy. And please use an objective source, not a political one, so that we be confident that the data have not been spun.

that's your opinion, and you have the right to it

That's a cop out, whether or not you have the right to say it.

that's your opinion, and you have the right to it
Opinions based on solid fact are more persuasive than ones based on the mere desires of the one who believes them.

I was under the impression that freedom of speech was allowed in these forums.

What a silly impression to be under. Haven't you seen the rules?

that's your opinion, and you have the right to it

No, it's not.

Opinion would be something that can't be shown to be the directly observable logical conclusion. Your sources present a sampling from something like 400 people - the CDC has access to data from somewhere in the ballpark of 150 million persons of the female gender.

Also - one of your sources claims certain figures about 'pregnancy-associated' fatalities, that I have shown (and explained why) is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence.

I'm not even discussing partisanship or bias. My problems with your sources have been anything BUT opinion.

You have not proven that my sources have flawed information!

At this point I'm not entirely sure you know how to read.

*poisons Eye of the Hawk's soup*

Yes, especially when it can be demonstrated that they twist evidence to support their views.


I poison like one, too.


She is.


Eye of the Hawk is a girl, too. I don't swing that way, so no loss there.


A) His source is better than yours. Grave_n_idle explained why.

B) CDC might have flawed data. Your sites definitely have flawed data. Is it your argument that we should reject the source that could be either wrong or right in favor of the one we definitely know to be wrong?

C) I also posted a source, and a much more lay-person-friendly-one, which you have seen fit not to acknowledge. Let's go back to the beginning. You claimed that abortion is more harmful to women than pregnancy. I gave you a list of information about pregnancy risks. My source is a relatively non-biased one. It certainly is not a "pro-abortion" site. I asked you to show me a comparable list of risks from abortion to prove that abortion is more dangerous. What you gave me was a bunch of opinions and redundant and faulty citations that do not say what you think they say (again, as shown by Neo Art and GnI).

So I ask you again. Show me how abortion is more dangerous and harmful than pregnancy. Show me some risks of abortion that are not also risks of pregnancy. And please use an objective source, not a political one, so that we be confident that the data have not been spun.

You have not proven that my sources have flawed information! You immediately assume that they do because you think they're biased.

and honestly, you assume I know what the pro-life agenda is. I assure you, our opinions on this "agenda" are most likely very different, which is why I asked what you think it is.

as for virtually poisoning people...I'd think it was funny if I didn't have a feeling that you mean it. didn't you say you were 45 (not 10)?

You have not proven that my sources have flawed information! You immediately assume that they do because you think they're biased.

No, people quite reasonably pointed out why a study with a sample size of fewer than 300 women and insanely silly criteria is inferior to a study of an entire country and normal, reasonable criteria. No one "immediately assumed" anything - we looked at your sources and explicitly pointed out their flaws.

and honestly, you assume I know what the pro-life agenda is. I assure you, our opinions on this "agenda" are most likely very different, which is why I asked what you think it is.

In general, the criminalization of abortion in some form. I really do think you know this. Regardless, what exactly a given site's agenda is is not entirely relevant to the question of whether they have an agenda. They do. They explicitly and openly say so.

as for virtually poisoning people...I'd think it was funny if I didn't have a feeling that you mean it. didn't you say you were 45 (not 10)?

Good grief, I somehow doubt Mur is really going to poison you through the internet. What's she going to do, shoot arsenic into the air and hope it sticks to a WiFi signal?

At this point I'm not entirely sure you know how to read.

I don't actually. It's a very sad story. No one can figure out how I can write but not read. And I'm very sensitive about my illiteracy. Thanks for bringing up a sore spot:( lol

At this point I'm not entirely sure you know how to read.

I don't actually. It's a very sad story. No one can figure out how I can write but not read. And I'm very sensitive about my illiteracy. Thanks for bringing up a sore spot:( lol
Yeah, lol, it's frigging hilarious the way you make us beat our heads against the brick wall of your posts in this thread. Endlessly charming.

My own personal theory is that you can read perfectly well, but refuse to do so, just like the poet W.H. Auden when he was five. He got over that eventually, by the way.

You have not proven that my sources have flawed information!


I have.


You immediately assume that they do because you think they're biased.


And I've done it without even discussing the fact that they are ALSO heavily partisan.

I'm sorry, my friend - you've got nothing.

No, people quite reasonably pointed out why a study with a sample size of fewer than 300 women and insanely silly criteria is inferior to a study of an entire country and normal, reasonable criteria. No one "immediately assumed" anything - we looked at your sources and explicitly pointed out their flaws.



In general, the criminalization of abortion in some form. I really do think you know this. Regardless, what exactly a given site's agenda is is not entirely relevant to the question of whether they have an agenda. They do. They explicitly and openly say so.



Good grief, I somehow doubt Mur is really going to poison you through the internet. What's she going to do, shoot arsenic into the air and hope it sticks to a WiFi signal?


You pointed out the flaws of ONE source.

I just want to know what you people think the pro-life agenda is, because it sounds like you think it's scary or something.

And DON'T give her ideas! do you really want to be responsible for my death? wait - don't answer that

Yeah, lol, it's frigging hilarious the way you make us beat our heads against the brick wall of your posts in this thread. Endlessly charming.

My own personal theory is that you can read perfectly well, but refuse to do so, just like the poet W.H. Auden when he was five. He got over that eventually, by the way.

never heard of him. not into poetry, I prefer prose.

No, people quite reasonably pointed out why a study with a sample size of fewer than 300 women and insanely silly criteria is inferior to a study of an entire country and normal, reasonable criteria. No one "immediately assumed" anything - we looked at your sources and explicitly pointed out their flaws.



In general, the criminalization of abortion in some form. I really do think you know this. Regardless, what exactly a given site's agenda is is not entirely relevant to the question of whether they have an agenda. They do. They explicitly and openly say so.
This ^^ and thanks.


Good grief, I somehow doubt Mur is really going to poison you through the internet. What's she going to do, shoot arsenic into the air and hope it sticks to a WiFi signal?
I shouldn't say "Yes, that is my plan," should I? I mean, someone might believe me. It would be the bad kind of fun.

You pointed out the flaws of ONE source.

You posted 4 links. Two discussed that same study, so that's two out.

One basically critiqued the methodology of the CDC without providing any citation, or documentation proving their claims.

That's three.

The fourth relied primarily on medical records from the late 70s.

That's four.

I have.



And I've done it without even discussing the fact that they are ALSO heavily partisan.

I'm sorry, my friend - you've got nothing.

can you define partisan for me? seriously, I don't know what it means.

why don't I have anything? since when is CDC the be all and end all of evidence?

at least you called me friend...but I don't think you really mean it :(

This ^^ and thanks.



I shouldn't say "Yes, that is my plan," should I? I mean, someone might believe me. It would be the bad kind of fun.

guess I should prepare my Wifi defenses. I'll get on that

You pointed out the flaws of ONE source.

I just want to know what you people think the pro-life agenda is, because it sounds like you think it's scary or something.

And DON'T give her ideas! do you really want to be responsible for my death? wait - don't answer that
Neo Art, GnI, and I pointed out the flaws in ALL your sources. And we have already told you what we think the "pro-life" agenda is, and that what the bias is is not relevant. The existence of a bias at all damages the credibility of the source.

never heard of him. not into poetry, I prefer prose.
Ah, another thing you're proud of not knowing, eh?

can you define partisan for me? seriously, I don't know what it means.

why don't I have anything? since when is CDC the be all and end all of evidence?

at least you called me friend...but I don't think you really mean it :(

You're on the internet, right? You're aware that the definition of partisan is a mouse click and some typing away?

can you define partisan for me? seriously, I don't know what it means.

why don't I have anything? since when is CDC the be all and end all of evidence?

at least you called me friend...but I don't think you really mean it :(
Look it up. *throws dictionary at Eye of the Hawk*

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

A present for you. Happy Un-Birthday. (That's a prose reference.)

can you define partisan for me? seriously, I don't know what it means.

why don't I have anything? since when is CDC the be all and end all of evidence?

at least you called me friend...but I don't think you really mean it :(

Partisan means - in this context - favouring one side to the exception of others. Several (if not all) of the sources you've presented have been heavily partisan - but I've pointed out their other flaws.

Partisanship matters because it means a source might only present information that agrees with a declared or undeclared agenda... and might choose to wilfully ignore, corrupt, or misrepresent conflicting data.

The CDC isn't the be-all-and-end-all of evidence - but it is a pretty good source. You're going to be hard pushed to invalidate the CDC, since it's scope is so comprehensive. You can't just tie them up in partisanship, because they cover so broad a spectrum.. flu outbreaks... chemical spills... gynocological health. Not to say they CAN'T be partisan, but it's certainly going to be hard to demonstrate any evidence of it. And - as I said before, they have an almost unparalleled pool of data. You're going to be hard pushed to find another source with equal access - they have remarkably good access to several hundred million individual datapoints.

Contrast that with other sources - partisan or otherwise. Impartial, apolitical, 'professionally' scientific. The CDC has hard credentials to match.

Take the 'my friend' thing how you will. I'm not saying we should move in together, but I'm certainly not your enemy.

(a) A uterus doesn't come without the person attached to it.

(b) This would amount to legalized slavery.

(a) No shit Sherlock are you serious?

(b) So would prostitution also be legalised slavery? After all the women sells her body for a period of time.

The fact that the children are bastards should not effect the respect of other people upon the child. :upyours: I suspect that you are a Christian. Only a Christian could be stupid enough to say that. I would start a thread on the idiocy of the christian faith and god, but one of them would probably pay a hitman to find and kill me.

Way not to understand someones sarcastic post, well done man.

(b) So would prostitution also be legalised slavery? After all the women sells her body for a period of time.
That is so mind-blowingly stupid that I honestly cannot come up with an adequate response.

This thread has brought up some interesting points in my mind. One of them is that a pro-choice individual who finds abortion to be morally wrong is not the same as a pro-life individual who finds abortion to be morally wrong. The pro-choice person in this scenario finds abortion to be ethically wrong, but they do not put it on the same plane as murdering a post-birth human being. The act is therefore wrong to them from a philosphical perspective, and is not morally reprehensible enough to be legally prohibited.

Or, perhaps, they think that "morally reprehensible" is simply not enough of a justification for legal intervention.

The pro-life individual, on the other hand, considers abortion to be one in the same as murdering a post-birth human being, and therefore wants to see it be made a criminal act.

There are people who say this, but I have yet to find one who actually does. All you have to do is dig a little deeper to find that their treatment of those things they truly do consider to be murder is very, very different from their treatment of abortion.

(a) No shit Sherlock are you serious?

(b) So would prostitution also be legalised slavery? After all the women sells her body for a period of time.

A prostitute does not sell her body for any period of time. She sells a service for which she uses her body - just as a painter sells a service for which he uses his.

And, just like any other service provider, she can cease to provide that service at any time she wishes, and cannot be legally forced to continue. If a prostitute decides, while with a client, that she no longer wishes to provide that service, it is rape if he forces her to continue.

(a) No shit Sherlock are you serious?

(b) So would prostitution also be legalised slavery? After all the women sells her body for a period of time.

Huh?

Are you high?

Forcing women to engage in prostitution, with no chance to change their minds or get out of it would be slavery.

Your obtuseness indicates intentional misunderstanding.

Huh?

Are you high?

Forcing women to engage in prostitution, with no chance to change their minds or get out of it would be slavery.

Your obtuseness indicates intentional misunderstanding.

Plenty of men suck dick for a living.

I think that prostitution should be legalized, and anyone who doesn't have a job who shows up for benefits (who is still able to suck a dick) will be asked if they tried to engage in prostitution today.

Plenty of men suck dick for a living.

I think that prostitution should be legalized, and anyone who doesn't have a job who shows up for benefits (who is still able to suck a dick) will be asked if they tried to engage in prostitution today.

......*blink* ..I ... I think that is simply brilliant!:eek:

Whether abortion is safer, riskier, more or less painful, better or worse for the women, or easier/harder then childbirth is irrelevant. To me, it all comes down to one question. Is a fetus human? Or more specifically, is it a person? If it is a person, than its right to life trumps the right of the women to "do whatever she wants with her body".

There is no argument against the fetus being human. Tigers breed tigers, snakes breed snakes, humans breed humans. A fetus has a separate DNA than the mother. The mother must produce a hormone that disallows her body to reject the fetus as foreign or alien tissue. Therefore, a fetus is both human, and separate from the mother.

But is it a person? Well, since a human is standardly a person, lets see if there is any difference between a fetus and another person. The law forbids us to discriminate in regards to size, sex, and race. Therefore, the fetus cannot be considered unhuman just because of its size. You cannot say "its a lump of tissue", because that is what you are (no offense obviously). We are all a collection of molecules. Therefore, size is irrelevant.

Mental development is also a non-issue. We are not given status as a person because of our mental development. A new born baby has no more mental capacity than a fetus. Being stupid does not change the fact that you or I am human.

Dependency on the mother is also not an issue. After the child is born, it is just as dependent. There are many people who are living on life support, having a machine breath for them, having other people feed them through solutions injected into their body. According to the law these people are just as human as you are.

That is my personal opinion :)

Or, perhaps, they think that "morally reprehensible" is simply not enough of a justification for legal intervention.
Well, then they're pretty fucked up in their beliefs. Honestly, if you believe that a full-fledged act of murder, or something similarly horrific, is occurring, how can one not support measures to prevent it? I can understand allowing it to occur if one finds abortion to be wrong on a philosphical level -- it is the act of taking away of someone's chance at life, etc. -- but still supports keeping it legal, but not someone who would categorize it as first-degree murder and yet still support its legality.

Plenty of men suck dick for a living. I doubt even you would claim that there is anywhere near gender parity in terms of prostitution.

I think that prostitution should be legalized, and anyone who doesn't have a job who shows up for benefits (who is still able to suck a dick) will be asked if they tried to engage in prostitution today.
I'm amazed some work-for-welfare jurisdictions haven't done this already.

Well, then they're pretty fucked up in their beliefs.

I would say just the opposite. I can find something morally reprehensible without seeing justification for it to be a criminal offense.

If you can't, I have to wonder why you feel the need to validate yourself through force of law.

Honestly, if you believe that a full-fledged act of murder, or something similarly horrific, is occurring, how can one not support measures to prevent it?

There is more reason to oppose murder than simply "It is morally reprehensible". Someone might think that having an orgy is "morally reprehensible", but if all participants are consenting, I'd say it's no one's business but their own.

Murder, on the other hand, clearly involves harm to a non-consenting person.

I can understand allowing it to occur if one finds abortion to be wrong on a philosphical level -- it is the act of taking away of someone's chance at life, etc. -- but still supports keeping it legal, but not someone who would categorize it as first-degree murder and yet still support its legality.

Hence the reason that people who realize the differences between 1st-degree murder and abortion still pretend that they see no difference. It makes it easier to try and justify their position.

I doubt even you would claim that there is anywhere near gender parity in terms of prostitution.

I'm amazed some work-for-welfare jurisdictions haven't done this already.

I believe that one did in the UK. I can't find the story. However, I would think that issues of consent would come up. If someone did not want to be a sex worker, it would imply that they are not consenting, and any sex work they then 'did' would be rape.

I believe that one did in the UK. I can't find the story. However, I would think that issues of consent would come up. If someone did not want to be a sex worker, it would imply that they are not consenting, and any sex work they then 'did' would be rape.

Obviously.

Though...in this crowd...perhaps not so obviously.

By the way *kiss*

I doubt even you would claim that there is anywhere near gender parity in terms of prostitution.

I'm amazed some work-for-welfare jurisdictions haven't done this already.

There's no gender parity in prostitution, but I believe the number of men sucking dick for a living is larger than most of us would care to admit.

There's no gender parity in prostitution, but I believe the number of men sucking dick for a living is larger than most of us would care to admit.

If by 'most of us' you mean the few rampant homophobes here.

If by 'most of us' you mean the few rampant homophobes here.

Most people who aren't homophobes have no idea how many men suck dick for money.

I believe that one did in the UK. I can't find the story. However, I would think that issues of consent would come up. If someone did not want to be a sex worker, it would imply that they are not consenting, and any sex work they then 'did' would be rape.

There was talk of the possibility in Germany, IIRC. Their law cut off welfare recipients if they were offered a job and didn't take it. From what I understand, the law was amended so that you could not be pressured into working in prostitution.

A prostitute does not sell her body for any period of time. She sells a service for which she uses her body - just as a painter sells a service for which he uses his.

And, just like any other service provider, she can cease to provide that service at any time she wishes, and cannot be legally forced to continue. If a prostitute decides, while with a client, that she no longer wishes to provide that service, it is rape if he forces her to continue.

Ok so a woman sells her service to develop a child, again how is that slavery? A for your second part, should then the prostitute as a service provider be forced to compensate for not providing said service

Are you high?

If by high you mean, recovering from a 10 hour pub crawl, developing a major cold on said pup crawl and now suffering from the side effects of popping cold and flu tablets every four hours then yes I am high.

Ok so a woman sells her service to develop a child, again how is that slavery? A for your second part, should then the prostitute as a service provider be forced to compensate for not providing said service

Dempublicents isn't saying prostitution is slavery. She is saying that forcing a woman to stay pregnant is slavery.

As to the second question, that depends on the contractual agreements they made. This is of course assuming that prostitution is legalized.

Ok so a woman sells her service to develop a child, again how is that slavery?

It isn't, unless you force her to continue if she doesn't want to.

You aren't saying that a woman should simply be able to sell such a service. You are saying that, in doing so, someone else should gain dominion over her body. That is where slavery comes in.

A for your second part, should then the prostitute as a service provider be forced to compensate for not providing said service

Under the same circumstances that other service providers would be required to do so? Yes. If a prostitute was paid in advance, he could be expected to refund all or part of the money if he does not finish the service that was paid for.

It would be at least 4 days drive, and a plane would be hard to catch with such short notice at least a seat that doesn't cost an arm and a leg

Um.....what?

It would be at least 4 days drive, and a plane would be hard to catch with such short notice at least a seat that doesn't cost an arm and a leg

Stop posting now please.

Ok so a woman sells her service to develop a child, again how is that slavery? A for your second part, should then the prostitute as a service provider be forced to compensate for not providing said service

*coughcoughmentallydeficientcough*

If a woman gets paid to be a surrogate mother and chooses to do so, it's not slavery.

Forcing a woman against her will to carry a child to term is essentially slavery.

No one can be as obtuse as you are claiming to be.

Dempublicents isn't saying prostitution is slavery. She is saying that forcing a woman to stay pregnant is slavery.


Prostitution can be slavery... if you enslave someone, and then prostitute them. (By the samt token, of course, theoretically... eating M&Ms could be slavery).

Um.....what?

Um, oops, I was switching between windows while I was attempting to reply to you and replying to an email amongst other things. It seems I wrote it on here without thinking. Sorry I don't seem to be thinking straight at the moment.

It isn't, unless you force her to continue if she doesn't want to.

You aren't saying that a woman should simply be able to sell such a service. You are saying that, in doing so, someone else should gain dominion over her body. That is where slavery comes in.

I am saying that she loses dominion over her reproductive activities, if she isn't prepared to do it then she shouldn't have agreed to surrender herself for nine months. Regardless, in regards to surrogacy it seems we will have to agree to disagree. It would be interested for something like this to be played out in front of the courts in various countries.

Prostitution can be slavery... if you enslave someone, and then prostitute them. (By the samt token, of course, theoretically... eating M&Ms could be slavery).

Indeed, the same way parents sometimes force their child to eat vegtables, perhaps they should be locked up for slavery (theoretically of course)

Nothing bores me more than abortion debates.

I'm not attempting to bring up the issue of the legal right to abortion; rather, I'm curious as to what people's personal moral beliefs about the procedure are. Many people who consider themselves to be pro-choice proclaim that they are personally opposed to the procedure. I'm curious as to what the various reasons are for people to find the procedure either morally wrong or morally justifiable.

For me, it's a hard call. Technically, a developing fetus in the early stages of pregnancy has no cognitive abilities or feelings, so is it really a life worth preserving? At the same time, abortion is effectively taking a person's chance at life -- at making friendships, finding personal fulfillment, getting married -- and nipping it in the bud, so I can see it being morally wrong from that perspective.

So, my quesiton is: what are your personal beliefs about abortion?

I am pro-choice. And I am one of those people who could not have an abortion myself. When I was young (and childless) I said I could have one no problem, but after carrying my first child..nuh-uh no how no way could I ever abort a baby.

That is a decision I can only make about me though.

I am pro-choice. And I am one of those people who could not have an abortion myself. When I was young (and childless) I said I could have one no problem, but after carrying my first child..nuh-uh no how no way could I ever abort a baby.
Baby! What?! She said, "baby!" You can't say baby! It's a fetus! You're clearly a closet pro-life religious fanatic!

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

:upyours:

How darrrre you?! It is a fetus! A fetus! How dare you attack my pro-choice beliefs with your lack of respect for my asaninely technical terminology!

DAMN YOUUUU!!!!

Indeed, the same way parents sometimes force their child to eat vegtables, perhaps they should be locked up for slavery (theoretically of course)

I think we allow a certain amount of leeway in the case of children and their parents. If I held you captive, even if all you were forced to do was eat vegetables, there might be room for a 'slavery' claim.

Basically, I'm pro choice, but I'm totally against abortion as a form of birth control.

I think that abortion after incest or rape, or because of medical problems (either with the mother or fetus) is fine, however having an abortion because you are too iresponsible to use birth control is not alright.

If a someone uses abortion as birth control they should be forced to have long term birth control implemented on them, whether it be shots or implants.

I think that abortion after incest or rape, or because of medical problems (either with the mother or fetus) is fine, however having an abortion because you are too iresponsible to use birth control is not alright.


The bulk of abortions are actually performed on older women who already have at least one child. It's not that people tend to use abortion as birth control rather than use regular birth control... that's creating a false scenario - it's more about birth control failing, or being missed, for example.

The 'pro-life' lobby tends to trade a lot on these false premises, and thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments. They shouldn't be indulged.

I am saying that she loses dominion over her reproductive activities, if she isn't prepared to do it then she shouldn't have agreed to surrender herself for nine months. Regardless, in regards to surrogacy it seems we will have to agree to disagree. It would be interested for something like this to be played out in front of the courts in various countries.
Dempublicents made the point already: She doesn't lose dominion over her reproductive activities any more than a painter loses dominion over his arms when he contracts to paint your house.

When people make a contract, they bind themselves by mutual obligation to each other. BUT NO CONTRACT IS UNBREAKABLE. Each party to a contract has the right to back out of the deal, but if they do so, they must suffer some kind of penalty to make it up to the other party. But all legitimate contracts include provisions for how each party can get out of it and what will happen if either party does back out. This is because every free individual retains the right to choose what they want to do and who they want to do business with, as well as the right to change their minds.

Oh, and stuff like this gets played out in courts in many different countries frequently.

Baby! What?! She said, "baby!" You can't say baby! It's a fetus! You're clearly a closet pro-life religious fanatic!

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

:upyours:

How darrrre you?! It is a fetus! A fetus! How dare you attack my pro-choice beliefs with your lack of respect for my asaninely technical terminology!

DAMN YOUUUU!!!!

LOL, well people can call it a fetus if they want and I certainly felt that way BC (before children) but once you feel a baby move inside you, it is hard to ever think of a fetus as anything but a child again. It is a child regardless of how people want to pc the term to justify their thoughts.

Perhaps I am a closet pro-life advocate, at least for myself.

But I could not presume to tell another woman what she must do with her body. That to me is the first consideration. Because whether people want to acknowledge it or not, having a baby is horribly hard on a woman's body and will affect her life. To me you cannot disrespect a woman's worth and call it respect for a child's worth.

The decision is only mine when it involves me, otherwise someone else's decision is none of my business.

LOL, well people can call it a fetus if they want and I certainly felt that way BC (before children) but once you feel a baby move inside you, it is hard to ever think of a fetus as anything but a child again. It is a child regardless of how people want to pc the term to justify their thoughts.

Perhaps I am a closet pro-life advocate, at least for myself.

But I could not presume to tell another woman what she must do with her body. That to me is the first consideration. Because whether people want to acknowledge it or not, having a baby is horribly hard on a woman's body and will affect her life. To me you cannot disrespect a woman's worth and call it respect for a child's worth.

The decision is only mine when it involves me, otherwise someone else's decision is none of my business.

I think of the term 'fetus' as no different from 'infant' or 'toddler' or 'adolescent.' They're all just stages of development of a child.

I am saying that she loses dominion over her reproductive activities, if she isn't prepared to do it then she shouldn't have agreed to surrender herself for nine months.

So, when I hire a painter, he loses dominion over his hands, right? If I want to chain him up in my basement and force him to continue painting, he just should have thought about that before he contracted with me. Right?

I think of the term 'fetus' as no different from 'infant' or 'toddler' or 'adolescent.' They're all just stages of development of a child.


I agree, it doesn't change what it actually is in reality. I was thinking more about this and when a miscarriage occurs we do not say "she lost the fetus" regardless of what stage of pregnancy it occurred. We say "she lost the baby".

I think some use the term 'fetus' thinking it eliminates emotional attachments, nothing more. You are right it is simply a stage of developement of a human being.

Not if afterabortion is lying about it. All you have to do is read the CDC source and use your own judgment as to who is telling the truth about the CDC here.

no I was just saying it was altered either way. I wasn't trying to claim which side was right about why it was altered

Whether abortion is safer, riskier, more or less painful, better or worse for the women, or easier/harder then childbirth is irrelevant. To me, it all comes down to one question. Is a fetus human? Or more specifically, is it a person? If it is a person, than its right to life trumps the right of the women to "do whatever she wants with her body".

There is no argument against the fetus being human. Tigers breed tigers, snakes breed snakes, humans breed humans. A fetus has a separate DNA than the mother. The mother must produce a hormone that disallows her body to reject the fetus as foreign or alien tissue. Therefore, a fetus is both human, and separate from the mother.

But is it a person? Well, since a human is standardly a person, lets see if there is any difference between a fetus and another person. The law forbids us to discriminate in regards to size, sex, and race. Therefore, the fetus cannot be considered unhuman just because of its size. You cannot say "its a lump of tissue", because that is what you are (no offense obviously). We are all a collection of molecules. Therefore, size is irrelevant.

Mental development is also a non-issue. We are not given status as a person because of our mental development. A new born baby has no more mental capacity than a fetus. Being stupid does not change the fact that you or I am human.

Dependency on the mother is also not an issue. After the child is born, it is just as dependent. There are many people who are living on life support, having a machine breath for them, having other people feed them through solutions injected into their body. According to the law these people are just as human as you are.

That is my personal opinion :)

Well, since I haven't really seen a reply yet --- how about the fact that, at the point of a legal, elective abortion, it's non-sentient?

I agree, it doesn't change what it actually is in reality. I was thinking more about this and when a miscarriage occurs we do not say "she lost the fetus" regardless of what stage of pregnancy it occurred. We say "she lost the baby".

I think some use the term 'fetus' thinking it eliminates emotional attachments, nothing more. You are right it is simply a stage of developement of a human being.

Different situations. And yes, emotional attachment does have something to do with it. In an objective debate, we have to realize that our emotional attachments are much more, if not completely, irrelevant to the discussion. Bringing them in does nothing but muddy the waters.

If I were pregnant, I really wouldn't talk about my embryo or fetus. I'd be looking forward to the day I'd be holding a baby, and that is how I would reference it. But when discussing development or abortion, I feel that the technical terms are best. It isn't because I personally feel any less emotional about the issue. It is that my emotions on the matter really aren't the issue.

Different situations. And yes, emotional attachment does have something to do with it. In an objective debate, we have to realize that our emotional attachments are much more, if not completely, irrelevant to the discussion. Bringing them in does nothing but muddy the waters.

If I were pregnant, I really wouldn't talk about my embryo or fetus. I'd be looking forward to the day I'd be holding a baby, and that is how I would reference it. But when discussing development or abortion, I feel that the technical terms are best. It isn't because I personally feel any less emotional about the issue. It is that my emotions on the matter really aren't the issue.


That is exactly what I am saying. Many people feel the need to use the term fetus to discuss abortion. The term 'baby' conjures up the chubby Gerber darling we all know. The term 'fetus' conjures a petri dish and microscope. Yet one cannot be without the other, they are the same in reality. Our need to anesthecize the visual of abortion is purely psychological in my opinion.

I personally don't care which term someone uses. It sounds silly to say 'she lost her fetus' but that is exactly what a miscarriage is.

That is exactly what I am saying. Many people feel the need to use the term fetus to discuss abortion. The term 'baby' conjures up the chubby Gerber darling we all know. The term 'fetus' conjures a petri dish and microscope. Yet one cannot be without the other, they are the same in reality.

And therein lies the problem. To you, they are one and the same. To me, they are essentially one and the same. To someone else, they might not be. This is an emotional descriptor. Physically and developmentally, an embryo or early-term fetus is quite different from that chubby Gerber darling.

An objective discussion requires us to distance ourselves as much from our own subjective emotional viewpoints and mental hang-ups as much as possible. Otherwise, we muddy the waters.

And someone who gets caught up in the emotional terms likely can't see past their own viewpoint to even begin to understand that others don't agree. You and NB seem to agree that use of technical terms is meant to justify abortion by pretending that those emotional connections don't exist. What neither of you seem to understand is that your emotional viewpoints are not universal.

When a woman says she is horrified by the thought of being pregnant or that she sees forced pregnancy as slavery, NB will respond with "Well, my wife wasn't horrified," or "Well, my wife didn't feel like a slave when she was pregnant," as if his wife's feelings on the subject are somehow universal. You are doing the same thing here by presupposing that someone who uses technical terms is trying to hide emotional connections that they very well may not feel.

...once you feel a baby move inside you, it is hard to ever think of a fetus as anything but a child again.


Not according to my wife. She was convinced it was an alien right up till the ultrasounds were clear enough to see a decent 'baby' shape.

And therein lies the problem. To you, they are one and the same. To me, they are essentially one and the same. To someone else, they might not be. This is an emotional descriptor. Physically and developmentally, an embryo or early-term fetus is quite different from that chubby Gerber darling.

An objective discussion requires us to distance ourselves as much from our own subjective emotional viewpoints and mental hang-ups as much as possible. Otherwise, we muddy the waters.

And someone who gets caught up in the emotional terms likely can't see past their own viewpoint to even begin to understand that others don't agree. You and NB seem to agree that use of technical terms is meant to justify abortion by pretending that those emotional connections don't exist. What neither of you seem to understand is that your emotional viewpoints are not universal.

When a woman says she is horrified by the thought of being pregnant or that she sees forced pregnancy as slavery, NB will respond with "Well, my wife wasn't horrified," or "Well, my wife didn't feel like a slave when she was pregnant," as if his wife's feelings on the subject are somehow universal. You are doing the same thing here by presupposing that someone who uses technical terms is trying to hide emotional connections that they very well may not feel.

No, not at all. The terms are what they are and their definition is not subject to emotion. How those terms are used maybe subject to emotion, but not the terms themselves. A baby is a fetus and a fetus is a baby. There is no difference other than the stage of developement. A fetus is not a tulip for example, it is a baby.

While I realize it makes some uncomfortable to use the term baby while discussing abortion, it makes no difference to me at all. Actually aren't they hiding the emotional aspect? If not why does it matter what anyone calls it? Why do some people object to a fetus being called a baby? Isn't it because it affects their emotions? So in essense they are actually trying to avoid said emotion are they not?

Like I said it makes no difference to me at all, it is what it is. But I don't think you can simply discredit someone for using the term 'baby' in an abortion discussion anymore than you can discredit someone for using the term fetus....both words are equally serving a purpose.

Interesting point though.

I agree, it doesn't change what it actually is in reality. I was thinking more about this and when a miscarriage occurs we do not say "she lost the fetus" regardless of what stage of pregnancy it occurred. We say "she lost the baby".

I think some use the term 'fetus' thinking it eliminates emotional attachments, nothing more. You are right it is simply a stage of developement of a human being.

I agree completely. Got flamed like crazy for the way I said so earlier in this thread, too ;)

...not that I minded it. It was expected.

And therein lies the problem. To you, they are one and the same. To me, they are essentially one and the same. To someone else, they might not be. This is an emotional descriptor. Physically and developmentally, an embryo or early-term fetus is quite different from that chubby Gerber darling.

An objective discussion requires us to distance ourselves as much from our own subjective emotional viewpoints and mental hang-ups as much as possible. Otherwise, we muddy the waters.

And someone who gets caught up in the emotional terms likely can't see past their own viewpoint to even begin to understand that others don't agree. You and NB seem to agree that use of technical terms is meant to justify abortion by pretending that those emotional connections don't exist. What neither of you seem to understand is that your emotional viewpoints are not universal.

When a woman says she is horrified by the thought of being pregnant or that she sees forced pregnancy as slavery, NB will respond with "Well, my wife wasn't horrified," or "Well, my wife didn't feel like a slave when she was pregnant," as if his wife's feelings on the subject are somehow universal. You are doing the same thing here by presupposing that someone who uses technical terms is trying to hide emotional connections that they very well may not feel.

I know PQ has basically made this point but I'd like to add my own spin.

I agree with you that emotion needs to be put aside in a discussion about something like this, but it's as wrong to assume that calling it a baby is the result of an emotional response as you feel it's wrong for someone like me to say that calling it a fetus fills an emotional need.

While I agree with you both that fetus=baby in this context, I've seen pro-choice debaters on this forum chastise pro-life debaters for calling it a baby as opposed to a fetus. (and vice versa, to be fair) If the terms truly are interchangeable then it ought not matter what terms are used UNLESS someone is deliberately bringing emotion into it.

I admit, I've been known to go on the attack for this as well, but I do try to limit that to occasions where I feel the person is deliberately using the term 'fetus' as a shield against emotional discomfort.

No, not at all. The terms are what they are and their definition is not subject to emotion. How those terms are used maybe subject to emotion, but not the terms themselves. A baby is a fetus and a fetus is a baby.

Only because people have emotionally ascribed the term "baby" to a fetus. Note that "baby" is not a technical term at all.

There is no difference other than the stage of developement.

....which is a difference. Emotionally, you may see them as equivalent, despite those differences in development. Others, however, do not - just as most people do not equate the seed of an oak tree with an oak tree. Yes, the difference is the stage of development. But those differences mean more to some than to others.

While I realize it makes some uncomfortable to use the term baby while discussing abortion, it makes no difference to me at all. Actually aren't they hiding the emotional aspect? If not why does it matter what anyone calls it? Why do some people object to a fetus being called a baby? Isn't it because it affects their emotions? So in essense they are actually trying to avoid said emotion are they not?

Not necessarily their own emotion. Often, they are trying to help someone else separate their emotions from the debate so that an objective debate is possible. If someone cannot get past the fact their own emotional viewpoint - where they tend to equate embryo, fetus, and neonate - is subjective, then they cannot really understand the point of view of someone for whom those differences really do matter.

Like I said it makes no difference to me at all, it is what it is. But I don't think you can simply discredit someone for using the term 'baby' in an abortion discussion anymore than you can discredit someone for using the term fetus....both words are equally serving a purpose.

But someone using "baby" is much more likely to be appealing to emotion rather than intellect. And they are also less likely to understand that others have different points of view.

Can you discredit someone for using it? No. But I do think it is best to stick to terms that are not emotionally charged when trying to have an objective debate. And you can't go much less emotionally charged than technical terms.

Interesting point though.

=)


While I agree with you both that fetus=baby in this context, I've seen pro-choice debaters on this forum chastise pro-life debaters for calling it a baby as opposed to a fetus. (and vice versa, to be fair) If the terms truly are interchangeable then it ought not matter what terms are used UNLESS someone is deliberately bringing emotion into it.

That's just it. The terms are not "truly interchangeable". For some, they are. For others, they are not. For most, the term "baby" carries an emotional attachment.

To you or I, the term embryo or fetus might be interchangeable with the term baby. To someone else, it might not be. And since there is no technical definition of the term "baby" - only those derived from usage, no one can say that they are using the correct definition. "Baby" is not a defined stage of development.

That's just it. The terms are not "truly interchangeable". For some, they are. For others, they are not. For most, the term "baby" carries an emotional attachment.

To you or I, the term embryo or fetus might be interchangeable with the term baby. To someone else, it might not be. And since there is no technical definition of the term "baby" - only those derived from usage, no one can say that they are using the correct definition. "Baby" is not a defined stage of development.

I see what you're saying, but I think both terms are equally likely to be used for emotional reasons.

I do think there's some merit to using the term 'baby' in a debate like this that isn't emotional per se. It accomplishes the task of retaining the humanity of the subject, not for emotional fulfillment, but for keeping a useful perspective.

A "fetus" is quite similar to a "baby", more so as it goes along. An "embryo" is not like a "baby". Most abortions are of embryos, not fetuses.

no I was just saying it was altered either way. I wasn't trying to claim which side was right about why it was altered
So you say. Now. But go back and read your posts. You were clearly trying to imply that the CDC's credibility was harmed by any possible alteration in its data. (A) You ignored the fact, clearly pointed out to you by another poster, that afterabortion misrepresented what the CDC actually said and did, so any claim that data was altered is itself suspect, and (B) you ignored the suggestion that altering data to make it clearer and more accurate is not a bad thing.

So, you can claim now that you weren't trying to say which side was right about this or that if you like, but I'll stick to my position -- the CDC did nothing wrong or bad by altering its published data, but afterabortion did do something wrong by misrepresenting the CDC's actions.

I see what you're saying, but I think both terms are equally likely to be used for emotional reasons.

I do think there's some merit to using the term 'baby' in a debate like this that isn't emotional per se. It accomplishes the task of retaining the humanity of the subject, not for emotional fulfillment, but for keeping a useful perspective.
What is it useful for?

When a surgeon discusses procedures, he/she doesn't talk in terms of "the body" this or "the person" that. They talk about the parts they will be working on -- all or part of an organ to be removed, the various parts of the muscles to be divided, or nerves to be severed, or tumors to be removed from one section of the brain or another, etc, etc, etc. If doctors were to use broad language like "body" or "patient," they would not be able to communicate clearly about what they are going to do. Does that mean they are not "retaining the humanity of the subject" of surgery? I don't think it does at all. It just means they are being clear about their meaning.

When we discuss abortion, the use of broad, unspecific terms like "baby" communicate nothing about the subject. All they serve to do is stifle discussion, to kill some people's points before they can even be made, and to take other people's narrow points and artificially inflate them to be applied more broadly.

For instance, we frequently see anti-choice advocates talk about late trimester abortion -- the proverbial "killing a baby minutes before it's born" scenario -- and then try to expand that scenario to cover ALL abortions, up to the first week of pregnancy, as if there is no practical difference between the two, as if the embryo is just as viable as the baby on the verge of natural birth, as if the two procedures are the same and performed for the same reason. But in real, practical terms, that is just not true. They are enormously different in every respect. Yet those who would equate both with "killing babies" routinely pretend that late abortions are common (which they are not) and that embryos are somehow close to viable independent life forms (which they are not), and routinely fall into the habit of talking about both together, as if they are the same thing. They also often fall into the habit of accusing pro-choice advocates of dehumanizing babies when we try to discuss practical matters of abortion procedures (referring back to the way surgeons talk about surgery). It seems pretty obvious to me that, regardless of what the speaker's intention is, the use of the broad, unspecific term "baby" in such cases actually accomplishes nothing but to negate all arguments about specifics by erasing any practical specificity linguistically. It does nothing but to render the topic imprecise and unclear while injecting a strong emotional charge.

So I ask you, what is this perspective you wish to maintain useful for, if not for appealing to emotion in order to shut down one's opponents instead of appealing to reason or factuality in order to carry one's own argument?

Abortion is fine in my eyes.

Hell, it takes, on avarage, a million dollars to raise a child, so nobody should be ashamed about it.

And untill the baby/fetus/thing can think on its own and makes its own decisions in life, is it person?

Only because people have emotionally ascribed the term "baby" to a fetus. Note that "baby" is not a technical term at all.



....which is a difference. Emotionally, you may see them as equivalent, despite those differences in development. Others, however, do not - just as most people do not equate the seed of an oak tree with an oak tree. Yes, the difference is the stage of development. But those differences mean more to some than to others.



Not necessarily their own emotion. Often, they are trying to help someone else separate their emotions from the debate so that an objective debate is possible. If someone cannot get past the fact their own emotional viewpoint - where they tend to equate embryo, fetus, and neonate - is subjective, then they cannot really understand the point of view of someone for whom those differences really do matter.



But someone using "baby" is much more likely to be appealing to emotion rather than intellect. And they are also less likely to understand that others have different points of view.

Can you discredit someone for using it? No. But I do think it is best to stick to terms that are not emotionally charged when trying to have an objective debate. And you can't go much less emotionally charged than technical terms.



=)



That's just it. The terms are not "truly interchangeable". For some, they are. For others, they are not. For most, the term "baby" carries an emotional attachment.

To you or I, the term embryo or fetus might be interchangeable with the term baby. To someone else, it might not be. And since there is no technical definition of the term "baby" - only those derived from usage, no one can say that they are using the correct definition. "Baby" is not a defined stage of development.

Like I said it is interesting. I really had never thought about it. I don't equate either with emotional meaning when I talk about abortion. In fact to me abortion is act of ending a pregnancy. Pregnancy is the state of being pregnant. Pregnant is carrying offspring, developing fetus, live young, etc (all medical definitions).

Funny that the term 'baby' isn't technical, every doctor I have ever discussed pregnancy with calls it a 'baby' regardless of stage. In fact I was advised to consider abortion for my third child by my doctor. He had no problem calling it a baby. Does it get more technical than a doctor? Not to mention medical dictionaries certainly define 'baby'.

I don't see the differences mattering except to someone who wants others to follow their lead in viewpoint. "Fetus" is no less persuasive than "baby" in terms of discussion. It just depends on what persuasion you are promoting. Am I somehow responsible for someone else's need to make a demarcation between the two when I don't recognize a difference? Or that I recognize that those who want a difference are doing so to alleviate their need for it not to be emotional? That in itself is emotional.

In an effort to emotionless (in some minds) an emotion is actually invoked isn't it? ;)

Using the terms 'baby', 'fetus', 'embryo' interchangably doesn't change my view or emotion in the least. I would suggest that if it does change someone's view then they were not sure in their belief to begin with. :confused:

(I'm don't mean to sound argumentative, I hope I am not coming across as such....just tossing out thoughts nothing more.) :)

Funny that the term 'baby' isn't technical, every doctor I have ever discussed pregnancy with calls it a 'baby' regardless of stage. In fact I was advised to consider abortion for my third child by my doctor. He had no problem calling it a baby. Does it get more technical than a doctor?

Yes. Doctors often use lay terms because they are dealing with patients.

Not to mention medical dictionaries certainly define 'baby'.

Really? Exactly what stage of development is "baby"? At what point does the "baby" stage begin and at what point does it end?

I don't see the differences mattering except to someone who wants others to follow their lead in viewpoint. "Fetus" is no less persuasive than "baby" in terms of discussion. It just depends on what persuasion you are promoting. Am I somehow responsible for someone else's need to make a demarcation between the two when I don't recognize a difference? Or that I recognize that those who want a difference are doing so to alleviate their need for it not to be emotional? That in itself is emotional.

This sounds like you're making the assumption that no one can actually have a different viewpoint from you. They have to be using word to make it non-emotional. It can't possibly be that they are already non-emotional, and thus not using emotional terms, right?

For most people, the term "baby" carries an emotional weight above and beyond any stage of development. Recognizing that and thus choosing not to use it when the discussion is not emotional doesn't necessarily mean that one is making a major effort to be unemotional.

Using the terms 'baby', 'fetus', 'embryo' interchangably doesn't change my view or emotion in the least. I would suggest that if it does change someone's view then they were not sure in their belief to begin with. :confused:

It isn't that it changes their opinion. It's often that it makes them unable to question said opinion and, at the very least, recognize that others' opinions vary.

(I'm don't mean to sound argumentative, I hope I am not coming across as such....just tossing out thoughts nothing more.) :)

Nah. This NSG. Everything is argumentative! =)

(snipping only for length, not content.)

What is it useful for?



If you're arguing a pro-life position, then you look at the baby as a living separate entity... that being the basis for your argument. Therefore it's useful for presenting that perspective. It's a choice of terms that matches your position, even with no emotional context.





When a surgeon discusses procedures, he/she doesn't talk in terms of "the body" this or "the person" that. <snip>

Does that mean they are not "retaining the humanity of the subject" of surgery? I don't think it does at all. It just means they are being clear about their meaning.





I agree here, but performing surgery is a different setting than an abortion debate.



An important note is that we're not saying that ALL uses of the term 'fetus' necessarily indicate an intent to de-humanize for emotional reasons, only that it happens often. (Just as it happens often that the term 'baby' is used for emotional reasons often, but not always, on the other side.)





When we discuss abortion, the use of broad, unspecific terms like "baby" communicate nothing about the subject. All they serve to do is stifle discussion, to kill some people's points before they can even be made, and to take other people's narrow points and artificially inflate them to be applied more broadly.



A pro-life debater could make a similar argument about the use of 'fetus.' It can be equally viewed as stifling discussion and killing points in the exact same way.





For instance, we frequently see anti-choice advocates talk about late trimester abortion -- the proverbial "killing a baby minutes before it's born" scenario -- and then try to expand that scenario to cover ALL abortions, up to the first week of pregnancy, as if there is no practical difference between the two, as if the embryo is just as viable as the baby on the verge of natural birth, as if the two procedures are the same and performed for the same reason. But in real, practical terms, that is just not true.

<snip>

It seems pretty obvious to me that, regardless of what the speaker's intention is, the use of the broad, unspecific term "baby" in such cases actually accomplishes nothing but to negate all arguments about specifics by erasing any practical specificity linguistically. It does nothing but to render the topic imprecise and unclear while injecting a strong emotional charge.





I'm aware of that tactic but I also recognize its limited application. The thing is, calling the unborn a 'baby' all through the pregnancy isn't unreasonable to someone who calls it that in any other context. For someone who wants to be pregnant, for example, it's a baby form the moment the pregnancy test shows a '+' so why should they call it something different in the context of a debate?





So I ask you, what is this perspective you wish to maintain useful for, if not for appealing to emotion in order to shut down one's opponents instead of appealing to reason or factuality in order to carry one's own argument?



It's useful for accurately representing the status of the unborn in accordance with the pro-life position. It's consistent with terminology used in other contexts even when abortion isn't the issue and even by people on both sides of the issue, as PQ pointed out. (Miscarriage referenced as "losing the baby" as opposed to "losing the fetus" being one example.)

And untill the baby/fetus/thing can think on its own and makes its own decisions in life, is it person?

Therein lies the crux of the matter being discussed.

I´m pro-choice, same as you. But abortion is a delicate subject. I´ve never been in the position of having to go through with an abortion, and I´m sure it´s a hard decision. But, in some cases, it´s the right thing to do.

So, when I hire a painter, he loses dominion over his hands, right? If I want to chain him up in my basement and force him to continue painting, he just should have thought about that before he contracted with me. Right?

Yep that's exactly right if we signed a contract and he agreed to those conditions then yes. Oh and if I hire a painter you know what he does lose dominion over, what he paints.

Yep that's exactly right if we signed a contract and he agreed to those conditions then yes.

Your understanding of the law is...well....stupid.

Your understanding of the law is...well....stupid.

Well done Neo for entirely missing the entire point of this thread, we were not discussing the law we were discussing what we thought was right and how things should be, and believe it or not not everyone agrees with 100% of the law 100% of the time.

Well done Neo for entirely missing the entire point of this thread, we were not discussing the law we were discussing what we thought was right and how things should be, and believe it or not not everyone agrees with 100% of the law 100% of the time.

Although in fairness, if you're going to get into the business of discussing things like contracts, then it does get into the territory of law.

The world is overpopulated. In time there will be a mass starvation and a population collapse. By 2050 2/3rds of the world with have a water shortage according to the UN. There are too many poor people being born with a small but significant proportion of these are born in families who dont want them. Desteralization should be free to prevent all this. This would avoid the need for abortion and save the government money in the long run upon child support. Of course not having sex at all is alot cheaper then both desteralization or abortion.

I find that the "pro-life" people are looking at the one individuals life from mostly a religous point of view. What they dont look at is the big picture and the future BILLIONS of people who will only be starving through their whole lives. Its already starting to happen. Just look at Egypt boarering on civil unrest because food has become less affordable due to demand.

Personally, my opinion is that abortion is a mortal sin, and the murder of a human being.

(snipping only for length, not content.)


If you're arguing a pro-life position, then you look at the baby as a living separate entity... that being the basis for your argument. Therefore it's useful for presenting that perspective. It's a choice of terms that matches your position, even with no emotional context.



I agree here, but performing surgery is a different setting than an abortion debate.
They are both medical procedures, both performed by doctors, often with the same nursing and anesthesiology support, often facing similar risks of complications, both performed in similar medical settings with similar post-procedure outpatient recovery. What is the difference, from a medical perspective? Abortion debate often (nearly always) includes discussion of the procedure itself, so please explain how the medical realities are "a different setting than an abortion debate."



An important note is that we're not saying that ALL uses of the term 'fetus' necessarily indicate an intent to de-humanize for emotional reasons, only that it happens often. (Just as it happens often that the term 'baby' is used for emotional reasons often, but not always, on the other side.)


A pro-life debater could make a similar argument about the use of 'fetus.' It can be equally viewed as stifling discussion and killing points in the exact same way.


I'm aware of that tactic but I also recognize its limited application. The thing is, calling the unborn a 'baby' all through the pregnancy isn't unreasonable to someone who calls it that in any other context. For someone who wants to be pregnant, for example, it's a baby form the moment the pregnancy test shows a '+' so why should they call it something different in the context of a debate?

It's useful for accurately representing the status of the unborn in accordance with the pro-life position. It's consistent with terminology used in other contexts even when abortion isn't the issue and even by people on both sides of the issue, as PQ pointed out. (Miscarriage referenced as "losing the baby" as opposed to "losing the fetus" being one example.)
I see, so, it's an ideological usage. It is meant solely to keep up everyone's awareness of your pre-exising opinon throughout all stages of the conversation. It is not meant to be an accurate descriptor of what we are talking about, even if what we are talking about is the details of the medical procedure. In other words, even though it would be far more clear to say that abortion in the first week affects embryos, whereas at later stages it affects fetuses, you just prefer to say that all abortion affects babies because that expresses your opinion.

If so, then it is just as I thought. Anti-choicers who prefer the word "baby" and denounce usage of the words "embryo" and "fetus" are not attempting to discuss facts. They only want to talk about their opinion and want all of the conversation cast in the language of their opinion, whether it is appropriate or intelligble or not.

And yes, I agree with your assertion that this can be done unemotionally. One does not have to feel an emotion to appeal to emotion. One does not have to be emotional to warp language for ideological purposes or to unfairly accuse one's opponent in order to marginalize their argument.

Yep that's exactly right if we signed a contract and he agreed to those conditions then yes. Oh and if I hire a painter you know what he does lose dominion over, what he paints.
This makes me think you have never actually been a party to a contract. Or if you have, then you signed it without reading it, which is something you really should not do.

Every single legal contract ever made includes clauses that outline the conditions or circumstances that will allow either of the parties to back out of the agreement, from conditions caused by circumstances beyond anyone's control, to various defaults on the part of either party that would allow the other party to cancel the deal, to either party merely changing their mind and declaring they want out.

If what you say were accurate, then no such clauses would exist, because once a person entered a contract, they would have no way to get out of it until they had fulfilled it. But that is just not how it works. Contracts give you many ways to encourage someone to do what you want and penalize them for not doing it, but they do not give you ownership over another person. They do not give you the power of force. Plain and simple.

Well done Neo for entirely missing the entire point of this thread, we were not discussing the law we were discussing what we thought was right and how things should be, and believe it or not not everyone agrees with 100% of the law 100% of the time.

Is this your way of realizing that you're wrong on this point and trying to dismiss it by claiming that the point you pursued for so long was off topic the whole time?

They are both medical procedures, both performed by doctors, often with the same nursing and anesthesiology support, often facing similar risks of complications, both performed in similar medical settings with similar post-procedure outpatient recovery. What is the difference, from a medical perspective? Abortion debate often (nearly always) includes discussion of the procedure itself, so please explain how the medical realities are "a different setting than an abortion debate."


Because the debate itself isn't part of the procedure. Certainly a pro-life debater who is a doctor in real life who is called upon to perform surgery on a patient who's pregnant would say 'fetus' in reference to it within that context, but in a debate, especially one that focuses on ideology as opposed to the medical or legal aspect of it, would be free to say 'baby' and probably would. (Although little confusion would arise even during the surgical procedure if the doctor said 'baby' as opposed to 'fetus'.)

And even if the debate itself does delve into the details of the procedure, because 'baby' is adequate as a term for the subject then there's still no need to restrict the discussino to only one term or the other.


I see, so, it's an ideological usage. It is meant solely to keep up everyone's awareness of your pre-exising opinon throughout all stages of the conversation. It is not meant to be an accurate descriptor of what we are talking about, even if what we are talking about is the details of the medical procedure. In other words, even though it would be far more clear to say that abortion in the first week affects embryos, whereas at later stages it affects fetuses, you just prefer to say that all abortion affects babies because that expresses your opinion.


It would be silly for a pro-life debater to use the term 'baby' in such a way as to cause confusion in the details of a discussion. For example, if you and I were talking in general terms about the status of an unborn, if I said 'baby' and you said 'fetus' then we'd understand each other fine. On the other hand, if we were discussing the status at various stages of the pregnancy, then yes, it would be appropriate for me to switch to technical terms for the sake of clarity.


If so, then it is just as I thought. Anti-choicers who prefer the word "baby" and denounce usage of the words "embryo" and "fetus" are not attempting to discuss facts. They only want to talk about their opinion and want all of the conversation cast in the language of their opinion, whether it is appropriate or intelligble or not.


If they're denouncing the use of the words 'fetus' and 'embryo' purely for rhetorical or emotional purposes then I would agree with you.


And yes, I agree with your assertion that this can be done unemotionally. One does not have to feel an emotion to appeal to emotion. One does not have to be emotional to warp language for ideological purposes or to unfairly accuse one's opponent in order to marginalize their argument.

That's true, they don't... but the intent is still important. If somebody simply prefers to use the term 'baby' or 'fetus' because it makes more sense to them or is more comfortable for them, then there's no problem. The problem comes in when they do it in order to get a rise out of their opponent.

Because the debate itself isn't part of the procedure.
Really? Then why do anti-choicers insist on arguing about the procedure? Why are claims about negative medical impacts of abortion such a popular aspect of anti-choice arguments?

Certainly a pro-life debater who is a doctor in real life who is called upon to perform surgery on a patient who's pregnant would say 'fetus' in reference to it within that context, but in a debate, especially one that focuses on ideology as opposed to the medical or legal aspect of it, would be free to say 'baby' and probably would. (Although little confusion would arise even during the surgical procedure if the doctor said 'baby' as opposed to 'fetus'.)
So, in other words, it is appropriate to use accurate language when you're trying to be accurate, but when you're trying to push an ideology and marginalize an opponent, it's perfectly okay to use inaccurate language. Noted.

And even if the debate itself does delve into the details of the procedure, because 'baby' is adequate as a term for the subject then there's still no need to restrict the discussino to only one term or the other.
So, in other words, if it suits your opinion, then it's okay. Because I just finished explaining why "baby" is NOT "adequate as a term for the subject," but since you think it is, there's nothing more to discuss about it, according to you.

It would be silly for a pro-life debater to use the term 'baby' in such a way as to cause confusion in the details of a discussion. For example, if you and I were talking in general terms about the status of an unborn, if I said 'baby' and you said 'fetus' then we'd understand each other fine.
Yes, I think we would, and do, understand each other perfectly well.

On the other hand, if we were discussing the status at various stages of the pregnancy, then yes, it would be appropriate for me to switch to technical terms for the sake of clarity.
I will celebrate the day anti-choicers start doing that.


If they're denouncing the use of the words 'fetus' and 'embryo' purely for rhetorical or emotional purposes then I would agree with you.
I thought I had made it clear that it is my view that that is exactly what they are doing. And since you have set the standard that our own opinions shall dictate the reality of what's going on, then I will say that IS exactly what they are doing, since I think it is.

That's true, they don't... but the intent is still important. If somebody simply prefers to use the term 'baby' or 'fetus' because it makes more sense to them or is more comfortable for them, then there's no problem. The problem comes in when they do it in order to get a rise out of their opponent.
OK, so according to you, if they prefer to be inaccurate and accusatory just for their own satisfaction or personal comfort level, that makes it all right, and we should all respect and accept their arguments? Yeah, you know, I don't think I'm going to do that. I think I'm going to call bullshit when I see it, regardless of the intent of the bullshitter, and if I think an anti-choicer is using the word "baby" inappropriately, I'm going to call them on it.

Yep that's exactly right if we signed a contract and he agreed to those conditions then yes.

Then you are in favor of legalized slavery. Congratulations.

Oh and if I hire a painter you know what he does lose dominion over, what he paints.

Actually, he gains dominion there. If you don't give him permission to paint something of yours, he cannot. So he's gaining something to paint. But that is really neither here nor there.

Abortion is MURDER!!!!

Abortion is MURDER!!!!

then i highly recommend that you dont have or perform an abortion.

i belive that i (and by extension we) do not have the right to make anyone do something with their body that they do not want to do. the example of conjoined twins is instructive since in this case few would deny the right of one twin to be surgically seperated from their twin, even if that separation posed a threat to the life of either twin. it is each individuals choice to do with their body as they wish. the ancient superstitions of our ancestors are a very poor guide indeed to how to live our lives. they condone the "murder" of those who do not believe in them and of other un-desirables and to use them to regulate our lives would lead us to untold barbarity in the name of god or the flying noodle monster.
womens bodies are their own i (and by extension we) do not have the right to judge them for the choices they make about them.

Abortion is MURDER!!!!

Don't be so quick to declare.

Christians killed Jews in the millions (remember the burning in Strasbourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism#Thirteenth_century) in the 14th. century) for not sharing their same beliefs. I call that MURDER too.

Abortion is MURDER!!!!

you don't actually believe that.

I think he does. Tucker seems to be another garden variety Christian fundamentalist though he could be trying to be satirical . . . . i guess. . . .

I think he does. Tucker seems to be another garden variety Christian fundamentalist though he could be trying to be satirical . . . . i guess. . . .

You missed the "Christian Discussions" thread, didn't you?

ya wanna send me a link?

I think he does. Tucker seems to be another garden variety Christian fundamentalist though he could be trying to be satirical . . . . i guess. . . .

either way, he doesn't actually believe abortion is murder. only the craziest of crazies really believe that, and even they have a hard time being consistent about it. this is easily shown by asking them what the punishment for a woman seeking an abortion should be and then asking them what the punishment for a person who pays someone to kill their neighbor should be. or by trying to wring an answer to the burning fertility clinic thought experiment out of them.

good point soviets but I dunno you may have underestimated tucker. You should see some of his other stuff.

Really? Then why do anti-choicers insist on arguing about the procedure? Why are claims about negative medical impacts of abortion such a popular aspect of anti-choice arguments?


No, what I'm saying is that one doesn't need to perform an abortion during a debate about abortion, nor does one need to debate abortion during a procedure.


So, in other words, it is appropriate to use accurate language when you're trying to be accurate, but when you're trying to push an ideology and marginalize an opponent, it's perfectly okay to use inaccurate language. Noted.


The very act of debating is putting forward one's ideology. That needn't necessarily be emotion-based.


So, in other words, if it suits your opinion, then it's okay. Because I just finished explaining why "baby" is NOT "adequate as a term for the subject," but since you think it is, there's nothing more to discuss about it, according to you.


No. Your opinion is that the term 'baby' is inadequate. Mine is that it is not.


I will celebrate the day anti-choicers start doing that.


One thing I find ironic is that during a debate where using the term 'baby' is being characterized as a blatant attempt at emotionalism, you're using the phrase 'anti-choice' to describe your opponents.


I thought I had made it clear that it is my view that that is exactly what they are doing. And since you have set the standard that our own opinions shall dictate the reality of what's going on, then I will say that IS exactly what they are doing, since I think it is.


Not at all. One's intent defines their intent. Plain and simple. If someone wants to use the term 'baby' because they feel it's more appropriate, there's no reason to presuppose any intent beyond that, any more than it would be appropriate to assume their opponent was using the term 'fetus' in an inflammatory way until shown otherwise.


OK, so according to you, if they prefer to be inaccurate and accusatory just for their own satisfaction or personal comfort level, that makes it all right, and we should all respect and accept their arguments?


Who decides it's inaccurate? Why must it necessarily be accusatory?

Yeah, you know, I don't think I'm going to do that. I think I'm going to call bullshit when I see it, regardless of the intent of the bullshitter, and if I think an anti-choicer is using the word "baby" inappropriately, I'm going to call them on it.

If you think it's inappropriate then you should. Although that presupposes that there are circumstances where you wouldn't think it inappropriate within the context of a debate.

neo-bretonnia the word is foetus not fetus the latin root of which would probably have something to do with stinking.

I would invite Muravyets to hug a foetus, play with it, hold it, breast feed it. Oh, you can't? Because it is no more a baby than a human heart, which is capable of the same self-defence reaction to being removed from the body, upon which surgery looks equally gruesome, posesses the same complete DNA as a human being and which is capable of assisted life outside the human body.

I've always found it interesting you can be anti-choice on abortion, but perfectly fine with open heart surgery.

neo-bretonnia the word is foetus not fetus the latin root of which would probably have something to do with stinking.

Generally when assuming your high-horse on an obvious typo, one uses correct capitalisation.

Bloody hell! The only thing this trainwreck of a thread proves is that the world would have been a little less of a sickening hellhole if quite a few people pointlessly debating the moral implications of abortion in this thread would have been prematurely removed from the poisoned womb they spawned from... get a godforsaken life, people!

I was hardly on any high horse about anything Rotovia , though you seem to be. I was just pointing out the interesting side effects of mis spelling latin root words is all.

I would invite Muravyets to hug a foetus, play with it, hold it, breast feed it. Oh, you can't? Because it is no more a baby than a human heart, which is capable of the same self-defence reaction to being removed from the body, upon which surgery looks equally gruesome, posesses the same complete DNA as a human being and which is capable of assisted life outside the human body.

I've always found it interesting you can be anti-choice on abortion, but perfectly fine with open heart surgery.

When's the last time you were present for a first ultrasound? :rolleyes: There's more to it that what you're saying, and deep down you know it.

My problem with it is this: it's illegal to euthanize someone for being extremely elderly, it's illegal for adults to murder each other because they don't care about them or want them to go away, it's illegal for children to murder their parents because they disagree with them or don't like them, it's illegal for parents to murder their child or infant because they don't want them anymore. So, why is it that it is legal to murder an infant while it is still in the womb? Since when is passing through a vagina or a uterine wall the prerequisite for the most basic human right - the right to not be murdered?

I think at the very end of the day, you still are in a sense taking a life away, but I'm still pro-choice.

Abortions shouldn't be necessary but the stupid people in the world just can't seem to use condoms or birth control.

neo-bretonnia the word is foetus not fetus the latin root of which would probably have something to do with stinking.

You are aware that I am in the United States, and that in the United States the correct spelling is 'fetus'?

When's the last time you were present for a first ultrasound? :rolleyes: There's more to it that what you're saying, and deep down you know it.

My problem with it is this: it's illegal to euthanize someone for being extremely elderly, it's illegal for adults to murder each other because they don't care about them or want them to go away, it's illegal for children to murder their parents because they disagree with them or don't like them, it's illegal for parents to murder their child or infant because they don't want them anymore. So, why is it that it is legal to murder an infant while it is still in the womb? Since when is passing through a vagina or a uterine wall the prerequisite for the most basic human right - the right to not be murdered?

Murder is, by definition, illegal. So - while abortion remains legal, it isn't murder. I believe you are attempting to appeal to emotion with your choice of words.

As for the meat of your question - most abortions take place before the 20th week - thus, the "vagina or a uterine wall" concept is a red-herring. Most abortions are performed before there is coherent brain-activity - which means none of the things we associate with a living human... no personality, no thought process, no interpretation of pain stimulus.

As an question in return - if a baby is born with (literally) no brain... what is the moral implication of choosing not to keep it's heart beating by machine? The same as shooting your parent?

Murder is, by definition, illegal. So - while abortion remains legal, it isn't murder. I believe you are attempting to appeal to emotion with your choice of words.

murder has both a legal and a moral definition - something like 'an unjust willful killing of a person'. in fact, the legal one gets its force from the moral one; without the moral definition, the legal claim wouldn't really mean anything in particular to us. people that say abortion is murder are appealing to the moral definition.

When's the last time you were present for a first ultrasound? :rolleyes: There's more to it that what you're saying, and deep down you know it.

My problem with it is this: it's illegal to euthanize someone for being extremely elderly, it's illegal for adults to murder each other because they don't care about them or want them to go away, it's illegal for children to murder their parents because they disagree with them or don't like them, it's illegal for parents to murder their child or infant because they don't want them anymore. So, why is it that it is legal to murder an infant while it is still in the womb? Since when is passing through a vagina or a uterine wall the prerequisite for the most basic human right - the right to not be murdered?Whilst you're entitled to hold whatever ludicrous belief you wish, you cannot impose your morality over medical fact.

I think abortion should be legal until the fetus reaches the early teen years.

Whilst you're entitled to hold whatever ludicrous belief you wish, you cannot impose your morality over medical fact.

That statement only makes sense if you let other people define your facts for you. Put away your propaganda material and try something called experience. Go to a first ultrasound, and you'll see for yourself what I mean.

Free Soviets understands what I'm getting at. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. A bunch of things throughout history used to be legal that I'm sure even Rotavia would find morally reprehensible.

While we're on that subject, Rotavia, what are your thoughts on capital punsihment, killing in war (meaning, combatant to combatant), killing in self-defense, killing animals for food, etc.?

So, why is it that it is legal to murder an infant while it is still in the womb?

because nobody sane, not even you, thinks blastocysts are persons. the recognition of this fact leads to the inevitable conclusion that abortion is a-ok in at least some stages of development, and therefore we must find some morally significant point beyond which a developing entity is clearly a person - or near enough as to create specific obligations on our part anyway.

because nobody sane, not even you, thinks blastocysts are persons. the recognition of this fact leads to the inevitable conclusion that abortion is a-ok in at least some stages of development, and therefore we must find some morally significant point beyond which a developing entity is clearly a person - or near enough as to create specific obligations on our part anyway.

I guess then for you it would depend on how you define "person". But that brings us back to the euthanasia point - if the "person" is no longer viable as a functional human being, then is it alright to euthanize them? How about the mentally/physically handicapped? If you leave it up to mankind to draw the line, it will inevitably be drawn in the wrong place. So, I suppose by your definition, I would be insane for believing that it's not our call to make when to execute someone who hasn't taken up arms for any reason, hasn't committed a crime, or received a trial of any kind. But that doesn't bother me one bit, you'll have to get in line for that one ;)

You are aware that I am in the United States, and that in the United States the correct spelling is 'fetus'?

It is absurd that americans mispell a latin word in this way, put aside the point i already made about fetus meaning something entirely different, it would be like me saying that in britain the word ciao is spelt chow but that it has the same meaning! Chow would in this case be an entirely different word lol I don't have any problem with colour vs color or words like that since obviously american ENGLISH has an alternative history, but are you suggesting that in america there is an alternative form of latin?
It's stuff like this that makes it impossible to argue on any topic so difficult with americans, because one constantly has to make allowances for the fact that one isn't actually dealing with a citizen of a sane nation, but one that demands special treatment for it's idiosyncracies like a spoilt child.
The rest of the world is forced into a position of polite condescension because on this issue (abortion)as on most others special allowances have to made for your nations immaturity or in many cases it's bald ignorance of the rest of the world. In the case of abortion, the rest of the world must listen to the ravings of your lunatical preachers and priests or of your redkneck presidents who's opinion in a sane world wouldn't be worth consideration.

I guess then for you it would depend on how you define "person". But that brings us back to the euthanasia point - if the "person" is no longer viable as a functional human being, then is it alright to euthanize them? How about the mentally/physically handicapped? If you leave it up to mankind to draw the line, it will inevitably be drawn in the wrong place. So, I suppose by your definition, I would be insane for believing that it's not our call to make when to execute someone who hasn't taken up arms for any reason, hasn't committed a crime, or received a trial of any kind. But that doesn't bother me one bit, you'll have to get in line for that one ;)

that happens every day.

an elderly person with alzheimers gets the flu and its not treated. they die.

a person in an irreversible coma goes into heart failure. the nurses let him die without trying to restart his heart.

a person with end stage cancer is sent to a hospice to die without further medical treatment except for pain management.

life and death decisions happen every day. quite often the decision is death.

It is absurd that americans mispell a latin word in this way, put aside the point i already made about fetus meaning something entirely different, it would be like me saying that in britain the word ciao is spelt chow but that it has the same meaning! Chow would in this case be an entirely different word lol I don't have any problem with colour vs color or words like that since obviously american ENGLISH has an alternative history, but are you suggesting that in america there is an alternative form of latin?
It's stuff like this that makes it impossible to argue on any topic so difficult with americans, because one constantly has to make allowances for the fact that one isn't actually dealing with a citizen of a sane nation, but one that demands special treatment for it's idiosyncracies like a spoilt child.


take it up with noah webster.

noah webster wrote a perfectly good dictionary as far as it goes, but that hardly explains why americans insist on forcing us to put up with their crack pot theories. not least extreme christianity and all it's concurrent lunacy, the position that god gives a tinkers cus what we get up to (if he exists at all) is currently pulling the fabric of global peace to bits. at the same time it is enforcing misery on women who's body it claims spurious rights over. it is womens right to choose, not some crazy pastors.

noah webster wrote a perfectly good dictionary as far as it goes, but that hardly explains why americans insist on forcing us to put up with their crack pot theories. not least extreme christianity and all it's concurrent lunacy, the position that god gives a tinkers cus what we get up to (if he exists at all) is currently pulling the fabric of global peace to bits. at the same time it is enforcing misery on women who's body it claims spurious rights over. it is womens right to choose, not some crazy pastors.

wow so simplified spelling means that other countries have to put up with US theories on religion and abortion.

you might want to think that rant through one more time.

When's the last time you were present for a first ultrasound? :rolleyes: There's more to it that what you're saying, and deep down you know it.

My problem with it is this: it's illegal to euthanize someone for being extremely elderly, it's illegal for adults to murder each other because they don't care about them or want them to go away, it's illegal for children to murder their parents because they disagree with them or don't like them, it's illegal for parents to murder their child or infant because they don't want them anymore. So, why is it that it is legal to murder an infant while it is still in the womb? Since when is passing through a vagina or a uterine wall the prerequisite for the most basic human right - the right to not be murdered?

heheheheheh ok so where exactly do you draw the line? Is using medical contraception like "the pill" murder? Is killing a fertilized (human) egg murder? Is it at the first division of cells? the first differentiation? Cause up to a certain point a "foetus (or fetus)" is basically just a clump of stem cells. Or is it when the foetus/fetus develops a brain? and what exactly would u call a brain? Does a notochord suffice or what? Saying abortion is murder is ridiculous unless you can define exactly at which point a child is capable of "life" (your definition of that, whether it be sentience, pain reception w/e) and at that point you're just arbitrarily drawing a line between "life" and "non-life".

wow so simplified spelling means that other countries have to put up with US theories on religion and abortion.

you might want to think that rant through one more time.

"Language is the source of misunderstandings."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900 - 1944)
Sweet! Finally got to use that quote

it's all part of the american attitude toaward the rest of the world, the sense of divinely ordained supiriority, and the urge to spread crapulent and ill informed american ideas around the world without regard to other cultyres or belief systems. the simplification and black and white logic of "your either with us or against us" or for that matter "do as we say and make it to the rapture or burn in hell"
is inherent in the immaturity of american thinking. the devoutly christian citizens of the us doubtless have very little idea that fetus is a latin word who's meaning has nothing to do with the in-utero human being just as they have no regard for or idea that there are other world views to their own.

it's all part of the american attitude toaward the rest of the world, the sense of divinely ordained supiriority, and the urge to spread crapulent and ill informed american ideas around the world without regard to other cultyres or belief systems. the simplification and black and white logic of "your either with us or against us" or for that matter "do as we say and make it to the rapture or burn in hell"
is inherent in the immaturity of american thinking. the devoutly christian citizens of the us doubtless have very little idea that fetus is a latin word who's meaning has nothing to do with the in-utero human being just as they have no regard for or idea that there are other world views to their own.

you might want to start a thread on this topic. its a hijack of the current one.

it's all part of the american attitude toaward the rest of the world, the sense of divinely ordained supiriority, and the urge to spread crapulent and ill informed american ideas around the world without regard to other cultyres or belief systems. the simplification and black and white logic of "your either with us or against us" or for that matter "do as we say and make it to the rapture or burn in hell"
is inherent in the immaturity of american thinking. the devoutly christian citizens of the us doubtless have very little idea that fetus is a latin word who's meaning has nothing to do with the in-utero human being just as they have no regard for or idea that there are other world views to their own.

I'm going to skip over the obvious and rather amusing generalisation of what America thinks about abortion - how many pro-choice people here are American, how many pro-life are not? - and go straight to the fetus part. Tell me, if the word fetus has nothing to do with an in-utero human what does it mean?

i'm not strictly generalising about what ALL americans think.
fetus would be a cognate noun most likely meaning "smelly one" though it could just as easily mean nothing at all

i'm not strictly generalising about what ALL americans think.
fetus would be a cognate noun most likely meaning "smelly one"

Ahem (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fetus).

'from L. fetus "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from L. base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle"'

As the article says from the same root as fecund - thats fecund, not foecund.

"The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic."

I think that's pretty relevant to this horrible little debate.

but are you suggesting that in america there is an alternative form of latin?

and exactly when did the letter 'u' enter the latin alphabet?

infact cosmopoles neither fe or foe is absolutely historical since both attempt to transliterate a diphthong of o and e as in oenophile or despoena. unfortunately keyboards do not allow for this so foe is more correct.

free soviets the "U" is infact a caroligian innovation to provide for the "V" of the latin alphabet. it is possible that this innovation occured as early as the late sixth century in gaul where there were still native latin speakers, though granted not of the classical tongue of cicero or pliny

free soviets the "U" is infact a caroligian innovation to provide for the "V" of the latin alphabet. it is possible that this innovation occured as early as the late sixth century in gaul where there were still native latin speakers, though granted not of the classical tongue of cicero or pliny

and so, regardless of the e vs. oe controversy (and wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Etymology_and_spelling_variations) actually claims a specific individual to be the start of the oe mispelling - with a medical journal for a source!), spelling it with a u is clearly just inventing our own 'alternative form of latin'.

infact cosmopoles neither fe or foe is absolutely historical since both attempt to transliterate a diphthong of o and e as in oenophile or despoena. unfortunately keyboards do not allow for this so foe is more correct.

Then why did Latin writers not use the diphthong œ when writing fetus? As this article (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7102/0/h) shows the origin of the word lies with feto, I breed, not 'fœto' with a diphthong. As the article explains the use of œ is a misspelling attributed to St Isidore.

murder has both a legal and a moral definition - something like 'an unjust willful killing of a person'. in fact, the legal one gets its force from the moral one; without the moral definition, the legal claim wouldn't really mean anything in particular to us. people that say abortion is murder are appealing to the moral definition.

No - people who say abortion is muder are appealing to emotion.

Your 'moral' argument is rubbish.

Then why did Latin writers not use the diphthong œ when writing fetus? As this article (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7102/0/h) shows the origin of the word lies with feto, I breed, not 'fœto' with a diphthong. As the article explains the use of œ is a misspelling attributed to St Isidore.

i'm a bit of a retard but how did you get your keyboard to render that diphthong? some latin writers do use th foe and some do not, in an era of no standardised spelling they were merely rendering noises in the most appropriate way they knew how, it was clear to them what noise they meant when they spelt the word feto ( usually because of context) in the case of st isdore we may speculate that he was in fact rendering the noise more accurately or perhaps even rendering a difference in tonal quality in contemporary usage. we should follow his example in this rendering as very little classical latin survives in to either modern written english or for that matter spoken english.

What's amazing are the polititians that use "pro-life" as a reason to vote for them when the topic will not be discussed anymore at a federal level. If a senator or congressman brings it up, the others are going to respond that it is a state by state issue then you have an elected official that has waisted their precious floor time.

No - people who say abortion is muder are appealing to emotion.

Your 'moral' argument is rubbish.

bullshit

unjustly willfully killing a person is wrong regardless of legality, and is rightfully called murder even in the absence of any law at all or even if the law mandates it.
killing as a necessary act of self defense against an unjust attack is acceptable regardless of legality, and cannot be rightfully called murder even if the state says it is.

legalism is misleading and irrelevant except in the context of being found criminally guilty of something within the law and strategies for dealing with that. what the state ought call 'murder' is defined by moral arguments, and it is those arguments that are being addressed when someone says that "abortion is murder". they are not equivocating at all.

your stance leaves you in a position where if the state declared littering to be 'murder', you would have no recourse but to say "yup, it totally is".

i'm a bit of a retard but how did you get your keyboard to render that diphthong? some latin writers do use th foe and some do not, in an era of no standardised spelling they were merely rendering noises in the most appropriate way they knew how, it was clear to them what noise they meant when they spelt the word feto ( usually because of context) in the case of st isdore we may speculate that he was in fact rendering the noise more accurately or perhaps even rendering a difference in tonal quality in contemporary usage. we should follow his example in this rendering as very little classical latin survives in to either modern written english or for that matter spoken english.

Or if you were sane you might use the wealth of evidence from earlier sources which show no use of œ (Alt-0156). Why on Earth would you use one late source (St Isidore was writing in the 7th century) as your basis rather than Juvenal (1st century), who spells it fetus, Virgil (1st century BC) who spells it fetus or Horace (also 1st century BC) who spells it fetus. No text before the 7th century has it spelt as 'fœtus', and as was already mentioned this spelling is not due to the pronunciation but the false etymology used by Isidore who derived the word from the Latin for 'warm' rather than 'breed'.

Or if you were sane you might use the wealth of evidence from earlier sources which show no use of œ (Alt-0156). Why on Earth would you use one late source (St Isidore was writing in the 7th century) as your basis rather than Juvenal (1st century), who spells it fetus, Virgil (1st century BC) who spells it fetus or Horace (also 1st century BC) who spells it fetus. No text before the 7th century has it spelt as 'fœtus', and as was already mentioned this spelling is not due to the pronunciation but the false etymology used by Isidore who derived the word from the Latin for 'warm' rather than 'breed'.

because if he did he couldnt whine about americans using that spelling and link it to the US exporting its ideas around the world.

that happens every day.

an elderly person with alzheimers gets the flu and its not treated. they die.

a person in an irreversible coma goes into heart failure. the nurses let him die without trying to restart his heart.

a person with end stage cancer is sent to a hospice to die without further medical treatment except for pain management.

life and death decisions happen every day. quite often the decision is death.

All are courses of action that I am against, but witness constantly at work (at a hospital).

And, to answer Dawoad's question, yes, I draw the line at fertilization. The reason I hold that position is not scientific, and I don't purport it to be. The thing about science is that it can neither prove nor completely rule out the supernatural, the category of which matters of the spirit fall into. However, if you ignore that aspect for whatever reason, your position would be/is logical. But it opens up the debate to whether it is right or wrong to kill under any other circumstances - who sets the mark? Because if it's me, just let me know so I can declare "open season" on drug dealers, rapists, and murders. :sniper: ;)

Or if you were sane you might use the wealth of evidence from earlier sources which show no use of œ (Alt-0156). Why on Earth would you use one late source (St Isidore was writing in the 7th century) as your basis rather than Juvenal (1st century), who spells it fetus, Virgil (1st century BC) who spells it fetus or Horace (also 1st century BC) who spells it fetus. No text before the 7th century has it spelt as 'fœtus', and as was already mentioned this spelling is not due to the pronunciation but the false etymology used by Isidore who derived the word from the Latin for 'warm' rather than 'breed'.

i'm aware in what century saint isidore lived and it is from writers from his era and the centuries that followed that we have inherited latin not from juvenal or horace. i do not spell words as my saxon ancestors did. the american spelling is a concious attempt at actual "latinisation" which is in fact false anyway.

I'm not trying to bash anyone in here, but as long as the meaning is being conveyed, who cares how it's spelled? This is the internet, afterall. :D

i'm aware in what century saint isidore and it is from writers from his era and the centuries that followed that we have inherited latin not from juvenal or horace. i do not spell words as my saxon ancestors did. the american spelling is a concious attempt at actual "latinisation" which is in fact false anyway.

The use of the word 'fetus' in English predates the foundation of America by 180 years so its not the American spelling now is it?

The spelling fœtus is a conscious attempt at latinisation. I have provided numerous documents which supports my view. I assume it is no coincidence that you have provided not one iota of evidence to back up your claims.

I draw the line at fertilization

would you be willing to engage in a brief thought experiment with me?

I'm a pro-choice libertarian. I think the procedure is nasty, but I think women should have the right to decide if they want a baby or not. What business is it what other people do?

Sure, why not. Just keep in mind the rest of the quote which you didn't post. I admit up front that my position is not scientific, and I don't claim that it is.

Sure, why not. Just keep in mind the rest of the quote which you didn't post. I admit up front that my position is not scientific, and I don't claim that it is.

no problem, this is more of a thought experiment aimed at clarifying our moral intuitions - it only incidentally relies on scientific facts.

ok the scene is this - you are in a fertility clinic. a fertility clinic that is on fire.

in the room with you is an unconscious 2 year old child and a petri dish which you know contains two live human blastocysts (embryos that are 5-7 days old). you can easily get to one or the other of those - the toddler or the petri dish - and get out safely, and you have every reason to believe that there will be proper care possible for either the toddler or the blastocysts if you do get them out. but you don't have time to save both, what with the room quickly becoming a raging inferno and all.
so which do you save?

LOL you just had to relpy right as I was about to sign off to go to supper. I'll be back in a couple hours to give you my reply, and I bet you'll find it interesting. :)

LOL you just had to relpy right as I was about to sign off to go to supper. I'll be back in a couple hours to give you my reply, and I bet you'll find it interesting. :)

i find it interesting already

The use of the word 'fetus' in English predates the foundation of America by 180 years so its not the American spelling now is it?

The spelling fœtus is a conscious attempt at latinisation. I have provided numerous documents which supports my view. I assume it is no coincidence that you have provided not one iota of evidence to back up your claims.
to paraphrase a famous cartoon character " you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true " by not including textual reference i'm implying that we both have a decent understanding of the topic and am not patronising you by presuming you need to be instructed like a school child. the great philosophers of ancient greece frowned on such blatant showing off of erudition as exemplary of the worst kind of bought education and lack of academic manners.
:rolleyes:

i find it interesting already

Even a nonanswer is an answer. *nod*

My problem with it is this: it's illegal to euthanize someone for being extremely elderly, it's illegal for adults to murder each other because they don't care about them or want them to go away, it's illegal for children to murder their parents because they disagree with them or don't like them, it's illegal for parents to murder their child or infant because they don't want them anymore.

And it is perfectly legal for an adult to determine how, when, and to what purpose her body will be used.

So, why is it that it is legal to murder an infant while it is still in the womb? Since when is passing through a vagina or a uterine wall the prerequisite for the most basic human right - the right to not be murdered?

Since when is living within a uterus a reason to allow someone or something to take away another basic human right - the right to one's own body?

Cause up to a certain point a "foetus (or fetus)" is basically just a clump of stem cells.

Just because I'm a stickler for technicalities, I have to point out that a fetus is never "just a clump of stem cells." The stage you are referring to is an embryo or, more specifically, the blastocyst.

The fetal stage does not begin until 8 weeks.

=)

to paraphrase a famous cartoon character " you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true " by not including textual reference i'm implying that we both have a decent understanding of the topic and am not patronising you by presuming you need to be instructed like a school child. the great philosophers of ancient greece frowned on such blatant showing off of erudition as exemplary of the worst kind of bought education and lack of academic manners.
:rolleyes:

Citing a reference and backing up one's claims are showing off? I'll have to remember that the next time I write an essay. All that you imply by not including textual reference is that you do not know what you are talking about. Don't worry about my feelings. I won't be offended, please show me the evidence that you are so modestly keeping under wraps.

I'm back. And for those of you who made snide remarks about me having the common courtesy to tell him that it was going to be a little bit before I got back with him, get this: it is far more important for me to be spending time with my family when I ought to than it is to be here online with you. My family gets priority over any of you when it comes to my time.

Back to Free Soviet's scenario.

Let me preface this by saying that I am against fertility labs from a moral standpoint, which parallels my reasoning for believing abortion at any stage to be wrong. In the hypothetical scenario presented, I would chose the two year old because they at least have parents that care about them as an individual. I am morally opposed to fertility labs because they intentionally cause the blastocysts to form, knowing full well that they don't intend to use them all and that a fair percentage of them won't survive even if they are used. The parents who participate in this process don't care about this factor, and won't miss their child even though they could have grown up to cure cancer or been the next Einstein or something. But once again, my reasoning for it has nothing to do with science.

Now that I gave you the courtesy of answering your hypothetical, I'm going to pick it apart.

1) The unconscious two year old: children aren't allowed in most fertility clinics, much less in a clinical area, and definitely not in the clinic at all without immediate supervision of the parents due to liability issues.

2) A petri dish can be put in your pocket, which allows you to grab the two year old and make a run for it. Takes all of a second.

3) Fertility clinics must have plans to include multiple routes for evacuating everything in the event of an actual fire anywhere in the building - even including unfertilized eggs and sperm. JACHO mandates it.


And to answer what Dempublicents1 said: it's very simple, and had you read earlier posts you would have already seen my point. But since you seem to not be able to read the previous post for whatever reason, I'll repeat myself. I'm challenging WHETHER it should be legal, and just because something is legal doesn't make it RIGHT. Like I said before, plenty of things were legal at different points throughout history that YOU would find morally objectionable. And I challenge the whole line of thinking that it's just a clump of tissue to be removed. Hitler thought different groups of people were sub-human and therefore not wrong to terminate like animals - does that make his line of reasoning right? What if I thought you were just a clump of tissue breathing my air, drinking my water, eating my food and thought you needed to be terminated? You can explain it away using whatever excuse you like, but you are doing the same thing: justifying murder of the innocent.