NationStates Jolt Archive

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html)


A mother who decided to abort her son because he may have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is overjoyed that he survived the procedure.

Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort baby Finley when she was eight weeks pregnant.

Percival's first son Thane died of multicystic dysplastic kidneys — which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby — and her second child Lewis was born with serious kidney damage and currently has just one kidney, the Daily Mail reported.

Click here for a photo of baby Finley.

"I was on the (birth control pill) when I became pregnant," Percival, 25, said. "Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible but I couldn't cope with the anguish of losing another baby."

A short time after the abortion, Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach. She went to the doctor for a scan and discovered she was 19 weeks pregnant.

"I couldn't believe it,' Percival said. "This was the baby I thought I'd terminated. At first I was angry that this was happening to us, that the procedure had failed. I wrote to the hospital, I couldn't believe that they had let me down like this.

"They wrote back and apologized and said it was very rare," she added.

Dr. Manny Alvarez, managing health editor for FOXNews.com, said Percival's situation is actually quite common.

"Women that have early terminations in weeks six, seven and eight, many times the pregnancy is so small that doctors miss removing the baby," Alvarez said. "The danger is that the failed attempt can damage the baby. That is why these patients who get early terminations need follow-ups."

Another scan a week later confirmed the baby also had kidney problems, but doctors told the couple the baby was likely to survive, so they decided he deserved another chance at life.

In November, Finley was born three weeks premature. He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life.


This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html)



This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

who ever said that children with some physical damage should have been aborted?

Can you point one out for me please?

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html)



This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

I too was born with one defect kidney which caused great pain and upset until I had the bleeder out when was 10 years old. Living with one kidney is fine, I'm glad that the child survivied and I'm happy for the parents.

It does call into question the morality behind screening for defects whilst in the womb, and the choices made when such a screening occours does it not?

who ever said that children with some physical damage should have been aborted?

Can you point one out for me please?

Oh there's a few in most abortion threads around here.

I too was born with one defect kidney which caused great pain and upset until I had the bleeder out when was 10 years old. Living with one kidney is fine, I'm glad that the child survivied and I'm happy for the parents.

It does call into question the morality behind screening for defects whilst in the womb, and the choices made when such a screening occours does it not?

It does indeed.

Abortion is fine, especially an early one, and so is deciding to keep the baby after the abortion fails. Nothing wrong with it. It's all up to what the mother decides to do.

who ever said that children with some physical damage should have been aborted?

Can you point one out for me please?

Don't rain on his straw-man parade. It might knock him off his high horse onto his self-righteous ass. Though I hear that you're better off riding an ass anyway.

Oh there's a few in most abortion threads around here.

Can you find one?

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html)



This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

I think it's worth making your own choices as a woman.
Good for her that she doesn't have to regret her's. :)

Yeesh. It's lucky that Ms. Percival didn't desperately need that abortion - it would be awful to go through that heartache once just to find out several weeks later that it hadn't worked and you had to do it all over again. Lucky, too, that Finley turned out to be a reasonably healthy child after all. (I bet the hospital is glad as can be about all this, too - I can't imagine the resulting lawsuit would have worked out well for them otherwise.)

Oh there's a few in most abortion threads around here.
Again with that airy "Oh, I'm sure there are some lying around here somewhere" attitude. Honestly, NB, you are incorrigible.

It does indeed.
Yes, it raises questions about the ethics of screening for defects. It says nothing at all about the ethics of abortion.

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html)



This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

Holy strawman, batman!

That article was obnoxious. They frequently refer to a "baby" being aborted, and show the picture of Baby Finly so we're supposed to go "Awwww, how cute! Those nasty liberals wanted to KILL THE BABY!" I guess people are supposed to just refrain from realizing that at 8 weeks, "Baby Finly" looked a lot less adorable. But ya know, *that* picture wouldn't have worked as effectively at manipulating emotions and overriding intellectual reasoning.

It does call into question the morality behind screening for defects whilst in the womb, and the choices made when such a screening occours does it not?

Absolutely not.

No offense, but you were your mother's choice. As was I. As were all of us posting here. She could have chosen to have you because on the day she found out she was pregnant, the circus was in town and this was a good omen. Perhaps, had it not been in town, she would have chosen abortion.

It doesn't matter why the woman makes the choice, it is her absolute choice to make. Whether it's based on a screen for defects or some bizarre religious mumbo-jumbo, the only 'morality' involved is in ensuring that no one but the woman herself gets to decide. The only issue you should be worried about is ensuring that these 'screens' are giving accurate information.

Common? How common? Happening just once is good enough for Fox News.

Genetic and amniocentesis tests should be used to determine the viability of bringing a fetus to term, especially with known genetic disorders in the families of the parents. In cases where survivability is indeterminate, the decision should be the parents'. In cases where survivability is not possible, what mother would want to go through delivering a death sentence?

Seems to me that NB's emotional appeal is exactly that. Kidney disorders are not automatically life-threatening, so again, that decision was the parents' and they made it. "Worth it" is a subjective judgment and titling a thread like NB did is an appeal to pathos. You don't decide. I don't decide. Parents decide.

Holy strawman, batman!

That article was obnoxious. They frequently refer to a "baby" being aborted, and show the picture of Baby Finly so we're supposed to go "Awwww, how cute! Those nasty liberals wanted to KILL THE BABY!" I guess people are supposed to just refrain from realizing that at 8 weeks, "Baby Finly" looked a lot less adorable. But ya know, *that* picture wouldn't have worked as effectively at manipulating emotions and overriding intellectual reasoning.

Indeed. I love the passage where they explain that the couple had decided to abort 8-week-old "baby Finley." I bet that's just how the couple described it, too. "Hey, honey, shall we abort baby Finley?" "Sure, sounds fun!" :rolleyes:

a) I think very few people actually argue that "kids with (physical/mental) defects aren't "worthy" to be let live and grow. What I recall is that many people argue that potential parents should have the right to make the decision to not cope with the hardships that raising a mentally or physically handicapped child can bring with it.

b) For all those who've already jumped to conclusions about prenatal screening - please do keep in mind that in this case, the one you're trying to exemplify, the decision to abort was not based on any screenings, at least none mentioned in the article snippet posted here.

Again with that airy "Oh, I'm sure there are some lying around here somewhere" attitude. Honestly, NB, you are incorrigible. I was just going to go with 'annoying'. 'Incorrigible' sort of adds an air of importance to him.

Can you find one?

Again with that airy "Oh, I'm sure there are some lying around here somewhere" attitude. Honestly, NB, you are incorrigible.


Wait, so to be clear, are you both asserting that nobody ever says this in forums on this site?

I want to be absolutely clear on this point.

a) I think very few people actually argue that "kids with (physical/mental) defects aren't "worthy" to be let live and grow. What I recall is that many people argue that potential parents should have the right to make the decision to not cope with the hardships that raising a mentally or physically handicapped child can bring with it. But, but I bet there was someone! Someone said it! And even if it was just one or two people who said it, it needs to be dealt with before the floodgates open wide! I mean...we have no proof anyone said it but I bet someone was thinking it! Ha! Prove me wrong!

b) For all those who've already jumped to conclusions about prenatal screening - please do keep in mind that in this case, the one you're trying to exemplify, the decision to abort was not based on any screenings. Stop letting facts intefere please thanks.

Wait, so to be clear, are you both asserting that nobody ever says this in forums on this site?

I want to be absolutely clear on this point.

I want you to find someone that has argued that children with birth defects (other than those, perhaps, that would be definitively fatal) should be aborted.

Not those who think the mother's choice to abort. Not those who would abort a pregnancy themselves. Not those who think it would be in the best interest of the child if the pregnancy was aborted.

I want you to find someone who advocates for abortion in the case of birth defects. Not those who say the option should remain there, but who say that it should happen universally.

Now I'm sure someone at some point has advocated what is essentially eugenics. Just as I'm sure someone at some point has advocated that christianity should be the official, mandated by law, religion of the united states. In a crows of sufficiently large people, you're sure to find someone who advocates just about anything.

But the fact that some nutcases out there advocate eugenics does no more detriment to the pro choice movement than those who advocate a christian state do to christians.

And I know you'd hate to be lumped in with them...

Wait, so to be clear, are you both asserting that nobody ever says this in forums on this site?

I want to be absolutely clear on this point.

False premise.

You asserted, you must prove. You failed to do so. We intend to hold you to higher standards than this. When making claims about statements others have made, direct quotes work best. Don't try to turn this into a "don't make me prove that someone said a bad thing once, cuz oh boy you'll have egg on your face, nyuk nyuk nyuk." That's puerile, even for you.

Actually, I have seen people argue that foetus' with defects should probably be aborted, but then nobody thinks eugenics is a particularly good idea on this board, so I don't see the point of this thread.

Absolutely not.

No offense, but you were your mother's choice. As was I. As were all of us posting here. She could have chosen to have you because on the day she found out she was pregnant, the circus was in town and this was a good omen. Perhaps, had it not been in town, she would have chosen abortion.

It doesn't matter why the woman makes the choice, it is her absolute choice to make. Whether it's based on a screen for defects or some bizarre religious mumbo-jumbo, the only 'morality' involved is in ensuring that no one but the woman herself gets to decide. The only issue you should be worried about is ensuring that these 'screens' are giving accurate information.


Hey no offence taken. Of course there are moral questions, as long as there remain moral questions surronding the concept of abortion, and there obviuosly are.

Common? How common?


Yes, I also loved the juxtaposition of the title "Baby miraculously survives abortion" (bold mine) and the "quite common" and "many times" that the article goes on to label such failed abortions later on.

As most of you know, I am disabled so you'd probably think that I'd agree with NB, but I don't and here's why. I cannot condemn any woman for feeling that it would be too much to handle, because it is a lot to handle. My parents did not handle it well, and I ended up suffering for it.

Wait, so to be clear, are you both asserting that nobody ever says this in forums on this site?

I want to be absolutely clear on this point.

Good grief, NB, we already did this dance in the last abortion thread.

First, YOU made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you.

Second, sheesh, shifting the goalposts much? First there's "a few" such arguments in "most abortion threads" - but if anyone contradicts this, they're arguing that no one has ever, in the entire history of this site, said that. Seriously, I know you're smart enough to understand that that doesn't follow at all. Is it entirely possible that someone, at some point, said some crazy shit? Of course. Trolls pop into threads all the time, assert that we should kill all the gay people or nuke Russia or all move into pink plastic treehouses, but no one in their right mind presents those as mainstream, common opinions of NSG.

Third, I do believe NA asked you a question. Why don't you answer it instead of dodging?

i dont think that anyone has "the right" to tell a woman that she should get or not get an abortion due to finding out that the fetus has a problem. only the woman and her family can make that decision.


its NOT wrong to decide that you dont want to bring a down's syndrome baby into the world. (or a child with any other diagnosible problem) its also not wrong to decide that you will. the only wrong thing is to pressure a woman into making the decision that she wouldnt make on her own.

Yes, I also loved the juxtaposition of the title "Baby miraculously survives abortion" (bold mine) and the "quite common" and "many times" that the article goes on to label such failed abortions later on.

Exactly.

Wait, so to be clear, are you both asserting that nobody ever says this in forums on this site?

I want to be absolutely clear on this point.

I refer you to Neo Art's and Neesika's responses to this, and add that, if you want to attack specific arguments that you have seen made in this forum, then it would be relatively easy for you to search for examples and post or link to them in your OP or whenever you bring them up. You can avoid claims that you are flamebaiting specific posters by just editing out their names in your quotes of them. If you were to go to that effort, you could avoid accusations that you are setting up strawmen or claiming that all of the other side (of whatever issue) makes the same bad arguments.

But you never do go to such trouble. Why is that?

Stop letting facts intefere please thanks.
Okay, no prob. Principle accepted. So.. you said you'd be over for dinner tonight, right? Great. I'll expect you around 8:27 GMT+1.



To be back on topic: How exactly do OP and title relate? What is worth what? The kid's now, what, a couple of months old? And you can now judge already that the anguish of going through a pregnancy not knowing whether you'll lose yet another child will have been 'worth it' for the parents? And, considering your one-liner, you can even judge that the life any parent will live (or not) with any disabled kid will be worth the physical, emotional etc. hardships they might bring?

Aha.

i dont think that anyone has "the right" to tell a woman that she should get or not get an abortion due to finding out that the fetus has a problem. only the woman and her family can make that decision.


its NOT wrong to decide that you dont want to bring a down's syndrome baby into the world. (or a child with any other diagnosible problem) its also not wrong to decide that you will. the only wrong thing is to pressure a woman into making the decision that she wouldnt make on her own.
For the record, I would like to state my own view on prenatal screening. I do think it is important to look for serious defects that could kill or seriously disable the born child to the point where it could never have a functional life. If such defects are congenital in one's family, then I think it is irresponsible not to screen for them.

However, this does not mean that I think the results of such screening should dictate whether the pregnancy gets aborted or not. As others have said, it is the decision of the woman and her partner what they want to do with her pregnancy and why. A person might feel they don't want to gamble on a defect turning out to be minor after all. Another person might decide that that regardless of the outcome, they want to see it through. It is not up to me to judge them.

When I said it raises questions about the ethics of screening, what I really meant is that it raises awareness of the ethics, because one's personal ethics are very likely to be tested in making a decision based on prenatal screening.

I refer you to Neo Art's and Neesika's responses to this, and add that, if you want to attack specific arguments that you have seen made in this forum, then it would be relatively easy for you to search for examples and post or link to them in your OP or whenever you bring them up. You can avoid claims that you are flamebaiting specific posters by just editing out their names in your quotes of them. If you were to go to that effort, you could avoid accusations that you are setting up strawmen or claiming that all of the other side (of whatever issue) makes the same bad arguments.

But you never do go to such trouble. Why is that?

The search function sucks?

I have seen people say that people who have genetic disorders shouldn't breed. I have seen people say that if you know your kid is going to have a debilitating disease you should abort. I don't remember who, or when, or in what thread.

But you never do go to such trouble. Why is that?

He's been here long enough that I suspect dishonesty.

The search function sucks?

I have seen people say that people who have genetic disorders shouldn't breed. I have seen people say that if you know your kid is going to have a debilitating disease you should abort. I don't remember who, or when, or in what thread.

Still doesn't redeem this abortion of a thread.

Okay, no prob. Principle accepted. So.. you said you'd be over for dinner tonight, right? Great. I'll expect you around 8:27 GMT+1.
We could even arrange the details on Skype, were you logged in.

Still doesn't redeem this abortion of a thread.

ba-dum *crsh*

The search function sucks?
The search function requires patience to go through its results carefully, but I've gotten good results from it, when I've been trying to track down an argument. Considering the amount of time most of us spend on NSG, I fail to see why a person interested in making a sound argument would balk at taking the time to set up its foundation.

I have seen people say that people who have genetic disorders shouldn't breed. I have seen people say that if you know your kid is going to have a debilitating disease you should abort. I don't remember who, or when, or in what thread.
So have I, but that "I don't remember" part is what calls the whole thing into question. It has already been mentioned that trolls pop up and say outrageous shit all the time. So are these actual arguments espoused by pro-choice debaters, or are they poo thrown by forum-monkeys? If NB wants to attack them as an actual pro-choice argument, then it does make a difference.

He's been here long enough that I suspect dishonesty.
*shrugs and says nothing because NB and I just had a whole thing about our attitudes in another thread*

Still doesn't redeem this abortion of a thread.
Wasn't trying to. Just trying to answer a question.

That's it? Post and run? At the first sign of resistance, the ranks break and the troops throw down their arms, screaming in terror?

I'm very disappointed. Because of you I have no excuse to put off painting my picnic tables. Damn you. Damn you!

That's it? Post and run? At the first sign of resistance, the ranks break and the troops throw down their arms, screaming in terror?

Nah. That'd even be remotely funny, and entertaining to watch.

They didn't even grant us an answer to what the thread is about.

That's it? Post and run? At the first sign of resistance, the ranks break and the troops throw down their arms, screaming in terror?

I'm very disappointed. Because of you I have no excuse to put off painting my picnic tables. Damn you. Damn you!

Were I there, I'd volunteer to paint them for you. Painting, dishes, mowing, and the like are all kinda zen-like chores for me. I get a lot of meditation and thinking done while doing them.

(I figured a threadjack would be okay since the argument's been sussed.)

Were I there, I'd volunteer to paint them for you. Painting, dishes, mowing, and the like are all kinda zen-like chores for me. I get a lot of meditation and thinking done while doing them.


GTFO! Mowing and dishes are *my* chores - but you're welcome to the painting.

Honestly, I positively love doing the dishes. This ingratiates me with a lot of people, and everyone is happy at the end of the day.

So have I, but that "I don't remember" part is what calls the whole thing into question. It has already been mentioned that trolls pop up and say outrageous shit all the time. So are these actual arguments espoused by pro-choice debaters, or are they poo thrown by forum-monkeys? If NB wants to attack them as an actual pro-choice argument, then it does make a difference.
Cursory "meh" search reveals at least two that might work. If you TG me I'll provide the names of said posters.

Genetically disabled; i.e., suffering from a genetic disease that has a high chance of being passed onto the next generation if the person was to reproduce. I am not denying the person their humanity (because I wouldn't advocate killing them), but I would deny them their right to procreate and weaken the human gene pool.

Genetic disease: any disease inherited which causes undue physical suffering.

Personally, no, I don't want any imperfections in the human race. Quite simply, we rose to pre-eminence through a continual process of survival of the fittest, and whilst its more violent excesses may be reprehensible in civilised society, eugenics, if used for the correct reasons, is not.

I want you to find someone that has argued that children with birth defects (other than those, perhaps, that would be definitively fatal) should be aborted.

Not those who think the mother's choice to abort. Not those who would abort a pregnancy themselves. Not those who think it would be in the best interest of the child if the pregnancy was aborted.

I want you to find someone who advocates for abortion in the case of birth defects. Not those who say the option should remain there, but who say that it should happen universally.

Now I'm sure someone at some point has advocated what is essentially eugenics. Just as I'm sure someone at some point has advocated that christianity should be the official, mandated by law, religion of the united states. In a crows of sufficiently large people, you're sure to find someone who advocates just about anything.

But the fact that some nutcases out there advocate eugenics does no more detriment to the pro choice movement than those who advocate a christian state do to christians.

And I know you'd hate to be lumped in with them...

Ok, thanks for being very clear. Now, if I go out and find just one or two it would easily be dismissed as flukes or whatever, so my next question is: How many such references would be satisfactory? 10? We're not doing an actual statistical analysis of what's statistically significant because, let's face it, none of us are as are that invested in it, but for the sake of this discussion, how many references, according to the parameters you set out, would you want?

False premise.

You asserted, you must prove. You failed to do so. We intend to hold you to higher standards than this. When making claims about statements others have made, direct quotes work best. Don't try to turn this into a "don't make me prove that someone said a bad thing once, cuz oh boy you'll have egg on your face, nyuk nyuk nyuk." That's puerile, even for you.

Arranging your chesspieces, I see. What's wrong with making the parameters of the proof clear? Unless you want to keep it vague so it's easier to dismiss when it comes...

Good grief, NB, we already did this dance in the last abortion thread.

First, YOU made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you.

Second, sheesh, shifting the goalposts much? First there's "a few" such arguments in "most abortion threads" - but if anyone contradicts this, they're arguing that no one has ever, in the entire history of this site, said that. Seriously, I know you're smart enough to understand that that doesn't follow at all. Is it entirely possible that someone, at some point, said some crazy shit? Of course. Trolls pop into threads all the time, assert that we should kill all the gay people or nuke Russia or all move into pink plastic treehouses, but no one in their right mind presents those as mainstream, common opinions of NSG.

Third, I do believe NA asked you a question. Why don't you answer it instead of dodging?

Read above. You missed the meaning of my question. Don't jump to conclusions.

He's been here long enough that I suspect dishonesty.

Of course you do. It requires no effort and is far less scary than actually l istening.

Cursory "meh" search reveals at least two that might work. If you TG me I'll provide the names of said posters.
Told ya it was easy. Though I don't think NB will learn if you do his work for him.

Now, if it were me, because I'm kind of obsessive, my cursory "meh" search would have looked for more than one post of the same kind from those posters, and included a search of Moderation to see if they've ever been flagged for trolling. This is part of my point of making a distinction between a legitimate argument and poo-flinging.

If I (preen-preen) wanted to attack a certain kind of argument on this forum, I would do such research and have my target properly set up for presentation before I ever posted my OP. And to avoid getting everyone jumping on me for the wrong reasons, I would have made it clear that I am attacking this argument, right here, presented on these dates, in such and such threads, and if anyone else would like to attack or defend the argument, have at it.

The search function sucks?

Google can search for a designated website for your criteria. ie: You're looking for something on Wiki but you know it won't work, you tell google where to look and what to look for because you know it's on a certain site but you can't remember where. It applies here.

Ok, thanks for being very clear. Now, if I go out and find just one or two it would easily be dismissed as flukes or whatever, so my next question is: How many such references would be satisfactory? 10?

Answer: None. Because you're not addressing specific comments made by specific users, in that thread. You're taking these alleged comments from that thread and generalizing, trying to lump all pro-choice advocates in that thread (and possibly in the world, for all I can see) together as eugenics advocates. In essence you're attempting to conflate eugenics with pro-choice, and it's going to fail even if you can find fifty eugenics-advocatin' pro-choicers on this forum. Which you can't anyway.

Answer: None. Because you're not addressing specific comments made by specific users, in that thread. You're taking these alleged comments from that thread and generalizing, trying to lump all pro-choice advocates in that thread (and possibly in the world, for all I can see) together as eugenics advocates. In essence you're attempting to conflate eugenics with pro-choice, and it's going to fail even if you can find fifty eugenics-advocatin' pro-choicers on this forum. Which you can't anyway.

Show me where I've done this.

Told ya it was easy. Though I don't think NB will learn if you do his work for him.

Now, if it were me, because I'm kind of obsessive, my cursory "meh" search would have looked for more than one post of the same kind from those posters, and included a search of Moderation to see if they've ever been flagged for trolling. This is part of my point of making a distinction between a legitimate argument and poo-flinging.

If I (preen-preen) wanted to attack a certain kind of argument on this forum, I would do such research and have my target properly set up for presentation before I ever posted my OP. And to avoid getting everyone jumping on me for the wrong reasons, I would have made it clear that I am attacking this argument, right here, presented on these dates, in such and such threads, and if anyone else would like to attack or defend the argument, have at it.

One of them I remember was banned a few days for flaming, the other one I don't think was ever in trouble. They are both AFAIK still around and one of them has posted numerous times today.

Told ya it was easy. Though I don't think NB will learn if you do his work for him.

Now, if it were me, because I'm kind of obsessive, my cursory "meh" search would have looked for more than one post of the same kind from those posters, and included a search of Moderation to see if they've ever been flagged for trolling. This is part of my point of making a distinction between a legitimate argument and poo-flinging.

If I (preen-preen) wanted to attack a certain kind of argument on this forum, I would do such research and have my target properly set up for presentation before I ever posted my OP. And to avoid getting everyone jumping on me for the wrong reasons, I would have made it clear that I am attacking this argument, right here, presented on these dates, in such and such threads, and if anyone else would like to attack or defend the argument, have at it.

When Neo Art and I have hashed out the parameters, will you also commit to that agreement?

Because I'm not putting up any links until we all have an understanding of what's expected here.

When Neo Art and I have hashed out the parameters, will you also commit to that agreement?

Because I'm not putting up any links until we all have an understanding of what's expected here.
Ha! No problem. If I have to wait for y'all to agree on parameters, then I'll have plenty of time to live the whole rest of my life before I have to respond to anything. By all means, you may have my commitment.

Ha! No problem. If I have to wait for y'all to agree on parameters, then I'll have plenty of time to live the whole rest of my life before I have to respond to anything. By all means, you may have my commitment.

Ok cool. Keep an eye out.

Show me where I've done this.

Hurr (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13774185&postcount=1).

Don't play innocent, most here are not fooled by nasty-minded little generalizations, no matter how subtle you imagine they were.

Hurr (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13774185&postcount=1).

Don't play innocent, most here are not fooled by nasty-minded little generalizations, no matter how subtle you imagine they were.

So you link to my OP? You didn't answer the question. Don't waste my time applying your assumptions and/or misconceptions to me. if I tried that tactic I'd be laughed off the board. (And rightfully so.)

One of them I remember was banned a few days for flaming, the other one I don't think was ever in trouble. They are both AFAIK still around and one of them has posted numerous times today.
OK, but insufficient. Do you still have the links to the threads they were in?

See, here's what I'm thinking: We don't want the thread to become a debate about individual posters, so we don't want to highlight their names. But for people to decide whether their statements represent an actual argument that is generally in use, or whether NB is using isolated incidents or individuals to set up a strawman or a broad-brush attack on all pro-choicers, it would help if we could see their comments in context.

So I personally would post the edited quotes here just as you did, but also post the links to the whole threads so people could view them in their original context.

Or, rather, I would ask NB to do that, since he's the host of this party.

OK, but insufficient. Do you still have the links to the threads they were in?

See, here's what I'm thinking: We don't want the thread to become a debate about individual posters, so we don't want to highlight their names. But for people to decide whether their statements represent an actual argument that is generally in use, or whether NB is using isolated incidents or individuals to set up a strawman or a broad-brush attack on all pro-choicers, it would help if we could see their comments in context.

So I personally would post the edited quotes here just as you did, but also post the links to the whole threads so people could view them in their original context.

Or, rather, I would ask NB to do that, since he's the host of this party.

No problem.

So you link to my OP? You didn't answer the question.

Yes - I did. You didn't come right and say it, because that would be easily disproven whereas implying it - hell, you can deny that you even implied it.


Don't waste my time applying your assumptions and/or misconceptions to me. if I tried that tactic I'd be laughed off the board. (And rightfully so.)

I was actually applying YOUR assumptions and misconceptions, as evidenced by the shitty-quality of Fox News "Liberals are Baby Killers" article you chose.

And before you hop up and down, no, Fox didn't actually come out and say that either. Implications are wonderful.

Yes - I did. You didn't come right and say it, because that would be easily disproven whereas implying it - hell, you can deny that you even implied it.

I was actually applying YOUR assumptions and misconceptions, as evidenced by the shitty-quality of Fox News "Liberals are Baby Killers" article you chose.

And before you hop up and down, no, Fox didn't actually come out and say that either. Implications are wonderful.

Since when is assumption or implication to be considered a valid premise for an argument?

You're digging.

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html)



This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

And if the child had been born with eventually terminal damage, would it still be a great choice made?

There is a huge difference between "imperfect" and "likely to live for a very brief time in enormous pain". You (intentionally) make a legitimate concern on the part of the parents that their future child be spared an existence of suffering seem like a cosmetic decision. They didn't try to abort the fetus because the baby might have been born ugly, or missing a finger. There was a very real chance the fetus might have developed into a child who would not only fail to survive, but experience terrible pain and undergo multiple operations in its brief life. Your equation of that with "imperfection" is sickening and heartless.

And if the child had been born with eventually terminal damage, would it still be a great choice made?

There is a huge difference between "imperfect" and "likely to live for a very brief time in enormous pain". You (intentionally) make a legitimate concern on the part of the parents that their future child be spared an existence of suffering seem like a cosmetic decision. They didn't try to abort the fetus because the baby might have been born ugly, or missing a finger. There was a very real chance the fetus might have developed into a child who would not only fail to survive, but experience terrible pain and undergo multiple operations in its brief life. Your equation of that with "imperfection" is sickening and heartless.

Wow this whole thread seems to be loaded with self-styled mind readers.

If you took your time to discuss, rather than jump to ridiculous conclusions, you'd appear much smarter.

4 pages later and I still don't get the title of the thread. Did I just miss it? What exactly is meant to be 'worth it'

4 pages later and I still don't get the title of the thread. Did I just miss it? What exactly is meant to be 'worth it'

Carrying the baby to term.

Carrying the baby to term.

So, just to be clear, the point of this thread is that, when a fundamentally healthy baby is born to parents who wanted that baby and who are capable of caring for that baby, the parents in question will generally find pregnancy "worth it"?

Well....okay then. Perhaps next you should start a thread about how people who win the lottery are generally glad they entered the lottery?

So, just to be clear, the point of this thread is that, when a fundamentally healthy baby is born to parents who wanted that baby and who are capable of caring for that baby, the parents in question will generally find pregnancy "worth it"?

Well....okay then. Perhaps next you should start a thread about how people who win the lottery are generally glad they entered the lottery?

Clearly you didn't bother reading the OP.

Clearly you didn't bother reading the OP.

Erm, yes, I did. Why on earth would you suggest I didn't?

Pedantry can be fun.

So, just to be clear, the point of this thread is that, when a fundamentally healthy baby is born to parents who wanted that baby and who are capable of caring for that baby, the parents in question will generally find pregnancy "worth it"?

Well....okay then. Perhaps next you should start a thread about how people who win the lottery are generally glad they entered the lottery?

Erm, yes, I did. Why on earth would you suggest I didn't?

Was the article about a fundamentally healthy baby?
Did the parents attempt to abort?

Pedantry can be fun.





Was the article about a fundamentally healthy baby?
Did the parents attempt to abort?

Yes, and yes. Seriously, did you read your own OP? If this baby had been born with a horribly debilitating and fatal condition, as the parents initially feared, I somehow doubt they'd be jumping for joy right now. They wanted a fundamentally healthy baby. They did not want a baby who would die in horrible agony. They got a baby with minor health problems but nothing to render him fundamentally unhealthy. They are happy. How is this shocking or in any way evidence of something other than "people who get what they want are typically happy about it"?

Wow this whole thread seems to be loaded with self-styled mind readers.

If you took your time to discuss, rather than jump to ridiculous conclusions, you'd appear much smarter.

Your summation in the OP was: "This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow."

The article you presented was about a couple who chose to have an abortion because they had already lost a child to an inherited condition and it was likely that this fetus would inherit it as well. This is not a case of allowing an "imperfect" child to live and grow, it's a case of an unexpected, unwanted pregnancy and an eight-week-old fetus that was likely to experience severe complications and possible death. It isn't a very great feat of "mind reading" when you write your mind down in a post for all to see.

My concern for your perception of my intelligence is around the same level as your concern for the women who have to make the wrenching decision of whether or not to have an abortion. Approximately nil.

Yes, and yes. Seriously, did you read your own OP? If this baby had been born with a horribly debilitating and fatal condition, as the parents initially feared, I somehow doubt they'd be jumping for joy right now. They wanted a fundamentally healthy baby. They did not want a baby who would die in horrible agony. They got a baby with minor health problems but nothing to render him fundamentally unhealthy. They are happy. How is this shocking or in any way evidence of something other than "people who get what they want are typically happy about it"?

Firstly, the child was not believed to be fundamentally healthy early in the pregnancy, thus the reason for the abortion. In fact, when the child was born, although the condition was not as severe as at first feared, this was not the case of a healthy child.

It's okay if you didn't get the point on the first try, as this wasn't really 'aimed; at you, but stop trying to draw me into a ridiculous syntax debate just to try and save face.

Your summation in the OP was: "This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow."

The article you presented was about a couple who chose to have an abortion because they had already lost a child to an inherited condition and it was likely that this fetus would inherit it as well. This is not a case of allowing an "imperfect" child to live and grow, it's a case of an unexpected, unwanted pregnancy and an eight-week-old fetus that was likely to experience severe complications and possible death. It isn't a very great feat of "mind reading" when you write your mind down in a post for all to see.


And based on that you start making personal accusations?


My concern for your perception of my intelligence is around the same level as your concern for the women who have to make the wrenching decision of whether or not to have an abortion. Approximately nil.

Yes, you know all about me, don't you?

:rolleyes:

And based on that you start making personal accusations?

What personal accusations? I accused you of trying to to make a difficult decision by a couple concerned for the suffering of their future child look like a cosmetic decision. This was based entirely on the content of the article you posted and your own words. I don't know how that's personal or a leap in logic.

What personal accusations? I accused you of trying to to make a difficult decision by a couple concerned for the suffering of their future child look like a cosmetic decision. This was based entirely on the content of the article you posted and your own words. I don't know how that's personal or a leap in logic.

And if the child had been born with eventually terminal damage, would it still be a great choice made?

There is a huge difference between "imperfect" and "likely to live for a very brief time in enormous pain". You (intentionally) make a legitimate concern on the part of the parents that their future child be spared an existence of suffering seem like a cosmetic decision. They didn't try to abort the fetus because the baby might have been born ugly, or missing a finger. There was a very real chance the fetus might have developed into a child who would not only fail to survive, but experience terrible pain and undergo multiple operations in its brief life. Your equation of that with "imperfection" is sickening and heartless.

The answer is bolded for your convenience. That's essentially an accusation of dishonesty, coming from somebody who is not even bothering to make an effort to understand what I'm actually getting at.

Firstly, the child was not believed to be fundamentally healthy early in the pregnancy, thus the reason for the abortion. In fact, when the child was born, although the condition was not as severe as at first feared, this was not the case of a healthy child.

It's okay if you didn't get the point on the first try, as this wasn't really 'aimed; at you, but stop trying to draw me into a ridiculous syntax debate just to try and save face.

You're cute. I love how no matter how deep you dig yourself in, it's always everyone else who's misunderstanding you. It must be a rough life, always being so clear and reasonable and having absolutely everybody else be so terribly prone to confusion.

To repeat myself a bit more: this was most certainly the case of a fundamentally healthy child. Minor kidney troubles which will not prevent him from leading a normal life are not remotely close to what the parents feared for him when they attempted to abort. Again, do you really want to argue that those parents would have found this pregnancy just as "worth it" if their child had been born so sick that he only survived a few months in terrible pain while they could only look on and wait for him to die? Anyone with an ounce of honesty will admit that that couple got very lucky, and that's great, but it's silly to suggest that makes pregnancy in general "worth it." The fact that the guy next to me won $50 on a quarter slot machine is fabulous for him, and definitely makes that quarter he spent "worth it," but it hardly means I should therefore spend my next quarter the same way and expect it to be equally "worth it."

coming from somebody who is not even bothering to make an effort to understand what I'm actually getting at.
That, itself, is "essentially an accusation of dishonesty". Does it occur to you that he IS trying to understand what you're getting at, and that any misunderstanding (if there is any; to me too it looks like you were treating the parents' initial decision to abort as if it were just a "cosmetic" decision) might be stemming from the transmitting end rather than the receiving?

The answer is bolded for your convenience. That's essentially an accusation of dishonesty, coming from somebody who is not even bothering to make an effort to understand what I'm actually getting at.

No, it's not an accusation of dishonesty, it's an accusation of willing ignorance and drawing comparisons between two things which are not at all alike.

Since you only posted part of an article and a single sentence in the OP, I have very little else to draw from in my "effort to understand what you're actually getting at."

I can only GUESS that what you're getting at is that because the couple in the article are glad their child is reasonably healthy and was not effectively aborted, this means that people should not have abortions. I have to guess because you have so far refused to just come out and say what your point is for the past five pages.

If this is indeed your point, I disagree with it, and I disagree with it for the reasons I previously listed.

The answer is bolded for your convenience. That's essentially an accusation of dishonesty, coming from somebody who is not even bothering to make an effort to understand what I'm actually getting at.

NB, you, not anyone else, but YOU used the word "imperfect" to describe the sort of baby the parents chose to abort. Words have meaning, and "imperfect" sure as heck doesn't tend to mean "doomed to die in horrible agony" half so much as "he might have a wart on his nose or something." Ryadn isn't making some crazy leap here by suggesting that you actually think about the words you use; she's assuming that if you wanted to communicate the concept of "fatally ill" you would probably say something like, oh, I don't know, "fatally ill," and if you wanted to communicate the concept of "less than absolutely perfect," you might use a word that means that. That's hardly unreasonable.

That, itself, is "essentially an accusation of dishonesty". Does it occur to you that she IS trying to understand what you're getting at, and that any misunderstanding (if there is any; to me too it looks like you were treating the parents' initial decision to abort as if it were just a "cosmetic" decision) might be stemming from the transmitting end rather than the receiving?

Okay, so I am writing in understandable English. Thank you, it did not seem very difficult for you to decipher my meaning at all.

NB, you, not anyone else, but YOU used the word "imperfect" to describe the sort of baby the parents chose to abort. Words have meaning, and "imperfect" sure as heck doesn't tend to mean "doomed to die in horrible agony" half so much as "he might have a wart on his nose or something." Ryadn isn't making some crazy leap here by suggesting that you actually think about the words you use; she's assuming that if you wanted to communicate the concept of "fatally ill" you would probably say something like, oh, I don't know, "fatally ill," and if you wanted to communicate the concept of "less than absolutely perfect," you might use a word that means that. That's hardly unreasonable.

Exactly. At least in my mind, there is a chasm of difference between "not 100% perfect" and "likely to die shortly after birth after enduring a great deal of pain".

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html)



This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

And what point is there to this? Surely you're not suggesting that this fluke applies to all people who seek an abortion -- that everyone would be GLAD it didn't take, changed their mind, and were subsequently happy parents?

Surely you're not suggesting that this situation applies to anyone or any situation other than the one in the article?

Hi, again, NB. Still no effort on your part to actually lay out and support your argument, I see. The OP still consists of one article about a fluke occurrence stretched by you to try to cover abortion in general, together with one off-hand remark implying that "kill imperfect babies" is an argument that pro-choicers typically make. Hm. Even after Smunkeeville got the ball rolling for you by bothering to find two stand-alone examples, have you still not started the work of actually constructing an argument that people can debate about? Tsk, tsk.

Well, since there seems to be a refusal to actually discuss the argument, what are we wasting time for here?

Well, since there seems to be a refusal to actually discuss the argument, what are we wasting time for here?

No reason I can think of. I can waste my time in other places just as well. :)

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html)



This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

I can´t help but feel alluded to in this OP. And even if this woman´s happy she didn´t abort her son, after knowing he would suffer from kidney failure, I still believe in screening for defects before childbirth, unwanted pregnancies should be avoided, bringing a severely disadvantage child to this world is a crime, and abortion is still a woman´s choice and I support it a 100%.

Of course, I also feel a bit disappointed on Neo Bretonnia for the OP and if by expressing these views I´m dubbed a Nazi, as I´ll probably will by the small minds of some NSGErs, let me be the first to assure you all of the following: I don´t give a flying hoot. Ta-ta!

Since when is assumption or implication to be considered a valid premise for an argument?

Hey, I never claimed your implications or assumptions to be an argument whatsoever. Let alone a valid one.

You're digging.

I'm calling it as I see it. You wanna pretend that you don't have any desire to assign negative associations to pro-choice advocates when you obviously consider abortion to be Killing a Baby, go right ahead.

Me, if I thought certain people were baby-killers, painting them as eugenics-supporters would hardly be out of character.

Well, since there seems to be a refusal to actually discuss the argument, what are we wasting time for here?

my thoughts exactly. this seemed to have devolved into one huge dogpile on the poster and not the topic presented.


however... I, being the eternal optimist...

"Worth it" is a relative value. A child could be permamently crippled, forced to breath from an oxygen tank, unable to get around on their own and rudimentary aware of their surroundings due to a genetic or even a birth defect. yet for all the 'hassles' of caring for that child could be repaid and more by the child simply smiling at their caregivers and laughing with pure joy.

for others tho... such rewards may not be 'worth it'.

The choice to abort or not is not for the courts to decide but the parents. if those 'anti-abortion' people really want to help, they would instead find alternatives for the parents. say helping them pay for the prenatial care and even finding parents who would then be willing to adopt the child after the child is born, find alternatives instead of stand outside and scream at the people going into the clinics.

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html)



This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

The child is insolent and should be punished. *nod*

That article was obnoxious.
Three words: Fox News Network. Commercially viable propaganda and indoctrination for the confused conservative.

I wonder if she'll ever tell the kid how she tried to have him aborted. I'm inclined to hope not. If the kid finds out, the feelings of rejection, etc. might really screw them up.:(

Still, its great news to hear that the kid survived. I like a happy ending.:)

While I don't like abortion at all, and yes that includes "mercy killing" abortions, I have to say that it would seem a little dishonest to insinuate from this that all abortions are wrong. This story was the exception, not the rule. Still, it does underline that you never know where someone's going to go in life unless you give them the chance, whatever the odds may be.

Still, it does underline that you never know where someone's going to go in life unless you give them the chance, whatever the odds may be.
You could also see it the other way: every baby that comes into the world could grow up to become a murderer. It's not likely, but you can defend that statement with the same logic you're using.

I have seen people say that people who have genetic disorders shouldn't breed. I have seen people say that if you know your kid is going to have a debilitating disease you should abort. I don't remember who, or when, or in what thread.

I have said close to that. I have huge issues with people who know there is a High chance of them bringing a sentient, feeling being in to this world, who will only know pain and suffering. I'm not talking Down's syndrome here, I'm talking totally messed up, live months at best, in constant pain, kind of children.

My line of argument in the other thread, which I still maintain, is that if you choose to go for it, you choose to roll that dice knowing the consequence, then if it comes out really, really bad, the parent's can be prosecuted for torture. Their actions and choices has caused another being untold suffering.

snip

The choice to abort or not is not for the courts to decide but the parents. if those 'anti-abortion' people really want to help, they would instead find alternatives for the parents. say helping them pay for the prenatial care and even finding parents who would then be willing to adopt the child after the child is born, find alternatives instead of stand outside and scream at the people going into the clinics.


This. There are so many practical issues that lead women to choose abortion and if half the energy spent on demonising women who choose abortion were invested into solving them, its likely the number of abortions would reduce. As has been shown so often, simply making abortion more difficult to obtain does not reduce the incidence of abortion and does endanger women and their dependents.

I can´t help but feel alluded to in this OP. And even if this woman´s happy she didn´t abort her son, after knowing he would suffer from kidney failure, I still believe in screening for defects before childbirth, unwanted pregnancies should be avoided, bringing a severely disadvantage child to this world is a crime, and abortion is still a woman´s choice and I support it a 100%.

Of course, I also feel a bit disappointed on Neo Bretonnia for the OP and if by expressing these views I´m dubbed a Nazi, as I´ll probably will by the small minds of some NSGErs, let me be the first to assure you all of the following: I don´t give a flying hoot. Ta-ta!

Don't feel alluded to. I never even thought of you when I posted this.

Hi, again, NB. Still no effort on your part to actually lay out and support your argument, I see. The OP still consists of one article about a fluke occurrence stretched by you to try to cover abortion in general, together with one off-hand remark implying that "kill imperfect babies" is an argument that pro-choicers typically make. Hm. Even after Smunkeeville got the ball rolling for you by bothering to find two stand-alone examples, have you still not started the work of actually constructing an argument that people can debate about? Tsk, tsk.

You know who I'm waiting for.

This is for the rest of you:

A bunch of people have come in here smearing and bashing at me all because they took their own preconceived notions, called them facts, and then went after me on it. A couple of you I expected it from, some of you I find myself deeply disappointed in. Paranoid is the word that comes to mind.

This was not an argument targeted after the pro-choice movement. I've already got myself involved in enough abortion threads. Why in the hell would you think I'd start up another? I can make any argument against abortion I want in there.

No, the real point of this thread is exactly as stated in the OP:

"This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow."

If you've never made that argument then why the hell are you in here acting all defensive?

The answer, is of course that you see my name on it and automatically assume this is JAFAT. (Just Another Fucking Abortion Thread). You were wrong. Deal with it.

Don't reply to this post with your laundry list of excuses and accusations against me in an attempt to justify your actions or save face. I'm not interested and I won't bother responding.

Offending people, and then getting mad at them for feeling offended, seems to be a running theme with you.

Don't feel alluded to. I never even thought of you when I posted this.

You've been TGed.

This is for the rest of you:

A bunch of people have come in here smearing and bashing at me all because they took their own preconceived notions, called them facts, and then went after me on it. A couple of you I expected it from, some of you I find myself deeply disappointed in. Paranoid is the word that comes to mind.

Me too! The standard paranoid persecution/martyrdom complex that you're exhibiting, however. Now you're not even talking to specific people but "the rest of you" who are "smearing" you. You're lashing out blindly.

This was not an argument targeted after the pro-choice movement.

It wasn't really an argument at all, just the implication. Especially since you seem to be addressing this thread to the general public and not, to specific people who made arguments you are supposedly addressing.

I've already got myself involved in enough abortion threads. Why in the hell would you think I'd start up another? I can make any argument against abortion I want in there.

Exactly. Why did you start another? Do you honestly believe this isn't an abortion thread? ITS ABOUT ABORTION.

No, the real point of this thread is exactly as stated in the OP:

"This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow."

Yes, your point was that criticizing the anti-abortion crowd is tantamount to having a pro-eugenics bias.

Your problem seems to be twofold; you created a new abortion thread, supposedly in response to an existing abortion thread, and it was unnecessary.

Second, that many here actually understand your 'point.'


If you've never made that argument then

...its a strawman.

why the hell are you in here acting all defensive?

I'm guessing you're going to answer your own question.

The answer, is of course that you see my name on it and automatically assume this is JAFAT. (Just Another Fucking Abortion Thread).

Oh, that's the answer. Yeah, it couldn't be that you actually said something shitty and stupid.

And do tell how this abortion thread is so special and unique?

What does your name have to do with it? Christ.

You were wrong. Deal with it.

Sadly, you seem to be projecting a lot...

Don't reply to this post with your laundry list of excuses and accusations against me in an attempt to justify your actions or save face. I'm not interested and I won't bother responding.

Actually I will reply, thanks.

The reason you won't bother responding is because YOU are wrong... and THAT is your only way of dealing with it.

Don't feel alluded to. I never even thought of you when I posted this.



You know who I'm waiting for.

This is for the rest of you:

A bunch of people have come in here smearing and bashing at me all because they took their own preconceived notions, called them facts, and then went after me on it. A couple of you I expected it from, some of you I find myself deeply disappointed in. Paranoid is the word that comes to mind.

This was not an argument targeted after the pro-choice movement. I've already got myself involved in enough abortion threads. Why in the hell would you think I'd start up another? I can make any argument against abortion I want in there.

No, the real point of this thread is exactly as stated in the OP:

"This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow."

If you've never made that argument then why the hell are you in here acting all defensive?

The answer, is of course that you see my name on it and automatically assume this is JAFAT. (Just Another Fucking Abortion Thread). You were wrong. Deal with it.

Don't reply to this post with your laundry list of excuses and accusations against me in an attempt to justify your actions or save face. I'm not interested and I won't bother responding.
A) I don't have to reply with a long list this time because Tmutarakhan and Trostia said it all for me. Thanks, pals. :)

B) You really need to get over yourself. It is impossible for anyone to attack your arguments without you declaring they are attacking you personally. Yes, it's true I don't personally like you, and THIS is the reason why -- the way you make every debate end up being about you and the person you're arguing with instead of the topic. Oh, and I am also tired of your constant backpedalling, too. I can't remember the last time you posted an argument and did not later claim that you meant something else entirely. Now you're even denying the point of your own thread. Whatever. Oh, and your tactic of using a first strike personal attack to accuse someone else of personally attacking you is getting to be a classic, too. Why don't you talk about the topic instead of about me?

C) Why wait for Neo Art? You are perfectly capable of supporting your own argument, aren't you? And he's not here anyway, so talk to us who are. Or if you want someone else to set the rules, use the standards I described earlier, in my posts addressed to Smunkeeville. The bottom line is this: If you have an argument, then make it already.

Me too! The standard paranoid persecution/martyrdom complex that you're exhibiting, however. Now you're not even talking to specific people but "the rest of you" who are "smearing" you. You're lashing out blindly.


If I supplied a list I could be accused to flaming. Nice try though.

Yes, your point was that criticizing the anti-abortion crowd is tantamount to having a pro-eugenics bias.
{/quote]

*BUZZ* Wrong. try again

[QUOTE=Muravyets;13778338]A) I don't have to reply with a long list this time because Tmutarakhan and Trostia said it all for me. Thanks, pals. :)

B) You really need to get over yourself. It is impossible for anyone to attack your arguments without you declaring they are attacking you personally.



Impossible for you, apparently.


C) Why wait for Neo Art? You are perfectly capable of supporting your own argument, aren't you? And he's not here anyway, so talk to us who are. Or if you want someone else to set the rules, use the standards I described earlier, in my posts addressed to Smunkeeville. The bottom line is this: If you have an argument, then make it already.

My list was put together specifically because of his challenge, but if Smunkee is still looking in on this thread, then I'll post it anyway.

The answer is bolded for your convenience. That's essentially an accusation of dishonesty, coming from somebody who is not even bothering to make an effort to understand what I'm actually getting at.

Defensive much, Neo B?

Seven pages and NB still hasn't backed his shit up?

This is truly pathetic. The opening premise, directed at some vague people out there who said something or other...the failed belief that he 'proved them wrong'...the continued 'omg you're persecuting me'....

Utter drivel. The lack of substance in any of your posts in this thread, NB is frankly disgusting considering that by this time, you should know better.

You should be ashamed. But I think all this 'persecution' fills some need in you, so enjoy.

Well, since there seems to be a refusal to actually discuss the argument, what are we wasting time for here?

This.

But we must all be wrong, and NB is right. He made a brilliant argument and we just all missed it, and he isn't going to hold our hands and explain it again.

Yes. That's what happened.

You're cute. I love how no matter how deep you dig yourself in, it's always everyone else who's misunderstanding you. It must be a rough life, always being so clear and reasonable and having absolutely everybody else be so terribly prone to confusion.

Quoted, just one more time, to say...you've summed it up nicely Poli.

It's so strange how, when confusion abounds, and the only one who understands your point is you...the onus is all of a sudden on you to make yourself clear.

How terribly unfair.

*BUZZ* Wrong. try again


I don't need to try, I already did. Along with a dozen or so others. We're actually just sorta waiting for you to hurry up and catch the reality bus.

Originally Posted by Article
A mother who decided to abort her zygote because he may have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is overjoyed that he survived the procedure.

Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort [b]the fetus[b] when she was eight weeks pregnant.

Percival's first son Thane died of multicystic dysplastic kidneys — which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby — and her second child Lewis was born with serious kidney damage and currently has just one kidney, the Daily Mail reported.

Click here for a photo of baby Finley [b]which in no ways resembles the zygote, 1/10th the size of a fruit fly's brain, that this article focuses on.

"I was on the (birth control pill) when I became pregnant," Percival, 25, said. "Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible but I couldn't cope with the anguish of losing another baby."

A short time after the abortion, Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach. She went to the doctor for a scan and discovered she was 19 weeks pregnant.

"I couldn't believe it,' Percival said. "This was the zygote I thought I'd terminated. At first I was angry that this was happening to us, that the procedure had failed. I wrote to the hospital, I couldn't believe that they had let me down like this.

"They wrote back and apologized and said it was very rare," she added.

Dr. Manny Alvarez, managing health editor for FOXNews.com (thus making his testimony worthless), said Percival's situation is actually quite common.

"Women that have early terminations in weeks six, seven and eight, many times the pregnancy is so small that doctors miss removing the zygote," Alvarez said. "The danger is that the failed attempt can damage the fetus. That is why these patients who get early terminations need follow-ups."

Another scan a week later confirmed the baby would also have kidney problems once it was born, but doctors told the couple the baby was likely to survive, so they decided he deserved another chance at life.

In November, Finley was born three weeks premature. He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life.

This article has been edited for accuracy. Notice how when the truth is used, rather then idiot buzzwords thrown around to create base, emotional reactions that override logic, this useless propaganda peice becomes a lot less effective and even more useless.

This article has been edited for accuracy. Notice how when the truth is used, rather then idiot buzzwords thrown around to create base, emotional reactions that override logic, this useless propaganda peice becomes a lot less effective and even more useless.

Actually, it isn't accurate after the edits. It is impossible to abort a zygote, as a zygote is a single cell and is pre-implantation.

I believe the word you were looking for is embryo.

And at the point when she rediscovered her pregnancy (19 weeks), it would be a fetus.

It would probably also be more accurate, when discussing the possible damage from attempting an abortion procedure, to say that the procedure can cause developmental problems that persist after birth.

Defensive much, Neo B?

I'm kinda marveling at the paranoia. At no time did I say or even suggest that this was an argument against pro-choice people, and yet not only is a whole shitload of them in here playing the martyrs, but when I point out who I'm talking about, all I get is "nuh-uh! You're talking about US and now you have to apologize!!!"

Neo Art wanted a list of examples of people arguing for the idea of aborting over physical defects. He actually seems to have understood where I was going with this, which is why I'm holding out to make sure we get it straight. If everybody else wants to characterize that as waffling they can go ahead. The links aren't going anywhere and I've got time.

The reason is this: If I came back with a link demonstrating my point, somebody would say "Well that's ONE, and it proves nothing." So before I post any links, I want a commitment to exactly how many examples it will take. Somebody said 2 earlier. I wouldn't expect NA or anybody else to be satisfied with 2, (I wouldn't) so I'm holding out for NA's answer.

After all, it was he that put out the challenge in the first place.

B) You really need to get over yourself. It is impossible for anyone to attack your arguments without you declaring they are attacking you personally.

I have to say, this really quite struck me. Even though I've been around NSG for awhile, I really don't see the name on a thread and think, "Oh, this again, I'll go in and show him/her what's what" (with the exception of Andaras, but only because he only posts on ONE topic, and I rarely reply in that case). So I was quite taken aback at being accused making an attack "personal", since I know nothing about NB and didn't even remember his position in other abortion threads. It's really nonsensical.

I'm kinda marveling at the paranoia. At no time did I say or even suggest that this was an argument against pro-choice people, and yet not only is a whole shitload of them in here playing the martyrs, but when I point out who I'm talking about, all I get is "nuh-uh! You're talking about US and now you have to apologize!!!"

Neo Art wanted a list of examples of people arguing for the idea of aborting over physical defects. He actually seems to have understood where I was going with this, which is why I'm holding out to make sure we get it straight. If everybody else wants to characterize that as waffling they can go ahead. The links aren't going anywhere and I've got time.

The reason is this: If I came back with a link demonstrating my point, somebody would say "Well that's ONE, and it proves nothing." So before I post any links, I want a commitment to exactly how many examples it will take. Somebody said 2 earlier. I wouldn't expect NA or anybody else to be satisfied with 2, (I wouldn't) so I'm holding out for NA's answer.

After all, it was he that put out the challenge in the first place.

If you want to go head-to-head with Neo Art and Neo Art only, TG each other. Or even, you know, address the thread to him. Because otherwise, when you post a new thread on a public forum? Other people might respond. I know, it's wacky. It's like we think that's what the place is here for.

As for paranoia and your comment about me personally attacking you earlier: I hate to shatter your self-image, but coming into this thread I had no idea what your position was. Yes, I'd seen your name around, but I honestly could not connect it to any posts or positions. Hell, there are so many Neos and News around I mix them up at times. So I had no prior information about you that I even remembered. I was attacking only your position.

If you want to go head-to-head with Neo Art and Neo Art only, TG each other. Or even, you know, address the thread to him. Because otherwise, when you post a new thread on a public forum? Other people might respond. I know, it's wacky. It's like we think that's what the place is here for.



After all, it was he that put out the challenge in the first place.

(Which happened subsequent to the creation of the thread.)


As for paranoia and your comment about me personally attacking you earlier: I hate to shatter your self-image, but coming into this thread I had no idea what your position was. Yes, I'd seen your name around, but I honestly could not connect it to any posts or positions. Hell, there are so many Neos and News around I mix them up at times. So I had no prior information about you that I even remembered. I was attacking only your position.

You have a TG.

Too bad they don't have a national news story every time a young woman's life is spared the lifetime of having to raise a child on her own at poverty level in a hellish environment because she had an abortion - allowing her to get an education, start a career, and later go on to be a mother who has children - children she has a much better chance of raising in a safe, good, and beneficial environment.

If they did, your news story about abortion survival would be drowned out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2157011/Record-numbers-of-abortions-in-under-age-girls..html

Good thing those 14 year old girls aren't forced to carry those babies to term...

Too bad they don't have a national news story every time a young woman's life is spared the lifetime of having to raise a child on her own at poverty level in a hellish environment because she had an abortion - allowing her to get an education, start a career, and later go on to be a mother who has children - children she has a much better chance of raising in a safe, good, and beneficial environment.

If they did, your news story about abortion survival would be drowned out.

For once you make a good point.

Neo Art wanted a list of examples of people arguing for the idea of aborting over physical defects. He actually seems to have understood where I was going with this, which is why I'm holding out to make sure we get it straight. If everybody else wants to characterize that as waffling they can go ahead. The links aren't going anywhere and I've got time.

The reason is this: If I came back with a link demonstrating my point, somebody would say "Well that's ONE, and it proves nothing." So before I post any links, I want a commitment to exactly how many examples it will take. Somebody said 2 earlier. I wouldn't expect NA or anybody else to be satisfied with 2, (I wouldn't) so I'm holding out for NA's answer.

After all, it was he that put out the challenge in the first place.

Wow.

You really, really don't get it.

I sort of wonder what the point of anyone but you posting in this thread, if you so absolutely fail at reading what they say.

Your 'point' isn't that a bunch of people said something. If that truly is your point, then this thread is even more of a waste of time than it first appeared to be. So what? People say shit all the time...it proves nothing.

No, your 'point' is that you have provided evidence in your OP that those people saying shit are WRONG.

There is no worth in getting caught up in whether 'those people' exist or not. No amount is going to make your original premise true. You could find a million people on the internet saying that babies with any physical defect should be aborted, and your OP is still going to be the loose pile of feces it always has been.

The story you linked to has been discussed again and again, and it has been pointed out to you again and again why it simply doesn't support your premise of 'this is why it's worth it'.

You're going to waste our time with more 'oh yeah! Don't MAKE me compile a list!!!!!' ??

For the love of all things rational, stick to your original point and actually argue it. It would be a nice change from the pointless spamming of your own thread.

For the love of all things rational, stick to your original point and actually argue it. It would be a nice change from the pointless spamming of your own thread.

How many posts have I missed, that assert the opposite of my OP premise so that I can argue my point? How many eugenics people have come in here to debate? I haven't seen any but by all means show me where I missed it. (Perhaps I was too busy putting on my flame-retardant suit)

All I've seen is a bunch of people playing the martyr over a statement I never even made. Nobody is discussing the actual issue, which is whether or not it was worth it to keep that baby. If you agree that it was, then say so. If you think it wasn't, then let's debate. That's the issue. You guys have tried to make it into an argument over pro-choice vs pro-life when I specifically in the OP said it was aimed at the ones who (usually in eugenics related threads) maintain that such a defect would have made carrying the child NOT worth it.

And now mostly people are bitching because I haven't proven that people have argued this? Why is that even in question? Some of you guys who are bellyaching at me have even ARGUED AGAINST THE VERY PEOPLE THIS OP WAS AIMED AT and if you weren't so busy crying foul over a non-issue then we'd actually be on the same side for a change.

Why is that the issue anyway? You said yourself that:

There is no worth in getting caught up in whether 'those people' exist or not. No amount is going to make your original premise true. You could find a million people on the internet saying that babies with any physical defect should be aborted, and your OP is still going to be the loose pile of feces it always has been.

So if you don't think it's worthy of discussion then why are you even here wasting your own time? (and then accusing me of wasting your time. Geez, what a martyr complex.)

If none of the eugenics people want to respond then the thread goes away and it's a non-issue. Let it slough off. It's only as large as it is because people want to line up and bitch about it.

Too bad they don't have a national news story every time a young woman's life is spared the lifetime of having to raise a child on her own at poverty level in a hellish environment because she had an abortion - allowing her to get an education, start a career, and later go on to be a mother who has children - children she has a much better chance of raising in a safe, good, and beneficial environment.

If they did, your news story about abortion survival would be drowned out.

See, now, this is an instance of you saying something I agree with. :)

I also noticed that if you agree with what I post, you don't ask for a link (I posted a link directly thereafter as a loose example).

That could be because what you posted was an opinion, not a verifiable fact. But that's just my opinion.

See, now, this is an instance of you saying something I agree with. :)

I also noticed that if you agree with what I post, you don't ask for a link (I posted a link directly thereafter as a loose example).

I also noticed that if you agree with what I post, you don't ask for a link (I posted a link directly thereafter as a loose example).
Yeah, I know. I saw it. I only ask for links if (A) they aren't there already, (B) the person is making an assertion of fact, and (C) I suspect or know that their assertion is not true.

So if you don't think it's worthy of discussion then why are you even here wasting your own time? (and then accusing me of wasting your time. Geez, what a martyr complex.) Because we are demanding that you be held to a higher standard, and either ante up, or shut up.

If none of the eugenics people want to respond then the thread goes away and it's a non-issue. Let it slough off. It's only as large as it is because people want to line up and bitch about it.False. Non-eugenics people have repeatedly attempted to debate you on your opening premise, and you've ignored them, as though you were waiting for someone else to talk to. You don't need to wait for the eugenics crowd to have a discussion. YOU have evaded debate again and again, and completely dismissed the concerns brought up by others. So try answering Poli, or Ryadn, or Murv, or any of the other posters who have attempted to debate you the 'physical defect' aspect of your OP.

We're calling you on your delusions because it's annoying to see someone behave like such a clueless fool...especially when you expect that it's a deliberate deception on your part.

Because we are demanding that you be held to a higher standard, and either ante up, or shut up.

Ante up what? Didn't you just say it would be pointless to provide the very links y'all were griping about earlier? One the one hand, you want to rail and whine because I haven't provided links, but on the other you state that even if I provide them it wouldn't prove anything...

Make up your mind.

Actually, don't bother making up your mind. This is exactly the sort of rhetorical duplicitous nonsense that characterizes a lot of the shouters on this forum. Please continue, this stuff is pure gold.


False. Non-eugenics people have repeatedly attempted to debate you on your opening premise, and you've ignored them, as though you were waiting for someone else to talk to. You don't need to wait for the eugenics crowd to have a discussion. YOU have evaded debate again and again, and completely dismissed the concerns brought up by others. So try answering Poli, or Ryadn, or Murv, or any of the other posters who have attempted to debate you the 'physical defect' aspect of your OP.


Actually I did see a couple of legitimate efforts to talk about the situation back in the very beginning before the heavy whining broke out, and I responded to them. Where was your contribution to the issue at hand?


We're calling you on your delusions because it's annoying to see someone behave like such a clueless fool...especially when you expect that it's a deliberate deception on your part.

Duly noted. :rolleyes:

Since it doesn't look like NA is coming back, here are some examples of the folks who inspired this post, along with those who demanded proof (of the obvious.)


This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

This was the OP.

who ever said that children with some physical damage should have been aborted?

Can you point one out for me please?

Can you find one?

Again with that airy "Oh, I'm sure there are some lying around here somewhere" attitude. Honestly, NB, you are incorrigible.

But, but I bet there was someone! Someone said it! And even if it was just one or two people who said it, it needs to be dealt with before the floodgates open wide! I mean...we have no proof anyone said it but I bet someone was thinking it! Ha! Prove me wrong!
Stop letting facts intefere please thanks.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924738&postcount=113

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11075976&postcount=18

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11075929&postcount=10

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11075893&postcount=6

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11080773&postcount=190

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11078837&postcount=168

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11078580&postcount=141

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11193185&postcount=51

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11193277&postcount=55

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11199066&postcount=94

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11197668&postcount=79

This. There are so many practical issues that lead women to choose abortion and if half the energy spent on demonising women who choose abortion were invested into solving them, its likely the number of abortions would reduce. As has been shown so often, simply making abortion more difficult to obtain does not reduce the incidence of abortion and does endanger women and their dependents.

I can see two sides to this issue. making abortions "easy" would remove the responsiblity from the would be parents. "hey you're preggers? let's get an abortion" (yes, I know it's extremely simplified... it was done on purpose.)
but making it hard, as you said, endangers the would be mother.

Yet a third choice is rarely talked about - Adoption centers that could find parents for this unwanted child.

making abortions "easy" would remove the responsiblity from the would be parents
Which would be a bad thing why? Are you taking it as a default assumption that anyone who has sex has a "responsibility" to bear a child?

I can see two sides to this issue. making abortions "easy" would remove the responsiblity from the would be parents. "hey you're preggers? let's get an abortion" (yes, I know it's extremely simplified... it was done on purpose.)
but making it hard, as you said, endangers the would be mother.

Yet a third choice is rarely talked about - Adoption centers that could find parents for this unwanted child.

As you alluded, abortion is never easy and can be the most responsible action. I believe it should be made as accessible as possible, and in some ways, I'd expect those who find abortion morally questionable to agree. After all, the earlier an abortion takes place, the less developed the embyro would be, the further away from personhood it would be.

Adoption could indeed be the answer where a woman feels she can continue a pregnancy but could not bring up a child. However, there are still practical issues to solve to enable more women to see this as an option. For example, 30,000 women are sacked in the UK every year simply for being pregnant. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/30/equality.health). Clearly being sacked is not only unpleasant but could have a seriously detrimental effect on a woman's home and dependents, which are also her responsibility.

There is also the problem of finding enough adoptive parents for children who need homes - there are many children in the system now waiting to be adopted.

Adoption is not without its moral questions either. I personally believe it is less moral to produce a child you have no intention or ability to support than it is to have an abortion. It is less moral to expect somebody else to pick up the emotional and financial costs of your child than to stop it from being in the first place. If there is a good chance that your child will have an illness or condition that you know you could not cope with, how is it moral to allow somebody else to take it on? If you tell the prospective adoptive parents about the potential problems, you are gimping your child's adoption chances. If you don't, you are essentially dishonest.

Its easy to think of abortion as being something done by carefree women but the truth is that it is often chosen by women who have many cares and responsibilities to reconcile. Who else can be the arbiter?

Which would be a bad thing why? Are you taking it as a default assumption that anyone who has sex has a "responsibility" to bear a child?

I was pointing more to one less reason to taking precautions and practicing safe sex. ;)

Since it doesn't look like NA is coming back, here are some examples of the folks who inspired this post, along with those who demanded proof (of the obvious.)
What's obvious is that you still don't have a lot of evidence here because you failed provide context, as I suggested you should do earlier in this thread.

Of the following 11 posts, only two are clearly supporting the use of abortion in order to prevent children from being born with mere imperfections.

Of the rest of the posts, a few are arguing for screening and abortion in the case of severe defects that guarantee a baby a short life of excrutiating pain -- genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs, not functional conditions such as Downs Syndrome or blindness or deafness that otherwise healthy people can live with perfectly well.

For the remaining posts, it is unclear precisely what the posters are talking about, because they talk about eugenics but not specifically abortion or specifically abortion to get rid of imperfections. In fact, for some of them it is not clear that they are being serious. To judge whether these are real examples in support of your "obvious" argument, we need to see the context in which they were posted.

<snip>

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924738&postcount=113
Needs context.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11075976&postcount=18
Needs context. Does not appear to say what you think it says.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11075929&postcount=10
Talks about serious defects that would cause suffering in the born baby.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11075893&postcount=6
Talks about hereditary diseases, not imperfections. There is a difference between a disease and something like deafness.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11080773&postcount=190
Does not actually say anything, but is responding rather unresponsively to someone else. Needs context.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11078837&postcount=168
Says nothing at all about abortion or eugenics, may not be serious, and needs context.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11078580&postcount=141
Needs context.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11193185&postcount=51
This poster talks about using abortion to prevent severe health problems but equates these with such things as dwarfism and Downs Syndrome, which is something I would disagree with.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11193277&postcount=55
Talks about severe, painful and fatal conditions such as Tay-Sachs and other diseases which the poster mentions specifically. Such conditions cause so much suffering in life that I would not disagree with using abortion to prevent people being born with them. That is hardly an argument for eugenics, though.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11199066&postcount=94
This one talks specifically about using abortion in order to eliminate imperfections.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11197668&postcount=79
Needs context. It is unclear what the poster's position is, whether he is serious, or whether he is racist.

So, out of 11 posts, 6 are unclear without context, 3 talk about preventing serious, fatal, incurable conditions that cause significant suffering and death after birth, and 2 talk about using abortion to eliminate imperfections and of those 2 one is not entirely clear as to the poster's position. So that gives you, what? 1.75 examples on point so far?

I can see two sides to this issue. making abortions "easy" would remove the responsiblity from the would be parents. "hey you're preggers? let's get an abortion" (yes, I know it's extremely simplified... it was done on purpose.)
but making it hard, as you said, endangers the would be mother.

Yet a third choice is rarely talked about - Adoption centers that could find parents for this unwanted child.
Why do people persist in thinking that adoption is a substitute for abortion?

Bewilder pointed out the moral and practical problems with adoption, with which I entirely agree. There is also this to consider: Women abort pregnancies because for them at that time, pregnancy is the problem, not motherhood. If there is a reason why it would be bad for a woman to go through a pregnancy, then going through it and giving up the baby later is not a solution, is it?

As you alluded, abortion is never easy and can be the most responsible action. I believe it should be made as accessible as possible, and in some ways, I'd expect those who find abortion morally questionable to agree. After all, the earlier an abortion takes place, the less developed the embyro would be, the further away from personhood it would be.

Adoption could indeed be the answer where a woman feels she can continue a pregnancy but could not bring up a child. However, there are still practical issues to solve to enable more women to see this as an option. For example, 30,000 women are sacked in the UK every year simply for being pregnant. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/30/equality.health). Clearly being sacked is not only unpleasant but could have a seriously detrimental effect on a woman's home and dependents, which are also her responsibility.

There is also the problem of finding enough adoptive parents for children who need homes - there are many children in the system now waiting to be adopted.

Adoption is not without its moral questions either. I personally believe it is less moral to produce a child you have no intention or ability to support than it is to have an abortion. It is less moral to expect somebody else to pick up the emotional and financial costs of your child than to stop it from being in the first place. If there is a good chance that your child will have an illness or condition that you know you could not cope with, how is it moral to allow somebody else to take it on? If you tell the prospective adoptive parents about the potential problems, you are gimping your child's adoption chances. If you don't, you are essentially dishonest.

Its easy to think of abortion as being something done by carefree women but the truth is that it is often chosen by women who have many cares and responsibilities to reconcile. Who else can be the arbiter?
true, but also you hear tales of parents looking for children to adopt and not finding any available.

and don't mistake me, I'm not saying Adoption in place of Abortion. Just wondering why those adoption vultures (those that hang around outside adoption clinics to harrange those going in) are not providing other alternative choices to abortion instead of standing around yelling "abortion is murder."

I would love to see some of them offer to take and raise their child. put their words into action.

true, but also you hear tales of parents looking for children to adopt and not finding any available.
In the US, that usually means children of the right color and of perfect health. That still leaves millions of children languishing in state systems until they age out.

If some people want to claim that people use abortion to try to guarantee a perfect baby for themselves, I wonder what they would have to say about people who shop for just the "right" baby and walk away from so many suffering and neglected.

and don't mistake me, I'm not saying Adoption in place of Abortion. Just wondering why those adoption vultures (those that hang around outside adoption clinics to harrange those going in) are not providing other alternative choices to abortion instead of standing around yelling "abortion is murder."

I would love to see some of them offer to take and raise their child. put their words into action.
OK, yes, that is a very good point to bring up to those who think that adoption is a substitute for abortion.

true, but also you hear tales of parents looking for children to adopt and not finding any available.

and don't mistake me, I'm not saying Adoption in place of Abortion. Just wondering why those adoption vultures (those that hang around outside adoption clinics to harrange those going in) are not providing other alternative choices to abortion instead of standing around yelling "abortion is murder."

I would love to see some of them offer to take and raise their child. put their words into action.

Agreed completely - if raising children is just a matter of convenience as they'd have us believe, they have no justification for NOT adopting lots of kids :)

Why do people persist in thinking that adoption is a substitute for abortion?except, as I posted after this, that I am not saying adoption as a replacement for Abortion. just an alternative. ;)

Bewilder pointed out the moral and practical problems with adoption, with which I entirely agree. There is also this to consider: Women abort pregnancies because for them at that time, pregnancy is the problem, not motherhood. If there is a reason why it would be bad for a woman to go through a pregnancy, then going through it and giving up the baby later is not a solution, is it?
Outside of health concerns... wouldn't anyone who sees pregnancy as a problem also see parenthood as a bigger problem?

In the US, that usually means children of the right color and of perfect health. That still leaves millions of children languishing in state systems until they age out.one wonders if those abortion vultures care more about the skin color of the baby than the fact that the child will be aborted.

If some people want to claim that people use abortion to try to guarantee a perfect baby for themselves, I wonder what they would have to say about people who shop for just the "right" baby and walk away from so many suffering and neglected. TBH, I've never heard anyone claim to use abortion because the baby is 'less than perfect'. to spare the child of living with a health condition... yes, but that's not really the same thing. of course, if you're overly simplifying (as I did earlier) then I apologize for this post. :cool:

OK, yes, that is a very good point to bring up to those who think that adoption is a substitute for abortion.
I often dream of one of those people going in those clinics asking them "who wants to save this child by adopting it right here and now." and getting their replies on camera. :D

one wonders if those abortion vultures care more about the skin color of the baby than the fact that the child will be aborted.


Planned Parenthood has a long history of caring about what color babies get aborted.

"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

Several years later, Margaret Sanger wrote the following in a letter to Clarence Gamble:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.

Her idea was to encourage blacks to use both birth control and abortion to secretly eliminate the black population. She called it "race hygiene".

except, as I posted after this, that I am not saying adoption as a replacement for Abortion. just an alternative. ;)
I noticed that in your subsequent post, but if it's not a replacement, then it's not a very useful option, either.

Outside of health concerns... wouldn't anyone who sees pregnancy as a problem also see parenthood as a bigger problem?
No, not necessarily. Sometimes a woman must abort a pregnancy even though she wants a baby. Sometimes the reasons are financial -- pregnancy costs a lot even before a baby ever shows up. Sometimes it is a matter of loss of a support system for the pregnancy -- insurance, assistance from her family, etc. There are lots of reasons besides health why pregnancy can be a problem at a given time in a woman's life.

one wonders if those abortion vultures care more about the skin color of the baby than the fact that the child will be aborted.
Yes, one does wonder sometimes, doesn't one? ;)

TBH, I've never heard anyone claim to use abortion because the baby is 'less than perfect'. to spare the child of living with a health condition... yes, but that's not really the same thing. of course, if you're overly simplifying (as I did earlier) then I apologize for this post. :cool:
Me neither, but somehow it's the claim of the OP of this thread that people make such arguments.

I often dream of one of those people going in those clinics asking them "who wants to save this child by adopting it right here and now." and getting their replies on camera. :D
America's Funniest. ;)

Planned Parenthood has a long history of caring about what color babies get aborted.

"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

Several years later, Margaret Sanger wrote the following in a letter to Clarence Gamble:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.

Her idea was to encourage blacks to use both birth control and abortion to secretly eliminate the black population. She called it "race hygiene".
Sigh. This bullshit again?

Margaret Sanger was one person. Now prove that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization. Have fun trying to do that.

Sigh. This bullshit again?

Margaret Sanger was one person. Now prove that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization. Have fun trying to do that.

But it's already been shown that one person was racist. Surely that's all that's necessary? Margaret Sanger was racist, so Planned Parenthood is racist and none of Sanger's work was ever important or helpful.

But it's already been shown that one person was racist. Surely that's all that's necessary? Margaret Sanger was racist, so Planned Parenthood is racist and none of Sanger's work was ever important or helpful.

Right, exactly. Because it's not as if she's been dead for decades, or as if other people who never had anything to do with her are and have been directing the organization's work. Everybody knows that organizations never change at all, no matter how long they exist, and naturally, all subsequent leaders of an organization will do nothing but slavishly ape the worst habits of the original founder. Also it's not as if Planned Parenthood provides services to white people, and it's not as if the populations of minorities haven't been obviously and negatively affected by their work. And everybody knows that even in Sanger's time, white women never went anywhere near Planned Parenthood, or if they did, they were turned away because they weren't the people she was trying to suppress.

I noticed that in your subsequent post, but if it's not a replacement, then it's not a very useful option, either. never said it was a useful option. just an option. sometimes having an alternative is helpful. after all if it was a Useful Option, then it would be a replacement for abortion.

No, not necessarily. Sometimes a woman must abort a pregnancy even though she wants a baby. Sometimes the reasons are financial -- pregnancy costs a lot even before a baby ever shows up. Sometimes it is a matter of loss of a support system. There are lots of reasons besides health why pregnancy can be a problem at a given time in a woman's life.

what reasons should it be a "must" outside of health.

Financial? most Surrogate mothers are paid during their pregancy, all medical costs taken care of. I don't see why those adopting a child from a pregnant person won't help financially.

The child will be deformed/genetic defect? I would like to see what those 'abortion vultures' would do when they find out the child they're adopting has such a condition.

never said it was a useful option. just an option. sometimes having an alternative is helpful. after all if it was a Useful Option, then it would be a replacement for abortion.



what reasons should it be a "must" outside of health.

Financial? most Surrogate mothers are paid during their pregancy, all medical costs taken care of. I don't see why those adopting a child from a pregnant person won't help financially.
You're joking, right?

The child will be deformed/genetic defect? I would like to see what those 'abortion vultures' would do when they find out the child they're adopting has such a condition.
Perhaps they'd keep shopping.

while I don't know for sure, but isn't some of the reasons for an abortion "it's not planned for" or "scared" or even "embarrassed"? are those reasons that fall under your 'must abort a pregnancy'?
"It's not planned for" is often a precursor to the list of practical reasons why a woman "must abort a pregnancy." As to the others, no, they are not part of my "list" (which you imagine exists) of practical, non-medical reasons for having to abort a pregnancy, though they are perfectly good reasons for wanting to abort a pregnancy.

Also it's not as if Planned Parenthood provides services to white people

*raises hand*

I got the pill there for a while when I had no health insurance. *nodnod*

Wow, I could call Planned Parenthood, and make a targeted donation specifically to fund the abortion of a Muslim baby, and they would accept the money AND use it for that purpose...

Horrifying, really....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE

You're joking, right? for what part? the adoptive parent paying for the medical and other pre-natal care? or that if it was a useful option it would then be a replacement to abortion? :confused:


Perhaps they'd keep shopping. wouldn't surpise me. after all, they call abortion 'murder' yet they don't offer (or at least not shown offering) to adopt the unwanted child. in effect, letting the 'murder' take place.


"It's not planned for" is often a precursor to the list of practical reasons why a woman "must abort a pregnancy." As to the others, no, they are not part of my "list" (which you imagine exists) of practical, non-medical reasons for having to abort a pregnancy, though they are perfectly good reasons for wanting to abort a pregnancy.not assuming any list. was just asking. nothing else implied. sorry if anyone did think I was implying anything. :cool:

Wow, I could call Planned Parenthood, and make a targeted donation specifically to fund the abortion of a Muslim baby, and they would accept the money AND use it for that purpose...

Horrifying, really....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE

Very horrifying. It discriminates against non-Muslim women who want abortions.

Wow, I could call Planned Parenthood, and make a targeted donation specifically to fund the abortion of a Muslim baby, and they would accept the money AND use it for that purpose...

Horrifying, really....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE

wait... so someone donates and specifies what and who the money should go to and they follow those instructions and THEY are the one's guilty of "caring about what color babies get aborted"?


I could donate to the Red Cross and specify that the money donated goes to feeding the hungry in Africa... does that mean the Red Cross cares more about Starving Africans than anyone else?

I could donate money to Feed The Children and specify that the money should go to the starving children in Japan, does that mean FTC favors Asians?

and I like the video.

Caller: "... there are way too many black people in my house so I'm just trying to do my part"
PP Operator: "ok, Whatever"

yeah, like she's really cheering his efforts on.

Caller: "blacks especially need the abortion..."
PP Operator: "well, for whatever reason, we'll accept the money."

Ohh, yeah, a real racial comment by the Planned Parenthood operator.

if the donation is specifically told to be used for a particular purpose, the recieving organization has to follow the request if they accept them Money. they need to do this because should an audit be called, they can be liable for fraud.

So yes. someone asking planned parenthood to use their donation specifically for abortions for minorities would be followed.

and the call... soo many problems there.

doner: What about abortions for underprivileged minority groups
Planned Parenthood Operator: Oh absolutely. We have, um, in fact, uh wonderful, fantastic news. We just recieved a very generous donation to our women in need fund.
[note, she didn't mention any minorty group. it was a non targetting comment.]
Doner: Wonderful. I want to specify that abortion to hep a minority group, would that be possble?
PPO: Absolutely. [yes, the DONER can specify how the money is spent.]
Doner: Like the black community if possible?
PPO: Certainly [yes, the DONER can specify that the money be spent on the Black Community.]
Doner: Ok, So, the abortion, I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose.
PPO: Absolutely [yes, the Doner can give money for specific use. that is the rule for any and all charitable organizations.] If you wanted to designate that you wanted your gift to be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked specifically for that purpose. [note, the PPO did not say abortion, but help. and she did say that PPO would follow the instructions given to them by the doner.]

if you follow the rest of the conversation, she is NOT making any statement saying that the organization is racist. but that they will follow the wishes of the person puting in the donation.

note how they focus on one word. "excited" what do they expect... disgusted? that would probably get her removed because it's not a good customer service practice. they focus on her saying "excited" yet they don't focus on her saying that PP will use the money to the DONER'S SPECIFICATIONS. Sorry, but groups dependant on charitable donations can't really pick and choose who gives them money.

Too bad Auditors also don't care about the reasons behind the doner specifying how the money is to be used when they do their audits.

I call those segments of videos nothing more than Micheal Moore'esqe editing techniques with the "Loose Change" level of investigation.

I'd expect those who find abortion morally questionable to agree. After all, the earlier an abortion takes place, the less developed the embyro would be, the further away from personhood it would be.
"Personhood" is not a factor that the anti-abortion side finds important. Repeatedly I find that they insist that a zygote one minute after conception is morally equivalent to a full-term fetus one minute before birth.

Wow, I could call Planned Parenthood, and make a targeted donation specifically to fund the abortion of a Muslim baby, and they would accept the money AND use it for that purpose...

Horrifying, really....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE
Hahahaha! Good joke. :D

Yeah, it's just terrible how organizations like Planned Parenthood will take money for their cause even from racist fucks and tell them anything they want to hear to get that check sent in. I tell you, fundraising people are masterminds -- that crap about earmarking donations for specific uses... I especially love that one. "Oh, right, you want to dictate how we provide our services because you know better than us how to do our jobs and/or you figure you can use us as a tool to carry out your own private bullshit agenda? No, problem, Mr. Moneybags. You just write that check and we'll get right with your program, whatever it is. Uh-huh, you bet. And we'll even send you a little picture of the white/black/latino/asian baby/kitten/puppy/polar bear you adopted/aborted (choose appropriate options) for you to stare at late at night alone in bed and feel smug about yourself." Ka-ching.

for what part? the adoptive parent paying for the medical and other pre-natal care? or that if it was a useful option it would then be a replacement to abortion? :confused:
The joke is the part where you suggest that anything to do with surrogacy is applicable to the overall situation of women considering abortion. Out of the millions of pregnant women, and the millions out of that group facing the decision to abort, you think it is at all relevant that a very tiny number of women are actually getting paid to carry pregnancies? Even if all the anti-choicers/non-adopters you talked about offered to pay for pregnancies, do you think there are enough of them to cover all those millions of non-professional pregnant women? I doubt it, because if there were, the world would be a very different place.

wouldn't surpise me. after all, they call abortion 'murder' yet they don't offer (or at least not shown offering) to adopt the unwanted child. in effect, letting the 'murder' take place.


not assuming any list. was just asking. nothing else implied. sorry if anyone did think I was implying anything. :cool:
NP.

I've been around NSG for quite a while, seen a lot of straw men in my time, and I must say that this particular straw man could probably kick the crap out of most every other straw man I've encountered here. Well done, Neo B.

"Personhood" is not a factor that the anti-abortion side finds important. Repeatedly I find that they insist that a zygote one minute after conception is morally equivalent to a full-term fetus one minute before birth.
Yes, and apparently that "personhood" stops mattering altogether one minute after birth. As JuNii pointed out, the people who will throw themselves upon the ramparts to "save babies" while they're still inside women often won't lift a finger to help them out once they are born. Apparently, the unborn are people who cannot be allowed to be killed, whereas the born are... what? unpersons? who can be allowed to die horribly by disease, poverty, abuse or neglect in untold numbers every year without people who call themselves "pro-life" worrying much about it.

<snip>
To judge whether these are real examples in support of your "obvious" argument, we need to see the context in which they were posted.
<snip>


Quickly! eliminate as many links as possible using whatever excuse it takes!

Predictable.

I gave links precisely so that one could read the originating post, rather than simply quoting them.

All the context you could ever want is right there, all you have to do is click. (If one is sharp enough to notice a link in the upper right corner of the text window that goes to the originating thread itself.)

Edit: Much as I'd love to spend all day on this, what has devolved into an asinine pissing match, I'm home with the baby as out daycare provider canceled on us at the last minute.

Have a nice weekend, all.

These abortion thread is getting really old....

Quickly! eliminate as many links as possible using whatever excuse it takes!

Predictable.

I gave links precisely so that one could read the originating post, rather than simply quoting them.

All the context you could ever want is right there, all you have to do is click. (If one is sharp enough to notice a link in the upper right corner of the text window that goes to the originating thread itself.)

Edit: Much as I'd love to spend all day on this, what has devolved into an asinine pissing match, I'm home with the baby as out daycare provider canceled on us at the last minute.

Have a nice weekend, all.
HAHAHAHA!!! Oh, NB, you are a piece of work, you really are.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt of reading your links. I judged their relevance to your claim based solely on their content. I rejected ONLY those that were clearly talking about something else. I accepted two as supporting your claim at least partially. AND I told you exactly how to clear up uncertainty about the others.

But apparently, presenting a sound argument, even with help (!), is more than you can manage.

Enjoy your baby-time. See you Monday. Hopefully in a different thread because this one is dead.

I can see two sides to this issue. making abortions "easy" would remove the responsiblity from the would be parents. "hey you're preggers? let's get an abortion" (yes, I know it's extremely simplified... it was done on purpose.)
but making it hard, as you said, endangers the would be mother.

Yet a third choice is rarely talked about - Adoption centers that could find parents for this unwanted child.

is there really a shortage of adoption agencies eager to find homes for newborns?

i dont think so.

women dont have an abortion because its too much of a bother to find adoptive parents for the child she is carrying.

The joke is the part where you suggest that anything to do with surrogacy is applicable to the overall situation of women considering abortion. ah, no, I never said Adoption was applicable to the OVERALL situation of women. I called it an option. nothing more, nothing less. an option that is rarely shown being pushed by those abortion vultures who could also offer assistance in other ways than just standing outside screaming 'abortion is murder'.

is there really a shortage of adoption agencies eager to find homes for newborns?

i dont think so.

women dont have an abortion because its too much of a bother to find adoptive parents for the child she is carrying.
and my focus is not on the person going in to have the abortion but my focus is on those standing outside lambasting the person going in.

my question to them is "if they consider abortion murder, why are they not stepping forward to offer to adopt those unwanted children?"

the point of my arguments is not why are not those seeking abortions not looiking into adoption.

in other words, I am talking about the abortion vultures, NOT those seeking to abort.

I'm kinda marveling at the paranoia. At no time did I say or even suggest that this was an argument against pro-choice people, and yet not only is a whole shitload of them in here playing the martyrs, but when I point out who I'm talking about, all I get is "nuh-uh! You're talking about US and now you have to apologize!!!"

Meh. My problem is with this article, as it is emotional pandering and idiotic drivel (which is in no way your fault), and my issues stop there. No problem with you, never have had one. I know this thread isnt directed at me.


Just thought Id clear this little bit up so you know Im not jumping in on the clusterfuck.

Unborn children with physical damage or malformity or genetic disorders should be aborted. It saves them a life of aguish, adds a bit of chlorine to the gene pool, and forever rids the world of cumbersome dead weight. All that we lose is a public jester but they don't stay funny for very long without new material.

Meh. My problem is with this article, as it is emotional pandering and idiotic drivel (which is in no way your fault), and my issues stop there. No problem with you, never have had one. I know this thread isnt directed at me.


Just thought Id clear this little bit up so you know Im not jumping in on the clusterfuck.

not like some pro-choice articles EVER do the same thing... :rolleyes:

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html)



This is for those who argued on the various abortion threads, criticizing those of us who believe that it's worth it to let even an 'imperfect' child live and grow.

Funny you should say that, given that I'm sure you're so experianced in the issue. I know that my younger brother is severely mentally retarded, to the point where he can't talk and basically is in a perpetual state of being the age of one. As he's grown older, my mother still has to take care of him as an extremely big one year old. She changes his diaper, feeds him, and has to take special care when he's in the car lest he causes her to wreck. As I never see my Mom very often I can tell you that a good cause of this is because she never has a free moment. Shes had to revolve her entire life around him and its for all intensive purposes cost her her own life. She can't get a date (my parents are divorced), she can't go out with her friends, hiring a sitter is all but impossible for a preteen boy in his condition, and basically my Mom's life is ruined because there is no hope for my brother. I can say with all callousness and seriousness that I wish he had been aborted so that my mother could have an existence worth living, because my Brother, while I love him deeply, does not have one and despite my mother's prayers and hopes, never will.

Yes, I know I am a cold hearted bastard, but it is the truth. Babies, while a miraculous and wonderful thing, should not be permitted to be born if they are going to be born with severe, unfixable defects. Its just not fair to them or the parent.

is there really a shortage of adoption agencies eager to find homes for newborns?

i dont think so.

women dont have an abortion because its too much of a bother to find adoptive parents for the child she is carrying.

No the problem with adoption is that there aren't enough white babies to go around. Nobody will adopt African America, Hispanic, or especially Native American babies. The prospective adopters are typically white, upscale people and only want white babies which aren't readily availible. And the requirements for adoption are extremely rigourous and theres a load of red tape involved that makes it tedious at best.

No the problem with adoption is that there aren't enough white babies to go around. Nobody will adopt African America, Hispanic, or especially Native American babies. The prospective adopters are typically white, upscale people and only want white babies which aren't readily availible. And the requirements for adoption are extremely rigourous and theres a load of red tape involved that makes it tedious at best.

are there actually newborns that are going unadopted?

native americans excepted as there are rules keeping indian babies from being adopted outside of their tribes.

and my focus is not on the person going in to have the abortion but my focus is on those standing outside lambasting the person going in.

my question to them is "if they consider abortion murder, why are they not stepping forward to offer to adopt those unwanted children?"

the point of my arguments is not why are not those seeking abortions not looiking into adoption.

in other words, I am talking about the abortion vultures, NOT those seeking to abort.

i dislike the "anti-abortion vultures" as much as you do. and certainly if they got their way there WOULD be massive numbers of babies put up for adoption that would have no one willing to adopt them. we would have to open up orphanages like romania had.

but for them to make an offer of adoption to a woman going in to get an abortion would be offensive and kind of creepy. there are plenty of childless couples who would love to take a healthy newborn. no need for an anti-abortion activist to take on babies that they have no real interest in raising.

although it would be a great thing if they offered services to those like wonderjar's mother who has a special needs child and could use babysitting/respite help. they seem to forget that the handicapped baby of today is the handicapped child/teen/adult of tomorrow that needs extra help for decades.