|
Author
|
Topic: Only if Mom says so
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: It's all or nothing
On the contrary. If one is ill and surgery is the answer, then one would rather "do with the surgery".
Right, so NJ's question could be understood as asking if people would rather not get ill in the first place, than having to go through surgery to fix an illness. What I don't get is why you are twisting and turning so hard to evade answering that question? Its really simple, and it shouldn't have to wreck your position on abortion.
I never said pregnancy is less risky than RU 486.
I said he tried to kill the fetus, not harm the girl. NJ repeated about the same thing, reducing harm to the fetus. You responded to him with a list of problems attributed to RU486. I responded to that list by stating if you are using it to claim his intention was to harm her, or indicative that he did harm her, many problems start heading your way. IF you introduced THAT LIST as proof he did harm to the girl, or intended harm, it is MEANINGLESS if the harm is less than that incurred by pregnancy. You then wrangled on forever, twistin' and turnin'.
The issue at hand is the risks of abortion (medical/surgical) v. the risks of pregnancy. And the risks of pregnancy are higher.
You mind if I quote your post earlier where you told me that ISN'T the topic of this thread, in order to avoid dealing with that question? But, glad to see you're back on board, having twisted all the way back to my position on what is allowed in this thread. Given that we can discuss harm, you cannot use that list to show he inflicted or intended harm, if it inherently posed less risk and harm.
A poison smoothie is aggravated assault.
Not if they didn't charge him with it. Remember, because they are the experts, right? Twist, turn, twist turn, repeat.
"Many". I'd like to see some stats.
I agree he could use some stats for that claim. However even if he has some, rather than many, his point is still made. In any case we are all (assumed) ignorant until someone shows something more positive than an assertion.
h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: It's all or nothing
If you had a choice to NOT ever have a sebaceous cyst you would rather that than having to have it lanced. Ah. Juggs. Such naivete.
Likewise, instead of having to get an abortion, it would be better not to have been pregnant at all. Unintended pregnancies happen. Abortion is quick and easy.
As much as we all love your bare links and your constant appeal to authority ... Another who likes to abuse the term "appeal to authority".
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if: (i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject, (ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue. (iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, under duress, or otherwise not being serious (iv) There is no supporting evidence or argument to justify the position. http://www.goodart.org/aa.htm Are you suggesting that the sources I cited haven't the necessary expertise to draw their conclusions? Are you suggesting that the sources I cited haven't the supporting evidence to draw their conclusions? Are you suggesting that the sources I cited are joking? Are you suggesting that the sources I cited aren't in the majority? (Hint: The meta-analysis I cited noted unanimous consensus.) And I did not provide any bare links.
You can find any information on the web to substantiate any claim about abortion which serves to confirm that these studies have trouble accounting for personalities. Your first cite: Page Not Found | Casa Palmera No research, no literature cites. Your second cite: http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com/Page.html No research, no literature cites. Your third cite: The Elizabeth House, Dane County – Residential maternity and parenting program No research, no literature cites. (Hint: Just because it's on the internet, doesn't mean it's true.) Your fourth cite: Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women Med Sci Monit, 2004; 10(10): SR5-16
Retrospective data were collected using the Institute for Pregnancy Loss Questionnaire (IPLQ) and the Traumatic Stress Institute’s (TSI) Belief Scale administered at health care facilities to 548 women (331 Russian and 217 American) who had experienced one or more abortions, but no other pregnancy losses. For a fella that has a problem with psychology, you really shouldn't use a psychological analysis to support your assertions. But, for the sake of argument, we'll ignore that for now.
... they had the right to refuse participation ... Well. There's your first problem. This is a self selected group.
The considerable difculty in translating the avoidance criteria of PTSD into Russian and concern regarding patient comprehension motivated the use of interviews as opposed to questionnaires in Russian ... In Russia, a staff physician interviewed each female patient and completed the questionnaire on her behalf in order to minimize cross-cultural misinterpretations of question wording. Well. There's your second problem. An interview (and then a questionnaire filled out by a physician) is going to bias the data. Considering both methodological flaws (especially the self selection), this "study" is no better than toilet paper. Your fifth cite: Br J Psychiatry. 1995 Aug;167(2):243-8.
Rates of total reported psychiatric disorder were no higher after termination of pregnancy than after childbirth. How does this support your assertion that abortion is psychologically damaging? Why don't you find some methodologically sound studies? Oh. Wait. There aren't any. Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome? - The New York Times
Reardon and Coleman cull data from national surveys and state records in which unplanned pregnancy is not the focus of the data collection. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Reardon found a higher risk of clinical depression in a group of married women who had abortions, and published the results in a 2002 article in The British Medical Journal; using California Medicaid records, he and Coleman found a higher risk of psychiatric hospital and clinic admissions among poor post-abortive women, which they reported in 2003 in The Canadian Medical Association Journal; two years later, using the National Survey of Family Growth, they found a higher risk of generalized anxiety disorder post-abortion and published their results in The Journal of Anxiety Disorders. Nancy Russo, a psychology professor at Arizona State University and a veteran abortion researcher, spends much of her professional time refuting Reardon and Coleman’s results by retracing their steps through the vast data sets. Russo examined the analysis in the 2002 and 2005 articles and turned up methodological flaws in both. When she corrected for the errors, the higher rates of mental illness among women who had abortions disappeared. Less than 1% is a ridiculous figure. Ah. But one that is supported by the research.
A follow-up study is reported of a consecutive series of 360 women who underwent termination of first trimester pregnancies by vacuum aspiration ... Adverse psychiatric and social sequelae were rare. Br J Psychiatry 1976 Jan;128:74-79 A substantial body of objective data now exists to support the consensus view that induced abortion results in a low incidence of psychiatric morbidity ... The quantitative findings of the study support the consensus view that abortion is associated with high incidence of psychological benefit, whichever method is used. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994 Nov;73(10):812-818 Psychological or psychiatric disturbances occur in association with therapeutic abortions but they seem to be marked, severe, or persistent in only a minority (approximately 1%) of women. Br J Psychiatry 1990 Jun;150:742-749 Done deal... But really, what will it conclude, other than its inconclusive to you? If you have similar studies yielding different results, then what are you supposed to glean from it other than the tests themselves are suspect? I await your evidence with bated breath.
I was actually correcting a red herring -- namely, that pregnancy is the scourge of the earth. Wow. Two incorrectly used logical fallacies in one post!
m-w dictionary writes: red herring: something that distracts attention from the real issue First. I did not say that pregnancy is the "scourge of the earth". Neither did Brenna or Nator. Second. How are women's feelings re: pregnancy "a distraction from the real issue"? You are using (your fantasies of) women's feelings re: pregnancy as "evidence" against abortion. Third. The fact that women survive birth has absolutely nothing to do with the risks inherent in carrying a fetus to term. Red herring #1.
... especially in light of no one would exist if it were not for pregnancy. Red herring #2. You are on a roll! Yes. Women get pregnant. Yes. Women give birth. Now. Please. Illuminate me. What has that got to do with abortion?
Be sure to thank your mother on mother's day and your birthday for the same thing -- the gift of your life. Red herring #3. What has that got to do with abortion?
Heh... Maybe I already know the answer and the point has been illustrated. Say no more. I also asked if you had children too. Well? None of your beeswax, mister. And. FYI. The medical procedure I referred to is above the waist.
Well, Molbiogirl, if its kept secret, then one couldn't quantify that, now could we? I just happen to know from experience that many women keep that a secret until they reluctantly spill the beans. TRANSLATION: No, I haven't any evidence, so I am going to bloviate some more.
Mol, is it really so nonsensical? You couldn't even answer the basic questions. You had to immediately remove the personal factor in favor of stale statistics, all of which, as I've illustrated, is inconclusive at best and immaterial at worst. TRANSLATION: No, I haven't any evidence, so I am going to bloviate some more.
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
|
Message 258 of 304 (439263)
12-07-2007 11:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 254 by Silent H
12-07-2007 9:42 PM
|
|
Re: Can't have it both ways...
In any case, if you believe that whether X does damage or not is based on dosage, then you agree with me, and all of this nonsense has been your fault. Correction. You claimed X "makes you feel good".
Message 112 writes: I don't care if it made her feel good (say he slipped her Ex, or bad like say a mild acid which hurt her mouth for a while). I countered that a common street dose has a host of negative effects.
Message 137 writes: Brain imaging research in humans indicates that Ecstasy causes injury to the brain, affecting neurons that use the chemical serotonin to communicate with other neurons. The serotonin system plays a direct role in regulating mood, aggression, sexual activity, sleep, and sensitivity to pain. ... confusion, depression, sleep problems, drug craving, severe anxiety, and paranoia - during and sometimes weeks after taking Ecstasy ... muscle tension, involuntary teeth clenching, nausea, blurred vision, rapid eye movement, faintness, and chills or sweating. Increases in heart rate and blood pressure, a special risk for people with circulatory or heart disease. One, you have never shown that, and two, that means nothing to my position on X even if you did. Correction. See above.
Clue to molbio: You made the claim so YOU have to prove it. That you've been asked to... and haven't been able to... does not mean you can suddenly reverse the onus to me. Correction. You were the first to mention urine.
Message 135 writes: Pissing into her drink wouldn't have done any physical harm, but it would still be a crime. You claim that the amount of urine used in unrinotherapy and the amount of urine "pissed into a drink" are different. Now, either you can back that bare assertion up, or you can concede.
1) It happens to SOME, and it is psychological when that happens.
2) It doesn't happen to others... likely because they don't have the psychological issue. You have yet to show that either of these are true.
your OWN CITATION listed a tip on how to avoid vomiting when doing urine therapy, by introducing smaller amounts of pee into juice so you can get used to it (psychologically). The ehow site relied on the Chinese study I mentioned upthread re: adverse effects of urine drinking. Their assertions that vomiting is "psychological" is not supported by any relevant literature. If you are dead certain that vomiting is psychological, then it shouldn't be a problem to find the necessary cites. Here you go: PubMed
You also never addressed the problem that neither vomiting or diarrhea are truly harm. Two seventh-grade girls were arrested on charges that they served poisoned cake at their middle school cafeteria to about a dozen students who became ill and had to be taken to the hospital ... Lab tests showed the icing on the cornbread cake contained an expired prescription drug, bleach, clay and Tabasco sauce ... Some of the students started vomiting after eating the cake, officials said. Eleven of the students, mostly seventh graders, were treated at a hospital and released ... Police said one of the teens was charged with 12 counts of aggravated assault with intent to commit murder, among other charges. The other girl was charged with the same 12 aggravated assault charges. Error Check and mate.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 254 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2007 9:42 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 259 of 304 (439267)
12-07-2007 11:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 256 by Silent H
12-07-2007 10:04 PM
|
|
Re: It's all or nothing
Right, so NJ's question could be understood as asking if people would rather not get ill in the first place, than having to go through surgery to fix an illness. Unplanned pregnancies happen. Nearly half of women aged 15-44!
Forty-eight percent of women aged 15-44 in 1994 had had at least one unplanned pregnancy sometime in their lives; 28% had had one or more unplanned births, 30% had had one or more abortions and 11% had had both. Fam Plann Perspect. 1998 Jan-Feb;30(1):24-9, 46. Of those, over half use birth control.
Pregnancy happens. Illness happens. To wish it were otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.
I said he tried to kill the fetus, not harm the girl ... I responded to that list by stating if you are using it to claim his intention was to harm her, or indicative that he did harm her, many problems start heading your way. A poison smoothie is aggravated assault. Poison cake is aggravated assault and attempted murder. Both constitute harm.
You mind if I quote your post earlier where you told me that ISN'T the topic of this thread, in order to avoid dealing with that question? I did not say that the risks of pregnancy v. abortion is not the topic of the thread. I did say that the risks of Darshana Patel carrying a fetus to term is irrelevant to the harm done to her by the poison smoothie.
Message 130 writes: Every last bit of this pregnancy bullshit is your doing. You want to discuss the benefit/risk ratio of RU 486? Fine. Start a thread. Not if they didn't charge him with it. Remember, because they are the experts, right? The political machinations of charging or not charging Patel with aggravated assault are different from whether or not, as a matter of law, poisoning is aggravated assault.
In addition to attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child, Manishkumar Patel was charged Thursday with second-degree reckless endangerment, placing foreign objects in food, delivery and possession of prescription drugs, stalking, burglary and possession of burglary tools, all felonies, and two misdemeanor counts of violating a restraining order that his girlfriend obtained against him. Schroeder said attempted homicide charges were filed, rather than homicide, because the current evidence supports that charge. The case is ongoing, and more charges could be filed if additional evidence is found, he said. Journal Sentinel In Wisconsin, poisoning is aggravated assault. And, as is mentioned by the DA in the article, charges might be added later.
However even if he has some, rather than many, his point is still made. Wrong. I did not claim that NO woman has EVER been adversely affected psychologically by her abortion experience. Juggs did claim that MANY women are adversely affected psychologically. He can support his bare assertion or he can concede. I'm not holding my breath. However, past experience has shown, Juggs is not wont to support that heap of horse apples he calls "reasoning".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 256 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2007 10:04 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 272 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2007 4:05 PM | | molbiogirl has replied |
|
Omnivorous
Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: 07-21-2005 Member Rating: 7.2
|
Re: Can't have it both ways...
Hi, Molbiogirl. So far as I can tell, we are in total agreement on choice, and on the fact that anyone who introduces any bioactive substance into another person without their knowledge and consent has committed an assault. But your material on MDMA is drawn from a for-profit southern California rehab center. I couldn't find any citations on their site.
Real things always push back.-William James
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: It's all or nothing
quote:
If you had a choice to NOT ever have a sebaceous cyst you would rather that than having to have it lanced.
Ah. Juggs. Such naivete. You don't really need to answer since I already know what your answer would be contingent upon the predication that you would debate honestly.
Unintended pregnancies happen. That really is immaterial isn't it, since I said that no one really wants an abortion? I was really trying to get both sides of the argument to momentarily agree on something. But since you seem insistent on arguing over spilled milk, we'll flip a coin to see who goes and gets the paper towels.
Another who likes to abuse the term "appeal to authority". No it isn't. The idea of providing links is to support your assertion. The assertion has to first be made, in your own words, then followed by the link as a tool for corroboration. You habitually say two words and then bombard us with lengthy cut and pastes, all of which is against forum rules. Then of the cut and pastes you use, you use them fallaciously.
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if: (i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject, (ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue. (iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, under duress, or otherwise not being serious (iv) There is no supporting evidence or argument to justify the position. Position (i) is unsubstantiated, hence, the appeal to authority, (ii) I just illustrated that there is not an overwhelming consensus, nor does a consensus automatically verify the veracity of something (see flat earth).
Are you suggesting that the sources I cited haven't the necessary expertise to draw their conclusions? I have no way of knowing with certainty, and neither do you. Secondly, it defies intuition. And a quick and easy way to dismantle it is by way of personal experience. Your link claims that 1% of women who've had abortions actually feel remorse over it. That's very interesting, since I know approximately 12-15 different women who've had abortions. With the exception of 2, they've all expressed remorse. Extrapolating, that means that a large contingent of that 1% personally know me. Call it an argument of incredulity, but I call it an argument of sensibility.
Are you suggesting that the sources I cited aren't in the majority? How could they be? That isn't how polls work. They take an aggregate and extrapolate, using the entire population as its baseline for drawing the conclusion. They do this because it would be impossible to track down every single woman who has ever had an abortion. Furthermore, even if they did, they may not be truthful about it. For instance, lets say you ask someone who had an abortion if they felt remorse since the event. Perhaps she does inwardly, but acknowledging that guilt would make her vulnerable, and would force her to question her own decision. Since people don't generally enjoy introspection that would lead them to believe they made a bad decision, the test is potentially filled with bias.
No research, no literature cites. Hint: Just because it's on the internet, doesn't mean it's true.) LOL! Which is exactly my point. Thank you for ceding the very position you were trying to defend. Now that we have that out of the way, we can proceed.
For a fella that has a problem with psychology, you really shouldn't use a psychological analysis to support your assertions. I don't have any inherent problem with psychology. My sole objection is that its subjective.
Reardon and Coleman cull data from national surveys and state records in which unplanned pregnancy is not the focus of the data collection.... The NYTimes is always under fire as being one of the most biased newspapers in the country. So right there, take it with a grain of salt. I have a link, equally biased, but at the opposite end of the spectrum, that goes on to attempt to prove how the NYT draws false conclusions. But again, what is going to prove other than inconclusiveness? Your basic premise is that women don't generally feel remorse over abortions. If they do, they are either prone to depression or are extremely abnormal. That's absurd to the point of it being laughable. Just because you have the ability of detachment doesn't mean that women that do are crazy and abnormal. Anyone losing a child due to spontaneous abortion easily refutes your claim. If most women generally are dispassionate about their pregnancies, then whether or not they wanted to keep the child or not would not illicit such extreme emotions. Even supposing they wanted it, losing it would be as emotionally distracting as losing a pair of sunglasses. Therefore, the comprehensive "study" is absurd to the point of being laughable. I don't buy it for a nanosecond.
quote:
red herring: something that distracts attention from the real issue
First. I did not say that pregnancy is the "scourge of the earth". Neither did Brenna or Nator.  You don't have to use those exact words since Brenna and Nator characterize a fetus as a "parasite" that apparently wills itself in to existence to torment the one person whom is supposed to love them unconditionally. Secondly, you erroneously introduce the "dangers" of pregnancies which is absolutely immaterial to the dangers of abortion -- both physical and psychological.
You are using (your fantasies of) women's feelings re: pregnancy as "evidence" against abortion. Wasn't that the entire point of your links? -- that women don't feel sympathetic or remorseful over their abortion?
The fact that women survive birth has absolutely nothing to do with the risks inherent in carrying a fetus to term. Then abortions have no bearing on pregnancies either. Its really very simple: You were born. So was Nator. So was Brenna. Holy cow, come to think of it, so was EVERYONE... And yet, you paint this picture that a pregnancy is tantamount to Russian roulette. Its misleading.
Yes. Women get pregnant. Yes. Women give birth. Now. Please. Illuminate me. What has that got to do with abortion? You tell me! You're the one that is bringing it up!!! As a distraction, no less. My, looks like the herring nest resides over your head.
quote:
Be sure to thank your mother on mother's day and your birthday for the same thing -- the gift of your life.
What has that got to do with abortion? Hmmmm. well, lets see..... Everything! Since the abortion issue is primarily a moral question, allowing the baby to do what is natural as opposed to what is unnatural is the only real premise to focus on.
None of your beeswax, mister. Then the answer is yes, you've had an abortion. The answer to the second question is, yes, there is a stigma, as evidenced by your evasive response.
quote:
Well, Molbiogirl, if its kept secret, then one couldn't quantify that, now could we? I just happen to know from experience that many women keep that a secret until they reluctantly spill the beans.
TRANSLATION: No, I haven't any evidence, so I am going to bloviate some more. No, silly.... Its pretty straightforward. How are you going to quantify the number of women that keep it a secret, if they are keeping it a secret? Come on now... Think it through.
quote:
Mol, is it really so nonsensical? You couldn't even answer the basic questions. You had to immediately remove the personal factor in favor of stale statistics, all of which, as I've illustrated, is inconclusive at best and immaterial at worst.
TRANSLATION: No, I haven't any evidence, so I am going to bloviate some more. ALTERNATIVE TRANSLATION: In hopes that I will forget the original question I posed, MBG, with continued evasion, will set up her strawmen and then dutifully mow them down.
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: Can't have it both ways...
But your material on MDMA is drawn from a for-profit southern California rehab center. I couldn't find any citations on their site. Omni. I'm disappointed. What? Are your fingers broken? Synapse. 2007 Jul;61(7):478-87. A PET study of effects of chronic 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, "ecstasy") on serotonin markers in Gttingen minipig brain.
The psychostimulant 3,4-methylendioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, "ecstasy") evokes degeneration of telencephalic serotonin innervations in rodents, nonhuman primates, and human recreational drug users. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006 Dec;31(12):2639-51. Loss of serotonin transporter protein after MDMA and other ring-substituted amphetamines.
Together, these results suggest that lasting serotonergic deficits after MDMA and related drugs are unlikely to represent neuroadaptive metabolic responses to changes in SERT trafficking, and favor the view that substituted amphetamines have the potential to produce a distal axotomy of brain 5-HT neurons. Addiction. 2006 Jul;101(7):933-47. A review of the acute subjective effects of MDMA/ecstasy.
Although hundreds of ASEs have been reported following MDMA consumption, we identified a subset of effects reported repeatedly by meaningful proportions and large numbers of participants across multiple investigations, most of which were either emotional (e.g. anxiety, depression, closeness, fear, euphoria, calmness) or somatic (e.g. nausea/vomiting, bruxism, muscle aches/headache, sweating, numbness, body temperature changes, fatigue, dizziness, dry mouth, increased energy). Pharmacotherapy. 2001 Dec;21(12):1486-513. A comprehensive review of MDMA and GHB: two common club drugs.
Symptoms of an MDMA toxic reaction include tachycardia, sweating, and hyperthermia. Occasional severe sequelae include disseminated intravascular coagulation, rhabdomyolysis, and acute renal failure. Treatment includes lowering the body temperature and maintaining adequate hydration. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006 Feb;31(2):424-30. Plasma drug concentrations and physiological measures in 'dance party' participants.
Moderate increases in blood pressure, heart rate and body temperature were observed in the subjects with the highest MDMA plasma concentrations. Tada!
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: It's all or nothing
That really is immaterial isn't it... Nope. By your reasoning, we shouldn't use antibiotics, because people would rather not get sick. And what if people didn't get sick? Then we wouldn't need antibiotics!
You habitually say two words and then bombard us with lengthy cut and pastes, all of which is against forum rules. Really. First you try to bust me for using "bare links" (which, btw, is just a url). I have not posted any bare links. Now you're bitching that I have the unmitigated gall to provide evidence? Two words? The average word count is 145. Lengthy cut and pastes? The average cut and paste length is 3 sentences. You ought to try it sometime ... providing evidence, I mean.
Position (i) is unsubstantiated, hence, the appeal to authority... I have no idea what you mean. All my cites are legit. All my experts have the necessary expertise (and supporting evidence) to show that abortion has no adverse psychological effects (in over 99% of women).
(ii) I just illustrated that there is not an overwhelming consensus... Oh how quickly they forget.
Message 146 writes: This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion ... The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65. ...nor does a consensus automatically verify the veracity of something (see flat earth). Unlike flat earthers (ancient or modern), the lack of adverse psychological effects of abortion is documented. You know. Empirical evidence.
I have no way of knowing with certainty, and neither do you. I most certainly do. Unlike you, I do research for a living and I am qualified to make scientific judgments, including what journals are reputable.
Secondly, it defies intuition. That's the best you got?
It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on intuition. Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1995), p. 527. Are you suggesting that the sources I cited aren't in the majority? How could they be? That isn't how polls work. I did not cite any polls.
Which is exactly my point. Thank you for ceding the very position you were trying to defend. Now that we have that out of the way, we can proceed. You pointed to 3 websites that made a whole host of bare assertions with no evidence to support their contentions. I, on the other hand, provided a wealth of scientific research that supports my contentions. The fact that scientific literature is available over the internet does not negate its validity. The fact that your websites are on par with 9/11 truther websites does negate their validity.
The NYTimes is always under fire as being one of the most biased newspapers in the country. I cited a researcher mentioned by the NYT. The NYT is reporting on a researcher who revealed Post Abortion Syndrome for what it is: piss poor research. The researcher who exposed these frauds for what they are (liars who publish methodologically flawed crap) has nothing to do with the NYT.
Your basic premise is that women don't generally feel remorse over abortions. If they do, they are either prone to depression or are extremely abnormal. That's absurd to the point of it being laughable. Juggs, you meanin' to get to that evidence any time soon?
Therefore, the comprehensive "study" is absurd to the point of being laughable. I don't buy it for a nanosecond. Whether or not you buy it isn't the point. There are plenty of folks who insist on believing nonsense despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Look. It's simple. You just mosey on over to pubmed and find something to support your contention that the evidence I have provided is "laughable". Then we'll talk.
You don't have to use those exact words since Brenna and Nator characterize a fetus as a "parasite" that apparently wills itself in to existence to torment the one person whom is supposed to love them unconditionally. Neither Brenna nor Nator referred to a fetus as a "parasite".
Secondly, you erroneously introduce the "dangers" of pregnancies which is absolutely immaterial to the dangers of abortion -- both physical and psychological. The risks inherent in pregnancy and abortion are relevant to the issue at hand:
First post on "It's all or nothing" writes: I guess all those people I know who oppose abortion, yet support comprehensive sex ed, availability of contraception, and HPV vaccination are just too stupid to realize they should be lining up with one side or the other. They think that abortion, from their point of view, is an necessary evil. They also believe that the result of allowing abortion is less suffering, not more. Suffering caused by abortion (physical as well as psychological risks) and how it compares to that of pregnancy is certainly on point.
You tell me! You're the one that is bringing it up!!! The risks associated with abortion and pregnancy are relevant. Your nonsense -- MOST women SURVIVE pregnancy! -- we all WOULDN'T BE HERE if it weren't for birth! -- has f*** all to do with the risks associated with abortion or pregnancy.
Hmmmm. well, lets see..... Everything! Since the abortion issue is primarily a moral question, allowing the baby to do what is natural as opposed to what is unnatural is the only real premise to focus on. You didn't answer the question. Here's your quote:
Be sure to thank your mother on mother's day and your birthday for the same thing -- the gift of your life. What has your insistence that I thank my mother got to do with morality? What has your insistence that I thank my mother got to do with what a fetus does or does not do? I will ask again: What has your insistence that I thank my mother got to do with abortion?
No, silly.... Its pretty straightforward. How are you going to quantify the number of women that keep it a secret, if they are keeping it a secret? Come on now... Think it through. The fact that a woman keeps her abortion from her loved ones has nothing to do with whether or not she shares it, anonymously, with a researcher. Are you going to look on pubmed or not?
In hopes that I will forget the original question I posed, MBG, with continued evasion, will set up her strawmen and then dutifully mow them down. Yeah. Where's that evidence again? No, not your incredulity (It defies intuition! It's common knowledge!). E-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 261 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-07-2007 11:52 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4698 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: 11-03-2004
|
Re: It's all or nothing
I was going to change the subtitle but is still seems to apply.
molbiogirl in msg 242 writes: There are many inherently good things about abortion. 1. If a woman is poverty stricken 2. If the fetus is genetically defective 3. If a woman is raped 4. If a woman is young From dictionary.com
quote:
in·her·ent-adjective 1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.
So you are saying that abortion is always good? Then why list the qualifiers? Let's say Nems is trying to lead you into some kind of debate trap by getting you to concede certain points. His point to counter your position is: 1. A poverty stricken woman, who doesn't want children, would rather not get pregnant in the first place. 2. An expectant mother would not want her potential child to be genetically defective in the first place. 3. A woman who has been raped would not like to become pregnant from the rapist. 4. A young woman, if she doesn't want a child, would rather not get pregnant in the first place. His point seems to be that women would rather not have an unwanted pregnancy. A valid point that you don't even acknowledge except to assume a point he wasn't making.
msg 263: By your reasoning, we shouldn't use antibiotics, because people would rather not get sick. He never said that. You could have conceded that minor point and used it to support your previous contention that greater access to contraception and comprehensive sex education is a key factor in minimizing the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions. I don't see why you didn't. Unless this statement from msg 252,
SilentH writes: abortion is the least preferable method of birth control to which molbiogirl replies: Nope. The pill is higher risk than abortion.
is your declaration that you think that abortion should be the number one method of birth control. Is it your intent to argue against any idea of a compromise? You are starting to sound like your more fervent opponents.
|
Omnivorous
Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: 07-21-2005 Member Rating: 7.2
|
Re: Can't have it both ways...
molbiogirl writes: Omni. I'm disappointed. What? Are your fingers broken?  No, they're a bit arthritic, but not broken. Perhaps we can debate the history of the notoriously poor science done to condemn recreational drug use at some future time, but for now I wanted only to note that the counterproductive repetition of unsupported assertions was common to that history. I didn't say there was no research re MDMA. I said I couldn't find any cites on the Narconon web site you quoted: Kirstie Alley appears to be their sole authority. Are the cites you now list on that web site? I apologize if they are, and my lazy fingers failed to find them. The question I raised is not whether evidence exists to support your opinion of MDMA, but whether you had provided any. As far as I could see, you hadn't. Now you have. No tada: but quotations of unsupported assertions from Narconon still have no evidentiary value.
Real things always push back.-William James
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: Can't have it both ways...
I hadn't thought about that whole "War on Drugs" thing. I can see why you asked. When I saw your post last night, I didn't bother looking around the rehab site. I knew what was out there so I just hit pubmed.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 265 by Omnivorous, posted 12-08-2007 12:41 PM | | Omnivorous has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 267 of 304 (439369)
12-08-2007 2:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by LinearAq
12-05-2007 7:56 PM
|
|
Re: It's all or nothing
This may be getting a little off of the point being made, but....
It's the idea that pro-choice seems to mean that they think it is ok to kill a child just because you are inconvenienced by it, that keeps them from putting on the hat and buying the tee shirt. Personally, I have no problems with terminating a pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, even if it's to fit into that proverbial "prom dress" that some people have brought up before. It's the decision to actually carry the pregnancy to term and produce a new human being that shouldn't be made lightly or frivolously. Producing a human being who is going to be able to feel elation and disappointment, to feel joy or misery, to succeed in her dreams or have her dreams crushed -- this is a pretty heavy responsibility, in my opnion. Some people appear to feel that giving birth is the default option, and abortion should be made only after serious consideration. To me, it should be the opposite -- a human being shouldn't be produced until after one has given serious thought about the responsibilities that this entails. Just my opinion.
If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by LinearAq, posted 12-05-2007 7:56 PM | | LinearAq has not replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2663 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 268 of 304 (439372)
12-08-2007 2:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 264 by LinearAq
12-08-2007 9:02 AM
|
|
Re: It's all or nothing
So you are saying that abortion is always good? Then why list the qualifiers? Linear, I haven't any idea why you think "inherent" is equivalent to "solely".
His point to counter your position is:
1. A poverty stricken woman, who doesn't want children, would rather not get pregnant in the first place.
2. An expectant mother would not want her potential child to be genetically defective in the first place.
3. A woman who has been raped would not like to become pregnant from the rapist.
4. A young woman, if she doesn't want a child, would rather not get pregnant in the first place. He never said that. I was extending Juggs' faulty analogy. Here's the full quote:
Message 263 writes: By your reasoning, we shouldn't use antibiotics, because people would rather not get sick. And what if people didn't get sick? Then we wouldn't need antibiotics! Taken in context with my reply to H ...
Message 259 writes: Unplanned pregnancies happen. Nearly half of women aged 15-44!
Forty-eight percent of women aged 15-44 in 1994 had had at least one unplanned pregnancy sometime in their lives; 28% had had one or more unplanned births, 30% had had one or more abortions and 11% had had both. Fam Plann Perspect. 1998 Jan-Feb;30(1):24-9, 46. Of those, over half use birth control.
Pregnancy happens. Illness happens. To wish it were otherwise is to live in a fantasy world. ... that should have been clear.
You could have conceded that minor point and used it to support your previous contention that greater access to contraception and comprehensive sex education is a key factor in minimizing the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions. Even with splendid sex ed and fabulous contraception, unintended pregnancies happen. Take a look at Germany, Holland, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland.
wiki writes: In Germany, sex education has been part of school curricula since 1970 ... Most schools offer courses on the correct usage of contraception. Subsidized by the Dutch government, the “Lang leve de liefde” (“Long Live Love”) package, developed in the late 1980s, aims to give teenagers the skills to take their own decisions regarding health and sexuality. Nearly all secondary schools provide sex education as part of biology classes and over half of primary schools discuss sexuality and contraception ... The Netherlands has one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in the world, and the Dutch approach is often seen as a model for other countries.[27] In Sweden, sex education has been a mandatory part of school education since 1956. The subject is usually started at grades 4-6, and continues up through the grades, incorporated into different subjects such as biology and history. In Finland, the Population and Family Welfare Federation provides to all 15-year-olds an introductory sexual package that includes an information brochure, a condom and a cartoon love story.[28] In Switzerland ... courses have been given at the secondary level since the 1950s ... In secondary schools (age 13-14), condoms are shown to all pupils, and are demonstrated by unfolding over the teacher's fingers. Now take a look at their teenage pregnancy stats.
Germany = 16.2 per 1,000 women aged 15-19 per year Netherlands = 12 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19 per year Sweden = 23 per 1,000 women aged 15-19 per year Finland = 9.8 per 1,000 women aged 15-19 per year Switzerland = 4.6 per 1,000 women aged 15-19 per year ww.guttmacher.org You will note that the rate is not zero. It will never be zero.
is your declaration that you think that abortion should be the number one method of birth control. No. This "least preferable" nonsense is more prochoice apologetics. Can't stand it. And I'm no fan of the pill.
Is it your intent to argue against any idea of a compromise? You are starting to sound like your more fervent opponents. Here it is. Plain and simple. Abortion is quick and easy. It should be freely available to all at a reasonable price.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 264 by LinearAq, posted 12-08-2007 9:02 AM | | LinearAq has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: It's all or nothing
This "least preferable" nonsense is more prochoice apologetics. Can't stand it. And I'm no fan of the pill.... Plain and simple. Abortion is quick and easy. It should be freely available to all at a reasonable price. Are you suggesting that the pill should take a backseat to abortion, a surgical procedure, every time a woman wants to have sex?
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 268 by molbiogirl, posted 12-08-2007 2:18 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 274 by Jazzns, posted 12-08-2007 4:39 PM | | Hyroglyphx has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: Can't have it both ways...
Correction. You claimed X "makes you feel good".
That isn't a correction, that is an addendum. Yes I said it does make people feel good. When you claimed it causes harm, I have repeatedly made the point that it is dosage based... dosage and usage.
I countered that a common street dose has a host of negative effects.
Although you continue to assert the above, you have not at all provided evidence up till now of that possible connection. And once more, that would also not indicate that X could not be taken in a does which does not cause such damage. "Street Dose" is not synonymous with MUST BE TAKEN AT ALL TIMES. This is the same kind of bogus argument made against other drugs. Many "Street Doses" of marijuana might contain a host of other chemicals for added effect (good or bad), that does not mean marijuana is inherently connected to those other chemicals.
Correction. You were the first to mention urine.
Yes I was the first to mention it. You were the one who claimed that it can harm you. Your ball.
You claim that the amount of urine used in unrinotherapy and the amount of urine "pissed into a drink" are different. Now, either you can back that bare assertion up, or you can concede.
First of all, it seems a bit dense to not understand that a therapeutic treatment requires more than a single ingestion of limited quantity. And by pissed in drink it could be a very small amount, like a short squirt, or a few drops. Second, I used your own cites to show that there is a difference between the amount one would have if someone simply pissed in it, and in urine therapy. It suggests how to overcome problems with the amount used in therapy by starting with lesser amounts. Hence piss in drink (smaller amount) to avoid problem of starting with greater amount.
You have yet to show that either of these are true.
You made a statement of what I had to choose from. That people do vomit or they don't. Like there was no other choice. I just stated how there could be other logical choices. I proved your logic skills are total BS work. But as far as showing that people don't always vomit when they drink piss, your own cites showed that. They can't tell people how to avoid something if it is unavoidable. They also can't suggest reasons why, to draw comparisons, if there are none. However, if you want me to send you links to piss-sex sites with people swallowing piss, I guess I can look around for some. Or maybe you want me to drink some on cam or something? If you have proof it is an inherent reaction to drinking it, by all means provide some evidence for your bare assertion, so far contradicted by all your sources.
The ehow site relied on the Chinese study I mentioned upthread re: adverse effects of urine drinking. Their assertions that vomiting is "psychological" is not supported by any relevant literature. If you are dead certain that vomiting is psychological, then it shouldn't be a problem to find the necessary cites.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... whoo boy... AAAAhahahahahhahahahahaha. Oh man, that is the hottest thing I have EVER seen my entire time at EvC. Honestly, I have not seen a worse tactic by anyone at EvC. First you quote-mine a Chinese "study", pulling out a section that says vomiting might be a reaction, to support your position that drinking urine causes harm. I point out that you left out that that same "study" goes on to say other things which contradict your position. Then you mention ehow, so I go and then show you how they say it is psychological and can be overcome. So your response is to say that ehow quoted the Chinese study, and that they are both wrong because they have no supporting data in any relevant literature? Hey, they were YOUR cites! If you want to discredit them, that effects you, not me. This is exactly what I mean about twisting and turning. You can't seem to keep your argument or even your cites straight. First you list 'em, then when what they actually say is presented, you turn around and knock 'em. What moxie, what chutzpah.
Check and mate.
You can't be that silly, can you? That people put bleach and other substances which can actually cause harm, into a cake, which then people vomited out, does not show that vomiting itself is harmful. Are you seriously arguing that laxatives, and vomit inducing medicines cause harm? Prunes should be a controlled substance or something?
h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 258 by molbiogirl, posted 12-07-2007 11:05 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2