Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

Oooooooooookay, I concede the point of NEVER. However, I think if you are out there getting freaky and do not want to have kids then take extra precautions besides a SINGLE line of defense . I usually hate using the word NEVER and I shouldn't have in this instance either.

It's still possible, of course, for two levels of protection to fail. Nothing's foolproof. But I note your point.

quote:

---

I thought h/she was implying that men take a lot less responsibility for sex and the results...

---

No matter her intended implication, she was explicitly stating that if antiAbortion groups were actually interested in ending abortion, they should focus on men's decisions to have sex.I thought this was ridiculous, and the only point I was making.

quote:

---

... Which, statistically, is true.

---

Okay, let me see the studies which have generated these stats.

quote:

---

They're stuck with the result of a night of 'Freak on a Leash' sex.....oopsy passing on a soul to a new being (enter Enigma singing). Gimme a break!

---

You are talking about something other than I am. Obviously the cosmos has stuck women holding the short end of the stick once pregnancy occurs. In THAT, women will always face responsibility for carrying a pregnancy, or not, once it happens.However, when one says to properly end unwanted pregnancies, one needs to control the sexual behavior of men, then one is giving women a free ride on the sexual responsibility of not getting pregnant in the first place. That is what schraf was expressed (intentionally or not), and that is what I addressed.

quote:

---

For the record, I am of the opinion that

---

Who cares? You are wrong... heheheh, just kidding.Seriously though, I disagree with your first opinion. Since I view reproduction as THE MOST personal act anyone can undertake, and that there is no correct definition of what a fetus is, abortion is a perfectly viable method to regulate reproduction.I believe relying on that method alone is irresponsible and indicates a measure of willful ignorance, but the idiocy of a few should not reflect on the viability of a medical procedure.Personally I have never understood how one can be against abortion for personal regulation of their reproductive process, but at the same time be for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or molestation. All that seems to mean is that there are some negative social situations that YOU wouldn't want your children born into. Why couldn't a woman find other situations equally abhorrent?

quote:

---

Adoptions? Don't we have enough children in need already from people making the decision to keep their kids and then not knowing what to do with them until the State takes them away?

---

Agreed. But then this does seem to support the idea that abortion should be open as an option for controlling one's reproductive process.

quote:

---

But then opinions are like a**holes.

---

Does that mean critical debate is like anal sex?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

No matter her intended implication, she was explicitly stating that if antiAbortion groups were actually interested in ending abortion, they should focus on men's decisions to have sex.

---

Nope, didn't say that.You misrepresented what I said.

quote:

---

However, when one says to properly end unwanted pregnancies, one needs to control the sexual behavior of men, then one is giving women a free ride on the sexual responsibility of not getting pregnant in the first place. That is what schraf was expressed (intentionally or not), and that is what I addressed.

---

Nope, never said that.You misrepresented what I said.Now, tell me again why I should converse with you?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-20-2004]

ME: No matter her intended implication, she was explicitly stating that if antiAbortion groups were actually interested in ending abortion, they should focus on men's decisions to have sex.YOU: Nope, didn't say that. You misrepresented what I said.Really? Here is your quote: Please explain how this is NOT saying that to "avoid abortions taking place" such groups "would focus on teaching men to keep it in their pants, and if they can't do that, perhaps teach them to use condoms?" And that you further go on to implicate men as the major cause of underage pregnancy, which I would assume is to press the point that men hold a majorly responsible?If I am wrong, though I don't see how I am, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to have come to my conclusion.

quote:

---

Now, tell me again why I should converse with you?

---

I couldn't give a shit what you do schraf. You consistently claim I misrepresent you in order to excuse yourself debating real points.You can pretend that I never understand your actual position... why that's just fine... but you can't escape that your links and citations have generally been shown to be false/flawed/linked to feminist demagoguery, and so useless as a basis for formulating opinion.Notice how you have yet to address the real points of debate in this thread, which were NOT related to whether you said antiAbortion groups should focus on men, but my criticisms of misleading stats you excerpted from a link in order to show some connection between men, age difference, unwanted sex, and pregnancy?Until you care more about debating points of fact, rather than consistently choosing to debate the things you can change at will and so make undebatable (ie the intent of your words)... frankly schrafinator, I don't give a damn what you do.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What you've said is that Schraf's statements that we should examine men's sexual attitudes as one of many roots of the problem of abortion consitiutes an attitude that women should get a blank check for sexual behavior.And she's right - that is a mistatement of her position. It's surprising that you can't seem to see that. As somebody I usually agree with, it's surprising to see you take this attitude. Quite frankly this isn't the first time you've reacted to attempts to rectify your misunderstandings as though they were attempts to move the goal posts. You did it to me earlier, you did it to Percy a few days before, and now you're doing it to Schraf.Which is more likely, Holmes? That a bunch of people who have, at various times, expressed personal respect for you are now trying to pull the wool over your eyes in several unrelated incidents; or that you're simply having trouble distinguishing between the original intent of language and your own most negative interpretations?Honest debaters give each other the benefit of the doubt in regards to language interpretation. Is there some reason why, of late, you refuse to do this?

Thanks, Frog, for stating perfectly what I wanted to convey.You undoubtedly did it much more succinctly that I would have.

quote:

---

Schraf's statements that we should examine men's sexual attitudes as one of many roots of the problem of abortion

---

My question is why you are being so kind to schraf? Please point out where in the following statement (which is all I ever addressed) she talks about men's attitudes as ONE OF MANY ROOTS... You let me know where she listed any other ROOTS, and where they involved women.

quote:

---

Honest debaters give each other the benefit of the doubt in regards to language interpretation.

---

Uhmmmmmm. I did give her the benefit of the doubt. If you notice in my post to that one guy who wrote me... and indeed to you... the point was not that she INTENDED to say that. She had already admitted that it was perhaps a bad choice of words. Yeah, I agreed.Yes, I did say she was addressing points for which she could move the goal posts and so place a point beyond debate (one cannot win a debate on intent), but I didn't say she WAS doing so, except possibly to the extent that she used her intent to cover up other valid interpretations of what she explicitly said (at the time).No matter her INTENTION, what she explicitly stated (meaning the words she used) was that THE FOCUS (not my words, hers) WOULD BE ON MEN KEEPING IT IN THEIR PANTS.I will repeat this once more. My criticism was of the explicit statement she made, which DOES IMPLY that men bear the brunt of responsibility in sex. She has since said that that was not her intent and I did accept it, but that does not change my criticism of her explicit wording. And have since stated when addressing this issue that:1) I was replying to the explicit statement, INTENTIONAL OR NOT (I guess not making that clear enough in MY WORDING?).and2) That that criticism was part of an overall criticism of using feminist language which alienates her overall message from people, particularly members of the antiAbortion crowd. And gee, if I wasn't right that at least one viewed her commentary as such.Have either of you guys spent much time within groups of antiAbortion people? They are generally hostile to feminist commentary, and that's usually because it contains asinine statements like the one's schraf made, such as they DON'T address male responsibility.And this is what I find particularly funny. I don't think anyone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes on anything. What I do believe is that people are trying to avoid actual debate.WHO THE F CARES WHAT HER INTENT WAS!!!!! HER VERY STATEMENT WAS FALSE!!!!THEY DO ADDRESS MEN'S SEXUALITY!!!! Has anyone addressed this REAL point of mine yet? They do it through the groups they are tied to that address... gosh... abstinence and sex only in marriage. Perhaps I see this more than you because I belong to groups that get picketed by their other organizations.I find it ludicrous to claim they do not focus on such things, because they do a good job of splintering their organizations into name specific sections and so antiAbortion groups focus on abortion rather than the cause of unwanted pregnancy.I will also note that while you attack me on that NONISSUE, you do not criticize her for using deceptive stat quoting to make a point regarding men, age difference, sex, and pregnancy.Thus... just like with Percy... everyone seems to be circling their wagons on who meant what when they said X, rather than just focusing on factual disputes.And frankly I thought that Percy issue was left in the dust. I find it ironic if you are defending shraf here, and yet knocking me for my debate with Percy. My debate with Percy was on what MY intent was, not his. Remember, he thought I intended a post to someone else to be an answer to one of his questions.I guess I am just wrong all over the place. I can't say what someone else's post reads as, yet must accept it from someone else. I can't say what I intended with a post (being told I can move my goal posts), yet must allow others to define their posts by their intent.Oh yeah, and I can't get ANYONE to deal with actual points of fact, which undercut the commentary being made regardless of intent.Raspberries.[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-21-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Thus... just like with Percy... everyone seems to be circling their wagons on who meant what when they said X, rather than just focusing on factual disputes.

---

The thing is, holmes, you do, absolutely, have a problem with misinterpreting, in the worst possible light, what other people say.It is very unpleasant and boring to have to restate half of what I write when you have finished twisting and spinning what I say. The tough thing is that you don't do this ALL the time, and a lot of what you say is interesting and challenging.It seems to me that you are not at all interested in what I said or what I think. Instead, you definitely tend to want to argue against what you'd like my position to be instead of what it actually is.Perhaps it's a failing on my part, but when that happens, I am inclined to not want to argue "facts" with you at all, because I don't trust you to represent my arguments fairly and accurately. It feels very much like I will never, ever be able to get a fair hearing.You are probably right that I sometimes overstate things, and sometimes shoot my mouth off, and sometimes might even make some anti-male statements.However, for you to wildly extrapolate that into me believing that women should not bear any responsibility AT ALL for the prevention of unwanted pregnancy is simply silly.When something like that happens, I simply can't trust you any more.

Hypocritical?

---

The earth is flat.

quote:

---

Hypocritical?

---

Substantive?

quote:

---

It seems to me that you are not at all interested in what I said or what I think. Instead, you definitely tend to want to argue against what you'd like my position to be instead of what it actually is.

---

This is a misunderstanding of my own intentions. I am much more interested in facts supporting a position, than debates surrounding whether I got your position on a specific statement right or not.All it takes is a quick correction on your part, if you believe I got it wrong. I might defend my interpretation as a valid one, but as I said I do not believe intentions can be debated. Thus I HAVE to assume whatever you tell me your true intent or position was, was in fact your position.That's why in each of my posts I try to move beyond that issue. I generally accept what anyone says their true intent/position was.

quote:

---

I am inclined to not want to argue "facts" with you at all, because I don't trust you to represent my arguments fairly and accurately. It feels very much like I will never, ever be able to get a fair hearing.

---

Facts, arguments, and positions are three totally separate things. People can get any combination of those three right and wrong.I'm not sure why being wrong on one should cause debate on the others to come to a screeching halt. You may feel like you will not get a fair hearing, but you should be able to judge whether you are or not based on what I have said about the facts, or the arguments, separate from what I said about your position.Its kind of a guilt by association to link all three.

quote:

---

However, for you to wildly extrapolate that into me believing that women should not bear any responsibility AT ALL for the prevention of unwanted pregnancy is simply silly

---

Heheheh. Yeah, that's why I didn't. Remember all I said was that your statement was sexist... which it was... and then ASKED... As you can see I never said that's what you actually thought, just pointed out that is how it reads. That is the explicit (intended or not) message of the statement.You should also note that was only a small point made within a larger body of criticism regarding your injecting feminist jargon/arguments into the abortion debate, including the bizarre suggestion they do not go after men as being reponsible for pregnancies.You could also note I started the post by agreeing with the rest of what you had said, and at the end of my own hyperbolic attack on your use of feminist arguments said... Which should indicate my message was about use of language that alienates readers, rather than what your actual agenda/position was.Given the above I feel that particular post of mine has turned out rather prophetic. Not only was I right that you appeared like a feminist fundie to an antiAbortionist, but I managed to alienate you from the actual message of my own post.

quote:

---

When something like that happens, I simply can't trust you any more.

---

You can choose to draw the line wherever you want. But personally I separate misreads of statements from errors of fact or logic and treat them separately.Its only when a person consistently dodges facts and arguments that I no longer trust them. If its just simple errors in figuring out my intent/positionwas, then its no biggie, I just say what I meant.However, if a person keeps editing my text so as to try and make my position appear different in their quotes, and refuses to accept my statements of true intent, I don't lose trust, I just get pissed off. BTW, I'm not saying you do this, just saying this is when I get pissed off regarding misreads of my position.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

LOL, that was great holmes. I think we can agree to disagree on my first opinion about not using abortion as a means for birth control (btw, this was primarily for health reasons as well as there are worse things to "catch" than pregnancy). Also, I re-read Scraf's post and I agree with you. Obviously speed reading is not my forte . Have a great week.

Not many, though. Pregnancy is always a potentially fatal condition. It's a very dangerous situation to be pregnant.

quote:

---

Substantive

---

Maybe, but what you are condemning another about, sounds awfully familar of what, when you wrongfully accused me of stating, I let slide. Now this isn't about me, I am of course in no way perfect, but you should know this of holmes, yourself.(Abortion Article of long ago.)[This message has been edited by prophex, 03-22-2004]

---

The earth is flat.