President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-govermental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States.
Obama will sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.
In a time of financial crises and rising national debt, it’s good to see that Obama’s first priority is making sure we spend our hard-earned money on aborting the children of other nations.
You would think with all the stories about how great Health Care is in every other country in the universe, they would be fully funding their own systems. Apparently not.
You don’t have any idea what this is about, do you Farris?
Is this the level of stupid we can expect from you guys now?
SF, read up on what the soon-to-be-repealed policy actually says.
It doesn’t JUST stop fund from going to perform abortions.
It ALSO bans organizations that recieve any funding from EVEN TALKING ABOUT abortion with their clients.
That is the reason why it has been nicknamed the “Global Gag Order”.
For your edification, Mr. Farris, this executive order will not allocate so much as a nickel to any country for any purpose.
Good move. There’s too damned many of those foreigners already.
Yes, I mean that sarcastically.
Perhaps the Bush order was a bit too much (and I consider myself squishily pro-choice), I think the government should be, at best, neutral on the issue of abortion. It should NOT be subsidizing it in any way, shape, or form.
J.
Poor Farris—
Obama derangement syndrome has squelched your ability to type in ” The Google”
box and read . . . .
I think the government should be, at best, neutral on the issue of abortion. It should NOT be subsidizing it in any way, shape, or form.
Interesting.
Any other medical procedures you think should be off-limits to federal employees or members of our military ?
Jay Tea: I think the government should be, at best, neutral on the issue of abortion.
If that is true, then you would be opposed the government telling doctors what they may or may not discuss with their patients.
Why can’t you just say that? Why the need to couch your view in racist sarcasm and damning with faint praise?
Yeah, seriously. Why shouldn’t the gov’t be funding what in many cases is vitally needed medical care and information?
“…promote the general Welfare,…”
Yeah, why shouldn’t the gov’t provide funding for the dissemination of essential medical info?
I got two questions on abortion — one for each side that tends to make them uncomfortable.
1) If abortion were to be made illegal, then what should the penalties, and who should be charged?
2) At what point does a fetus become enough of a human being to enjoy fundamental human rights?
No easy answers to either one.
J.
I got two questions on abortion…
How spectacularly jejune.
Jay Tes: No easy answers to either one.
Actually, the first has an easy answer: The mother, doctor and any other participants should be charged with murder and punished as any group that conspires to and does commit murder.
The second one doesn’t have an easy answer that would be universally accepted, obviously. But that’s switching the subject, isn’t it?
Right now, under current US law, the fetus is not afforded all the legal protections of a person. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. And that being the case, why should the government, which has determined abortion is not illegal, refuse to provide or allow doctors to provide information about it?
Would you support the government refusing to provide information about appendectomies?
Government shouldn’t be involved in medical decisions between a woman and her doctor.
Remember when Republicans used to be for small, less intrusive government? Oh, that’s right — they never were.
Would you support the government refusing to provide information about appendectomies?
If Rush Limbaugh told them to, an awful lot of The Usual Wingnuts would absolutely support that.
J. G. Thayer: “I got two questions on abortion — one for each side that tends to make them uncomfortable.
2) At what point does a fetus become enough of a human being to enjoy fundamental human rights?”
It doesn’t fucking matter. It’s the woman’s body, it’s her right to decide what she does with it. If that means she doesn’t want another person living inside her, then she has the right to get rid of it. Until the fetus can be made to survive on its own without harming the woman, then it is 100% her choice. End of story.
It’s like if I moved into your house, stole your food, and refused to leave. You would have the right to throw me out. Now you can do that without killing me. But if you couldn’t? You would still have the right to throw me out.
CSS: It’s the woman’s body, it’s her right to decide what she does with it. If that means she doesn’t want another person living inside her, then she has the right to get rid of it.
Rights come with responsibilities. Yes, pregnancies happen despite taking precautions against them. And, of course, there is rape and incest. But some women get pregnant because they chose not to take any precautions. To then say that she has the right to just dispense with a living person, as you acknowledge it is, is callous.
Putting aside pregnancies where the woman had no choice or her reasonable precautions didn’t work, we have a situation where the woman should have a reasonable expectation of getting pregnant. The law already exists for dealing with people who display a callous disregard for the consequences of their actions and someone dies as a result.
(I’ve seen you get quite incensed on other threads when you’ve believed someone has shown a callous disregard for human life. What happened here?)
CSS: It’s like if I moved into your house, stole your food, and refused to leave. You would have the right to throw me out. Now you can do that without killing me. But if you couldn’t? You would still have the right to throw me out.
In the pregnancy case an argument could be made that you were invited into the house. You certainly didn’t get any voice in the decision to be where you are. In any event, your host could not just throw you out even if it meant they had to kill you to do it.
Someone comes into your house, eats your food, steals your stuff and then refuses to leave. They don’t actively fight against you, they are just there. So you kill them and throw their body off your property. Expect a visit from the cops and a nice long stay in a barred room.
What? It’s taking him two whole days to issue the counter-order? Why so long?
There, I’ve started criticizing the Obama presidency. I feel very honest now.
But seriously, I was hoping he’d do this the first day, as something so simple and obviously needed that there’s no justification for any delay. Sort of thought it was becoming a national tradition for the inauguration of a different party. Better late than never, anyway.
Porlock, he’s timing it for the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It’s a symbolic thing, and it only took waiting a day. I’m not sure I agree with the decision, but I certainly can understand why he’d postpone it until today.
J.
2) At what point does a fetus become enough of a human being to enjoy fundamental human rights?
Jay Tea. Really. You’ve trotted out this GAMECHANGING!!1!!! brain teaser too many times. You really need to restock your bag of stupid.
I am not the least bit uncomfortable reminding you that abortion is legal in the United States up to the point of viability after which it’s allowable if a woman’s health is in danger. Viability is usually considered between 24 and 28 weeks, YMMV depending on your state.
If that’s all too legalistic for you, I am equally unperturbed to tell you that it’s up to each individual to decide the answer to that question themselves which is why it’s a choice for individuals to make, not the government.
Ooh, it’s LEGAL! Oh, noes! I have been trumped by fafaroo’s infallible argument!
Pity he can’t apply that kind of reasoning to things like, say, Bush’s wiretapping policies — which have also been judged legal.
If you paid attention, fafaroo (I know that’s a challenge), you’d note that the argument about abortion is not about the law IS, but what the law SHOULD BE. And it always has been that. Indeed, that’s what most political arguments are about, you moron.
And you’re wrong about your talking point, too. Roe v. Wade said nothing about viability, which has been constantly changing with medical advances. It created the “trimester” standard all on its own, and THAT is the law of the land.
And I really enjoyed Strowbridge’s comparison of a fetus to a home invader. Those dastardly embryos! I can just see them, plotting and scheming to invade the uteri of unsuspecting women and set up a parasitic residence, like some brutal military occupation…
If you paid attention, fafaroo (I know that’s a challenge), you’d note that the argument about abortion is not about the law IS, but what the law SHOULD BE.
Uh, yeah Jay Tea. And guess what? That’s you’re fucking problem. I think the law is fine as is and I am entirely comfortable with the logic and morality behind it.
And you’re wrong about your talking point, too. Roe v. Wade said nothing about viability,
Oh and Jay Tea:
From Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v Wade:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
Please Jay Tea, if you don’t even know the basic facts of Roe v Wade and can’t be bothered to look them up, you really shouldn’t be trying to pretend that you do.
you’d note that the argument about abortion is not about the law IS, but what the law SHOULD BE. And it always has been that.
No it isn’t and never has been. It’s about freedom of choice. The choice not to die during a medical procedure.
If abortion were made illegal today, do you think abortions would stop?
No, women would die. Die from botched procedures, infection, hemorrhaging and more infection.
Is that what you’re advocating?
Hey Jay Tea! I have a comment in moderation above because, you know, it has a link in it. Before Oliver flips the switch on that, though, I’m wondering if you would like to revise any part of this statement:
And you’re wrong about your talking point, too. Roe v. Wade said nothing about viability…
I can just see them, plotting and scheming to invade the uteri of unsuspecting women and set up a parasitic residence, like some brutal military occupation…
In cases of rape, that’s exactly what it would be like, yes.
Actually, Duros, in the case of rape, it’s like the sperm has invaded, taken the ovum hostage, and barricaded itself in the uterine wall…
You know what? This is an incredibly stupid metaphor, and I’m not going to keep running it into the ground. Regardless of the circumstances of conception, the fetus involved is utterly incapable of anything resembling intent. The rapist in question should be punished (death after castration seems appropriate to me), but the fetus itself didn’t commit the rape — and only consists of 50% rapist material. Further, the Constitution specifically forbids “corruption of blood” — holding the offspring guilty for the offenses of the parent.
As I said, it’s an ugly issue. I don’t have any easy answers. Just plenty of hard questions.
J.
As I said, it’s an ugly issue. I don’t have any easy answers. Just plenty of hard questions.
Then aren’t we better off just leaving it alone?
Yeah, that was a pretty tortured metaphor, as most are in this case.
Jay Tea, the clocks a-ticking, my friend. You wanna take another stab at this or are you standing by it:
And you’re wrong about your talking point, too. Roe v. Wade said nothing about viability…
“To then say that she has the right to just dispense with a living person, as you acknowledge it is, is callous.”
Don’t fucking care.
You can’t tell the woman that the unwanted life living inside her as a parasite has more rights than she does. Therefore, she has the right to remove it.
It is as simple as that.
“(I’ve seen you get quite incensed on other threads when you’ve believed someone has shown a callous disregard for human life. What happened here?)”
Sean D, Martin. You are a fucking idiot who thought that someone illegally funneling $75,000 to Norm Coleman’s wife had nothing to do with Norm Coleman. So I’m not surprised you would be confused here.
J.G.Thayer: “And I really enjoyed Strowbridge’s comparison of a fetus to a home invader.”
I noticed you didn’t put forth an argument against it.
Why should the unwanted parasite have more rights than the woman it is occupying?
fafaroo, I’ll make a minor correction: the Court did cite “viability,” but locked it at no later than 24 to 28 weeks. The current record for a premature fetus surviving is just under 22 weeks. (James Elgin Gill, born in Ottawa, Canada on May 20, 1987, at 21 weeks and five days.)
So Roe v. Wade is already obsolete, and it’s going to get even more so as medicine continues to advance.
Regardless of one’s opinion on abortion (and I’m squishily pro-choice), Roe v. Wade was a BAD decision — very poorly crafted by Justice Blackmun. I don’t think it is the federal government’s business, and should be left up to the states — let the people decide, through their elected representatives.
J.
<emAnd you’re wrong about your talking point, too. Roe v. Wade said nothing about viability…
————-
fafaroo, I’ll make a minor correction: the Court did cite “viability,”
Minor? Correction?
Haw!!
Strowbridge, I kinda thought I did in the above paragraph, but if you want a specific answer, just for you so you’ll feel special and loved, here you go:
In the vast majority of cases of pregnancy, the woman made an active choice to engage in the activity that resulted in the pregnancy.
In every single case of pregnancy, the fetus made absolutely no choice in its role in the whole situation.
Yes, there are cases involving rape. That’s why I said “in the vast majority of cases.” But we’re not talking about the tiny fraction of cases that result from rape only, but every single one.
What would you say if your “home invader” was someone who was found, unconscious and gravely injured, in your home? In such a delicate state that moving them would probably kill them? Apparently, in your world, you’d just toss them out the door and on to the street and let them fend for themselves.
Somehow, that doesn’t surprise me…
J.
Minor? Correction?Haw!!
My sentiments exactly.
Jay Tea, you’re a joke.
J.G.Thayer: “And I really enjoyed Strowbridge’s comparison of a fetus to a home invader.”
CSS: I noticed you didn’t put forth an argument against it.
But I did. Still interested in knowing if you have a reply to that. Home invaders can’t be capriciously killed and dumped off your property.
(OTOH, if you’d rather change the subject and try to explain again how an investigation of someone funneling $75,000 to
Coleman’s wifethe company Coleman’s wife worked at (to be correct about it) is in actuality an investigation of Coleman, knock yourself out. I’d rather address the topic at hand.)Viability, trimesters — all straight from the actual ruling.
Any questions?
Simplest facts, Tea.
CSS: You can’t tell the woman that the unwanted life living inside her as a parasite has more rights than she does.
…
Why should the unwanted parasite have more rights than the woman it is occupying?
Which is really the crux of the issue, isn’t it? And one which there are lots of differing views on. Unfortunately when the fetus gets rights isn’t the sort of thing that can be answered with a hard, factual answer. It’s not a “How long is this ruler?” precisely measurable thing. More of an “When does the atmosphere end and space begin?” We draw a line and say that’s where it begins and arguments can continue to be made the line should be drawn elsewhere.
Most everyone would agree that, once born, the baby has rights. But at what point, if any, prior to that does it get them? Would you say the woman can terminate up until labor has begun and the the head is out?
It always gives me such a warm glow when my “fan club” rallies around correcting my mistakes. I know that I’m serving such a valuable purpose — I’m giving them something, anything else to discuss besides the issue, and protecting them from having to express their opinions on anything else but me. Because that’s dangerous, as shown by Strowbridge’s analogy of a fetus to a home invader (which says far more about his psychology than I suspect he realizes — sounds like he has some serious issues with sexuality).
J.
Oh dear.
We’ve come to the “Why is everyone picking on me?” part of the routine. Poor, poor Mr. Tea.
Viability, trimesters — all straight from the actual ruling. Any questions?
Uh, I got one. The first time you bothered to actually read Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v Wade was today, correct?
No no no!
Jay Tea (and he’s squishily pro-choice, mind you) is very familiar with Roe v. Wade, and how badly it was crafted by Blackwell, or Blackmun, or somebody. He just FORGOT it had that stuff in it about viability and trimesters and shit. Anybody who knows as much stuff as Jay Tea can’t be expected to remember everything!
I know that I’m serving such a valuable purpose —
Jay Tea, clutching for dignity after being, once again, proved so miserably wrong is just really sad. Especially given the attitude you threw when you thought you were correcting me. Seriously, dude. Either you know your facts or you don’t. If you have some doubt, either do a little research or get rid of the attitude.
As for whether or not we’re evading your point, what exactly is your point? You support abortion rights, abortion is legal and states are perfectly free to limit access to abortions as they see fit within the limits of the court’s ruling.
If you want to get into metaphysical discussions about the nature of life and consciousness, go for it, but, as I said above, everyone has different ideas on that which is why the decision to have an abortion should be left to the individual contemplating it. I don’t feel the need to impose my feelings on the matter on someone else who feels differently.
I support legal abortion on demand and accept that viability is as good a demarcation point as any for when its acceptable to limit access to abortions.
But listen, you make the case yourself that viability is more of a floating range between 21 and 28 weeks than a hard and fast moment. I don’t see that as an argument against viability as a standard. In fact, I see it as further reason to leave the decision up to the individual, their doctor and whatever other counsel they might seek privately.
Just because there are cases in which a fetus was viable at 21 weeks does not mean that this is going to be true for all fetuses. Every pregnancy is different, as is every individual’s access to medical knowledge and technology.
If we leave outlying cases aside, the 24-28 week range still seems reasonable.
fafaroo, if “viability” is your standard, then you’re admitting that there is no fixed standard. The 24-week demarcation point is no longer the definition of “viable.”
And no, the states are not free to make their own restrictions under Roe v. Wade. Another part refers to the “health” of the mother, and that term has been stretched and distorted to the point where it’s been argued that if the mother might feel depressed during pregnancy or having the baby, that’s enough to allow an abortion at any point.
Roe v. Wade is a wretched decision. I note that no one is willing to defend it, except in the abstract — no one wants to defend the reasoning of the decision itself. And it has been used to defeat abortion restrictions all over the country.
Here in New Hampshire, a law requiring parents of minor girls getting an abortion to be notified was struck down. There was an exception where the girl could get permission from a court, but that wasn’t enough. Even though the girl can’t get a tattoo or a piercing without parental permission, even though the parents have to give their permission for any other medical procedure, no matter how minor, no matter that the parents are legally liable for her actions, they had no right to be aware that she had had an abortion — let alone have any say in it.
That is the effect of Roe v. Wade. That is one of the reasons it should be struck down, and left to the states to decide. The states, through their legislature and governor, who are directly answerable to the people.
And that’s what not possible.
J.
Jay Tea: The states, through their legislature and governor, who are directly answerable to the people.
And the country, through its legislature and president, are not?
And no, the states are not free to make their own restrictions under Roe v. Wade.
Giant jumping monkeys! Did you even read the excerpt from Roe v. Wade you posted?
fafaroo: If you want to get into metaphysical discussions about the nature of life and consciousness, go for it, but, as I said above, everyone has different ideas on that which is why the decision to have an abortion should be left to the individual contemplating it.
And some support the idea that the unborn should have a say (so to speak) and that making it an individual’s decision doesn’t take into account that more than one individual is involved.
Not disagreeing with you, just noting that even the “should be left to the individual” is debatable on its face.
Personally I think the focus should be far less on who gets to decide what happens during the pregnancy and far more on how do we avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Another part refers to the “health” of the mother,
Are the scare quotes really necessary, Senator McCain?
J.G.Thayer: “What would you say if your “home invader” was someone who was found, unconscious and gravely injured, in your home?”
Then they couldn’t be stealing your food, could they?
I guess that means it is not what I said, is it?
‘Tard.
J.G.Thayer: “It always gives me such a warm glow when my “fan club” rallies around correcting my mistakes. I know that I’m serving such a valuable purpose — I’m giving them something, anything else to discuss besides the issue, and protecting them from having to express their opinions on anything else but me.”
Wow. That’s a serious persecution complex. Perhaps you should get psychological help.
“Because that’s dangerous, as shown by Strowbridge’s analogy of a fetus to a home invader (which says far more about his psychology than I suspect he realizes — sounds like he has some serious issues with sexuality).”
And again, you can’t argue against it.
Limiting a woman’s right to chose is saying the fetus has more rights that she does.
END. OF. STORY.
This is why your second question is bullshit.
“Here in New Hampshire, a law requiring parents of minor girls getting an abortion to be notified was struck down.”
Good. Because if a minor gets pregnant, chances are the circumstances are not cut and dry and the courts have no business getting involved.
What if dad was the one who got her pregnant? You think he should be notified? Do you think she should have to go to the courts? Do you think either case would make her life easier?
Hopefully she would have a support network to help her, if not, perhaps the doctor she visits to have an abortion can help her in that way.
But I don’t think the courts should get involved.
J.G.Thayer: “That is the effect of Roe v. Wade. That is one of the reasons it should be struck down, and left to the states to decide. The states, through their legislature and governor, who are directly answerable to the people.”
This is indisputable proof that you are a fucking ‘tard.
Please, run away from this thread and pretend you never participated, because you are clearly embarrassing yourself now.
Sean: “Personally I think the focus should be far less on who gets to decide what happens during the pregnancy and far more on how do we avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.”
The problem with that debate is, a lot of people who are anti-choice don’t give a flying fuck about the health of the fetus, they care about controlling women. This is why a lot of people who are anti-choice, are also for Abstinence Only Sex Education. Many are also anti-birth control.
As the parent of two minor daughters (and a woman, for what it’s worth), I am extremely disturbed by the idea that they might have a serious medical procedure done without my knowledge or permission.
Then, southern, you are obviously a fucktard and a likely child molester. That is according to Strowbridge, who managed to not notice that the New Hampshire law I cited offered an alternative to parental notification.
A school nurse who gives a child an aspirin without parental permission is violating the law. A school nurse who helps a child get an abortion is a hero to Strowbridge.
I also wonder what Strowbridge would say if that minor, instead of an abortion, simply wanted a beer or a cigarette or a tattoo or to enlist in the military or vote Republican. Those are obviously far more important than an abortion…
J.
fafaroo, if “viability” is your standard, then you’re admitting that there is no fixed standard. The 24-week demarcation point is no longer the definition of “viable.”
Way to miss my whole point. Viability is not my standard. It’s the standard set by the court largely as means of shaping a compromise on abortion. It is at the point of viability that states can begin to seriously regulate abortion, restricting it to cases where the health of the mother is at risk.
As a general rule, viability at 24-28 weeks is fine with me. If a state wants to push it earlier based on some outlier case in which a baby is born viable at 21 weeks, fine. Write the law, test it in the courts.
But I would argue that you cannot use extreme cases to set the rule for the general population for the reasons I cited above. If 21 week births become common, fine, you’ve got an argument that the general rule has to adapt. But viable births at 21 weeks are extremely rare, so rare that there are only two on record, that I am aware of: Amillia Taylor and James Elgin Gill.
Both births required massive medical care upon delivery over an extended period of time. In Gill’s case, he wasn’t released from the hospital until five days after his originally scheduled expectancy date, over 128 days after his actual birth.
In an article about Amillia Taylor, I read this:
Then there’s this from a wikipedia article:
I also found this in a May 08 LA Times article about the issues emerging with the increase in late pre-term births resulting from an increase in cesareans:
So you want to tell me that the concept of viability has changed so radically since 1973 that Roe v Wade’s definition of 24-28 weeks is now obsolete?
Are fucking serious?
Jay Tea, up thread you suggested I had my “talking point” wrong. Unfortunately for you, it wasn’t a talking point. It was a fucking fact.
You’re rattled off nothing but talking points in this thread, some of which have been flat out wrong and many of which make no fucking sense whatsoever.
The idea that the definition of viability set in Roe v Wade has been made obsolete by science is a freaking joke. It has not. Not by a long shot.
fafaroo, if “viability” is your standard, then you’re admitting that there is no fixed standard. The 24-week demarcation point is no longer the definition of “viable.”
Way to miss my whole point. Viability is not my standard. It’s the standard set by the court largely as means of shaping a compromise on abortion. It is at the point of viability that states can begin to seriously regulate abortion, restricting it to cases where the health of the mother is at risk.
As a general rule, viability at 24-28 weeks is fine with me. If a state wants to push it earlier based on some outlier case in which a baby is born viable at 21 weeks, fine. Write the law, test it in the courts.
But I would argue that you cannot use extreme cases to set the rule for the general population for the reasons I cited above. If 21 week births become common, fine, you’ve got an argument that the general rule has to adapt. But viable births at 21 weeks are extremely rare, so rare that there are only two on record, that I am aware of: Amillia Taylor and James Elgin Gill.
Both births required massive medical care upon delivery over an extended period of time. In Gill’s case, he wasn’t released from the hospital until five days after his originally scheduled expectancy date, over 128 days after his actual birth.
In an article about Amillia Taylor, I read this:
What were you saying about the “definition of viable”, Jay Tea? What source are you citing about the definition of viability?
Then there’s this from a wikipedia article:
I also found this in a May 08 LA Times article about the issues emerging with the increase in late pre-term births resulting from an increase in cesareans:
So you want to tell me that the concept of viability has changed so radically since 1973 that Roe v Wade’s definition of 24-28 weeks is now obsolete?
Are fucking serious?
Jay Tea, up thread you suggested I had my “talking point” wrong. Unfortunately for you, it wasn’t a talking point. It was a fucking fact.
You’re rattled off nothing but talking points in this thread, some of which have been flat out wrong and many of which make no fucking sense whatsoever.
The idea that the definition of viability set in Roe v Wade has been made obsolete by science is a freaking joke. It has not. Not by a long shot.
fuck. Sorry for the double post. OWs new design confused me. I did add one line in the second post:
What were you saying about the “definition of viable”, Jay Tea? What source are you citing about the definition of viability?
Anytime you want to give a source for your “definition of viable” we’ll stack it up against The American Association of Pediatrics and see how well it holds up.
J.G.Thayer: “Then, southern, you are obviously a fucktard and a likely child molester. That is according to Strowbridge…”
Again I ask, do you get paid to lie here?
“A school nurse who helps a child get an abortion is a hero to Strowbridge.”
Another lie.
“I also wonder what Strowbridge would say if that minor, instead of an abortion, simply wanted a beer or a cigarette or a tattoo or to enlist in the military or vote Republican. Those are obviously far more important than an abortion…”
Yet another fucking lie.
Are you incapable of telling the truth?
Css: The problem with that [how do we avoid unwanted pregnancies] debate is, a lot of people who are anti-choice don’t give a flying fuck about the health of the fetus, they care about controlling women. This is why a lot of people who are anti-choice, are also for Abstinence Only Sex Education. Many are also anti-birth control.
Oh, sure. It can also be a contentious debate with hidden agendas. But at least it’s a step, even if a small one, back from the extremely emotion-laden one of when life begins.
And it has the advantage of being proactive. Let’s keep the problem from coming up, rather than lets deal with it once it has.
As the parent of two minor daughters (and a woman, for what it’s worth), I am extremely disturbed by the idea that they might have a serious medical procedure done without my knowledge or permission.
Except there isn’t exactly a subset of parent that would beat their child ruthlessly if they found out that she had her appendix removed without their permission.
But I did. Still interested in knowing if you have a reply to that. Home invaders can’t be capriciously killed and dumped off your property.
I’m pretty sure that varies from state to state.
Then, zython, there is a legal alternative to parental notification: a judge says OK. That’s been written into every single parental-notification law, and they’ve all been struck down.
Strowbridge, amazingly, doesn’t grasp the concept of “hyperbole.” Considering he/she/it is pretty much an embodiment of it, that’s astonishing.
I’ll stand by the core of one of the point you called “a fucking lie” (my, I’m so cowed by your profanity — I think I have the vapors!): you believe that a minor can have an abortion without parental consent. Do you also believe that they can get tattoos and piercings without parental consent? Accept an aspirin from a nurse or a classmate without parental consent? Buy cigarettes or alcohol without parental consent? Enlist in the military without parental consent?
Nearly any sane person would agree that all of those are far less significant than an invasive surgical procedure. (Naturally, I don’t expect you to agree. Hence my disclaimer.)
Go ahead, make the argument for an abortion being far less significant than smoking or getting one’s ears pierced.
J.
CSS: Limiting a woman’s right to chose is saying the fetus has more rights that she does.
END. OF. STORY.
No. In an issue as lacking in absolutes as abortion it can be comforting to make a definitive statement. But nothing in abortion is end period of period story period.
Limiting her right to chose is not saying the fetus has more rights than the woman, only that it has some. Saying the woman can do whatever he wants with utter disregard for the fetus is saying it has no rights at all. (Which gets back to the inescapable root of the whole thing: when does life begin and when do rights accrue to the fetus.)
SDM: But I did. Still interested in knowing if you have a reply to that. Home invaders can’t be capriciously killed and dumped off your property.
zython: I’m pretty sure that varies from state to state.
Oh, I’m sure it does. I’m sure there are examples of laws which enabled a homeowner to shoot an intruder with little consequence. But I seriously doubt that there is a law that says you can invite someone into your home and then, if they refuse to leave, you can shoot them and dump the body.
But, as has been mentioned several times up thread, the abortion = home invasion analogy fails pretty quickly.
Apparently, the right of the woman to not be inconvenienced (most likely by her own selfish negligence) for a few months trumps absolutely the right of the fetus to live.
Got it.
And you called ME subhuman?
And Sean brings up an interesting point. The “right” to shoot an intruder does, indeed, vary from state to state. Some states have “castle doctrines,” while others mandate a “duty to retreat.” Not to mention the hodgepodge of gun control laws which would curtail that option even further…
J.
the right of the woman to not be inconvenienced (most likely by her own selfish negligence)
Please tell me you’re kidding.
Quaker, you wanna argue that percentage? On how many unintended pregnancies are the result of people not using birth control, or doing so carelessly? Versus genuine failure of contraception or unwilling sexual contact?
Sorry you are disturbed by reality.
And yes, I speak as someone who — in my young and foolish days — was involved in more than one pregnancy scare.
J.
Quaker, you wanna argue that percentage?
That depends.
Do you actually have a percentage to argue? Or are you just MSU? Again?
And, by the way, were those young women(the ones from your young and foolish days) alone in their selfish negligence? I suppose you did not share in their selfish negligence because condoms were not available?
Do you actually have a percentage to argue?
I think we all know the answer to this question.
Tell you what, Mr. Tea: I got yer percentage right here:
That’s a whole lot of selfish, negligent hedonists.
Quaker: That depends. Do you actually have a percentage to argue?
According to the Central Illinois Right To Life as reported at http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Why%20Abortions%20Are%20Performed
So, 99% of the time the woman was a willing participant in the act that resulted in pregnancy. 95% of the time the abortion was a choice.
Quaker: Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended
Unintended is not the same as unforeseeable.
Quaker: That depends. Do you actually have a percentage to argue?
According to the Central Illinois Right To Life as reported at w w w . abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Why%20Abortions%20Are%20Performed
So, 99% of the time the woman was a willing participant in the act that resulted in pregnancy. 95% of the time the abortion was a choice.
So, 99% of the time the woman was a willing participant in the act that resulted in pregnancy. 95% of the time the abortion was a choice.
And?
Mr. Tea contends that women’s “selfish negligence” is to blame. Do you concur?
Sean, on the page you referred, just below the statistics you cite, I found this:
They left out “selfish negligence,” probably due to political correctness run rampant. Perhaps you can point to the choices that are attributable to “selfishness”.
Quaker: Mr. Tea contends that women’s “selfish negligence” is to blame. Do you concur?
Not entirely. I do think unwanted pregnancy is a problem easily avoided. And, per the stats above, 99% of the time the woman is a willing participant in the intercourse.
However, I think I differ from JT in that I recognize many barriers have been put in place to women knowing the risk they run of becoming pregnant (gag orders, schools forbidden to teach, etc.). And I’m hesitant to call an unwillingly ignorant woman “negligent”.
Quaker: They left out “selfish negligence,” probably due to political correctness run rampant. Perhaps you can point to the choices that are attributable to “selfishness”.
Your sarcasm aside, I hope you’re not intentionally completely missing the point.
There is a parallel question to the “why are you getting an abortion?” that those stats answer. And that is “why did you get pregnant?” I haven’t found the stats on it yet (and am not overly surprised they may be harder to come by) but if asked I would think a significant percentage of woman, if honest, would acknowledge they didn’t use as much prevention as they knew they should have.
Quaker, you really ought to read what you cut and paste before you publish:
Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)
…Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
“Continuing this pregnancy could harm the baby, so I’ll destroy it now.”
Of course, it might refer to the fetus having some serious health issues, but as phrased it’s pretty damned ironic. I am ashamed to say I laughed at it.
J.
This is ridiculous. Of course, people use abortion for birth control. They don’t want to have a child!
If you get pregnant from a rape, you’re using abortion for birth control.
If your partner uses a condom that breaks or you’re on the pill and you get pregnant anyway (no form of contraception is 100 percent effective), someone could say you you’re using abortion for birth control.
The question is whether, as Jay Tea suggested, there’s some huge number of people who decide, due to “selfish negligence” that they’re not going to use contraceptives because, “Eh, what the hell. I can always have an abortion.”
If there are actually people out there who think that way, I’m going to guess, looking at the stats above it’s an insignificant percentage.
Guys, abortion is birth control, whether you got pregnant by accident, rape, because your health is at risk or you can’t afford to raise a child. It’s birth control whenever it’s used. That’s what it is.
To suggest that getting an abortion for “birth control” is somehow always a horrible selfish thing to do, is like suggesting that driving your car “just to get somewhere” is a misuse of your vehicle.
So, 99% of the time the woman was a willing participant in the act that resulted in pregnancy. 95% of the time the abortion was a choice.
I’m sorry but this is just completely stupid. Abortion is a choice 100% of the time. 100%.
Unless there’s some case in which a woman was forced against her will to have an abortion, it’s a fucking choice.
Even if a woman’s health is put at risk because of her pregnancy, she doesn’t have to have an abortion. She chooses to have it in order to save her life. She could decide not to have the abortion and take her chances. She could decide not to have an abortion in the hopes that the child would live, even if she died during the birth.
To suggest that abortion is not a choice 100 percent of the time is to suggest that there are good abortions — or at least abortion we can accept — and bad abortions.
I am not surprised that according this logic, a right to life website would find that 95 percent of all abortions are in the bad category, that is, done for birth control.
Every abortion is for birth control and every abortion was a choice. And guess what?
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Abortion is legal and whether it’s morally acceptable is up to the people who decide to get them. That’s fucking it.
And, per the stats above, 99% of the time the woman is a willing participant in the intercourse.
Right. Of course. And you can sit here and tell us what happens or is supposed to happen every time two people fuck.
And then, you have the right to judge those people based on the outcome.
Give me a break.
But I would argue that you cannot use extreme cases to set the rule for the general population
And yet, isn’t that exactly what you are doing when you argue against parental notification laws due to the rare case of physical abuse and/or incest?
fafaroo: The question is whether, as Jay Tea suggested, there’s some huge number of people who decide, due to “selfish negligence” that they’re not going to use contraceptives because, “Eh, what the hell. I can always have an abortion.”
If there are actually people out there who think that way, I’m going to guess, looking at the stats above it’s an insignificant percentage.
I don’t know if they’re specifically thinking “what the hell”, but women who decide that they’re not going to use contraceptives are not “an insignificant percentage”:
www . guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
fafaroo: To suggest that getting an abortion for “birth control” is somehow always a horrible selfish thing to do, is like suggesting that driving your car “just to get somewhere” is a misuse of your vehicle.
I’ll agree with your point that abortion is a form of birth control. No argument there. But from all the options available if abortion is the method a woman has chosen it is a uniquely selfish one. NONE of the others come close to getting another person involved.
And as analogies go, your vehicle one is tremendously bad. The two don’t even begin to compare.
SDM: So, 99% of the time the woman was a willing participant in the act that resulted in pregnancy. 95% of the time the abortion was a choice.
fafaroo: I’m sorry but this is just completely stupid. Abortion is a choice 100% of the time. 100%.
OK, I’ll conceed that. ALthough it may not seem like much of a choice to the woman involved, yeah, ok. She makes a choice.
But the discussion was whether it’s a selfish one. And with that in view I specifically chose stats from a Right to Life source because, as you note, they’d be preddisposed to count all abortions as bad. And even there they acknowledge 5% have a reasonable basis.
fafaroo: Abortion is legal and whether it’s morally acceptable is up to the people who decide to get them. That’s fucking it.
Yes, they are. But it’s the morally acceptable part that is the crux of the problem. And I’m always surprised when otherwise reasonable people can’t seem to deal with that. They need to claim it’s absolutely settled. CSS with his “END. OF. STORY.”, you with your “That’s fucking it.”
There are those who believe abortion is morally wrong, no different that executing the mooching sibling who you’d like to have out of your life. That to say it’s up to the women who decide to get them is akin to saying it’s solely up to you as to whether your sibling dies.
J.G.Thayeer: “Go ahead, make the argument for an abortion being far less significant than smoking or getting one’s ears pierced.”
Tell you what, you stop lying, and I’ll answer your questions.
Sean: “Limiting her right to chose is not saying the fetus has more rights than the woman…”
Yes it does.
The woman can live without the fetus. The fetus can not live without the woman. This has nothing to do with morals, laws, rights, etc. It is natural fact. For a fetus to live, it must take resources from the woman, which is harming the woman.
Forcing the woman to carry a fetus she does not want is saying she has less rights that the fetus, because you are saying that fetus is allowed to harm the woman and the woman is not allowed to stop it.
J.G.Thayer: “Apparently, the right of the woman to not be inconvenienced (most likely by her own selfish negligence) for a few months trumps absolutely the right of the fetus to live.”
Apparently you don’t know how pregnancy works. I’m not surprised. Hopefully you will never learn firsthand.
“And Sean brings up an interesting point. The ‘right’ to shoot an intruder does, indeed, vary from state to state. Some states have ‘castle doctrines,’ while others mandate a ‘duty to retreat.’ Not to mention the hodgepodge of gun control laws which would curtail that option even further…”
That’s because someone robbing your home is not perfectly analogous to the abortion debate.
Again, if someone it harming you, you have the right to stop them. If the only way to stop them is to kill them, you have that right.
Do you disagree?
No?
Good. Then we can move on.
Now, you seem to think that pregnancies are only an ‘inconvenience’. which leads me to believe you have never been pregnant. … Also, you’re a dude. That was another hint that that you’ve never been pregnant. A fairly large hint.
However, even a pregnancy that goes perfectly, harms the woman, in ways that are fairly permanent.
I would go into details, but then I would have to talk about you about vaginas and other girlie bits, and that would be uncomfortable.
Are many abortions done for selfish reasons? Yes.
Are most abortions done for selfish reasons? I have no idea, nor do you. That information has never been collected.
You can ‘extrapolate’ from tangentially related statistics, but those will be nothing more than lies in the third degree.
Can you set up a law to make it illegal to make a selfish choice? If so, what next?
SDM: Limiting her right to chose is not saying the fetus has more rights than the woman…
CSS: Yes it does.
Can you elaborate? I don’t see how it gives the fetus specifically more.
CSS: The woman can live without the fetus. The fetus can not live without the woman.
And for the fetus to exist the woman, to use your analogy of the person in your home for a moment, invited it in. Does that not put some obligation on the woman?
CSS: This has nothing to do with morals, laws, rights, etc. It is natural fact. For a fetus to live, it must take resources from the woman, which is harming the woman.
Ah, so those rights the woman which you’ve been adamant must be more than the fetus’s are actually irrelevant. Natural facts trump all.
So… just to follow a line of thought here, if something can only live by taking resources from you, which would harm that you, then you can kill that something.
I think you’ve hit on a solution to the welfare state!
CSS: Again, if someone it harming you, you have the right to stop them. If the only way to stop them is to kill them, you have that right.
Do you disagree?
To an extent, yes. It would depend on the extent of harm being done and whether killing them was truly the only way to make them stop.
In reality, there are very few situations where killing someone is the only alternative. And, excluding those cases where the ongoing health of the mother is really at risk, other alternatives do exist.
An argument can be made that carrying the baby to term is actually a net benefit for the woman. Long term reduction in ovarian and breast cancer rates, for example, vs temporarily providing life support.
CSS: Are most abortions done for selfish reasons? I have no idea, nor do you. That information has never been collected.
As noted up thread:
“Selfish” isn’t the tag being used, but would see at least the first 4 as having a “placing one’s own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others” aspect.
Css: Can you set up a law to make it illegal to make a selfish choice? If so, what next?
I dunno, maybe outlawing certain baby names?
However, even a pregnancy that goes perfectly, harms the woman, in ways that are fairly permanent.
Puh-lease. Pregnancy is a perfectly natural and usually healthy process, particularly in the West where good nutrition and medical care are readily available to most women. Treating it like a disease is a condenscending holdover from the days when women were considered the frail, weaker sex.
It’s called “logic,” Strowbridge. Try it some time.
Look at the effectiveness rates of birth control methods. Nearly all the FDA-evaluated and approved ones are well in the 90% effectiveness levels. The simplest one — a condom — is rated at 86%, which means that there’s only one chance in seven that, over a year, it will result in a pregnancy.
That means that if someone uses even a single method of birth control, consistently and correctly, then they are very unlikely to get pregnant.
Like President Obama said: it’s all about personal responsibility. Take it, or don’t take it out.
J.
CSS: However, even a pregnancy that goes perfectly, harms the woman, in ways that are fairly permanent.
I would go into details, but then I would have to talk about you about vaginas and other girlie bits, and that would be uncomfortable.
Why yes. Just thinking about it is enough to give a person the vapors.
Seriously, your flat out refusal to provide details stands out in considerable relief when coming from someone who so often challenges people “prove it, or STFU” type comments.
Of course, it might refer to the fetus having some serious health issues, but as phrased it’s pretty damned ironic. I am ashamed to say I laughed at it.
You’re capable of shame? That makes your politics more challenging, doesn’t it?
SDM: “Limiting her right to chose is not saying the fetus has more rights than the woman…”
CSS: “Yes it does.”
Sean: “Can you elaborate? I don’t see how it gives the fetus specifically more.”
Because it not only has control over its body, but the body of someone else.
“And for the fetus to exist the woman, to use your analogy of the person in your home for a moment, invited it in. Does that not put some obligation on the woman?”
Can you accidentally invite someone into your home? No? I guess it is not analogous.
“So… just to follow a line of thought here, if something can only live by taking resources from you, which would harm that you, then you can kill that something.
I think you’ve hit on a solution to the welfare state!”
To answer that, I think I’ll quote someone you trust…
“In reality, there are very few situations where killing someone is the only alternative.”
Got it?
On a side note, pregnancies harm women in other ways, not just taking resources.
Also, wellfare recipients don’t take your resources, they are allotted resources from the government. Resources you agreed to give up.
However, this is not germane to the discussion, and is merely more evidence that every analogy breaks down if it is pushed too far.
J.G.Thayer: “It’s called ‘logic,’ Strowbridge. Try it some time.”
I think the world just imploded with your hypocrisy.
I am using logic. You, on the other hand, seem to have a desire to punish women for having sex.
Perhaps that’s because they don’t want to have sex with you.
I’m wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case.
CSS: “However, even a pregnancy that goes perfectly, harms the woman, in ways that are fairly permanent.
I would go into details, but then I would have to talk about you about vaginas and other girlie bits, and that would be uncomfortable.”
Sean: “Why yes. Just thinking about it is enough to give a person the vapors.
Seriously, your flat out refusal to provide details stands out in considerable relief when coming from someone who so often challenges people “prove it, or STFU” type comments.”
Oh Jesus Christ.
Do I have to spell everything out for you?
Yes, the man who thinks it is misleading to talk about Norm Coleman in the headline when it was his wife who was getting the potentially illegal money from a Norm Coleman contributor would have no clue what I was talking about.
We are a bunch of guys talking about what happens to women when they get pregnant, something we will never face firsthand. You don’t find that a little ironic?
Secondly, he never asked for details, so I couldn’t refuse to give them, could I? If he did ask, I would have said, “Hormonal imbalance.”
Thirdly… “Girlie bits”? You didn’t at least suspect that was a joke?
Good lord, I’m trying to cut back on the insults, but when you act like this, it is nearly impossible.
“We” aren’t all a bunch of guys, and I still object to your broad, baseless characterization that pregnancy harms women in ‘ways that are fairly permanent.’
Doesn’t it strike you as the least bit hypocritical for you, a guy, to make such a broad statement whilst chastising other presumably male posters for not understanding the impact pregnancy has on women?
CSS: Because it not only has control over its body, but the body of someone else.
Assuming by “it” you refer to the fetus, doesn’t the woman also exercise complete control over the body of the fetus if she can just decide to get rid of it?
CSS: Can you accidentally invite someone into your home? No? I guess it is not analogous.
Well, touches on the other branch of this disussion (in this thread? The other thread? I lose track) regarding how many aborted pregnancies were started becuase the woman chose not to avoid getting pregnant. But, yeah, the analogy only goes so far.
CSS: Also, wellfare recipients don’t take your resources, they are allotted resources from the government. Resources you agreed to give up.
See what I said just above. But I wasn’t really intending to push this idea too far, mostly tossed it up to make a point, tongue pointing toward cheek.
Bottom line is, abortion can be an interesting thing to discuss to get some insight into other people and why they believe as they do. But (and I’m by no means the first to point this out) people’s minds are largely made up and are unlikely to change.
CSS: Yes, the man who thinks it is misleading to talk about Norm Coleman in the headline when it was his wife who was getting the potentially illegal money from a Norm Coleman contributor would have no clue what I was talking about.
You’re misrepresenting it again, but let’s not start that all over. Deep breath and we’ll both let it go.
CSS: We are a bunch of guys talking about what happens to women when they get pregnant, something we will never face firsthand. You don’t find that a little ironic?
I find the assumptions you’ve made in that statement a bit ironic, yes.
Css: Good lord, I’m trying to cut back on the insults, but when you act like this, it is nearly impossible.
No, don’t give in. I’ve been cutting back, too (admittedly, not always successfully) and recent exchanges have been relatively controlled from both sides. Much preferable.
“‘We’ aren’t all a bunch of guys…”
Sure we are. Everyone on the internet is a guy… Even those who claim to be 14-year old lesbians.
“and I still object to your broad, baseless characterization that pregnancy harms women in ‘ways that are fairly permanent.’”
Two points…
1.) Still? Was there a time in the past you objected to that statement?
2.) Baseless?
thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
Just the first site I found.
On a side note …. LOOK AT THAT FUCKING LIST!
Thank god I have a penis and will therefore never get pregnant.
Also, because I have a penis, my brain only has to do half the thinking that a woman’s brain does, and will therefore not wear out as fast.
“Doesn’t it strike you as the least bit hypocritical for you, a guy, to make such a broad statement whilst chastising other presumably male posters for not understanding the impact pregnancy has on women?”
No. Because I’ve done the research.
CSS: “Because it not only has control over its body, but the body of someone else.”
Sean: “Assuming by “it” you refer to the fetus, doesn’t the woman also exercise complete control over the body of the fetus if she can just decide to get rid of it?”
No. That’s nature. The rights look uneven, because their positions are uneven.
“Bottom line is, abortion can be an interesting thing to discuss to get some insight into other people and why they believe as they do. But (and I’m by no means the first to point this out) people’s minds are largely made up and are unlikely to change.”
The same can be said of politics.
Missed this post the first time around. Ignore the “Still?” question from above, if it is not too late.
Me: “However, even a pregnancy that goes perfectly, harms the woman, in ways that are fairly permanent.”
Southern Quaker says: “Puh-lease. Pregnancy is a perfectly natural”
Of course it is natural.
“and usually healthy process,”
No. The body goes through huge changes, many of them negative.
Half of all women get morning sickness, for instance, and as the name implies, it’s not healthy.
Anything with the term ’sickness’ in it, is likely not healthy.
And that’s just one side-effect that is so common that it isn’t even considered a medical condition.
The weight gain alone can cause back or joint problems, which can be fairly permanent.
“…particularly in the West where good nutrition and medical care are readily available to most women. Treating it like a disease is a condenscending holdover from the days when women were considered the frail, weaker sex.”
No. It has nothing to do with condescension or sexism, it has everything to do with reality.
You might think the outcome far outweighs all the problems during pregnancy, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
CSS: “Yes, the man who thinks it is misleading to talk about Norm Coleman in the headline when it was his wife who was getting the potentially illegal money from a Norm Coleman contributor would have no clue what I was talking about.”
Sean: “You’re misrepresenting it again, but let’s not start that all over. Deep breath and we’ll both let it go.”
No I’m not.
CSS: “We are a bunch of guys talking about what happens to women when they get pregnant, something we will never face firsthand. You don’t find that a little ironic?”
Sean: “I find the assumptions you’ve made in that statement a bit ironic, yes.”
I forgot Southern Quaker was even here. She’s too damn polite.
Me: “But I would argue that you cannot use extreme cases to set the rule for the general population”
Southern Quaker says: “And yet, isn’t that exactly what you are doing when you argue against parental notification laws due to the rare case of physical abuse and/or incest?”
All laws deal with the extreme cases. Normal cases don’t need the law to get involved. There’s nothing in the law books dealing with two men meeting in the street, saying hello to each other, and then continuing on their way.
Likewise, in normal cases the parents will be notified before an abortion… by the pregnant child.
Now, where the law does get involved, you can’t say, ‘There have been instances where someone was shot 15 times in the chest and survived. Therefore, when I shot the victim 12 times, I was merely trying to wound and I’m not guilty of murder.’
That won’t fly in court.
CSS: “We are a bunch of guys talking about what happens to women when they get pregnant, something we will never face firsthand. You don’t find that a little ironic?”
Sean: “I find the assumptions you’ve made in that statement a bit ironic, yes.”
CSS: I forgot Southern Quaker was even here. She’s too damn polite.
And you’re still making assuptions. You sure SQ is the only woman in the “bunch of guys”?
Doesn’t it strike you as the least bit hypocritical for you, a guy, to make such a broad statement whilst chastising other presumably male posters for not understanding the impact pregnancy has on women?
Actually yes. That’s why I try not to have an opinion about things I know nothing about. When I can get pregnant and have to make that decision, then I’ll form an opinion.
I tend to think if the question was regarding the legality or morality of vasectomies, we’d have a wholly different set of discussions.
“And you’re still making assuptions. You sure SQ is the only woman in the “bunch of guys”?”
No. But I’m quite sure everyone else I’ve responded to here has admitted to being a guy.
I could be wrong, but that’s different than making an assumption.
There I go again! I’m using language in a precise way.
The horror.
CSS: No. But I’m quite sure everyone else I’ve responded to here has admitted to being a guy.
I could be wrong, but that’s different than making an assumption.
Ah, I get it now. When you make a flat out statement (”We are a bunch of guys talking about what happens to women when they get pregnant, something we will never face firsthand.”) you’re making an assumption and everyone should recognize this. But when someone else does it, they are a liar because they “would be making a statement of fact. If you said, “I think…” then you would be saying an opinion. Qualifiers are important in making those distinctions. … Opinions and facts are different. Expressing the former as the latter is a lie.”
I know “it may seem anal, but it is very important to make that distinction.”
“Ah, I get it now. When you make a flat out statement (”We are a bunch of guys talking about what happens to women when they get pregnant, something we will never face firsthand.”) you’re making an assumption and everyone should recognize this.”
Wrong.
How could you make this mistake? I just fucking said it wasn’t an assumption.
ARE YOU ILLITERATE.
Do I need to use smaller words?
Seriously, how did you make that mistake? Did you not read what I wrote before replying?
I was making a statement of fact, and I’ve already admitted I was wrong. (I forget SQ was here.)
I am not making an assumption, because I have evidence with regards to the rest.
I could be wrong on that point as well, but that doesn’t make it an assumption or an opinion.
“But when someone else does it, they are a liar because they ‘would be making a statement of fact. If you said, ‘I think…’ then you would be saying an opinion.”
Oh my god. Now you are mixing up ‘opinions’ and ‘assumption.’
Facts = Something you can back up.
Opinions = A personal preference.
Assumption = Something taken as fact without evidence.
Facts can be backed up with evidence, opinions can’t not. When it comes to debates like this, opinions are meaningless. Facts are not. Assumptions are dangerous.
Treating one as the other is bad. Doing so intentionally is a lie.
‘Intent’ is not a nebulous concept. It is rather easy to figure out. In fact, if you can’t figure out intent, you have what psychologists call sociopathy. The inability to judge the emotions and intentions of others is the key to sociopathy. (This is a statement of fact based on class(es) I took through university, not an opinion or an assumption.)
For instance, if someone says an event took place on the 12th when it took place on the 21st, that is most likely a mistake. There is a small chance that it is a convenient lie, so judge it on an individual by individual basis.
If someone takes what you said in the past, and misquotes you, and attacks you for it, it could go either way. Again, just on an individual basis.
If someone takes what you said, cuts and pastes it into another post, but changes the context to attack you, it is almost certainly intentional. The chance of making an error in that instance, one that can be used to attack you, is just too slim.
If someone says an opinion, but states it as a fact, while using it to defend their position, then it is almost certainly intentional. The only other rational explanation is deep mental problems. Either the inability to tell the difference between opinion and fact or the functional illiteracy. Either case is so extremely unlikely, especially since we can discount illiteracy here, and I don’t think it needs to be taken into serious consideration.
“I know ‘it may seem anal, but it is very important to make that distinction.’”
So try getting it right.
Good lord.
Is that too much to ask?
Shorter CSS: Those who disagree with me are idiots or insane.
Got it.
Sean D. Martin says: “Shorter CSS: Those who disagree with me are idiots or insane.”
Shorter Sean D. Martin: “I have no way to defend my position without lies, so I will insult CSS one last time and run away.”
You can’t even differential between facts, opinions, and assumptions. Yet you think you are smart enough to debate me.
God, you are pathetic.
Css: Shorter Sean D. Martin: “I have no way to defend my position without lies, so I will insult CSS one last time and run away.”
And yet, here I am. Clearly you are a (gasp!) liar.
SDM: Shorter CSS: Those who disagree with me are idiots or insane.
CSS: Yet you think you are smart enough to debate me.
QED
CSS: “Shorter Sean D. Martin: “I have no way to defend my position without lies, so I will insult CSS one last time and run away.””
Sean: “And yet, here I am. Clearly you are a (gasp!) liar.”
I overestimated your maturity, that doesn’t make me a liar.
Then again, I believe you don’t know the definition of the word liar. Or context. Or facts. Or opinion. Or assumption. Or a lot of words.
(On a side note, while you didn’t exactly run away, you didn’t address my point either.)
SDM: “Shorter CSS: Those who disagree with me are idiots or insane.”
CSS: “Yet you think you are smart enough to debate me.”
Sean: “QED”
Wrong again, Sean. I don’t think all people who disagree with me are idiots or insane.
But I do think you are an idiot or have some pathological hatred for me.
Remember the “Per 100,000″ debate? Jay Caruso admitted he made a mistake. You never did. That entire thread, you never admitted you made a mistake.
You are either an idiot for not recognizing you made a mistake, or so deranged you refuse to admit it. If there is a third option, tell me.
And I know why you hate me. You told me I would get better results debating people without the insults or swearing and I completely blew you off. I treated your advice like it was worthless, therefore, you think I treated you like you were worthless.
Dear Sean,
There’s something important you need to know. In this thread I was talking about the difference between facts and opinions. Then I talked about the difference between assumptions and mistakes. You then got the terms assumptions and opinions mixed up.
I don’t think you are an idiot because you disagree with me. I think you are an idiot because you act like an idiot.
If you agreed with me, I would still think you were an idiot.
Now please, smarten up, or shut up.
Signed,
C.S.Strowbridge
CSS: (On a side note, while you didn’t exactly run away, you didn’t address my point either.)
Just striving to be more like you, C.
CSS: And I know why you hate me. You told me I would get better results debating people without the insults or swearing and I completely blew you off. I treated your advice like it was worthless, therefore, you think I treated you like you were worthless.
The next thing I need to learn, of course, is how to repeatedly claim I know what someone else is thinking better than they do.
CSS –
Fact is, I don’t hate you. I find you frustrating, hypocritical, irritating and rancorous, but I don’t hate you.
I believe far too often you jump to insults and drag topics off into hair-splitting hinterlands rather than address the points others try to make. I’ve seen you take others to task for doing things which you yourself have done. I believe (because you’ve said so yourself) that you enjoy hurling insults and that you enjoy it more than working to understand another’s view or clarifying your own. I believe you’re you see slights where none were intended, are far too quick to take offense and view yourself as a victim, and hold manufactured grudges far too long.
Which is all a bit of a shame since we’ve had a number of exchanges that have started off reasonably well before being drawn off into the “you’re a liar, fuck ‘tard” weeds.
- Sean
“…drag topics off into hair-splitting hinterlands rather than address the points others try to make.”
Hair-splitting hinterlands?
Like when Jay Caruso said, ‘That’s what the per 100,000 is for.’ and I said ‘Huh?’ You thought that was hair-splitting. Jay admitted he made a mistake, but in that thread, you never admitted my confusion was warranted.
Or how about that time Oliver said Norm Coleman in a headline and you claimed that was a misrepresentation because the Norm Coleman donor was allegedly funnelling money to Norm Coleman’s wife and not Norm Coleman himself. Is that not splitting hairs?
Words have definitions. It is splitting hairs to say, “You said, ‘cautiously optimistic’ when you should have said, ‘optimistically cautious.”
It is not splitting hairs to say, “Use the rules of grammar to make sure everyone understands what you say. What you are saying is different than what you mean.”
“I’ve seen you take others to task for doing things which you yourself have done.”
Gee Sean. You have never done that. In fact, you didn’t just do that in the very post I’m replying to.
I’ve seen you throw insults. I’ve seen you split-hairs. I’ve seen you bring me up in threads I hadn’t even posted to. Ditto on your victimhood, and grudges.
“Which is all a bit of a shame since we’ve had a number of exchanges that have started off reasonably well before being drawn off into the “you’re a liar, fuck ‘tard’ weeds.”
I will debate in an intellectually vigorous fashion with anyone, as well as they are willing to do the same. As soon as they show they are not, I see no reason to waste the effort on them.
In short, I only call people fucking ‘tards when they start acting like fucking ‘tards.
“…but in that thread, you never admitted my confusion was warranted.”
You mean all this time you keep dragging this ancient one up complaining that I didn’t admit you were right, and your complaint is actually that I didn’t agree you were confused? Snark aside, actually I believe I did suggest that there was a miscommunication going on, that folks were talking past each other. And I got insulted for doing so.
“…you claimed that was a misrepresentation because the Norm Coleman donor was allegedly funnelling money to Norm Coleman’s wife and not Norm Coleman himself.”
No, you’re still misrepresenting it. Money was being not being funnelled to Mrs C but to the company that employed her. There was no evidence provided that she benefited from this (other, I suppose, than to the extent which any employee could be said to benefit when their employer gets money).
Going to drop both of these now. You can keep bringing up the “100,000″ and “Coleman” issues if you want as if they are the final word on… something.
“Gee Sean. You have never done that.”
Putting your sarcasm aside for a moment, on the contrary I’ve admitted to it at times. I’ve noted in several posts where I may not have made my points clearly or have contributed to an unfortunate tone. So what’s your point?
“I will debate in an intellectually vigorous fashion with anyone, as well as they are willing to do the same. As soon as they show they are not, I see no reason to waste the effort on them.”
As noted before, I just think you’re overly quick to see someone as unwilling to do the same. That you jump to hurling insults rather than work to understand another’s view or clarify your own.
“You mean all this time you keep dragging this ancient one up complaining that I didn’t admit you were right, and your complaint is actually that I didn’t agree you were confused?”
How are you not dead yet? How have you lived as long as you have without accidentally killing yourself.
Your originally claim was Jay’s response was appropriate and that I shouldn’t be confused. Further, you claimed I wasn’t genuinely confused, but just stalling.
Hmmm…. You made a claim based on my intent. Something you say I shouldn’t do.
“Snark aside, actually I believe I did suggest that there was a miscommunication going on, that folks were talking past each other. And I got insulted for doing so.”
But that’s not what happened. Jay and I were not talking about the same thing using different words, as in your ramp / hill example. Jay said something that was error and I asked him to explain himself.
(On a side note, he admitted his error, but never explained himself.)
You said I was stalling and that what Jay said made perfect sense. It didn’t make sense, as Jay admitted.
So when you said I was stalling, you were wrong.
“No, you’re still misrepresenting it. Money was being not being funnelled to Mrs C but to the company that employed her. There was no evidence provided that she benefited from this (other, I suppose, than to the extent which any employee could be said to benefit when their employer gets money).”
No. Kazeminy forced this company to HIRE Mrs. Coleman. That’s what the suit was about.
Perhaps you didn’t know that detail, but we have mentioned it more than once.
“Going to drop both of these now. You can keep bringing up the ‘100,000′ and ‘Coleman’ issues if you want as if they are the final word on… something.”
No. I want you to see you are wrong and that the issue is 100% your fault. The only way to learn from your mistakes is to admit them. And learning from your mistakes is important.
For instance, you have difficulty with context. I should not call you a liar when you misquote me because of this. I will try not to do so in the future.
(By the way, that’s 100% proof that I’m an asshole. If you don’t get why, I’ll explain fully so you can quote it in the future.)
“Putting your sarcasm aside for a moment, on the contrary I’ve admitted to it at times. I’ve noted in several posts where I may not have made my points clearly or have contributed to an unfortunate tone.”
I’ve admitted mistakes as well.
“So what’s your point?”
Hypocrisy.
“As noted before, I just think you’re overly quick to see someone as unwilling to do the same.”
And I disagree. I have extremely high empathy and can read people very well (most of the time). I can tell when someone it opening to discussing a matter logically, and when their mind it closed to opposing viewpoints. Sometime I make a Hanlon error, but those are rare.
“How are you not dead yet? How have you lived as long as you have without accidentally killing yourself.”
Because I’m not what you want to see me as. How can you not recognize snark, even when a comment is labeled that? Where’s your “extremely high empathy” that you can’t see when someone is making a less serious comment? So glad my ego isn’t as easily bruised as yours.
“No. Kazeminy forced this company to HIRE Mrs. Coleman. That’s what the suit was about. Perhaps you didn’t know that detail, but we have mentioned it more than once.”
Is “liar” one of those irregular verbs to you? One where you can say “You lie. He/she/it lies. I don’t.”? Go thru all the comments in that thread, you’ll find no mention of what you claim you said. Plenty of other statements you make which you refused to back up, but not that anyone was forced to hire anyone.
“No. I want you to see you are wrong and that the issue is 100% your fault.”
Widdle CSS is stomping his feet. I have admitted where I’ve been wrong at times, but never becuase some self-titled great debater used the tactic of holding his breath as if that were a conclusive argument.
“The only way to learn from your mistakes is to admit them. And learning from your mistakes is important.”
BWAAAA-HA-HA-HA. I get it now. You’re doing some kind of Kauffmann-esque bit.
And I disagree. I have extremely high empathy and can read people very well (most of the time). I can tell when someone it opening to discussing a matter logically, and when their mind it closed to opposing viewpoints.
From personal experience, I’d disagree. Numerous times you’ve told me what I’m thinking and I’ve pointed out that you were wrong. You continued to indicate you know my thoughts and intentions better than I do. I don’t think your empathy skills are as “extremely high” as you think.
geez, you guys are still at it?
geez, you guys are still at it?
It’s how me hide our true feelings of love for each other.
An now, a final word from C…
Me: “How are you not dead yet? How have you lived as long as you have without accidentally killing yourself.”
Sean: “Because I’m not what you want to see me as. How can you not recognize snark, even when a comment is labeled that? Where’s your “extremely high empathy” that you can’t see when someone is making a less serious comment? So glad my ego isn’t as easily bruised as yours.Me: “No. Kazeminy forced this company to HIRE Mrs. Coleman. That’s what the suit was about. Perhaps you didn’t know that detail, but we have mentioned it more than once.”
I can recognize snark. I also recognize snark that is being used to make a point. I see the point you are trying to make, and it makes you look stupid.
Sean: “Is ‘liar’ one of those irregular verbs to you? One where you can say “You lie. He/she/it lies. I don’t.”? Go thru all the comments in that thread, you’ll find no mention of what you claim you said. Plenty of other statements you make which you refused to back up, but not that anyone was forced to hire anyone.”
Here’s a little hint for you, there’s more than one source of information. We’ve talked about this scandal repeatedly. On multiple threads.
Sean: “Widdle CSS is stomping his feet.”
And this sums up all you need to know about Sean.
“I have admitted where I’ve been wrong at times, but never becuase some self-titled great debater used the tactic of holding his breath as if that were a conclusive argument.”
So what’s so hard for you to admit you are wrong here?
Jay admitted he was wrong, so you were wrong.
Yet you insist it is a matter of two people saying the same things in different ways.
“From personal experience, I’d disagree. Numerous times you’ve told me what I’m thinking and I’ve pointed out that you were wrong.”
Yes. It appears I overestimated you by a large margin.
You are not a liar, you are functionally illiterate.
You do not have the capability of judging context.
You are not a liar. You are stupid.
“An now, a final word from C…”
So says the man who has been in this thread just as long as I have.
Fucking hypocritical piece of shit.
Important point, needs to be separate…
Sean: “Go thru all the comments in that thread, you’ll find no mention of what you claim you said. Plenty of other statements you make which you refused to back up, but not that anyone was forced to hire anyone.”
What do you think the Kazeminy lawsuit was about?
Kazeminy was sued by his business partner because Kazeminy was forcing him to…
I need you to finish that statement.
You keep saying the company was getting money and that Mrs. Coleman was only benefiting indirectly, as any employee would when the company gets money.
But how would Kazeminy forcing a company to accept money result in a lawsuit?
I seriously doubt you will answer this question, but I would love to know the answer.