This is really amazing. Christina, you have outdone yourself.
The pseudoscientific reasoning exposed in the FIRST question on this quiz is "Over-reliance on anecdotal evidence". But Christina, your entire blog is one long act of overreliance on anecdotal evidence! "Person A died from an abortion", "Person B died from an abortion", just a string of anecdotes, with no good-faith effort to obtain, or analyze, numbers.
Instead of entitling this post "Excellent psuedoscience quiz from FunTrivia", you should entitle it: "Excellent pseudoscience quiz shows why realchoice.com is not worth reading"!
OC, I don't just present the anecdotes and you know it. But for the benefit of those who might think that you're being honest and upfront, I'll post a few links here:
Christina, if, as you say, the purpose of your anecdotes were to illustrate and humanize, rather than to trick the reader into making wrong generalizations from them, then you would acknowledge the anecdote-status in the posts. You'd put into each of them some disclaimer like "Well this is just one story, but...." or "Here's an illustrative anecdote...." You don't do this. And when I point out, in comments, that anecdotes don't prove anything, you usually delete my comments. (I'm surprised you answered, rather than deleting, my above comment!)
Your death-anecdotes are very frequent. Your number-related posts, like the ones you linked to above, are few and far-between. In fact, they are so few and far-between that your links to them qualify as anecdotes themselves!
Your death-anecdotes frequently begin by using the sarcastic phrase "...a safe and legal abortion...", inviting the reader to imagine that an individual disaster can show that abortions are not safe, which anyone who has taken freshman epidemiology or freshman statistics/probability knows is wrong.
How many times have you posted the Christin Gilbert story? Many times, again and again. In those posts, how many times have you reminded the reader that Dr. Tiller's overall safety record and competence, as demonstrated by his accomplishments and his NUMBERS, were held in the highest esteem by the entire medical community in USA (except for right-to-lifers who objected to his work itself, not to any lack of skill)? None. For that matter, how many of your Gilbert posts point out that the oversight board found that Drs. Tiller and Carhart were not at fault, and that the most likely explanation was that Gilbert had the sepsis-bug when she came into the clinic, and the anaesthesia weakened her immune system (as anaesthesia does) and allowed the bug to bloom? None. How often do you mention the fact that EVERY practicioner has SOME bad-luck disasters, and that there is no cure for an unlucky patient? Never.
How often do you COMPARE the morbidity/mortality of abortion to the m/m of childbirth? Never. How often do you compare the abortion m/m with m/m of other procedures--hernia repair, balloon angioplasty, resection of the colon? Never.
How often do you link, or refer, to statistical or epidemiological papers in mainstream academic medical journals like Annals of Internal Medicine, Lancet, JAMA? I don't think I've ever seen you do this.
You post anecdotes about individual disasters at NAF clinics, and then, with sarcastic remarks, you invite the readers to infer that NAF clinics are generally dangerous and shoddy, which anyone who has ever worked on abortion in USA knows they are not.
You are almost as bad as ... I hate to say it... don't wanna hurt your feelings ... but dammit, it's just a fact: you are almost as bad as Marc Crutcher himself!
You report that a security guard at an NAF-recognised clinic raped some women, and then you ask "Hey, prochoicers: When are you gonna hold these NAF goons accountable?"
As if NAF had anything to do with hiring security guards.
Actually, that security-guard-rapist shows TWO errors: First, NAF does not vouch for security guards, nor for gardners who take care of the lawn outside the clinic, nor for accountants who fill out the clinic's tax forms. NAF is a MEDICAL organization vouching for MEDICAL personnel. NAF also vouches for medical conditions in the clinic--cleanliness, proper storage of specimens, instruments in good working order, etc. Not for unmedical stuff like the color of the wallpaper.
The OTHER error is the anecdotalism--even if NAF WERE responsible for security guards in NAF clinics, one bad guard would not imply a general problem with NAF.
Actually, that security-guard-rapist shows TWO errors: First, NAF does not vouch for security guards, nor for gardners who take care of the lawn outside the clinic, nor for accountants who fill out the clinic's tax forms. NAF is a MEDICAL organization vouching for MEDICAL personnel. NAF also vouches for medical conditions in the clinic--cleanliness, proper storage of specimens, instruments in good working order, etc. Not for unmedical stuff like the color of the wallpaper.
The OTHER error is the anecdotalism--even if NAF WERE responsible for security guards in NAF clinics, one bad guard would not imply a general problem with NAF.
Finally, as long as I'm telling you some home truths, yes you sometimes post numbers but your numbers are often bad-faith. For example, you frequently post the claim that most illegal abortions in USA before r/w were done in doctors offices. But there's absolutely no way to measure that! Both the illegal abortion-providers and the patients were strongly motivated to keep their abortions secret. ANY claim about illegal abortions is at best educated speculation. But you present the claim as if it were proven fact. That's bad faith.
Since you like anecdotes, there was a great one on rhrealitycheck.org a while back: an elderly woman recounted needing an abortion some time in the 1950s, and searching for someone to do it and eventually having it done by ... ready for this?... a VETRINARIAN! Yeah, the guy who treats sick cats and dogs did her abortion for her.
OC, you know damned well why I get fed up with your bullshit and start nuking your posts -- especially when you start making threats. (By the way, I don't permanently nuke those. If you or any of your abortion-infatuated friends ever follow through I want a e-trail.) You're a troll who occasionally says something that I feel warrants leaving up for the lurkers to read, or that I happen to want to respond to. But by and large you go through people's blogs posting deliberately misleading posts and getting snarky and nasty.
You claim that I'm putting up the anecdotes as freestanding proof that legal abortion is a deathtrap, because I don't put a disclaimer "For anecdotal purposes only." But you notice, I ALSO don't say, "See? ALL abortions are just horribly deadly for the mother!" I -- fancy this -- allow people to draw their own conclusions. Should I go back to pointing out everything for the benefit of readers who lack the capacity for independent thought?
As for what a wonderful saintly man Tiller was, the rat bastard KILLED BABIES FOR A LIVING. I realize that this is something you find admirable, but I find it deplorable and see no reason to pretend otherwise. Maybe you actually think that killing helpless babies is a brave, stalwart, and upright thing to do. I understand that some people really do think that way -- that babies are the scourge of humanity and that there's no better thing to do to make the world a better place than to come up with new and more efficient ways to kill babies. I have no idea what goes on inside the head of somebody who supports killing babies the way people like you do. The whole concept is as alien to me as the thought process that somebody like Ted Bundy goes through when he decides that bludgeoning coeds to death in their beds is a find hobby.
Christina, if you were seriously "inviting readers to draw their own conclusions", you would present BALANCED info. You would include stuff about the dangers of childbirth AS WELL as about the dangers of abortion. You would match your abortion-disaster anecdotes with abortion-benefit anecdoes, which are far more numerous. No. You are presenting biased info, and PRETENDING to invite people to draw their own conclusions, but you are not fooling anyone who knows anything about the issue, so you may as well 'fess up.
RE: "I have no idea what goes on inside the head of somebody who supports killing babies the way people like you do."
Can you understand that a lot of people feel exactly the same emotions you feel about abortion, but we feel them about forcing pregnant women to grow their unwelcome pregnancies and give birth against their wills? That is a GREATER violation than killing the babies inside their bodies on request! If fetuses were as innocent and morally-pure as you seem to think, they would not WANT to gestate inside another person's body where they were not welcome. A GOOD fetus would PREFER to be aborted, rather than to inflict such an outrageous violation on its mother.
RE: Saving an email trail for WHEN the counterterror begins. I appreciate that, but just for your info, law-enforcement is way ahead of you, very much aware of me and my blog.
RE: "Tiller was a rat-bastard" In that case, you should be able to criticise him WITHOUT misrepresenting his safety and competence. You should be saying, "OK, he was great at his job, one of the best in the western world, and yes, he provided relief to thousands of patients with horrific problems, BUT he was a rat-bastard".
Have you ever looked into WHY he did abortions? What motivated him? You should do that BEFORE you slander his memory.
By the way, lots of high-powered medical specialists and innovators are rat-bastards. Two words: Thomas Starzl. Oops, that's an anecdote, but you can take it from me, he's typical. The same applies to ultra-successful scientific and technical innovators generally. You have to be willing to be brutal to yourself--to suppress the desire to do anything in life other than your work for a very long time. The requirements for success select for ruthlessness and cunning. Go research how Thomas Edison treated his colleagues and competitors.
Oops, I wrote "slander". That's wrong. "Slander" means something you SAY. You are WRITING, not speaking, so what you are doing is LIBEL, not slander. Sorry for error.
I didn't say I was presenting "a balanced picture", trying to show people that babies really area the scourge of humanity and need to be exterminated in-utero before they slaughter us all. That's YOUR job.
My argument has been that the whole "let's legalize abortion to make it safe for the women" was bullshit from the get go, and that the people behind this bullshit knew it was bullshit. The goals of legalization were to make abortion more commonplace and to take away the legal repercussions for the practitioners of abortion. If by any happy coincidence this in some way benefitted the women in question, the abortion advocates weren't gonna cry about it or anything. But that wasn't the point. They CLAIMED it was the point, because that was how to get public sympathy. But "We don't want niggers to breed and we're tired of getting arrested" isn't a bandwagon the public was likely to jump on, was it?
Re: Your suggestion that the purpose behind scrapping abortion-bans was "We don't want niggers to breed and we're tired of getting arrested"
If we wanted to reduce negro breeding, the way to do that is to keep abortion illegal and INCREASE the penalties. Negros have unwelcome pregnancies more frequently than other ethnic groups. So they would be disproportunately sterilized, killed, imprisoned by abortion bans. That was one of the big objections to abortion bans, that they disproportunately target poor people and underclass ethnic groups.
And do you think it's unreasonable to be tired of getting arrested??? For providing patients with an essential freedom-component?
Christina, between your increasing use of obscene language and your nutty assertions, I'm starting to think you're unhinged. Everything ok at home?
RE: your characterizing the pro-choice position as "babies really area the scourge of humanity and need to be exterminated in-utero before they slaughter us all."
No, that's a pro-ABORTION position, that everyone should have abortions. The pro-choice position, in case you have forgotten, is: women who WANT abortions should have them, and women who DON'T want abortions should not have them. Hence the term, "choice".
OC, I'm reaching the point of shooting the console and muttering, "It was a boring conversation". I really think the only reason you show up here is that you know your presence is fingernails on a chalkboard to me. You're not a pure 100% troll, so I don't just nuke your posts, but you're rarely here for honest debate or presentation of information either, so I can't just note that you're here and go about my business. I have to respond, again and again ad nauseum to you saying the same thing again and again. You're like a Chatty Cathy and it's a matter of which groove the needle lands in when they pull the string.
I realize that the reason you don't just go hang out with other people who share your enthusiasm for abortion is that you're trolling for converts to the cause. And frankly, I get tired of trying to sort through what's bullshit on your part and what's an opportunity to get an interesting discussion started.
I wish the whole goddam thing would just go away. But it can't as long as there are people like you who insist that "I wish I wasn't in this predicament" means "I want my baby dead".
Christina, I know you're getting fed up with OC again, but I just wanted to let you know that I picked up on the Star Wars reference and it gave me a chuckle. That's funny that you wrote that because I almost quoted Star Wars to a pro-choicer making an assertion on Jill Stanek's blog, "So certain are you, young Jedi?"
OC: "A GOOD fetus would PREFER to be aborted, rather than to inflict such an outrageous violation on its mother."
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!! That's a good one. As if the fetus has a choice as to where to be conceived and gestated... However, the mother does even before the child is conceived.
The conceived-and-aborted fetus has no reason to complain. It gets to enjoy a short life in utero. That's just so much gained for it.
Sorry, but just as donating blood does not obligate me to also donate the NEXT transfusion the patient may need, just so, giving you a short life inside my body does NOT obligate me to give you a longer one too.
I'm glad you're amused, SegaMon, but the Body-Ownership/Justifiable-Homicide argument really is the philosophical right answer to the life/choice question. The answer is "Yes life, but choice ANYWAY".
It also explains the voting patterns in USA: Right-to-lifers win all elections except the ones that matter. (On the Presidential level that's 1992 and 2008, but the pattern applies on lower levels too--congressional seats in swing states.)
Americans are squeamish, and they feel sowwy for the poor widdle babies, but they absolutely will not tolerate the idea that normal women, women they know, might be forced by government to grow unwelcome pregnancies and give birth unwillingly to babies they do not want. Once American voters perceive that possibility, they vote heavily pro-choice. This has been the pattern since the mid 1970s, and the BO/JH argument explains and predicts it.
I do not accept your premise. Every single pregnancy, except for the rare instance of pregnancy by rape, is certainly purposely created (aka "welcomed"). Unless you think the vast majority of women are so stupid that they do not know that sex has the risk of establishing pregnancy...
Again, you are very amusing! You fail to understand the most simple of concepts.
SegaMon, taking a risk of something does not mean you welcome the something. If someone runs me over while I'm crossing the street, the driver is liable, EVEN THOUGH by crossing the street I "welcomed" the possibility of being hit by a car.
If you're pregnant, and you would prefer not to be pregnant, then your pregnancy is unwelcome. By definition. No matter how you got pregnant.
SegaMon, taking a risk of something does not mean you welcome the something. If someone runs me over while I'm crossing the street, the driver is liable, EVEN THOUGH by crossing the street I "welcomed" the possibility of being hit by a car.
If you're pregnant, and you would prefer not to be pregnant, then your pregnancy is unwelcome. By definition. No matter how you got pregnant.
OC, since when has it been a necessity to have sex? It certainly is a necessity to get from point A to point B. There is no way someone can avoid such necessity in life. Whether that be crossing a street or driving a car, we all have to do that to survive.
When I go to an amusement park with roller coaster rides, I am taking a risk that I understand and take full responsibility for. When I go onto a roller coaster, there is the possibility of injury and death. If I wouldn't want to take responsibility of that risk, then I wouldn't ride the roller coaster.
Sex is much like going onto a roller coaster rather than traveling from one point to another. We all must travel but we all do not need to ride a roller coaster!
If people do not want to take the risk of pregnancy, DO NOT HAVE SEX! Surprise! New flash! One does not have to have sex to survive!!! I lived 24 years without sex and I'm alive today!
Again, your reasoning is hilarious. Quit comparing apples to oranges.
To quote Christina: "Common sense is anything but."
Sega, sex is the means by which we reproduce. It never ceases to astonish me that people are absolutely shocked and outraged when sex results in reproduction. It's like being outraged that they drink beer and get drunk, or that they jump in the sea and get wet. What the heck did they expect?
SegaMon, the problem with your idea ("Don't have sex!") is: when the woman comes to the abortion clinic, she has ALREADY had sex.
RE: "comparing apples and oranges"
There's nothing wrong with comparing apples and oranges. I can do it easily, any time! Watch carefully. I say: "Apples are CRUNCHIER than oranges." There, see? I did it!
The CORRECT line is "you cannot COMBINE apples and oranges", meaning that you can't add two fractions until you have first expressed them as fractions witht he same denominator. "Can't COMPARE" is a bastardization, and wrong.
Christina, RE: "[Having sex is] like being outraged that they drink beer and get drunk, or that they jump in the sea and get wet. What the heck did they expect?"
How about expecting someone to help them OUT of the sea?
Sure, when you have sex, you are accepting the possibility that you might get pregnant. And you are accepting the fact that if you DO get pregnant, you will then have to choose between growing the pregnancy, and getting an abortion.
OC: "SegaMon, the problem with your idea ("Don't have sex!") is: when the woman comes to the abortion clinic, she has ALREADY had sex."
You have accepted my argument and moved on to another point.
Then if having sex was a "mistake", then killing an unborn child because of it is unacceptable. If I make a mistake by running a red-light and getting caught, is it okay to have absolutely no consequences!? We all must realize that we must take responsibility for our actions.
OC, once the woman is pregnant, the choices are a live baby or a dead baby. And the parents -- unless they're mentally defective or were in some way forced to engage in sex -- have no cause to act as if Fate has dealt them some cruel and unexpected blow. Sex is how babies are made. REAL adults get this.
35 comments:
Scored 100% right. Seemed more like an exercise in common sense than anything else.
Common sense is anything but.
I misspoke, your reply is unfortunately very true.
This is really amazing. Christina, you have outdone yourself.
The pseudoscientific reasoning exposed in the FIRST question on this quiz is "Over-reliance on anecdotal evidence". But Christina, your entire blog is one long act of overreliance on anecdotal evidence! "Person A died from an abortion", "Person B died from an abortion", just a string of anecdotes, with no good-faith effort to obtain, or analyze, numbers.
Instead of entitling this post "Excellent psuedoscience quiz from FunTrivia", you should entitle it: "Excellent pseudoscience quiz shows why realchoice.com is not worth reading"!
"... why realchoice.com is not worth reading"!"
And you keep coming back because...?
I don't come here very often any more, but when I do, it's in the hope of seeing bellylaughogenic whoppers like this one.
OC, I don't just present the anecdotes and you know it. But for the benefit of those who might think that you're being honest and upfront, I'll post a few links here:
The unmistakable, undeniable, clear impact of legalized abortion on maternal mortality
My abortion mortality research to date
Mortality Trends: Can You Spot Roe?
The anecdotes are to put a human face on the reality. I've never claimed that they were stand-alone proof of anything. Why are you claiming so?
Christina, if, as you say, the purpose of your anecdotes were to illustrate and humanize, rather than to trick the reader into making wrong generalizations from them, then you would acknowledge the anecdote-status in the posts. You'd put into each of them some disclaimer like "Well this is just one story, but...." or "Here's an illustrative anecdote...." You don't do this. And when I point out, in comments, that anecdotes don't prove anything, you usually delete my comments. (I'm surprised you answered, rather than deleting, my above comment!)
Your death-anecdotes are very frequent. Your number-related posts, like the ones you linked to above, are few and far-between. In fact, they are so few and far-between that your links to them qualify as anecdotes themselves!
Your death-anecdotes frequently begin by using the sarcastic phrase "...a safe and legal abortion...", inviting the reader to imagine that an individual disaster can show that abortions are not safe, which anyone who has taken freshman epidemiology or freshman statistics/probability knows is wrong.
How many times have you posted the Christin Gilbert story? Many times, again and again. In those posts, how many times have you reminded the reader that Dr. Tiller's overall safety record and competence, as demonstrated by his accomplishments and his NUMBERS, were held in the highest esteem by the entire medical community in USA (except for right-to-lifers who objected to his work itself, not to any lack of skill)? None. For that matter, how many of your Gilbert posts point out that the oversight board found that Drs. Tiller and Carhart were not at fault, and that the most likely explanation was that Gilbert had the sepsis-bug when she came into the clinic, and the anaesthesia weakened her immune system (as anaesthesia does) and allowed the bug to bloom? None. How often do you mention the fact that EVERY practicioner has SOME bad-luck disasters, and that there is no cure for an unlucky patient? Never.
How often do you COMPARE the morbidity/mortality of abortion to the m/m of childbirth? Never. How often do you compare the abortion m/m with m/m of other procedures--hernia repair, balloon angioplasty, resection of the colon? Never.
How often do you link, or refer, to statistical or epidemiological papers in mainstream academic medical journals like Annals of Internal Medicine, Lancet, JAMA? I don't think I've ever seen you do this.
You post anecdotes about individual disasters at NAF clinics, and then, with sarcastic remarks, you invite the readers to infer that NAF clinics are generally dangerous and shoddy, which anyone who has ever worked on abortion in USA knows they are not.
You are almost as bad as ... I hate to say it... don't wanna hurt your feelings ... but dammit, it's just a fact: you are almost as bad as Marc Crutcher himself!
Here's a nice one:
http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_archive.html
You report that a security guard at an NAF-recognised clinic raped some women, and then you ask "Hey, prochoicers: When are you gonna hold these NAF goons accountable?"
As if NAF had anything to do with hiring security guards.
Actually, that security-guard-rapist shows TWO errors: First, NAF does not vouch for security guards, nor for gardners who take care of the lawn outside the clinic, nor for accountants who fill out the clinic's tax forms. NAF is a MEDICAL organization vouching for MEDICAL personnel. NAF also vouches for medical conditions in the clinic--cleanliness, proper storage of specimens, instruments in good working order, etc. Not for unmedical stuff like the color of the wallpaper.
The OTHER error is the anecdotalism--even if NAF WERE responsible for security guards in NAF clinics, one bad guard would not imply a general problem with NAF.
Actually, that security-guard-rapist shows TWO errors: First, NAF does not vouch for security guards, nor for gardners who take care of the lawn outside the clinic, nor for accountants who fill out the clinic's tax forms. NAF is a MEDICAL organization vouching for MEDICAL personnel. NAF also vouches for medical conditions in the clinic--cleanliness, proper storage of specimens, instruments in good working order, etc. Not for unmedical stuff like the color of the wallpaper.
The OTHER error is the anecdotalism--even if NAF WERE responsible for security guards in NAF clinics, one bad guard would not imply a general problem with NAF.
Finally, as long as I'm telling you some home truths, yes you sometimes post numbers but your numbers are often bad-faith. For example, you frequently post the claim that most illegal abortions in USA before r/w were done in doctors offices. But there's absolutely no way to measure that! Both the illegal abortion-providers and the patients were strongly motivated to keep their abortions secret. ANY claim about illegal abortions is at best educated speculation. But you present the claim as if it were proven fact. That's bad faith.
Since you like anecdotes, there was a great one on rhrealitycheck.org a while back: an elderly woman recounted needing an abortion some time in the 1950s, and searching for someone to do it and eventually having it done by ... ready for this?... a VETRINARIAN! Yeah, the guy who treats sick cats and dogs did her abortion for her.
OC, you know damned well why I get fed up with your bullshit and start nuking your posts -- especially when you start making threats. (By the way, I don't permanently nuke those. If you or any of your abortion-infatuated friends ever follow through I want a e-trail.) You're a troll who occasionally says something that I feel warrants leaving up for the lurkers to read, or that I happen to want to respond to. But by and large you go through people's blogs posting deliberately misleading posts and getting snarky and nasty.
You claim that I'm putting up the anecdotes as freestanding proof that legal abortion is a deathtrap, because I don't put a disclaimer "For anecdotal purposes only." But you notice, I ALSO don't say, "See? ALL abortions are just horribly deadly for the mother!" I -- fancy this -- allow people to draw their own conclusions. Should I go back to pointing out everything for the benefit of readers who lack the capacity for independent thought?
As for what a wonderful saintly man Tiller was, the rat bastard KILLED BABIES FOR A LIVING. I realize that this is something you find admirable, but I find it deplorable and see no reason to pretend otherwise. Maybe you actually think that killing helpless babies is a brave, stalwart, and upright thing to do. I understand that some people really do think that way -- that babies are the scourge of humanity and that there's no better thing to do to make the world a better place than to come up with new and more efficient ways to kill babies. I have no idea what goes on inside the head of somebody who supports killing babies the way people like you do. The whole concept is as alien to me as the thought process that somebody like Ted Bundy goes through when he decides that bludgeoning coeds to death in their beds is a find hobby.
Christina, if you were seriously "inviting readers to draw their own conclusions", you would present BALANCED info. You would include stuff about the dangers of childbirth AS WELL as about the dangers of abortion. You would match your abortion-disaster anecdotes with abortion-benefit anecdoes, which are far more numerous. No. You are presenting biased info, and PRETENDING to invite people to draw their own conclusions, but you are not fooling anyone who knows anything about the issue, so you may as well 'fess up.
RE: "I have no idea what goes on inside the head of somebody who supports killing babies the way people like you do."
Can you understand that a lot of people feel exactly the same emotions you feel about abortion, but we feel them about forcing pregnant women to grow their unwelcome pregnancies and give birth against their wills? That is a GREATER violation than killing the babies inside their bodies on request! If fetuses were as innocent and morally-pure as you seem to think, they would not WANT to gestate inside another person's body where they were not welcome. A GOOD fetus would PREFER to be aborted, rather than to inflict such an outrageous violation on its mother.
RE: Saving an email trail for WHEN the counterterror begins. I appreciate that, but just for your info, law-enforcement is way ahead of you, very much aware of me and my blog.
RE: "Tiller was a rat-bastard" In that case, you should be able to criticise him WITHOUT misrepresenting his safety and competence. You should be saying, "OK, he was great at his job, one of the best in the western world, and yes, he provided relief to thousands of patients with horrific problems, BUT he was a rat-bastard".
Have you ever looked into WHY he did abortions? What motivated him? You should do that BEFORE you slander his memory.
By the way, lots of high-powered medical specialists and innovators are rat-bastards. Two words: Thomas Starzl. Oops, that's an anecdote, but you can take it from me, he's typical. The same applies to ultra-successful scientific and technical innovators generally. You have to be willing to be brutal to yourself--to suppress the desire to do anything in life other than your work for a very long time. The requirements for success select for ruthlessness and cunning. Go research how Thomas Edison treated his colleagues and competitors.
Oops, I wrote "slander". That's wrong. "Slander" means something you SAY. You are WRITING, not speaking, so what you are doing is LIBEL, not slander. Sorry for error.
I didn't say I was presenting "a balanced picture", trying to show people that babies really area the scourge of humanity and need to be exterminated in-utero before they slaughter us all. That's YOUR job.
My argument has been that the whole "let's legalize abortion to make it safe for the women" was bullshit from the get go, and that the people behind this bullshit knew it was bullshit. The goals of legalization were to make abortion more commonplace and to take away the legal repercussions for the practitioners of abortion. If by any happy coincidence this in some way benefitted the women in question, the abortion advocates weren't gonna cry about it or anything. But that wasn't the point. They CLAIMED it was the point, because that was how to get public sympathy. But "We don't want niggers to breed and we're tired of getting arrested" isn't a bandwagon the public was likely to jump on, was it?
Re: Your suggestion that the purpose behind scrapping abortion-bans was "We don't want niggers to breed and we're tired of getting arrested"
If we wanted to reduce negro breeding, the way to do that is to keep abortion illegal and INCREASE the penalties. Negros have unwelcome pregnancies more frequently than other ethnic groups. So they would be disproportunately sterilized, killed, imprisoned by abortion bans. That was one of the big objections to abortion bans, that they disproportunately target poor people and underclass ethnic groups.
And do you think it's unreasonable to be tired of getting arrested??? For providing patients with an essential freedom-component?
Christina, between your increasing use of obscene language and your nutty assertions, I'm starting to think you're unhinged. Everything ok at home?
RE: your characterizing the pro-choice position as "babies really area the scourge of humanity and need to be exterminated in-utero before they slaughter us all."
No, that's a pro-ABORTION position, that everyone should have abortions. The pro-choice position, in case you have forgotten, is: women who WANT abortions should have them, and women who DON'T want abortions should not have them. Hence the term, "choice".
OC, I'm reaching the point of shooting the console and muttering, "It was a boring conversation". I really think the only reason you show up here is that you know your presence is fingernails on a chalkboard to me. You're not a pure 100% troll, so I don't just nuke your posts, but you're rarely here for honest debate or presentation of information either, so I can't just note that you're here and go about my business. I have to respond, again and again ad nauseum to you saying the same thing again and again. You're like a Chatty Cathy and it's a matter of which groove the needle lands in when they pull the string.
I realize that the reason you don't just go hang out with other people who share your enthusiasm for abortion is that you're trolling for converts to the cause. And frankly, I get tired of trying to sort through what's bullshit on your part and what's an opportunity to get an interesting discussion started.
I wish the whole goddam thing would just go away. But it can't as long as there are people like you who insist that "I wish I wasn't in this predicament" means "I want my baby dead".
Christina, I know you're getting fed up with OC again, but I just wanted to let you know that I picked up on the Star Wars reference and it gave me a chuckle. That's funny that you wrote that because I almost quoted Star Wars to a pro-choicer making an assertion on Jill Stanek's blog, "So certain are you, young Jedi?"
OC: "A GOOD fetus would PREFER to be aborted, rather than to inflict such an outrageous violation on its mother."
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!! That's a good one. As if the fetus has a choice as to where to be conceived and gestated... However, the mother does even before the child is conceived.
SegaMon, even still.
The conceived-and-aborted fetus has no reason to complain. It gets to enjoy a short life in utero. That's just so much gained for it.
Sorry, but just as donating blood does not obligate me to also donate the NEXT transfusion the patient may need, just so, giving you a short life inside my body does NOT obligate me to give you a longer one too.
Thanks OC, your lack of reasoning may be the punch line to my next joke!
I'm glad you're amused, SegaMon, but the Body-Ownership/Justifiable-Homicide argument really is the philosophical right answer to the life/choice question. The answer is "Yes life, but choice ANYWAY".
It also explains the voting patterns in USA: Right-to-lifers win all elections except the ones that matter. (On the Presidential level that's 1992 and 2008, but the pattern applies on lower levels too--congressional seats in swing states.)
Americans are squeamish, and they feel sowwy for the poor widdle babies, but they absolutely will not tolerate the idea that normal women, women they know, might be forced by government to grow unwelcome pregnancies and give birth unwillingly to babies they do not want. Once American voters perceive that possibility, they vote heavily pro-choice. This has been the pattern since the mid 1970s, and the BO/JH argument explains and predicts it.
OC: "...unwelcomed pregnancies..."
I do not accept your premise. Every single pregnancy, except for the rare instance of pregnancy by rape, is certainly purposely created (aka "welcomed"). Unless you think the vast majority of women are so stupid that they do not know that sex has the risk of establishing pregnancy...
Again, you are very amusing! You fail to understand the most simple of concepts.
SegaMon, taking a risk of something does not mean you welcome the something. If someone runs me over while I'm crossing the street, the driver is liable, EVEN THOUGH by crossing the street I "welcomed" the possibility of being hit by a car.
If you're pregnant, and you would prefer not to be pregnant, then your pregnancy is unwelcome. By definition. No matter how you got pregnant.
SegaMon, taking a risk of something does not mean you welcome the something. If someone runs me over while I'm crossing the street, the driver is liable, EVEN THOUGH by crossing the street I "welcomed" the possibility of being hit by a car.
If you're pregnant, and you would prefer not to be pregnant, then your pregnancy is unwelcome. By definition. No matter how you got pregnant.
Christina, your server has a bug. I click, and it freezes; then I click again, and it double-posts. Fix, please.
OC, since when has it been a necessity to have sex? It certainly is a necessity to get from point A to point B. There is no way someone can avoid such necessity in life. Whether that be crossing a street or driving a car, we all have to do that to survive.
When I go to an amusement park with roller coaster rides, I am taking a risk that I understand and take full responsibility for. When I go onto a roller coaster, there is the possibility of injury and death. If I wouldn't want to take responsibility of that risk, then I wouldn't ride the roller coaster.
Sex is much like going onto a roller coaster rather than traveling from one point to another. We all must travel but we all do not need to ride a roller coaster!
If people do not want to take the risk of pregnancy, DO NOT HAVE SEX! Surprise! New flash! One does not have to have sex to survive!!! I lived 24 years without sex and I'm alive today!
Again, your reasoning is hilarious. Quit comparing apples to oranges.
To quote Christina: "Common sense is anything but."
Sega, sex is the means by which we reproduce. It never ceases to astonish me that people are absolutely shocked and outraged when sex results in reproduction. It's like being outraged that they drink beer and get drunk, or that they jump in the sea and get wet. What the heck did they expect?
SegaMon, the problem with your idea ("Don't have sex!") is: when the woman comes to the abortion clinic, she has ALREADY had sex.
RE: "comparing apples and oranges"
There's nothing wrong with comparing apples and oranges. I can do it easily, any time! Watch carefully. I say: "Apples are CRUNCHIER than oranges." There, see? I did it!
The CORRECT line is "you cannot COMBINE apples and oranges", meaning that you can't add two fractions until you have first expressed them as fractions witht he same denominator. "Can't COMPARE" is a bastardization, and wrong.
Christina, RE: "[Having sex is] like being outraged that they drink beer and get drunk, or that they jump in the sea and get wet. What the heck did they expect?"
How about expecting someone to help them OUT of the sea?
Sure, when you have sex, you are accepting the possibility that you might get pregnant. And you are accepting the fact that if you DO get pregnant, you will then have to choose between growing the pregnancy, and getting an abortion.
OC: "SegaMon, the problem with your idea ("Don't have sex!") is: when the woman comes to the abortion clinic, she has ALREADY had sex."
You have accepted my argument and moved on to another point.
Then if having sex was a "mistake", then killing an unborn child because of it is unacceptable. If I make a mistake by running a red-light and getting caught, is it okay to have absolutely no consequences!? We all must realize that we must take responsibility for our actions.
OC, once the woman is pregnant, the choices are a live baby or a dead baby. And the parents -- unless they're mentally defective or were in some way forced to engage in sex -- have no cause to act as if Fate has dealt them some cruel and unexpected blow. Sex is how babies are made. REAL adults get this.
Post a Comment