Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Doctor murdered by anti-choice terrorist

123457

Comments

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Originally posted by kobie173


    All the back-and-forth about the morality of abortion here is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.
    A doctor who performed a legal (albeit controversial) procedure was assassinated by someone acting as an agent of God. Someone with deep ties to Operation Rescue.
    This is domestic terrorism at its worst.
    Allow me to pose a hypothetical:
    A vehemently pro-Israel rabbi is shot to death in the lobby of his synagogue by a Muslim extremist who has well-documented ties to an Islamic organization that has been known to espouse anti-Israel sentiments.
    Now, how soon would the right-wingers be clamoring for the DHS to do something? However, all I see here is obfuscation and justification (sometimes veiled, sometimes not).
    The hypocrisy is astounding.

     

    That's a false claim. Can you actually discuss the issue without resorting to propaganda and lies?

    No claim has been made, so far, that anyone acted as an 'agent of God', no one has qualified which 'God' the murderer was an agent for, and no one has checked with that God as to whether or not he sent an agent to commit a murder. Try taking that accusation to court without proper evidence. Funny how atheists are usually the first to blame the God that they claim doesn't exist rather than saying simply 'men are corrupt and depraved and do sick things, either in the name of freedom and choice, or in the name of their imaginary deity, because they act as they see fit, regardless of the majority or those who might be hurt, to fulfil their own passions and agendas.'

     

    "This is domestic terrorism at its worst"

    Hysterical bullshit. It is a singular act of murder by an unhinged individual. Period. Leave it there. Quit applying the propaganda spin in order to justify the Patriot Act being turned on churches or anyone who disagrees with abortion. Take the incident for what it is, and stop the conjecture and the vivid imagination.

     

    And quit making disequal comparisons. A member of a group known for terrorism and mass murder which carries a Scripture-sanctioned mandate to murder Jews and non-believers, following the example of his religious icon and committing an act of murder or terrorism is part of a movement in which such behaviour is par for the course. A lone nutcase who has now been denounced by virtually everyone who ever knew him who might or might not have claimed a mandate based on a text which actually prohibits the mandate he claims rather than endorses it, following the 'example' of a religious icon who was, in fact, diametrically opposed to what the lone nut was doing is under no circumstances the 'same thing.' All you're doing is stirring hysteria on an anti-Christian, anti-religious basis, and since you don't seem to check the beliefs of the other 'lone nut' shooters to find out whether devoted atheism played a part at Columbine, or whether ideological humanists might cause harm to Christians, or abortionists might commit violent assault on pro-life advocates, or whether gay pride marchers might beat up on people peacefully holding anti-gay pride banners at a public event, your attempt to root out the source of ideological antagonism seems less than sincere and entirely biased.

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Originally posted by //\//\oo

    Originally posted by TheTen


    SQUIRT 5...




    So what, exactly, has modern science disproven which invalidates religion? Any religion? All religions?

     

      Atheism ~= Occultism? Interesting claim. I like how you bundle gnosticism and atheism together as well; sort of like saying oil = vinegar, because they're both on a salad.

    I guess if all atheists and agnostics have to take credit for the holocaust, then the rest of you have to take credit for every other atrocity committed by a theist.

    Of course you know better than those old greeks with their human sacrifices, boy fondling homosexuality and everything else negative you can dig up to ad hominem poor old Archimedes. Those Japanese too! Damn their culture! A culture that has anything you are averse to must be bad and horrific and worthless.

    I mean ... hey... it's not like they didn't find any results in mathematics, or anything. No sir, they took it all from the Egyptians who practiced all sorts of horrible things, so.. yeah the ancient world was all bad and they did nothing good.

    As for the separation of morality and science: Given that everything is quantifiable, some set of constraints will yield better results than others. Science could answer which are better, but morality does not allow itself to be quantified. 

     

     

     

     

     

    Gnosticism, in its purest form, is tantamount to post-modern rationalism. Gnosticism and atheism go hand in hand as philosophies in the modern interpretation. The term 'atheism' is applied lazily nowadays by people who feel the need to define themselves as part of a position that they're not intelligent enough to research and fully comprehend, but that's a different story altoegether. Equally, occultism in various forms rejects the notion of personal deity, and replaces it with the elevation of self, humanity as the highest authority, or with the notion of 'force'. I'll presume they didn't teach the philosophical delineations and harmonies in high school.

    And who said anything about 'atheists and agnostics have to take credit for the holocaust.' Holding an ideology accountable isn't the whole picture. If I remember correctly, it was the atheists on this forum who chose to blame Christians first, and then theists, because a mass infanticidalist got murdered by someone who may, or may not, have been acting under personal moral convictions which may, or may not, have any resemblence at all to the Judeo-Christian tradition. I simply raised the fact that atheism is not the pacific antithesis that 'popular atheists' like to make out, in their abject ignorance. You're only serving to prove my point.

    As for 'what theists are responsible for', I prefer sticking to real evidence and specific cases. The Third Reich was motivated predominantly by occultically leaning atheistic philosophies. That's an irrefutable fact. The fact that the philosophers engaged in promoting those philosophies at the time were actively promoting the very forms of expression that inspired the Holocaust only serves to convince me. By contrast, I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where the mass extermination of Jews is mandated in order to purify the population and create a master race, therefore I conclude that the Bible didn't play any form of direct influence in what took place. Individuals devoted to atheistic philosophy, justified by the fallacy of Darwinism did, however, and atheism and Darwinism have run in parallel with eugenics from their inception. That might be an inconvenient fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.

    Now, if you want to discuss what 'theists' are responsible for, be sure to be specific. It isn't a catch all where you can say 'all other events', or 'all theists'... Atheism is a specific position, not a generic umbrella. By identifying specific traits of specific philosophies and the individuals and groups who hold those philosophies as being of paramount importance or massive significance, we can see what 'atheists' DO with their atheism. So to discuss the 'theists', be sure to qualify which branch of theism you want to talk about, which events specificially you want to point out, and how the 'theism' in question is so deeply ingrained as the underpinning of the action in question. Hint: if you come back with 'the Crusades', then you're just an idiot who learned history  - and worldview - from the back of a cereal box, or by watching a YouTube clip of Richard Dawkins.

    With regard your comments about Greeks and Japanese and Egyptians, you're only serving to make my point. The Third Reich produced some brilliant engineering. But if you start making rulings that imitating them solely on the basis that what they did was popular, or accepted, or effective, then you've undermined the position by which you, as a human, rationalise and reason for yourself and you become a sheep, who will follow the crowd because it's popular. You've not yet noticed the fatal flaw in your tragically lacking logic... you justified abortion because the Greeks, the Romans and the Japanese, in your words, accepted it en masse (actually, utter historical nonsense, only showing the depth of your ignorance) but nontheless you made a case based on a justification which was founded entirely on historical precedent. The argument wasn't based on 'morality', and had nothing to do with whether science can or could ever prove that we SHOULD be, or can safely be, subjective about whether we murder innocent children. Instead it was based on the very warped idea that you invented that because some ancient people do it, or because some culture somewhere in the world does it, that therefore it is right. Some spiders eat their own children. Should we do that? Or are we a creature that learns, that rationalises, that empathises, that reasons, which does NOT feel compelled to behave like animals, or to justify our behaviour based on the fact that two thousand years ago some society might, as one society in a thousand, have decided that they would commit unthinkable acts against their own offspring. The Jews turned to cannibalism at Masada. Should we do the same? Do we make the rules for our lives, as I said before, based on ruling an allowance for the most extreme pressures that human evil can put us under, and live 99.9% of the time by rules which are based on making provision for incidents which happen less than 0.1% of the time. From Ancient Greece to modern America, can't we simply learn that rampant shagging and wholesale irresponsibility is a bad thing. Do we still need to resort to murder in order to clear up our mess? Do we call this 'civilisation'?

     

    "As for the separation of morality and science: Given that everything is quantifiable, some set of constraints will yield better results than others. Science could answer which are better, but morality does not allow itself to be quantified. "



    Rambling piffle. Was there a conclusion, or a point?

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Originally posted by kobie173

    Originally posted by aeroplane22

    Originally posted by kobie173


    All the back-and-forth about the morality of abortion here is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.
    A doctor who performed a legal (albeit controversial) procedure was assassinated by someone acting as an agent of God. Someone with deep ties to Operation Rescue.
    This is domestic terrorism at its worst.
    Allow me to pose a hypothetical:
    A vehemently pro-Israel rabbi is shot to death in the lobby of his synagogue by a Muslim extremist who has well-documented ties to an Islamic organization that has been known to espouse anti-Israel sentiments.
    Now, how soon would the right-wingers be clamoring for the DHS to do something? However, all I see here is obfuscation and justification (sometimes veiled, sometimes not).
    The hypocrisy is astounding.

    So are you suggesting that we initiate a police-state lockdown based on this one event? Domestic terrorism... really? 



    I'm sorry, but this is also hypocrisy.



    You don't even seem to be joking. It's not terrorism, it's a nut-job. If a Muslim attacked a Christian church in the states, I would also not label that terrorism, domestic or otherwise.



    Who are you to claim this is some kind of organized terrorism? We are so incredibly close to full-fledged fascism.. and it has absolutely nothing to do with republican or democrat. It is just the state of affairs and the line is becoming increasingly thin. So I suggest you stop throwing around TERRORIST just like the Republican conservatives did that you so hate. Yet here you are, revelling in gratuitous amounts of fear-mongering with TERRORISM no less.



    Do you advocate that we now infiltrate all churches or organizations against abortion? Perhaps we should increase the DHS force by 50% and go door-to-door to profile all suspicious church-goers and if anyone should speak out, a good face clubbing will stop it, don't want anyone making false arguments now, do we?



     

    1. Please point to where I suggested we initiate a police-state lockdown. Strawman No. 1.

    2. I'm not joking. It is most definitely domestic terrorism. It's just another chapter in a long line of bombings, shootings, attacks and intimidation on women's health facilities and doctors, a great many of the perpetrators of which have ties to organizations like Army of God or Operation Rescue. Am I saying the entire anti-abortion movement is in on this? No, of course not. But a few of the more fanatical organizations are, and they are pushing their members to commit domestic terrorism. Period, discussion over.

    3. The rest of your post is more strawman bullshit.

    More hysterical tosh.

    It's funny, the people with the least substantitive argument, who want to appear the MOST intellectual, all strut round internet forums using the same buzz words, and it's nauseating. Those words are 'straw man', 'ad hominem', 'appeal to authority'... You've learned plenty, you think, about how to classify styles of argument, but you know nothing about making one. You think that by stating the obvious with a definition you somehow invalidate the argument or rule it out.

    Incidentally, it doesn't look very clever, while you're dismissing 'strawmen', to invent one in the middle of your argument. Your appeal to the phantom invention of insinuated connectedness between what you fraudulently say are a 'long line of bombings, shootings, attacks and intimidation on women's health care facilities' is one such. Firstly, until it is organised, it is random acts of violence, unconnected from each other except by the fact that the individuals concerned might hold the same opinions for different reasons. Secondly, they aren't attacking 'women's health care facilities.' These people aren't gunning down anyone outside a gynocological medicine facility, or outside maternity hospitals, or breast cancer screening clinics. These are infanticide businesses. There's nothing remotely 'health care' about them. They aren't taking care of women's health, they are facilitating women's convenience. General Hospital surgery can take care of emergency terminations where a mother's life is in danger, special clinics and day centres are not required for actual emergency health intervention. A woman's life is not in danger from a pregnancy, she runs no significant chance of being in medical danger by being pregnant in any way that a trip to the local pedocidalist would be warranted. You're simply hiding the true nature of these multi-billion dollar businesses behind scientific sounding, clinical terms, and in doing so you're committing intellectual fraud.

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33

     Amazing doublespeak. While with one breath you decry this act as not Godly or Christian, you turn around and say that "it was time to pay the piper." Does that mean that this man deserved to die because he was one of the few doctors who refused to be intimidated into not performing a legal (albeit controversial) procedure? Because it sure sounds like it.

     

    Did you know that under Third Reich law, torturing Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Christian Conscienscious Objectors, amongst others, was 'legal' in the death camps and it was 'legal', in fact 'state policy' for scientists studying genetics and eugenics to perform horrific experiments on these 'patients' including partial birth abortion and infanticide, and that it was in this training ground that such techniques were perfected so efficiently.

    So there's still a disconnect between what is legal, and what is right. I'm sure you'll agree with that, after the last adventure in the Gulf.

    And you could just look at the comments which you are critiquing as being 'another way of looking at things.'

    You seem keen to blame God and the followers of the Christian God for this man's death. How do you know that he wasn't directly inspired by Satan, and that indeed he had outlived his usefulness, or indeed his usefulness was to be found in his martyrdom, and Satan inspired his murder in order to 'bring him home.'

    See... you don't mind blaming supernaturalists and even suggesting that their 'God' is evil and to blame, but you don't want to bother considering the implications of the supernatural flip side to that coin, do you? That would be far too complex a mythology to work through, I guess. Meanwhile, a well paid infanticidalist who knew amply the risks in what he was doing was murdered by someone who didn't like what he was doing. It happens every day in all kinds of places for all kinds of reasons, and you don't go on ideological witch hunts over those, so give it a rest with the hyper-emotional appeals.

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Originally posted by kobie173

    Originally posted by Scubie67


    I will say this : anyone who doesnt believe in the Death Penalty for convicted Murderers/Rapists who were of age to have morals but didnt act on them ,but believes in abortions to a baby who hasn't stolen/raped/murdered and is innocent there is some serious train of logic thought processes.



     

    1. Apples and oranges.

    2. I DO believe in the death penalty. It's one of the few "conservative" positions I hold.

     

    It isn't apples and oranges. A human life is a human life. Science cannot back up the nonsensical notion of 'fetus/baby/adult', because they are all developmental stages of EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Not apples and oranges. Apples and unripe apples.

  • PorfatPorfat Member Posts: 364
    Originally posted by Beatnik59


    I promised myself earlier today that I wouldn't enter into this debate, but I guess I'll have to break that promise.
    I just talked with a girl who is very pro-choice, and she made an argument that I can't say is flawed.
    She asked me to really think about what is the real difference between a baby in utero and any other parasite.  I mean, it takes from the mother without asking if it is alright.  The fact that it is human doesn't dismiss the fact that it is still takes from the mother.  If it were human, it could and would reason with the mother as humans do.  But it doesn't.  It just takes what it needs without any consideration for the mother at all, because it isn't capable of pondering what it is doing.
    Now granted, some may see the child as something other than a parasite.  But the real question, to me at least, is what we are to do if the woman carrying the child sees it as nothing other than a glorified tapeworm?  Try to convince her that it isn't?
    Because if you look at what the embryo does as opposed to what it is, it looks less like a human being, and more like a tapeworm.  It can't be reasoned with.  It will grow whether it is healthy for the woman or not.  It might even kill the woman, or cause a change in physical condition that may be unwanted.  Taken in those terms, who is to say that the woman needs to support this thing with her own body if she doesn't want to?
    Now granted, this argument isn't going to convince anyone who believes that embryos have human rights.  That said, none of the arguments that say that the mother needs to gestate this unborn (foetus, embryo, parasite, child, baby, etc.) are going to fly if the woman considers it a parasite.  Because none of the arguments about what an unborn (insert your descriptor here) does can distinguish between it and a parasite.
    Look, what's one woman's unborn child is another woman's life-sucking parasite.  And while you, or I, or Planned Parenthood, or Tiller, or Operation Rescue, or Chief Justice Roberts may all try and convince this woman about what it is; the woman who carries it is going to be the one who has the final say about what it is, whether we outlaw abortion or not.
    ...And there's not a damn thing any of us can do to make it any other way.
    So why not make it so that each woman can decide for themselves to either "rid themselves of the parasite" or "carry the baby to term?"  Because they are going to do it anyway with coat hangers and poisons if we outlaw abortion, just like they have for thousands of years...and women will die, just as they did for thousands of years.



     

    Your friend reasoning is flawed is a couple of ways.

    Unless she was raped it was a deliberate act of hers that caused her to become 'infected' with the 'parasite'.    If it was a 'parasite'  then there would be no problem with her removing it.     But its not a parasite its a unique human life that she through her own ACTIONS became the 'host'.    When your own actions cause you to become responsible for a human life it is your responsibility to care for that life whether you think its a parasite or not.

    But its not a life sucking parasite.   Pregnancy is not a disease or illness.   It does not shorten life and may prolong it.  (My grandmother had around 10 children and she lived to around 90)   If there is a problem with the pregnancy then most people agree its ok to terminate the pregnancy.   

    Also labels don't change the fundamental nature of things.   Using your friends reasoning a mother or father could kill their children.    They are parasites too.   And they can suck the life from you.     But you can not kill a human life because its an inconvenence.

     

    I'm a bad speller sorry.

  • outfctrloutfctrl Member UncommonPosts: 3,619

    This was one warped individual who killed this doctor, even his wife said he was obsessed with this guy.

    Now, I dont believe in abortion, but I wouldnt go that far.  Thats absolutely insane.  I guess he figured that by killing him, many babies would be saved.  What I heard on the news is that another doctor is coming to take his place.

    So back to square one.

    image

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33



    A fetus is not a baby. They are two entirely different things. A fetus becomes a baby when it is born or, at the very least, when it is viable outside the womb.

     

    You'd do better arguing that ice is not water...

    'Fetus' is an observationally based nomenclature. It is not a species. It is not a genetically unique object. It is simply a classification of a developmental stage of a human being in much the same way as a pupa or chrysalis is in the life development from a caterpillar to a butterfly. Genetically each stage remains entirely the same. There is no scientific basis for the notion that 'fetus becomes baby, baby becomes child, child becomes teenager, teenager becomes adult.' All are human, all are essential and inevitable developmental stages, and none is less sacred than the next in terms of 'right to life' or 'duty of care.'

    Also be careful starting to try to argue 'viability out of the womb.' People like you tend to fall down hard when you start trying to make blanket laws based on subjective variables.

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Originally posted by kobie173


    There is no "pretending." Taking the one exception and completely ignoring the absolutely extraordinary measures being taken does not automatically invalidate previous thought.
    Also, completely irrelevant to the point of the thread, which is that this was an act of domestic terrorism that so many are willing to either condone or say the victim had coming.

     

    Incorrect and false claim.

    It was not an act of 'domestic terrorism', it was an act of calculated murder. To the best of my knowledge no threats were made against multiple persons, no attempt was made to kill multiple persons. This is no more 'terrorism' than a hit and run is genocide.

    Quit the hysteria. You're sounding like a liberal crybaby.

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33

     Am I (or most sane people) all for late-term abortions? Of course not. I don't support them in any way.
    However, I disagree that this is "the way to go about solving these things." That may be a way to go about solving the issue of late-term abortion -- not the domestic terrorism perpetrated by radical anti-abortion groups.

     

    Hysterical.



    Straw man.

    Call the inquisition!

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539

    I don't personally approve of abortion. But then again, I am not able to get pregnant and don't know what would be my thinking if I knew a potential birth would kill me and how I would feel about that. Or if my having a baby with severe deformaties would be unfair to that child in life; just using the stupid phrase "Our child's retardations and deformaties are a blessing" is so silly when I hear that.

    This guy was bad dope, no matter which way this cloth is cut.

    He was unstable for years about abortion. His wife, old friends and family all agreed:



    "In 1996, a 38-year-old man named Scott Roeder was charged in Topeka with criminal use of explosives for having bomb components in his car trunk and sentenced to 2 years of probation. However, his conviction was overturned on appeal the next year after a higher court said evidence against Roeder was seized by law enforcement officers during an illegal search of his car.

    At the time, police said the FBI had identified Roeder as a member of the anti-government Freemen group, an organization that kept the FBI at bay in Jordan, Montana, for almost three months in 1995-96. Authorities would not immediately confirm if their suspect was the same man.

    Morris Wilson, a commander of the Kansas Unorganized Citizens Militia in the mid-1990s, told The Kansas City Star he knew Roeder fairly well.

    "I'd say he's a good ol' boy, except he was just so fanatic about abortion," Wilson said. "He was always talking about how awful abortion was. But there's a lot of people who think abortion is awful."


    There will always be another person to replace any ideology. Which is why murdering anyone over anything solves nothing.


  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33



    You know, that sure is an awful lot of words to say "I have not found any contradictory data to what you present earlier on late/partial birth abortion polling data from patients." Does it matter how bad you think my data was if you still cannot even find your own data to support your point? I was able to find mine refuting what you said rather easily as it actually existed. Yours still seems to be in the realm of Bigfoot and Nessy it appears, under the ever-vigilant gaze of Leonard Nimoy.

     



    The evidence of your unfruitful fishing expedition appears in the form of that giant wall of text above, with not one shred of data.Your statistical "FACT" point about 86.9% of statistics being made up on the spot, without having any actual "fact" statistic to prove that? Masterfully played... sheer genius! I mean, you are a practical forum prodigy for sub-50 posts! Such style, such elan!

     

     



    And kudos for your earlier posts' inclusion of Nazis.

     



    Most new posters to MMORPG.com are not able to work in a 'Nazi' or "Hitler-type" reference until well after their 100th post or so whereas you hadn't even hit 50. You sir, are on the fast track to posting greatness and quite possibly, a blog of your own like some of your predecessors here you'll read in their sigs that are usually short of factual data and long on opinion.

     

    See. here's your delusion.

    Your repetition of the singular source that you quoted, is not making it any more potent as a source of authority. Not only can the source not be trusted because of IT'S FINANCIAL TIES TO THE MULTI BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY WHICH WAS FOUNDED ON EUGENICS PHILOSOPHY AND NOW MAKES MASSIVE MONEY AS THE WORLD'S BIGGEST CONTIGUOUS PROVIDER OF INFANT EXECUTION but at the same time you cite the claims like they are in themselves an established and verified set of factual 'statistics' which should be established as the 'final word' until someone manages to invent some rival statistics to counter them.

    Statistics aren't scientific fact, therefore the premise of 'to dismiss them, you must disprove them' doesn't apply any more than it does when you find yourself unable to disprove a single word of a volume like, say, the Bible, but continue to insist that it is a pack of lies.

    Bring a credible source which isn't financially linked to an interest group which can verify its impartiality and objectivity, and maybe that will be worth discussing. Until then, the Guttmacher Institute isn't giving you what you want, except your continued dogmatic adherence to corporations and foundations established by racist eugenicists who had Third Reich sympathies.

    In your world it may be common policy for you to pull statistics out of your arse, or someone else's, and say 'here be the truth... now, disprove it.' In the real world, a plethora of evidence is considered, and the alternatives evaluated, before we rush to say 'all hail the truth...'

    You say 'I was able to find mine refuting what you said?' What was it that I said which was refuted? Be specific. I made an argument, you quoted propaganda statistics from an institute with a vested interest on keeping America producing unwanted pregnancies and sending scores of women to abortion clinics and said 'there... disproven.' Yet there was nothing scientific about your presentation of statistics, nor did it make any comment on moral validity or human rights. If I'd have said 'the solution to having prisons full of murderers is that murderers stop murdering', you'd have presented statistics for what percentage of murderers felt they had no choice but to go ahead and kill their victims? How is that a 'refutation' of the argument. All that you can claim it to be is a shallow and pointless set of point-missing excuses.

     

    "Yours still seems to be in the realm of Bigfoot and Nessy it appears, under the ever-vigilant gaze of Leonard Nimoy. "

    Flippant. Confused. Irrelevant. Apparently no point to this.

     

    The rest of your comments are as vacuous as your actual arguments. You should take up a job as minister of propaganda for the Guttmacher Institute, assuming you don't mind being paid in blood.

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
    (American Heritage Dictionary definition)
    How is it NOT?

     

    An individual was murdered. No threats were made. No sieges established. No promise of ongoing systematic action. No demands were made. No manifesto was published.

    A crazy guy, now disowned by almost everyone he knew, killed someone who he personally thought did not deserve to live. That is murder. It is not terrorism. It never ceases to amaze me how liberals and libertarians can fight tooth and nail to prevent governments from calling terrorists 'terrorists' and treating them as such, and then can turn on ideological enemies, and look for every reason to call them 'terrorists.' Childish and obfuscates the real issue and the simplicity of that issue.

    If this was an act of terrorism, then there is a terrorist movement in the United States against the Post Office, being perpetrated by dogs.

  • //\//\oo//\//\oo Member Posts: 2,767
    Originally posted by TheTen


    "As for the separation of morality and science: Given that everything is quantifiable, some set of constraints will yield better results than others. Science could answer which are better, but morality does not allow itself to be quantified. "


    Rambling piffle. Was there a conclusion, or a point?

     

    Of course no atheists are PhD's: They're all high school dropouts that could never hold a candle to your infallible reasoning faculties. 

    How did you get Gnosticism and Agnosticism wrong? I mean... a simple wikipedia could reveal just how inane lumping two contradictory beliefs together is (atheism and gnosticism). 

    You don't know what you're talking about even in the vaguest sense and merely use ad hominem after ad hominem to intimidate people from replying.

    That "rambling piffle" is the heart of the argument: What consistent set of statements proves, or what empirical argument do you have that shows that abortion yields a negative change in society's welfare? 

    Since morality is neither based on empiricism, nor proof it isn't sufficient to use moral principles to make economic decisions.

    That was the point and I didn't need a wall of insults to do it either.

     

     

    This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by TheTen

    See. here's your delusion.
    Your repetition of the singular source that you quoted, is not making it any more potent as a source of authority. Not only can the source not be trusted because of IT'S FINANCIAL TIES TO THE MULTI BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY WHICH WAS FOUNDED ON EUGENICS PHILOSOPHY AND NOW MAKES MASSIVE MONEY AS THE WORLD'S BIGGEST CONTIGUOUS PROVIDER OF INFANT EXECUTION but at the same time you cite the claims like they are in themselves an established and verified set of factual 'statistics' which should be established as the 'final word' until someone manages to invent some rival statistics to counter them.
    Statistics aren't scientific fact, therefore the premise of 'to dismiss them, you must disprove them' doesn't apply any more than it does when you find yourself unable to disprove a single word of a volume like, say, the Bible, but continue to insist that it is a pack of lies.
    Bring a credible source which isn't financially linked to an interest group which can verify its impartiality and objectivity, and maybe that will be worth discussing. Until then, the Guttmacher Institute isn't giving you what you want, except your continued dogmatic adherence to corporations and foundations established by racist eugenicists who had Third Reich sympathies.
    In your world it may be common policy for you to pull statistics out of your arse, or someone else's, and say 'here be the truth... now, disprove it.' In the real world, a plethora of evidence is considered, and the alternatives evaluated, before we rush to say 'all hail the truth...'
    You say 'I was able to find mine refuting what you said?' What was it that I said which was refuted? Be specific. I made an argument, you quoted propaganda statistics from an institute with a vested interest on keeping America producing unwanted pregnancies and sending scores of women to abortion clinics and said 'there... disproven.' Yet there was nothing scientific about your presentation of statistics, nor did it make any comment on moral validity or human rights. If I'd have said 'the solution to having prisons full of murderers is that murderers stop murdering', you'd have presented statistics for what percentage of murderers felt they had no choice but to go ahead and kill their victims? How is that a 'refutation' of the argument. All that you can claim it to be is a shallow and pointless set of point-missing excuses.
     
    "Yours still seems to be in the realm of Bigfoot and Nessy it appears, under the ever-vigilant gaze of Leonard Nimoy. "
    Flippant. Confused. Irrelevant. Apparently no point to this.
     
    The rest of your comments are as vacuous as your actual arguments. You should take up a job as minister of propaganda for the Guttmacher Institute, assuming you don't mind being paid in blood.


    Now that you seem to have completely lost your way amid your walls of text, let me remind you of what you still have not found an answer for, that we await from you.


    In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows-

    Reasons for later abortion:


    71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
    48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
    33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
    24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
    8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
    8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
    6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
    6% Woman didn't know timing is important
    5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
    2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
    11% Other



    You call my polling data "propaganda statitics" but again, and again you post text wall without showing anything:

    A) Proving that it is propaganda polling data


    B) Presenting non-propaganda polling data, propaganda polling data, polling data, data, or anything other than what comes out of the nether regions of your mind. Do you have anything that you can show as reasons why women perform late term abortions? At all? I have. You have not.


    Please try to stay on topic and not bring anymore space Nazis strawman comparisions, National Inquirer hyperbole or opinions. Please present some facts. For as long as it took you to type those two text walls, you should have been able to find SOME data about late-term abortion motivations... somewhere.

    Scientific? It's a poll asking women why they had these procedures done in the clinics. I'm not sure what you are asking for. Pi charts? Probability tables? See, the way POLLS work is... someone hands you a form with choices and then you choose which choice best applies to your situation. It appears that the data I put above gave these women plenty of choices, doesn't it? What kind of 'legitimate source' is to your liking? Do you have someone in mind? Can you provide one?

    I have no idea why you do not see the irony in this post you made:



    Originally posted by TheTen

    You think an argument of statistics is the basis of establishing fact? Fact. 86.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot and invented for purpose. They prove nothing.



  • eight675309eight675309 Member Posts: 246

    Self-reporting questioneer's related to guilty behaviors are almost always incredibly flawed.

    3/4 didn't realize they were pregnant for 5+ months??  Do you seriously believe that? Heh.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by eight675309

    Self-reporting questioneer's related to guilty behaviors are almost always incredibly flawed.
    3/4 didn't realize they were pregnant for 5+ months??  Do you seriously believe that? Heh.


    So if you got pregnant you would know right away, Jenny?


    Yes, women are not always able to tell when they are pregnant, especially ones that have never been pregnant before. If you ever get pregnant one day, I think you'll understand that.

    Where did "guilty behaviors" come into this exactly? Where did any of this claim these women all had "guilty behaviors"? Did you even read the poll?

  • LeKinKLeKinK Member Posts: 899

    I must say, french kissing the dog is one of life pleasure.  Most of us go all the way with them. Complete relationship. We are trying to figure out how to make babies.

    Well I should just say kissing since I am already french.

    Some of us don't even see the difference between a girl and a dog.

  • eight675309eight675309 Member Posts: 246
    Originally posted by popinjay


     

    Originally posted by eight675309
     
    Self-reporting questioneer's related to guilty behaviors are almost always incredibly flawed.

    3/4 didn't realize they were pregnant for 5+ months??  Do you seriously believe that? Heh.

     

    So if you got pregnant you would know right away, Jenny?



    Yes, women are not always able to tell when they are pregnant, especially ones that have never been pregnant before. If you ever get pregnant one day, I think you'll understand that.

     

     

    Where did "guilty behaviors" come into this exactly? Where did any of this claim these women all had "guilty behaviors"? Did you even read the poll?



     

    Look, dude, if you think a woman can go 5+ months and not know she is pregnant, then there is something incredibly wrong with you. Whether  that's ignorance or some kind of intellectual/logical deficiency is not for me to speculate on. But good luck with whatever problems seem to have confounded you so incredibly.

  • LeKinKLeKinK Member Posts: 899
    Originally posted by eight675309

    Originally posted by popinjay


     

    Originally posted by eight675309
     
    Self-reporting questioneer's related to guilty behaviors are almost always incredibly flawed.

    3/4 didn't realize they were pregnant for 5+ months??  Do you seriously believe that? Heh.

     

    So if you got pregnant you would know right away, Jenny?



    Yes, women are not always able to tell when they are pregnant, especially ones that have never been pregnant before. If you ever get pregnant one day, I think you'll understand that.

     

     

    Where did "guilty behaviors" come into this exactly? Where did any of this claim these women all had "guilty behaviors"? Did you even read the poll?



     

    Look, dude, if you think a woman can go 5+ months and not know she is pregnant, then there is something incredibly wrong with you. Whether  that's ignorance or some kind of intellectual/logical deficiency is not for me to speculate on. But good luck with whatever problems seem to have confounded you so incredibly.



     

    What about over obeses women?

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by eight675309
     
    Look, dude, if you think a woman can go 5+ months and not know she is pregnant, then there is something incredibly wrong with you. Whether  that's ignorance or some kind of intellectual/logical deficiency is not for me to speculate on. But good luck with whatever problems seem to have confounded you so incredibly.

    British Medical Journal, Denied Pregnancy Study

    Pregant without knowing it

    Hidden pregancies



    The common view that denied pregnancies are exotic and rare events is not valid. Deliveries in which the woman has not been aware of her pregnancy until going into labour occur about three times more often than triplets (1:7225, Hellin rule). Denial of pregnancy at 20 weeks of gestation, or later, occurs more often than rhesus haemolytic disease (1:1000 since Rhesus prophylaxis has become available) or a uterine rupture (1:1500). Denial of pregnancy may put both mother and fetus at risk.5

    The ratio of one denied pregnancy in 475 births is based on complete reporting within a large region (all births in Berlin metropolitan area during one year) and is representative for the total population of a German federal state. In all of Germany in 1995 and 1996 there were about 770 000 deliveries per year; on this basis we calculate that in about 1600 births the mother would not have been aware of her pregnancy at 20 weeks of gestation, or laterand each year 300 women would not have realised they were pregnant until going into labour.


    Unknown pregnancies (clinically referred to as "denied pregnancies) happen more often than you think and it has nothing to do with being women feeling "guilty". That's your ideal of the women, not theirs.

    In America 2005, there were approximately 820,151 abortions. Using the rate determined of 1 woman in 475 didn't know she was pregnant up to 20 weeks, that would mean 1,726 mothers would not have been aware of her pregnancy at 20 weeks of gestation.

    What were you saying about ignorance, Jenny?


  • eight675309eight675309 Member Posts: 246
    Originally posted by popinjay


     

    Originally posted by eight675309

     

    Look, dude, if you think a woman can go 5+ months and not know she is pregnant, then there is something incredibly wrong with you. Whether  that's ignorance or some kind of intellectual/logical deficiency is not for me to speculate on. But good luck with whatever problems seem to have confounded you so incredibly.

     

     

    British Medical Journal, Denied Pregnancy Study

    Pregant without knowing it

    Hidden pregancies



     



    The common view that denied pregnancies are exotic and rare events is not valid. Deliveries in which the woman has not been aware of her pregnancy until going into labour occur about three times more often than triplets (1:7225, Hellin rule). Denial of pregnancy at 20 weeks of gestation, or later, occurs more often than rhesus haemolytic disease (1:1000 since Rhesus prophylaxis has become available) or a uterine rupture (1:1500). Denial of pregnancy may put both mother and fetus at risk.5

     

    The ratio of one denied pregnancy in 475 births is based on complete reporting within a large region (all births in Berlin metropolitan area during one year) and is representative for the total population of a German federal state. In all of Germany in 1995 and 1996 there were about 770 000 deliveries per year; on this basis we calculate that in about 1600 births the mother would not have been aware of her pregnancy at 20 weeks of gestation, or laterand each year 300 women would not have realised they were pregnant until going into labour.




     

     

    Unknown pregnancies (clinically referred to as "denied pregnancies) happen more often than you think and it has nothing to do with being women feeling "guilty". That's your ideal of the women, not theirs.

     

     

     

     

    In America 2005, there were approximately 820,151 abortions. Using the rate determined of 1 woman in 475 didn't know she was pregnant up to 20 weeks, that would mean 1,726 mothers would not have been aware of her pregnancy at 20 weeks of gestation.

     

     

     

     

    What were you saying about ignorance, Jenny?

     



     



     

    LOL. Denied pregnancies are not all  "unknown" pregnancies. The majority of "denied" preganacies the woman is aware she is pregnany, but act as though they are not. Garbage in, garbage out. That seems to be all you post, in fact.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by eight675309

     
    LOL. Denied pregnancies are not all  "unknown" pregnancies. The majority of "denied" preganacies the woman is aware she is pregnany, but act as though they are not.


    I've just shown you a medical link that says a "denied pregnancy" is the term for a woman unknowing she is pregnant. That is a medical fact. I have no idea why you are arguing it is not.


    I really have no idea why you can sit at a computer and assume what you do above. It makes no sense that you can put YOUR mind in the mind of all of these women and know they are just "acting" when the data they filled out says they weren't.

    I starting to think you are posting just to argue, because the only way you can know all these women are "faking" is you must be a clairvoyant or mindreader, and know they are lying on the anonymous data they filled out.

  • eight675309eight675309 Member Posts: 246
    Originally posted by popinjay


     
     
     
    I've just shown you a medical link that says a "denied pregnancy" is the term for a woman unknowing she is pregnant. That is a medical fact. I have no idea why you are arguing it is not.
     


    I really have no idea why you can sit at a computer and assume what you do above. It makes no sense that you can put YOUR mind in the mind of all of these women and know they are just "acting" when the data they filled out says they weren't.
     
    I starting to think you are posting just to argue, because the only way you can know all these women are "faking" is you must be a clairvoyant or mindreader, and know they are lying on the anonymous data they filled out.

     



     

    The problem here is that you don't understand simple logic.

    ALL "unknown" pregnancies ARE denied pregnancies.

    SOME denied pregnancies  ARE "unknown" pregancies

    Summary:

    Denied pregnancy =/= unknown pregnancy.

     

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by eight675309

    The problem here is that you don't understand simple logic.
    ALL "unknown" pregnancies ARE denied pregnancies.
    SOME denied pregnancies  ARE "unknown" pregancies
    Summary:
    Denied pregnancy =/= unknown pregnancy.
     



    Jenny, you are right and you win. Here is your prize-winning post. I should have recognized it back then. Sorry.


    Originally posted by eight675309

    Look, dude, if you think a woman can go 5+ months and not know she is pregnant, then there is something incredibly wrong with you.


Sign In or Register to comment.