posted
Jim's clearly stated objective was to show WHY that statement, phrased the way it originaly was, was offensive to a lot of pewople. The statement was a comment about what happened was horrible, but it implied that the main thing they had a problem with was not the norrible act itself, but the political ramifications of it.
JIm then went on to use several other horrible things that happened to show why that type of statement would have been equally horrible even if the topic had not been abortion at all.
At no point did he attempt to equate pro-choice people with anything. He simply was using well known events to show how callus that phrasing seemed when applied to any sort of event that had gained national noteriety.
Also, just because someone might have felt sickened by all the political opertunistic movement (on BOTH sides of the issue) doesn't mean they are bigoted, nor did Jim say they were. I feel sickened all the time about how people get all caught up in the political games surrounding these types of events. It seems to me that a lot fo the time people din't care about the Mathew Shepards until something happenes to them, and then it isn't because of them as a person, but because they are suddenly worth some policical clout.
Jims stated purpose was the show how that same statement would not ahve been cool even without the abortion issue being involved, and IMO he succeeded. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand....Dag, you are the first person in this thread to state that unborn children might "want" anything, so a lot of the comments afterwords was actually in-line with that statement.
I know you make it in response to the line about women not haivng other choices than letting someone else control their bodies, but it is easy to prove that the women who are pregnant want something.
It is almost imposible to prove the fetuses do. That is really one of the main isses in the entire aborthion debate, and you know that full well.
At least we are all in agreement about this clinic. Shutting it down was long overdue.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand....Dag, you are the first person in this thread to state that unborn children might "want" anything, so a lot of the comments afterwords was actually in-line with that statement.
Yeah, but the response to that was to first play a word game and then to tell me to "cut the crap" when I pointed out the inapplicability of her word game.
quote:It is almost imposible to prove the fetuses do. That is really one of the main isses in the entire aborthion debate, and you know that full well.
As to the word "want," if the word can apply to one-day old infants ("he wants to nurse") then it can apply to third trimester unborn children.
I will absolutely NOT tolerate a double standard that makes it somehow more acceptable to introduce the pro-choice argument into a debate than the pro-life argument. I chose particularly graphic language because, if we are going to reduce an entire debate into one-liners, I want my one-liner to make people unable to shunt aside the grisly reality of abortion - chopping up an unborn child. (Edit: with the exception of RU, of course.)
An unborn child is demonstrably alive, demonstrably has the same genetic code from the completion of fertilization through death, and develops in uninterrupted continuity. "Want" has two meanings, one a conscious desire, and one as a shorthand for expressing motive in general, whether conscious or not. You know that. PL knows that. It was a word game to scare-quote want and use it the way PL did.
For that matter, "wanting to turn thier bodies/lives over to another being" is at least as imprecise as my use of "want." At the point of abortion, the body is "turned over" already. Contraception stops the body from being turned over. Abortion reclaims it. Sure, I know what she meant. That would be why I didn't mention it earlier. But she knew what I meant, too.
So, once again, double standards won't be tolerated by me any more here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me elaborate on the "sleeping bear" line.
Princess Leah, specifically, came into the thread with a chip on her shoulder and then, when responded to firmly, fled and implied Dagonee was making her angry with all his meanness. People responding took a neutral attitude for the most part, as if Princess Leah and Dagonee were equally at fault.
My point there was to say "if you come in guns blazing, don't be surprised when you get a faceful right back."
You might think the line and the attitude are bs, TL. Fine. Don't deal with me and you won't have to deal with it, but my days of fleeing forums because someone else is unhappy with my presence are over. If I violate the terms of the service agreement, report me.
To pH, you really are missing my point. I inverted the tables, not to compare the sides, but to say "how would you as a supporter of these things, feel about some hyper-conservative who said something like this?" I specifically turned things backwards to give empathy, not to draw comparisons between any of the parties involved.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Princess Leah, specifically, came into the thread with a chip on her shoulder
In fairness to PL, it looks like a decent percentage of the people posting on this thread came in here with chips on their respective shoulders. I suspect various groups are making political hay out of this for precisely that reason, in fact.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is quite possible to have a chip on one's shoulder without thrusting the aggressiveness and venom that results from it outwards.
Princess Leah did not do this. She had a chip on her shoulder, and TS to anyone who didn't think that was a big enough reason to say things like the true tragedy here is that those pro-life scumbags will make political hay out of this...because hey, people die all the time!
In my opinion nothing good ever comes from arguing from the position of, "It happens all the time anyway." I cannot recall ever hearing an argument that had that as one of its cornerstones that I was ever remotely satisfied with, because that's entirely a non-issue for anyone disagreeing with you. If they disagree with you, then they don't WANT it to be happening all the time.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not a direct parallel, but it's pretty close-- one real life incident, harming one real life person being used to highlight what a certain political group views as a problem... and then having someone identify that as the real tragedy of the situation.
Ooh... thought of another... (Matthew Shepherd, I think the guy's name was, for some reason forgive if I'm off) ... Imagine, in the wake the murder of the young gay man in Wyoming, someone saying "you know, the really sad thing is those gay rights and hate crime activists are gonna use this
That isn't equivalent at all. It isn't fair to compare pro-choice people to violent bigots.
-pH
It isn't fair of you to equate those who oppose hate crime legislation or changes to marriage laws with "violent bigots."
There are valid reasons for opposing both that don't rely on bigotry.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Princess Leah, specifically, came into the thread with a chip on her shoulder
In fairness to PL, it looks like a decent percentage of the people posting on this thread came in here with chips on their respective shoulders. I suspect various groups are making political hay out of this for precisely that reason, in fact.
Which brings us, again, to the point of my second post. I will not apologize for ripping someone who just ripped me. Especially when they are taking the unique tack of ripping my position, in advance no less, for using a real event to bolster its arguments. God forbid anyone should use an actual occurance to bolster their worldview.
I don't think anyone else needs to apologize, either, regardless of their postion, when they are merely meeting someone's aggression with blunt forcefulness as Dagonee did. A lot of people have commented here and elsewhere on the problems with the level of discourse, both on hatrack, and generally. The only problem I have is with people who are willing to dish it out and, not only can't take their own punishment back, but can't even take the remonstration of being called on their actions (a significant part of Dagonee's response was "you don't get to make semantical arguments and then call me out for doing so").
I was a bit sarcastic to Erosomniac's first post because that is my style. He and I have managed to get past that, largely because he has been gracious in accepting that and met me where I am while outlining further where he has been coming from. That's communicating.
As an aside, I haven't yet gotten to the factual issue involved in PL's first post, so while I'm at it...
From the Alabama Planned Parenthood site:
quote: Abortion Services Planned Parenthood of Alabama's Centers in Birmingham, Huntsville and Mobile offer abortion services. We offer pregnancy tests and ultrasounds as well as pregnancy options counseling. All of Planned Parenthood of Alabama's Health Centers are licensed by the state of Alabama and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and our compassionate medical staff is specially trained to make your visit as pleasant as possible. You can reach our Birmingham Health Center at (205) 322-2121 or our Huntsville Center at (256) 539-2746 or our Mobile Center at (251) 342-6695. All centers offer recorded information 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Appointments can be made during regular business hours.
Finding a safe, legal abortion provider in Birmingham doesn't appear to be too difficult. It took me about 30 seconds. I don't see Planned Parenthood suddenly being shut down as a result of this case, nor is there any indication in the article that Abortion services anywhere but this clinic are being targeted and curtailed.
posted
Wow. Couple things just for clarification...
1. Yes, I came into the argument with a chip on my shoulder (or, if you will accept a rephrasing, a strong opinion about the right to abortion that is not likely to be changed). Guilty as charged. Then I left, because I realized that arguing with someone who, like me, had strong opinions on this issue, was not going to do anything but make me angry and upset. I realize that my explanation could be interpreted as though I were condemning Dag and others for jumping in--that was not my intent, and I apologize if I came across that way.
2. Forgive my ignorance, Dag, but what is scare-quoting exactly? I'm not exactly sure why you thought I was playing word games there. I used the word "want" in quotations because it was the word you used. When you returned that not wanting ANYTHING meant that among the things not wanted was being chopped into bits, I felt that you were responding to my word choice, rather than the meaning I was trying to get across. I should not have responded as I did...as I said, I was angry--and when I realized that I was overreacting, I removed myself from the thread.
3. Obviously killing babies is worse than exploiting the aftermath of the killing. But the article wasn't "this doctor murdered a bunch of babies". It was "because of the murders, an abortion clinic was shut down". To paraphrase. A lot. I'm glad that %&#$*(% of a doctor is getting suspended, because he deserves it and more...and now that it's happened, the worst thing I can forsee happening because of the whole mess is members of the pro-life camp exploiting it in order to further thier cause, which, as a staunch pro-choicer, I feel is wrong. If pro-choicers also exploit this situation for thier gain, I feel that's equally sleazy, but honestly, I don't see anything that can be twisted to further that cause. This isn't really inherently an abortion issue, but an issue of horrible, horrible medicine. The quote in the article from the "longtime anti-abortion activist" about how it is "scandalous what's happening to women" really ticked me off, and is an example of what I was--am--afraid of happening as an end result of the clinic's closure, namely, anti-abortionists exploiting the fact that it was an abortion clinic where these atrocities took place.
I don't want to go back anything I said (except "cut the crap", because there I was WAY out of line, and I'm sorry). But I did post while too angry to be responsible and respectful of a contentious issue, and I apologize.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: You guys are getting way, way too pissy for me. I can't say anything without three people jumping all over me in a frenzy.
...it's kind of like being a freshman at a frat party.
-pH
See, pH, this is precisely what I have a problem with. You made a comment. People defend themselves and others from it, one of them by applying your specific tack right back at you, and *we're* the ones who are being pissy and acting like college freshmen at a frat party?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, pH, this is precisely what I have a problem with. You made a comment. People defend themselves and others from it, one of them by applying your specific tack right back at you, and *we're* the ones who are being pissy and acting like college freshmen at a frat party?
This isn't pissy?
quote:But I think you knew that. Personally, I'm pretty tired of people taking offense at analogies in these debates. "How dare you mention my cause in the same breath as [insert loathsome thing]! Take that back right now!" etc.
Sounds pretty pissy to me.
And I didn't say YOU were acting like college freshman at a frat party. I said that I felt like a college freshman at a frat party.
posted
I don't think Jim has been acting "pissy". He's indignant, certainly, but he is also presenting a good and rational case, and deserves more respect than you're giving him, pH.
quote:I can't say anything without three people jumping all over me in a frenzy.
You haven't quite tested the "I can't say ANYTHING" part of that yet So far, you're really only said one thing, and it wasn't very defensible.
It's like if I were to come into a room full of senior citizens and shout, "I hate all you ****ing geriatrics!" ... and then when they get mad, walk out saying, "Man, I can't say ANYTHING without people jumping all over me!"
That last statement would not be accurate, would it? I didn't say just ANYTHING, I said something stupid and rude. It's not that other people have a problem. I created the problem by saying what I said.
So take responsibility. You totally misstated Jim-Me and criticized his post when you had no apparent cause to. He's now indignant because of something YOU DID. If you want him to stop being indignant, I'm betting a correction of your original statement would do the trick. It might even get us back on track here, and out of emotional territory.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, to be completely honest it seemed that the word want in this type of discussion was a word game I had heard before, on Hatrack and other places.
A lot of people on the pro-life side will say if it can want it is "obviously" alive, and anyone who says otherwise is evil and ignorant....blah blah blah....
It isn't a human being yet, legally or in the mind of many, many people, and even if it was it doesn't have the same rights that the human mother already has, plain and simple.
It seemed to me that your "want" was implying a lot more than an automatic, insatiable hunger, but more of a value judgment, and I don't think I was reading too much into it. I know my personal views on abortion area mixed bag, but yours are very clear cut, and even if you didn't realize it that came across in your post.
THIS is what the original comment was about. We have now spent more time in this thread discussing (indirectly) abortion views than we did on the original topic. Once again it is all too easy to lose the individual tragedy in the large principles and arguments about abortion, and that is just a shame.
Rhetoric on both sides of this issue have been vented here already, despite the fact that everyone in this thread has condemned the actions of this dirt bag doctor and his dirty, unethical clinic.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:... I felt that you were responding to my word choice, rather than the meaning I was trying to get across.
This is exactly how I felt when you responded to my initial post.
Thank you for the rest of your explanation.
quote:A lot of people on the pro-life side will say if it can want it is "obviously" alive, and anyone who says otherwise is evil and ignorant....blah blah blah....
Actually, I know few people pro-lifers who would make that argument (and as you might imagine, I know a LOT of pro-lifers). For one, the "personhood begins at conception crowd" makes a point of NOT basing their argument on brain activity or consciousness. We are not ignorant of embryonic and fetal development. Even suggesting that possessing wants is at all related to the reason we oppose abortion seriously undercuts our central point - that human personhood is not based on ability in any way, shape, or form.
Many arguments against late-term abortion depend on the little difference between the abilities of an infant and the abilities of viable fetus. But late-term abortions are a small percentage of the activity we (again, referring to the "human personhood begins at conception" crowd) want to stop.
I parallelled the construction for rhetorical effect, but the effect was not related to the conscious choice definition of "want." It was tailored toward the contrasting of "turning one's body over to another" with being "chopped up."
quote:It seemed to me that your "want" was implying a lot more than an automatic, insatiable hunger, but more of a value judgment, and I don't think I was reading too much into it.
It might not be too much, but it is inaccurate. The value judgment was attached to "unborn children" and "chopped up." What you described as coming across in my post is something I don't believe.
quote:It isn't a human being yet, legally or in the mind of many, many people, and even if it was it doesn't have the same rights that the human mother already has, plain and simple.
You've identified the heart of the dispute. In the minds of many, many people an unborn child is a human being, and, while it doesn't have the same rights as the mother, it should have the right not to be killed. OK. How does that relate to my being able to post one-line summations of the issue in response to other one-line summations of the issue?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's like if I were to come into a room full of senior citizens and shout, "I hate all you ****ing geriatrics!" ... and then when they get mad, walk out saying, "Man, I can't say ANYTHING without people jumping all over me!"
That last statement would not be accurate, would it? [Smile] I didn't say just ANYTHING, I said something stupid and rude. It's not that other people have a problem. I created the problem by saying what I said.
So take responsibility. You totally misstated Jim-Me and criticized his post when you had no apparent cause to.
First of all, I didn't do anything close to saying, "I hate all these ***ing people." What I said was that I didn't think it was a valid comparison. And I still don't think it's a valid comparison. It wasn't stupid, and it wasn't rude. I was stating the way that I read what Jim-Me said. So no, I have nothing to take responsibility for beyond stating my own opinion. I didn't insult anyone in my initial post, and what I said in the post after that was an attempt to clarify my previous post.
posted
pH, Geoff didn't say that you did "anything close to saying, 'I hate all these ***ing people.'" He was presenting a clear example - which, by necessity, would involve behavior worse than that which he thinks you committed - to illustrate the difference between not be able to say anything without getting jumped on and not being able to say some specific things for specific reasons.
I still think you've done a terrible injustice to people who oppose hate crime legislation by equating them with violent bigots.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by me: Why is it wrong to imagine that the political outcome of this situation, which will affect thousands of lives, is more important than a life (a contentious word, but whatever) that has already been lost?
quote:posted by Dagonee: For that matter, Juxtapose's little parenthetical about the use of the word "life" is flat out ridiculous, considering that it wasn't the anti-abortion people who injected politics and the particular language of their cause into the thread.
Why, exactly, is it ridiculous that I would want to acknowledge the complexity of the issue? Or maybe you consider it ridiculous that I would want to add a caveat to my use of a controversial word so as not to be ambushed by it later in the thread, should I continue this discussion. Perhaps, instead, you felt it was ridiculous that I would clarify my position while other people who may or may not hold similar views to mine were making statement you disagreed with. Or is it because you thought it'd be easier to attack the parenthetical, which was clearly unimportant to the point I was making (hence the "but whatever"), rather than address that point?
I fail to see how that's as ridiculous as griping about who started it.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Finding a safe, legal abortion provider in Birmingham doesn't appear to be too difficult. It took me about 30 seconds. I don't see Planned Parenthood suddenly being shut down as a result of this case, nor is there any indication in the article that Abortion services anywhere but this clinic are being targeted and curtailed.
Jim-Me, this may not be as simple or straight-forward as it seems on the surface. I can share some information about how things worked behind the scenes (so to speak) in a different city (not Birmingham! not Birmingham!), but I'm not naming names. I'm changing incidental details, though, for confidentiality's sake, and I can elaborate on this privately if anyone has any concerns about this affecting the story. In my opinion, it doesn't, but I am happy to explain elsewhere.
By the way, I don't tell this story to drive home any particular point. I just want to natter on and reminisce (while I have a captivish audience ) and, more seriously, give a sense of the nuance that sometimes gets stripped from a black-and-white story.
I knew a young generalist physician who had been active volunteering at PP as a medical student and who sought out extra training in abortion in order to provide a regular provider there. You see, PP [in that city] had a small group of sort of "itinerant practitioners" -- physicians who would cycle through and around the surrounding states on a regular basis -- who provided their abortion services. A woman in search of an abortion would be seen by PP and then make an appointment for an upcoming time when one of the travelling providers was scheduled to make a visit.
Unfortunately (in all sorts of ways, actually -- and this part troubles me), the travelling providers were a pretty sleazy lot. Although the PP staff, as far as I am aware, did not have any reason to fault the surgical skills of the physicians, the staff as a whole got a pretty smarmy feel from the lot, and they made sure not to leave the patients alone with them, even while clothed.
It was frankly pretty horrid. PP wanted to provide what they believed to be needed, legal, and ethical services, but because of the way the situation currently works, they were unable to find an affiliate who they deemed to be a good doctor in every sense of the term. To them, it was a matter of chosing between evils, I guess.
(Of course, I know this is not going to serve as an argument to establish the morality of providing abortions, but I do take it as a given that none of us wish to see women -- or anyone -- receive less than quality care, and none of us want unethical/unscrupulous physicians working on anyone.)
That is, it is currently very difficult to find good training in providing abortions, in part because of the violent harrassment of providers that does occur (and death threats by mail, phone, and even to one's children are common, from what I've seen), but also because in this environment, it's the shady characters who just want to run women through as fast as possible (with the bottom line being money) who thrive. And then the training they would give -- if they even would concede to do so -- would not be of the best quality.
By the way, this is why that old provider I knew stayed in the business well past retirement age. He did not shuffle women through like cattle -- indeed, he spent time discussing all of their options with them, and he helped them find support to carry to term, if they chose.
The story doesn't have much of a positive ending. This young generalist was unable to find appropriate training (I'm glossing over a lot here, but it is appropriate to do so), and so -- in order to provide legal services, the PP was having to lower standards below what they wanted.
Mind you, none of these practitioners had done anything unethical that the staff at PP knew about, and they all were sufficiently skilled to do the procedures. I have no reason to think that this place was anything like the Birmingham clinic that Belle originally reference in this thread.
One might still state that the PP staff shouldn't have gotten involved with anyone that tripped their red flags, even if there was no evidence of inappropriate behavior. But then again, these people did believe that providing access to legal procedures was important, and they knew that a local place much more like the one Belle has described would be the only provider left for the area if PP stopped offering services.
It was not a simple situation. The best option for what they wanted to do was to bring in someone who they trusted, and the young physician would have been ideal -- if he had been able to be sufficiently trained. He wasn't. The bulk of control right now in the field of providing abortions is, IMO, being taken over by particularly unsavoury sorts. There are still good providers out there, but it is getting harder and harder to find them.
-----
By the way, I am not the "young physician" in this story, but he was my friend and one of my teachers.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is the line drawn? When does the child, in your mind, stop being a mass of useless tissue and start to be a person? If a mother wants an abortion, and at the clinic, her water broke, and she delivered, could she still kill that baby? Some babies actually go through an induced birth, and come out healthy and crying, and are then burned to death in a bucket of saline solution. These people have their entire lives ahead of them, and they are being killed for no reason other than inconvenience in more than 99% of all cases. Whether or not they are sentient, or they have feelings, is moot. If you were about to fall senseless into a coma, but you knew that you would emerge in a few months and live a full, healthy life, with an infinite number of ways to live it, would you want them to take you off life support? Would you be a useless piece of flesh?
And what about the risks to the mother? I recently met with a woman who had had an abortion at seventeen. She, like one out of every five women who ever undergo an abortion, will never be able to concieve again. There are also thousands of mothers who have died from blood loss, infection, or scarring after an abortion. All this, while there are alternatives like adoption and child-care available to anyone who asks.
I could go on and on, but no one cares what I say anyway.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Where is the line drawn? When does the child, in your mind, stop being a mass of useless tissue and start to be a person? If a mother wants an abortion, and at the clinic, her water broke, and she delivered, could she still kill that baby? Some babies actually go through an induced birth, and come out healthy and crying, and are then burned to death in a bucket of saline solution. These people have their entire lives ahead of them, and they are being killed for no reason other than inconvenience in more than 99% of all cases. Whether or not they are sentient, or they have feelings, is moot. If you were about to fall senseless into a coma, but you knew that you would emerge in a few months and live a full, healthy life, with an infinite number of ways to live it, would you want them to take you off life support? Would you be a useless piece of flesh?
And what about the risks to the mother? I recently met with a woman who had had an abortion at seventeen. She, like one out of every five women who ever undergo an abortion, will never be able to concieve again. There are also thousands of mothers who have died from blood loss, infection, or scarring after an abortion. All this, while there are alternatives like adoption and child-care available to anyone who asks.
I could go on and on, but no one cares what I say anyway.
Well, FToS, reliable citations (e.g., for the 1-in-5 number) would be helpful, although I suppose not quite necessary.
I'm pretty sure that, once again, I can't offer much to the discussion in response to the details and wording of your concerns (at least, not without becoming pendantic), but that definitely doesn't mean that someone else may not. As Dagonee noted (and thanks, sugar!), I don't want to squelch others' discussions.
quote:Why, exactly, is it ridiculous that I would want to acknowledge the complexity of the issue?
For one thing, the use of "life" and related words such as "murder" in my posts on the subject were based on the value judgments of the person who voiced the comparison. At this point in the discussion, "life" wasn't a contentious word because both sides agreed that a life was lost. It was a 6 pound 4 ounce baby that was stillborn. The word "murder" was used by the person who made the value judgment that the use of this incident by pro-lifers was "worse" than the (a value judgment she has since clarified and stepped back from).
Because at best that alludes to one portion of the complexity of the issue. You're only acknowledging the doubt on one side of the issue - which is a ridiculous thing to be doing when, as you yourself state, it wasn't important.
quote:Or maybe you consider it ridiculous that I would want to add a caveat to my use of a controversial word so as not to be ambushed by it later in the thread, should I continue this discussion.
Yes, that's ridiculous, too.
quote:Perhaps, instead, you felt it was ridiculous that I would clarify my position while other people who may or may not hold similar views to mine were making statement you disagreed with.
That clarified nothing.
quote:Or is it because you thought it'd be easier to attack the parenthetical, which was clearly unimportant to the point I was making (hence the "but whatever"), rather than address that point?
Don't flatter yourself. I referenced it as an example of a larger point. You were merely a convenient example of the double standard.
As to your larger "point," it's both lacking a factual basis - this incident is not going to alter the larger abortion debate one iota - and represents a reprehensible value system if you truly believe that the potential propaganda is worse than the murder. And, lest you forget, the word murder was not mine, but the person making the initial comparison I took issue with.
So yes, because the acknowledgment of the complexity was one-sided and because there was not contention about the use of the word "life" in the discussion you inserted yourself into, that parenthetical was ridiculous.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As Dagonee noted (and thanks, sugar!), I don't want to squelch others' discussions.
You're incredibly classy, CT, and even though I often take a different path in these discussions than you do, I have great respect for how you handle yourself.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:* n the US: Frequency depends on gestational age (GA) at time of abortion and method of abortion. Complication rates according to GA at time of abortion are as follows: (1) fewer than 6 weeks, less than 1%; (2) 12-13 weeks, 3-6%; and (3) second trimester, up to 50%, possibly higher. Mortality/Morbidity: Mortality and morbidity depend on GA at time of abortion. In the US, mortality ra
Those numbers are for all complications, and my understanding is that most abortions are in the first trimester. It is possible even in light of these numbers that 1 in 5 are thereafter sterile, but it seems very unlikely.
There are very serious potential effects of abortion, no doubt, but factual inaccuracies weaken the pro-life argument.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:At this point in the discussion, "life" wasn't a contentious word because both sides agreed that a life was lost.
Although it is in the larger debate, which is what I was trying to be mindful of.
quote:Yes, that's ridiculous, too.
Because it's clearly never happened before. And certainly not in abortion discussions.
quote:Don't flatter yourself. I referenced it as an example of a larger point. You were merely a convenient example of the double standard.
Then you chose a poor example for a poor point, as I wasn't setting up or reinforcing any kind of double standard, nor do I think anyone in this thread has.
quote:As to your larger "point," it's both lacking a factual basis - this incident is not going to alter the larger abortion debate one iota
No more lacking than yours.
quote:and represents a reprehensible value system if you truly believe that the potential propaganda is worse than the murder.
I believe the propaganda could have the potential to cause worse than the loss of a life. I'm not sure if this is a murder or not.
quote:the acknowledgment of the complexity was one-sided
I confess this statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's nothing one-sided about recognizing that people disagree about the meaning of the word in the context of abortion. For the record, I do think of this baby as life, and I wouldn't try to raise doubt about the fact.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some babies actually go through an induced birth, and come out healthy and crying, and are then burned to death in a bucket of saline solution. These people have their entire lives ahead of them, and they are being killed for no reason other than inconvenience in more than 99% of all cases.
I thought partial-birth abortion was illegal nowadays.
quote:As Dagonee noted (and thanks, sugar!), I don't want to squelch others' discussions.
You're incredibly classy, CT, and even though I often take a different path in these discussions than you do, I have great respect for how you handle yourself.
I blush. Seriously, that's a heckuva compliment, especially coming from you.
I wonder if the 1 in 5 number isn't the number who become sterile because of the abortion procedure itself, but who become sterile afterwards (i.e., a correlation rather than a causation). I can certainly make a case for there being an increased correlation with PID ([one of] the primary cause[s] of fertility issues in the US, not including increasing age) in women who either do not have access to or who are chosing not to use sufficient birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and who may well be making other less than stellar decisions (be it from being in desparate situations, ignorance, lack of caring, what have you).
Still seems like an awfully high number, though, and it doesn't reflect what I have been taught about PID. And even so, it would have been perhaps somewhat misleadingly worded in the initial claim here.
posted
I heard that number in a presentation done by a member of the pregnancy support center. The woman I talked to was sterile because of it. And yes, that does include post-abortion complications.
Dagonee, that link you posted didn't mention sterility as a complication. If anyone finds a link with a more reliable fact, or if I find one, post it.
pH, the babies are aborted a few weeks or months before their due date. Not all baby-killing happens in the womb. They could survive, however, if put into intensive care. I was born a month prematurely, and I'm pretty much fine.
My main points were in the first paragraph, but your points, CT and Dag, are taken.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: I heard that number in a presentation done by a member of the pregnancy support center. The woman I talked to was sterile because of it. And yes, that does include post-abortion complications.
What I'm not sure about is whether the ratio is supposed to include "only post-abortion complications," which I take to mean "sterility as a direct result of the abortion procedure itself."
Was that what you were trying to say, or did you mean to include other things (not related directly to the procedure itself) in the "post-abortion complications?"
(Just trying to piece this through.)
I'm pretty sure something like sterility as a complication would be tracked by the CDC. It might be worth searching the MMWR (Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, a CDC publication) for this information, or search the main CDC website.
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: pH, the babies are aborted a few weeks or months before their due date. Not all baby-killing happens in the womb. They could survive, however, if put into intensive care. I was born a month prematurely, and I'm pretty much fine.
I'm also not sure exactly what you mean by this, and I'm probably misunderstanding you. It's one of the reasons I have trouble participating in these discussions -- stuff goes by so fast, and I'm not that sharp.
Do you mean to say that there is a substantial problem with babies being born and then drowned in saline in this country? Or do you mean worldwide? Or that it is a tragic and horrible event, albeit rare, in this country?
[Edited to add: I get that this topic is one of particular passion and interest to you, and I respect that. I come from a family that self-identifies as pro-life (very devout Catholics), and I was that way myself before I started teaching ethics classes as a grad student. Piecing through the details brought me to a different understanding, although I am full aware that someone can be exceedingly well-informed and yet come to a different conclusion than I did. Not the first time, not the last.]
quote:People responding took a neutral attitude for the most part, as if Princess Leah and Dagonee were equally at fault.
If this was aimed at me, please note what I said earlier...:
quote:Dag, I meant no disrespect to you. I know this topic tends to polarize Hatrack and bring out the nasty verbiage like few other topics do around here. At any rate, I wasn't trying to BLAME anyone, but to ask people to step away from the fray.
I also wasn't analyzing who said what first, so, again, it wasn't an attempt to afix blame for the thread going in a bad direction.
It may be a distinction you'd care not to acknowledge, but it is indeed possible for a person to wish for a more level-headed discussion and not really care who said what first.
I've done it the other way here in the past and I can certainly understand if someone thought I was not acknowledging the right of pro-life people to express outrage. But I was trying to do something different -- get the discussion back on track.
Anyway, I think it seems to be getting onto a less angry footing, and I'm very glad of it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: pH, the babies are aborted a few weeks or months before their due date. Not all baby-killing happens in the womb. They could survive, however, if put into intensive care. I was born a month prematurely, and I'm pretty much fine.
That's the thing...I think people who were born preemie tend to get more up-in-arms about it. I don't know; I was born way late. But like I said, I thought that partial-birth abortion was illegal now.
posted
Dag, that is why I mentioned it...I know full well that it is very possible in these types of discussions to have miscommunications, particularily in sensitive matters such as these. Just because I read something into a post doesn't mean that was the intent of the post.
That being said, I have heard those types of arguments from pro-life supporters myself, so I know my thought on the subject were valid...at least in my mind.
Semantically, I know what the mother in that situation wants....I have no idea if a fetus wants anything at all.
Too bad semantics aren't the heart of the matter, though.
posted
I think people who were born preemie tend to get more up-in-arms about it.
I was born at 7 months, and adopted, and I'm pro-choice.
Although I wouldn't have problems with laws preventing late-term abortions as long as exemptions for medical emergencies were included. My wife's mother had a late term abortion after she began hemoraging and the option was to save her or lose both. Since Teresa was born after her mom (barely) survived the previous attempt, I have big problems with any anti-abortion legislation that prevents a doctor from exercising medical judgment.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that all hospitals should be shut down. I mean, egregious examples of malpractice have happened, so clearly, medicine is the problem.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I was actually thinking of your post when I wrote that, but I didn't mean it to be critical, as it apparently sounded. I think peacemaking is generally a good thing and I wasn't trying to denigrate your course of action, but to explain that, apart from (I think) one line from Rakeesh, no one was taking *my* course of action and that's why I felt compelled to speak up... which is not meant to imply that Dagonee can't take care of himself, of course
CT, thanks for the story. I was oversimplfying to be sure.
Lisa, I don't think anyone has suggested that this story is a reason to be pro-life. Several people have suggested that it could be pro-life propoganda, as I suggested that clinic bombings and physician murdering are excellent pro-choice propoganda. Strictly speaking, neither should have any effect on people's positions, but a visceral response can be a powerful thing.
Edit: this brings up an interesting point-- is propoganda, in and of itself, an immoral thing? I don't mean lies, I mean this type of thing, using an emotionally impactful or manipulative thing to help sway an audience. Where is that different from rhetoric and style? the words "rhetoric" and "propoganda" are often used as negatives... I think with the implication that all the other side has to offer is these emotional appeals... but in the abstract rhetoric and emotional appeal are essential parts of persuasion. Ask any trial lawyer, right Dags?
posted
Yes, CT, it is pretty important to me. Whenever people die for no reason, people who could have done anything with their lives, it saddens me. The statistics probably include all women who have had an abortion, who have become sterile.
Chris, Hospitals offer that service. In the rare case of life and death, it is the mother's right to live, even if it kills the baby. That's done in the hospital. Almost all pro-lifers agree on this point.
It is the existence of abortion clinics, where people commit infanticide for no other reason than convenience, that angers people.
Whenever we want to commit an atrocity against another group of people, we dehumanize them. It's been done to native americans and blacks in the U.S., to make it possible to mistreat and enslave them. In Germany, the law refused to accept Jews as people, because they couldn't slaughter people. And how long ago was it that the constitution accepted women as persons? Not as long as some might think. And in all those cases there were people who used propaganda to inurepeople to the status quo.
Nobody took my first post seriously enough to answer my questions. They actually weren't rhetorical.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-me...thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to be dismissive of you or Dag's position on this issue, but I can see how my comment might've come across that way.
...
Ironically, I think a case could be made for degradation of care in these facilities (or even the very existence of separate, sub-par clinics dedicated almost solely to abortion services) being due to the controversy and political pressure surrounding this issue and the clinics themselves.
Given a choice, a person would have to be specifically motivated to be working in this area, seems to me. For some, the motivation might well be a concern for women and wanting to see that services are provided safely. As with any rare commodity in our society, the financial motivation surely creeps in. So...it stands to reason that as protests are more successful, the cost of these services (and the motivation for those seeking to make a buck) is going to rise.
If this is true, one might predict that communities with high rates of protest at clinics would be the places where the more mercenary practices would prevail.
Other motivations (both for staying in and getting out of the business) are, of course, possible. Many doctors would stay away from such clinics for reasons of conscience, I assume. It just seems to me that there's a dynamic here that I'd never really thought through before.
I'm betting that countries with socialized medicine and legal abortion don't see this kind of thing very much. I wonder if our Canadian and British members might weigh in on this. I mean, I know they have protests in those countries too, but the "false economy" hasn't been set up there like it has here in the US.
At least, I assume women in those countries get abortions through the usual health care network, not through private clinics, for the most part.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The statistics probably include all women who have had an abortion, who have become sterile.
Don't you know?
It would seem to me that before citing statistics, you'd want to know what's measured (and what isn't) before trying to use them in a discussion.
Around here, it's usually considered bad form to cite stuff without providing the source. I note that more than one person has asked you to provide a link. Is there some reason that you haven't done so?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right Bob, we don't see too much of what happened in Alabama up here. The babies are killed cleanly.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
See my prior posts. Have I given you any reason to believe that I would engage you in the manner you seem to desire?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I reiterate, I heard that fact at a presentation. Maybe I misheard, and she actually said 5%. If so, I retract that statement. However, 5% of the millions of aborted women is still very many women.
Dag, again, your point is taken. People will use a numerical inconsistency to try to refute your entire statepoint.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I'm not trying to engage anybody, I'm just calling abortion what it is-baby killing. If I offended you, I'm sorry.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He didn't. I just stated it as a matter of fact. Keep in mind that I'm a little high school kid that doesn't know much about how to phrase things calmly.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle's story about the doctors wishing the sick woman to be taken down stairs instead of the elevator to avoid the controversey is horrendous.
Clearly this clinic, at least, was taking advantage of people in a desperate situation, without care or compassion for either mother or child. I'm glad it has been shut down.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If abortion is truly baby-killing and if you truly believe that, I very much doubt you're sorry for offending anyone by saying it.
I certainly wouldn't be sorry if people objected to my labeled unprovoked killing of other human beings as 'murder'. Therefore I doubt you are, either. Or if you're sorry, then I suspect you don't in fact believe abortion is simply baby-killing. There is a great deal of room for nuance in this discussion when it comes to intent.
As for being a little high school kid, then by so labeling yourself and by engaging in admittedly high-schoolish behavior...is there a reason people shouldn't treat you like an immature teenager not worthy of an adult's helping of respect and attention? A reason why you should not be treated as someone who wants to say rude things addressing points not made, and weasels out of it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
