Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,910 Year: 4,167/9,624 Month: 1,038/974 Week: 365/286 Day: 8/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 390 of 440 (141595)
09-11-2004 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Trump won
09-11-2004 2:33 PM


Earlier in this thread you were saying otherwise.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please point out what you feel was my saying that the definition of life is NOT based on personal religious/philosophical beliefs.
I think there is a misunderstanding on your part.
I am "pro-cells eventually becoming a living thing"
Why do you feel that the rights of cells should outweigh the rights of a fully grown host organism?
And if you really feel this way, are you carefully keeping all of your sperm so that each one will become the life that it can be?
c.r.e.a.m. corrupted capitalist society
I've never heard this before. What does it mean?
A fully grown woman's right to life doesn't get voided because she isn't going to die is she? As I said before if pregnancies are life threatening,rape,incest she should be able to get an abortion.
I see, so in your imagination pregnancies work like this: A women discovers she is pregnant and at the same time whether it will turn out to be life threatening?
Perhaps you should read more about pregnancies and how they actually work. When a woman first find out she is pregnant there may be no clues whatsoever that something bad is going to happen. It is a RISK to continue with the pregnancy.
It may be a smaller risk if there are no known problems... and you know what great medical analyses poor people can afford... but there are still risks. And they may be life threatening to the child, to the mother, or both.
No threats may materialize until the gestation is well along... the gestation CAUSING the new situation to emerge.
The best chance for the mother is to stop a pregnancy before a pregnancy is far along. It is also more reasonable to stop a pregnancy that a woman is not wanting before it becomes a known immediate threat to herself.
If a woman has a right to life, she has a right not to gamble it.
I base it on freedom, in that giving everything a chance to life, especially if you're responsible for creating it.
Oh, well then you have no problem with abortion then (which is removing a parasitic cellular life from the host) as long as they allow the tissue to continue outside the body and not simply destroy the cells?
Or are you feeling that it has some "other" destiny? That it is the same as a full grown human and should be allowed to become a human?
If so, then what other than religion allows you to believe those cells have some "full human" quality? That they should be "given a chance"?
And I will repeat my earlier question... so you actually preserve all of your sperm so that they will all have a chance to live?
It wouldn't have refuted your beliefs regarding abortion, I was speaking of your belief that ethics do not require religion.
Mmmmm. Yes, you seem to be confused all over the place. Let's just end it with the realization I was not saying ethics is necessarily based on religion.
Indeed much of what I discussed here regarding the definition of life isn't even ethics, but metaphysics. And I have a feeling that'll get things even more crazy than they are already.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Trump won, posted 09-11-2004 2:33 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Trump won, posted 09-11-2004 3:55 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 391 of 440 (141596)
09-11-2004 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Trump won
09-11-2004 2:45 PM


Wait a second...
schraf:
IUD's prevent implantation of fertilized eggs.
Do you oppose the use of IUD's?
And then you:
No I don't,
That stands in stark contrast to your statement to me that all life must be given a chance to live. How is this line of where life can be removed from a woman's body shifting? What criteria?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Trump won, posted 09-11-2004 2:45 PM Trump won has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 392 of 440 (141600)
09-11-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by JustinC
09-11-2004 2:40 PM


Nice post, and I'm sure RAZD will like it too.
Now here is my issue. In making this case that "cessation" is essentially no different than "lack of", I am still not sure that is applicable to fetal life.
I mean I totally understand that what has been shown is that under common usage we would not consider it a "person". The problem lies in the fact that the "lack of" is only temporary.
If you were knocked down to just CPN functions, lets say for the purpose of an operation, most people would probably NOT be happy with doctors being able to simply stop the operation because at that point you are no longer a "person". The fact is, given time (the rest of the operation), you would be back to being a person.
A fetus "lacks" the characteristics because at that stage of development it is not supposed to (imagine consciousness developing FIRST). Yet is is continually changing to a point it can have those characteristics.
Okay so not person, but certainly not the same as dead, and not the same as someone knocked into a permanent CPN state.
A fetus is SIMILAR, but not the SAME. And the ethics may be different, or viewed differently.
I will add that people who believe in souls and things like that may very well be happy with a CPN life.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by JustinC, posted 09-11-2004 2:40 PM JustinC has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 394 of 440 (141615)
09-11-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Trump won
09-11-2004 3:55 PM


"Your specific metaphysical position"
Are you saying your metaphysical position is NOT based on your religious beliefs?
What rights of a woman are being violated in have a child she helped create?
The right to choose her own reproductive destiny. Children may very well be viewed as the extension of one's own life. I have already explained this to you. You should have the ability to decide whether conditions are right for reproducing yourself or not.
But again, we are also talking about her right to life.
Yes there is a risk and if it is a severe life or death situation she should be able to have an abortion. Doctors will know at some point during the pregnancy if there are potentially any severe risks in having the child.
Wow, you just don't get it do you? You can't magically know in advance that there will be a problem or how bad it will be. What might seem no big deal may be huge later.
Sometimes LATER may be too late. They will "know at some point"? You've never heard of a woman dying in childbirth to the surprise of doctors?
Some complications only occur DURING delivery.
You have a very fantasy oriented vision of what being pregnant and giving birth is actually like.
It's all about money in this country.
What does that have to do with only being proChoice or proLife?
Because I was given a chance.
Are you saying that in the womb you were conscious of some deliberation going on and were glad the kept you? Or that you were born and years later look back and are glad you were born?
Gee it's too bad you can't be a girl that's pregnant and not wanting to have a child, so that you can understand what it's like to want to be given a chance to determine your own reproductive destiny.
Maybe once given that, you'd be appreciative of what they want.
You feel that my position on this issue is because of religion, if ethics need religion that you have refuted your beliefs is what I said after you asserted why I carry this position.
You are confused. Your position is based in large part upon a SPECIFIC METAPHYSIC which is driven by a religious belief. In addition YOU also have an ethic which I believe is driven by YOUR religious beliefs.
None of this contradicts my position, nor does it suggest that ethics MUST BE driven by religion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Trump won, posted 09-11-2004 3:55 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Trump won, posted 09-12-2004 3:09 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 399 of 440 (141790)
09-12-2004 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Trump won
09-12-2004 2:49 PM


It seems to me that all of these "future babies" never get to experience life because of future mothers having abortions. It doesn't seem right to me. But I guess you can't stop it.
They are not "future babies"... unless you have some magic way of telling which fertilized eggs will be "future babies", as opposed to being "future menstrual fluid", "future self-aborted fetuses", "future still born", and "future massively deformed being".
You need to get your head out of this fantasy world of "future babies" inside equally person-like "women", where every problem is known by doctors from the beginning, or in time to do anything. And that every child "given a chance" was better off for having had that chance, when it was known they'd be entering a life of adverse poverty and no home life.
I'll tell you what though, guaranteed everyone is a "future corpse". So maybe this is just maximizing that teleology?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Trump won, posted 09-12-2004 2:49 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Trump won, posted 09-12-2004 3:13 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 403 of 440 (141813)
09-12-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Trump won
09-12-2004 3:09 PM


Subjective,opinion cannot be substantiated. A child is ones own self not the mother in another body.
1) These two sentences contradict. At least as much as your assertion that a fetus is a child, and that a child is its own self and NOT part of its mother's life.
2) I think you misunderstood what I said. I was not saying the fetus is the mother in a new body. I was saying that children can be viewed as a form of natural reincarnation, or extension of the parent's life. It is not a direct extension but a FORM of extension. If so, then there is a good reason to care what condition the child would be born into.
Yeah I'm glad to be here, I wasn't aborted.
That was an either/or question. Only if you were conscious of some decision as a fetus to keep you can you have some reason to project some desire or disappointment regarding an actual choice made to other fetuses. But we know that didn't happen, right?
Yeah, I'd have a better understanding, but what about the baby of the future that wasn't given a chance to prosper or even exist?
There was no baby of the future. There wasn't before she had an abortion and there wasn't afterward. Those are the facts.
I love how you talked about subjective opinion earlier, and yet continue to feel confident asserting that fetuses are "babies of the future."
lol "nice ad hominem"
Yes, lol. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
The statement: "In addition YOU also have an ethic which I believe is driven by YOUR religious beliefs.", is NOT an ad hominem attack. It isn't even a criticism.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Trump won, posted 09-12-2004 3:09 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Trump won, posted 09-18-2004 2:48 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 404 of 440 (141814)
09-12-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Trump won
09-12-2004 3:13 PM


Why would a women get an abortion if it isn't going to be a baby of the future?
Crash already got this one, but I will add because it may very well be "her cause of death of the future"... and before you repeat that you are for abortion in the case of life threatening circumstances, I will repeat that a complication near or during childbirth is generally too late for that remedy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Trump won, posted 09-12-2004 3:13 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Trump won, posted 09-18-2004 2:57 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 410 of 440 (143173)
09-19-2004 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by Trump won
09-18-2004 2:57 PM


That is is very rare, I think I provided a statistic before.
Do you know how statistics work? They come AFTER the fact.
When a person becomes pregnant they cannot know which stat applies to them, and a worse case scenario may be prudent, especially for someone who is not sure they are ready or want to have a child.
It's sweet to keep talking about "future babies" but when you look at the stats... all the stats (and that includes miscarriages etc etc)... there simply is no such thing. You have a gestational being living inside of and off of a fully grown being. You have a potential full person or potential selfaborted fetus or a potential massively deformed child or a potential killer and a NOW HUMAN BEING.
It is to be cruelly unfair to that NOW human being, to live in a fantasy when making laws respecting that being's body.
You are right though.
And the result of that is your changing your position? If not, why not?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Trump won, posted 09-18-2004 2:57 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Trump won, posted 09-19-2004 9:32 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 413 of 440 (143289)
09-20-2004 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Trump won
09-19-2004 9:32 PM


Complications now are extremely rare.
I want the breakdown of stats.
And I then want you to explain how you as a girl that just found out she is pregnant, will know which stat will apply to you.
If you cannot know this, why is it not reasonable to protect onesself from the worst possible scenario?
The pregnant woman was responsible for the pregnancy.
This has already been shown to be false. There are cases of rape, and cases of women in commited relationships using birth control that happens to fail.
Those are tragedies and accidents.
I think "future babies" deserve a chance to become humans and experience life.
This has also been shown to be false. There is no such thing as a "future baby".

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Trump won, posted 09-19-2004 9:32 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Trump won, posted 09-20-2004 4:53 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 418 of 440 (143571)
09-21-2004 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Trump won
09-20-2004 4:53 PM


Children shouldn't play with statistics...
There also seems to be a high risk by getting an abortion
Do you honestly believe your source was an objective study of abortion? Where every reference to a clinic uses the term "abortion mill"? Where they essentially admit lack of stats and then explain that it is part of some conspiracy of misrepresentation?
You will note that some of their stats aren't even from this country, and for all practical purposes deals with lack of training and medical facilities (and LEGALITY) than anything else.
I find this supposed compassion for women incredibly hypocritical and deeply repulsive. I mean, we should care about the woman so much that we should make it illegal so if she does have one it is guaranteed to be the worst quality?
Crocodile tears.
I will return to this subject of risk later...
Yes but most abortions do not fall under these situations, refer to the stats I posted earlier on this thread.
First of all this does not address the subject. Your comment was that women that are pregnant are responsible for having gotten that way. My reply was that there are rape victims and people who were in commited relationships (or any other type) using birth control that also get pregnant.
The fact that MOST abortions do not fall under these situations would not somehow disqualify them from being "innocent" of their pregnancy.
But let's look at those stats, I assume you are referring to your post #272, where you had the following...
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://womensissues.about.com/...stats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
Abortion Statistics - U.S.
1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Click here to see the approximate number of abortions in the U.S. per year from 1973-1996.
88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy
47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions
43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old
Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby<
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career
7.9% of women want no (more) children
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll start by saying how amazed I was that from these stats you said (to schraf) that most women choose abortion for selfish reasons. I'm a bit confused as only one, maybe two of those categories involve selfishness (how it affects their wants) and add up to only 18.7% of abortions.
The rest reflect health and welfare concerns for the child or dire risk to the mother DURING pregnancy or after birth. I might add "victim of rape" is not on that list.
It should also be noted that the risk issue is not just a "worry", but an issue of A RISK (which implies a known issue). Given that 88% are performed before the 12th week it is not surprising that few are done because of a definite risk.
But here is where I pull off the kid gloves and really start working over a jackass that pretends to know what stats actually say. Did you by any chance check the references on these stats? Did you look any further that to see 3.3 and 2.8 involve health risk so your point is proven?
The site you quoted from states that it's data comes from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. So, I went there to see if they had more information. Indeed they did including risk of abortion versus birth, and the nature of abortions!!!! My my my.
Just so you can check my work, go to here and download the preview in pdf. I will admit up front that the work was in conjunction with an apparently proChoice medical organizations (the PRCH). However since you already quote mined from Guttmacher's study I can only assume there is no problem if I use it as a ref?
This data is also a bit more up to date (2003). Indeed we now see a category for rape and incest (1%) and other (4%). But the interesting thing to note is that this tells us that women actually give multiple reasons. It is only the top reason which is used for the statistical breakdown given above. The average number of reasons is 3.7. Thus you would have no way of knowing how many include concerns for health.
I will state again, health problems are for KNOWN problems (or known extra risk) and given the fact that almost 90% of abortions occur during the first 6-12 weeks, it is not unusual to see that as a very small percentage of the TOP REASON.
Let's see what this says about WHO is having abortions:
*More than 90% of couples report that they use a contraceptive method during any given month, although not always correctly and at every act of intercourse.
*Nevertheless, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended.
*53% of women who have unintended pregnancies were using a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant, although usually not correctly every time.
So this means that while people may not have been using contraceptives properly, the MAJORITY were trying to prevent pregnancy.
And...
*More than half (52%) of women having abortions have had no prior
abortion, and 61% have had a prior birth.
*Women who have had an abortion are at an elevated risk of having another because they are more likely to be sexually active, to be able to become pregnant, to have difficulty using contraceptives effectively, to be willing to end an unintended pregnancy by abortion and to belong to subgroups with high rates of unintended pregnancy.
*If a sexually active woman were to use abortion as her means of birth control and wanted two children, she would have about 30 abortions by the time she reached age 45.
*Use of abortion as a primary method of birth control is not common. If it were so, the large majority of abortions would be repeat abortions.
This not only puts a different picture on the bare stat you originally used, it reverses the picture you have tried to hang on those seeking abortions.
Despite those having had an abortion being in a higher risk group for more abortions (definitely the stereotype you are placing on most women having abortions), the statistics show that MOST women having abortions are NOT doing so repeatedly and certainly not as their means of conception.
Indeed MOST women have already had a child and so may be dealing with the impact a pregnancy or child will have on the family, and not just on her wishes to keep having sex.
Now let's go back to that risk thing.
But first, remember how your "abortion mills" link stated that proChoice stats skew data on abortion by not including associated problems in their stats? Just to nix that...
*The mortality statistics reported here are based on abortion mortality surveillance conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These statistics count all deaths associated with abortion, not just those attributed to abortion, and include significantly more abortion-related deaths than are reported on death certificates.
Good, so what are the risks of abortion?
*Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women. The risk of death associated with abortion is approximately 0.6 per 100,000 abortions, and the risk of major complications is less than 1%.
*The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion. (Note: The calculation of mortality from childbirth omits deaths from miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.)
*Each year, about 10 women, on average, die from induced abortion,
compared with about 260 who die from pregnancy and childbirth.
This safety factor decreases AFTER 12 weeks, meaning it becomes more dangerous than pregnancy after the 12th week, but as we have seen most of them occur BEFORE 12 weeks.
And as you can see, their listed mortality due to continuing a pregnancy is actually lower because they did NOT include miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies (which kill BEFORE birth). Thus the actual risk of abortion is even LOWER compared to pregnancy.
Oh yeah, if you actually care about facts, maybe you should read the whole pdf file and notice that illegality and laws requiring "time to think about abortion" actually INCREASE the risks to the life of the mother by forcing her to wait.
Now let's see WHAT they are aborting, based on WHEN they are having abortions...
*Almost 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy (in the first 12 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period).
*More than half of abortions are performed before 9 weeks after the last menstrual period, or within 5 weeks of the first missed period.
* Fewer than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.
*An estimated 0.08% of abortions are performed after 24 weeks, when the fetus may be viable (AGI, 1997).
You did say you were for IUDs and the Pill right? It appears that most abortions occur when the gestational being hasn't changed much from the stage that those contraceptives would have worked. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that miscarriages are still pretty common at that stage of gestation.
Only 0.08% could even be considered deliverable and survive, and less than 2% would be able to survive even on future technologies (unless you count growing them in tubes).
I'll leave it to you to look up what the largest reasons are for having delayed abortion into later months where it is viable (hint: legalities and antiabortion social pressures).
So we can see that statistically you have no legs to stand on. Thanks for playing the statistics game and good luck next year.
No, there is and there were
I have already explained that a fertilized egg does NOT necessarily become a baby. Check the stats since you seem to like them so much.
An implanted egg does not necessarily become a baby. Check the stats.
Only after a number of weeks of implantation does the gestational being have good odds of making it till birth. The majority of abortions are performed within the time frame that natural miscarriages account for many losses of the gestational being.
And again, this does not say anything about unknown complications which might occur during pregnancy or at birth, as well as the child being born deformed (and in a way not known until birth).
I have personally known two women capable of conception but not of carrying a child to birth due to implantation problems.
I also knew a woman who successfully had one child only to suffer numerous miscarriages afterwards. Despite desperately wanting another child her body kept rejecting the fetuses several months into pregnancy. It was horrible and devastating to this woman because she wanted a baby.
A pregnancy is NOT a guarantee of anything even many months in.
To call fetuses "future babies" and suggest they would make it if just given a chance, is purely juvenile, if not borderline infantile behavior. It is projecting a fantasy world on reality.
It is not only cruel to women who don't want to have children for valid reasons, but cruel to those who want them but can't because biology isn't that simple.
This message has been edited by holmes, 09-21-2004 07:33 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Trump won, posted 09-20-2004 4:53 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by Trump won, posted 09-30-2004 8:39 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 424 of 440 (145903)
09-30-2004 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Trump won
09-18-2004 2:48 PM


Whoops I had missed this post of yours...
You believe my stance is held by my personal religious convictions. Yes it was an ad hominem.
Oh my gods... You actually posted the definition of ad hominem and STILL managed to get it wrong.
"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason" means if I, that is me, which is to say I or me makes an argument which appeals to personal considerations rather than logic, then THAT is an ad hominem argument.
My pointing out that your position must include a metaphysical belief based on your religious faith is neither a criticism nor an ad hominem attack.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Trump won, posted 09-18-2004 2:48 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Trump won, posted 09-30-2004 7:42 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 425 of 440 (145904)
09-30-2004 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Trump won
09-29-2004 8:07 PM


yeah I see thAT
Did you see post #418? I'd like to see a response to it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Trump won, posted 09-29-2004 8:07 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Trump won, posted 09-30-2004 7:46 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 430 of 440 (146314)
09-30-2004 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Trump won
09-30-2004 7:42 PM


That is an ad hominem attack.
How can that be an ad hominem attack when the logical extension of that same statement of fact is that MY POSITION rests on a metaphysical belief. Yeah mine isn't a religious metaphysical belief, but that doesn't make a difference.
I am really clueless why you think I am insulting you. My argument is not that your position is based on a metphysical assumption so you are wrong.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Trump won, posted 09-30-2004 7:42 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Trump won, posted 10-01-2004 10:50 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 431 of 440 (146324)
09-30-2004 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by Trump won
09-30-2004 8:39 PM


Because their are also statistics of danger in pregnacy does not refute the statistics posted.
Please read my post. I carefully explained the implications of the stats.
The above comment suggests you did not take it seriously at all.
1% rape,incest
???? What does that mean? My post even mentions those stats. You didn't read it did you?
More abortions occur in death than pregnancies
The study clearly refuted that claim. You didn't read it did you? I wish you would have taken it more seriously. I took you seriously enough to carefully analyze the important details.
wouldn't you want to wait it out and see if it became a baby rather than eliminating its chances altogether?
That would depend on the circumstances. Clearly since there are abortions some would answer no.
But you need to recognize that even if I said yes I would want to wait and see, that does not change the fact that fetuses are not future babies. You wait and see what they become. They could be something very different.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Trump won, posted 09-30-2004 8:39 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Trump won, posted 10-01-2004 10:57 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 439 of 440 (146804)
10-02-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Trump won
10-01-2004 10:50 PM


YOU ARE ASSUMING I BELIEVE ABORTION CAN BE WRONG BECAUSE OF MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
I am stating that all beliefs regarding whether a gestational being is the same as a human being or not are based on metaphysical beliefs.
That means ALL positions. That means mine. So how can that be an ad hominem attack? That would require me to be attacking my own position as well.
The argument I was constructing is that since they ALL are based on metaphysical assumptions it is a violation of the constitution to enforce one over the others.
It is not ad hominem. Either learn how to use it properly or stop using it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Trump won, posted 10-01-2004 10:50 PM Trump won has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024