Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abortion questions...?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 271 of 403 (602545)
01-28-2011 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by ringo
01-28-2011 6:32 PM


Re: Evidence?
depends on the definition.
In mathematics, a set can be opened and closed, because of how the an opened set and a closed set is defined.
But in any case, you can't be anti-abortion:
Antiabortion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ringo, posted 01-28-2011 6:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by ringo, posted 01-28-2011 6:58 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 272 of 403 (602546)
01-28-2011 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by slevesque
01-28-2011 6:35 PM


Re: Evidence?
I'm not the one carrying silly semantics.
I use a word with the exact meaning it has in the dictionnary.
That is the very definition of a semantic argument where you ignore the implied meaning by referring to the literal meaning. We say we are pro-choice. You say we are wrong, we are really pro-abortion because of semantics.
If you were not playing semantic games then you would call us by the the phrase that we use to describe ourselves which is pro-choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 6:35 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 6:51 PM Taq has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 273 of 403 (602547)
01-28-2011 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by nwr
01-28-2011 6:44 PM


Re: Evidence?
In that case, I am pro-life, for I favor life being legal.
No, because that is not what the word means:
Pro-life Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by nwr, posted 01-28-2011 6:44 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 274 of 403 (602548)
01-28-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Taq
01-28-2011 6:46 PM


Re: Evidence?
That is the very definition of a semantic argument
If I ask by which definition, will you get a dictionnary ?
where you ignore the implied meaning by referring to the literal meaning. We say we are pro-choice. You say we are wrong, we are really pro-abortion because of semantics.
Implied meaning is relative to each. You can't start taking it into account especially when using a word in a sense that refers to a large group of people.
If you were not playing semantic games then you would call us by the the phrase that we use to describe ourselves which is pro-choice.
I can refer to you as pro-choice if you like. But when I want to refer to the group of people who are in favor of the legalization of abortion, I can use pro-abortion ans it shouldn't matter to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Taq, posted 01-28-2011 6:46 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by hooah212002, posted 01-28-2011 7:05 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 288 by Taq, posted 01-31-2011 1:20 PM slevesque has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 275 of 403 (602549)
01-28-2011 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by slevesque
01-28-2011 6:45 PM


The definitions you're using are inadequate. There are more precise terms that you can use, so why don't you use them?
Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 6:45 PM slevesque has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 276 of 403 (602550)
01-28-2011 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by slevesque
01-28-2011 6:51 PM


Just to give you an idea
of what the implications are behind using such terminology, here is a pretty good description found in the Wiki article about the abortion debate:
Wiki writes:
Many of the terms used in the debate are seen as political framing: terms used to validate one's own stance while invalidating the opposition's. For example, the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" imply endorsement of widely held values such as liberty and freedom, while suggesting that the opposition must be "anti-choice" or "anti-life" (alternatively "pro-coercion" or "pro-death").[9] Such terms gloss over the underlying issue of which choice or life is being considered and whose choice or what kind of life is deemed most important.[10]
Appeals are often made in the abortion debate to the rights of the fetus, pregnant woman, or other parties. Such appeals can generate confusion if the type of rights is not specified (whether civil, natural, or otherwise) or if it is simply assumed that the right appealed to takes precedence over all other competing rights (an example of begging the question).
The appropriate terms with which to designate the human organism prior to birth are also debated. The medical terms "embryo" and "fetus" are seen by pro-life advocates as dehumanizing.[11][12] The terms "baby" and "unborn child" are seen by pro-choice advocates as emotionalized. Similarly, there is debate between use of the terms "woman" and "mother".
With each successive generation of abortion debate, the terminologies employed often evolve to give a fresh appearance to a particular opinion, even if the underlying viewpoints have not changed, especially after the failure of a previous campaign to lawmakers. Newer labels used include; "pro-abort", employed by the "pro-life" movement to imply that pro-choice advocates actually encourage abortion, and "pro-love", employed by some "pro-choice" advocates to imply they support families born out of love and not religious necessity. Many other "pro-"labels exist, often created by individuals impromptu, to dodge a political debate or criticism from their peers when an abortion topic comes up.
So while you may technically be correct (or semantically correct, rather), the term is a weighted one, which is precisely why I asked whether or not you would be offended if I called you anti-choice. When you tell me whether or not you would be offended by said term, I will show you why.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 6:51 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 7:09 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 277 of 403 (602552)
01-28-2011 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by slevesque
01-28-2011 6:36 PM


Re: step by step
If abortions are made illegal but continue to happen ...
where will they be performed?
who will performs them?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 6:36 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 7:12 PM jar has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 278 of 403 (602553)
01-28-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by hooah212002
01-28-2011 7:05 PM


Re: Just to give you an idea
So while you may technically be correct (or semantically correct, rather), the term is a weighted one, which is precisely why I asked whether or not you would be offended if I called you anti-choice. When you tell me whether or not you would be offended by said term, I will show you why.
Well your quote seems to be saying that the weighted terms in this debate are actually ''pro-choice'' and ''pro-life'' .... not pro-abortion.
I would be just as offended to be called anti-choice as you would be to be called ''anti-life'' I guess.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by hooah212002, posted 01-28-2011 7:05 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by hooah212002, posted 01-28-2011 7:43 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 279 of 403 (602554)
01-28-2011 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by jar
01-28-2011 7:08 PM


Re: step by step
In quebec ?
No but I think I know where you are going with this. Read my previous reply to CS if you want to know how I view the criminalization of abortion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by jar, posted 01-28-2011 7:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by jar, posted 01-28-2011 7:23 PM slevesque has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 280 of 403 (602557)
01-28-2011 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by slevesque
01-28-2011 7:12 PM


Re: step by step
slevesque writes:
In quebec ?
No but I think I know where you are going with this. Read my previous reply to CS if you want to know how I view the criminalization of abortion.
I read that but it told me little.
Do you think abortion should be illegal?
If it is illegal ...
where will they be performed?
who will performs them?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 7:12 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by slevesque, posted 01-31-2011 4:58 PM jar has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 281 of 403 (602560)
01-28-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by slevesque
01-28-2011 7:09 PM


Re: Just to give you an idea
Well your quote seems to be saying that the weighted terms in this debate are actually ''pro-choice'' and ''pro-life'' .... not pro-abortion.
No, it actually said pro-life and pro-choice painted with too broad a brush and that the other terms were used to politically motivate and make the "other side" look bad. You did read it, right?
I would be just as offended to be called anti-choice as you would be to be called ''anti-life'' I guess.
Well, I'll call you anti-choice because you fit the definition. Furthermore, said term carries with it implications of these fellows: http://www.antichoiceproject.com/ (warning: it contains graphic images as the "antilife project" are the sick bastards who protest Planned Parenthood with the disgusting signage)
Given that the definition of "anti-life" is thus:
Merriam-Webster writes:
antagonistic or antithetical to life or to normal human values
you would be dead wrong in calling me anti-life. Savvy?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 7:09 PM slevesque has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 282 of 403 (602561)
01-28-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by slevesque
01-28-2011 3:41 PM


But then again, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be need for any abortion, right ?
So a better world would be one with a need for fewer abortions. This brings us back to my so far unanswered question: do you favor education in schools about safe sex?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 3:41 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 283 of 403 (602586)
01-28-2011 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by onifre
01-26-2011 1:23 PM


Re: Bump For Abortion Issues
Hi oni,
onifre writes:
Then they are wrong. Also, please provide the link, as I did.
In any case, the CDC trumps whatever is said on AGI since they are the official government entity that works specifically to gather the numbers.
The CDC does not gather information. It is voluntarly sent to them.
AGI collects information many ways..
You can find their facts Here.
You can find their statement Here.
onifre writes:
Yes, so then ask yourself at that point, how on earth could AGI have those extra numbers if they weren't reported to the CDC? That's a load of crap. Perhaps they're just making crap up?
You can find how they gather information for the US on this page.
For Puerto Rico7 and the United States,8 data collected through surveys of all providers were used; the U.S. estimate for 2000 was projected to 2003.
onifre writes:
No one is making the choice to die of starvation or malnutrition, those people need help -vs- an adult who makes an actual legal choice concerning their own body.
Well their parents chose for them by having unprotected sex and producing them in the first place. Even though the undeveloped world produces the majority of abortions.
onifre writes:
And yet pro-life people are only concerned in controlling the 820,000 that take place in the US. You're all a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites.
Get that tree off your shoulder, and quit jumping to conclusion about what I believe. You should know by know that ICANT be like other people.
For your enlightenment.
In Message 15 posted March 2007, I made this statement in a post to AnswersInGenitals.
If those against abortion are correct that the fetus becomes a person with a soul at conception that would mean that 12.5 million souls would go to heaven to be with God. That would leave the 4 million souls to grow up and have to make a decision where they would spend eternity. That would mean God has reaped a harvest of over 75% of the possible souls born in the U.S in a year. So why fuss?
AnswersInGenitals has said:
quote:
in the U. S., there are 16.5 million conceptions each year of which 11 million abort naturally (miscarriages), 1.5 are aborted clinically, and 4 million result in live births.
As you can imagine I get a lot of flack from pro-lifers because of my view of abortion.
onifre writes:
Maybe you can take up the question of when the soul arrives
My definition is that when the spermatozoan, and the ovum unite in a process called fertilization, and form a zygote a human exists.
The spermatozoan is live cells as is the ovum but alone they cannot produce a human. But when combined they are a complete human.
I know you and everyone else will disagree but I can't help that. You did ask me to take up the question.
onifre writes:
There is no consistency from your side of the argument.
That is an understatement when you consider my position on abortion.
God gets everyone aborted.
Of those born He may get 4% but I think that estimate might be a little high.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by onifre, posted 01-26-2011 1:23 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by onifre, posted 01-31-2011 7:24 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 284 of 403 (602635)
01-29-2011 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by onifre
01-28-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Bump For Abortion Issues
oni writes:
apo writes:
I think most people are, at least in part, concerned about things which to them are unacceptible, morally or otherwise.
I would agree, but only when they are made aware of it.
Quite true. Of course if one isn't aware of (insert injustice here), they'd not concern themselves with it. My point, I guess, was for those people who were aware, but choose to ignore the fact that they're feeling empathetic, and still do nothing. That's injustice, and tragic.
The rest of your post was gold. The hypothetical situation, I think, is superb and isn't something most pro-lifers even consider. The double standard is obvious.
Thanks, dude.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by onifre, posted 01-28-2011 3:59 PM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 403 (602731)
01-31-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by onifre
01-28-2011 3:59 PM


How many times a day do pro-life people think about her siblings who barely eat? zero?
How many times a day do pro-life people concern themselves with Maria's mother who works 3 jobs to suport the kids she didn't abort? fucking zero!
Now, lets add to this that poor little Maria gets pregnant. She realizes the struggles she has to live with, both now and in the future if she gives birth, so, Maria decides to have an abortion.
Boom! All of a sudden every pro-life asshole has an issue with Maria's decision? All of a sudden every pro-life, self-righteous clown pretends to care for the tiny collection of cells in Maria's womb? Remember though, fuck Maria, her mother, her starving siblings and her future...but that zygote, fuck yeah, they all love that zygote. Really? Bullshit!
Can you see, at least in this (very common) example how fake, self-righteous, hypocritical and outright shameful the argument from a pro-lifer becomes?
I get where you're comming from, and its a good argument, but I don't think it fully characterizes the pro-lifers.
I don't think they really do care about the zygote. I don't think its really about any particular abortions taking place. I think its about the legality of the situation. When legislation legitimized and allowed for abortions, that's when people started caring... caring about abortion being legal, but still not about any particular people having an abortion.
Its like with gay marriage... nobody really cares what gay people are doing, but once you start getting into making or changing laws about something, then people start caring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by onifre, posted 01-28-2011 3:59 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2011 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 300 by onifre, posted 01-31-2011 6:50 PM New Cat's Eye 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