Right to Life Ethical Considerations

I don't want to get into a big thing with you on this, because I happen to agree with you that women do not inherently have longterm emotional damage from abortions. However there is a bit of irony in the position you have taken, specifically given what you have said to me in the past on similarly related issues. You yourself have claimed, or at least implied, that there is no such thing as unbiased data. Yet have made use of data. So I am unsure how you get to chastise the poster for this.Perhaps another thread needs to be opened dealing with that issue in and of itself. Since there is always the potential for bias in studies, or how studies are presented, why should anyone be quoting them at all? Or how can a difference between biased/unbiased studies be discerned. After that is ironed out it may be applied to future refs.That said, there is also the irony that you have appealed to longterm emotional harm of women (and minors) for sexual acts with just as lacking of data, and in the face of data that it is not true. And this is what makes it sort of funny.On the one hand you have argued that women (and minors) should be thought to suffer longterm emotional damage from a basically pleasurable act involving their genitals, even when they willfully engage in such acts. On the other hand you are questioning another person's argument that women (including women that are minors) would suffer longterm emotional damage from a patently unpleasurable act involving their genitals, laced with moral questions of taking another's life, and clearly not an issue of a totally voluntary exercise (even if willfully acted, it is only because they must make that choice).Why am I to believe voluntary sexual acts can cause emotional damage, but involuntary medical acts involving damage regarding those same organs would not? Even if you argue there is some measure of relief from removing a future "problem", why is that not simply one positive banked against actual emotional damage from the procedure itself.It seems to me the poster can appeal to this same principle, particularly when it comes to pregnant minors, which it seems the poster may be doing.I might even point out that the website you pointed to pretty much admits some women do suffer longterm emotional distress from what they have done, so regardless that some women don't, doesn't restriction to protect women (including minors) kick in even if it means those others that wouldn't suffer have their choice cut off? You have expressed that policy in the past for matters of sexuality.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That was my understanding as well. Schraf was questioning the poster's use of studies citing longterm emotional damage of women having abortions. While agreeing with her position against the poster, it was in contrast with her previously stated opinions.What this means is that either she needs to adjust her earlier positions, or admit that the poster has a valid position regarding data along the lines expressed.The consistency of a poster's position in one thread, balanced against positions taken in otther threads, when they conflict is an acceptable tactic used by her and you on more than one occasion. If there is a reason it does not make sense here, please let me know.Now what does your post have to do with abortion?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Give what up? I asked you a valid question that is on topic using a tactic I have seen you use against others. You are dismissing the ability of a poster to make certain claims, and I am questioning your dismissal given directly similar claims made by you elsewhere. I don't believe you are an unrepentant hypocrite. I do however think that you are holding an inconsistent position in this matter and would like to know how you resolve it as it directly impacts your position against the other poster.Would you accept this same response from the poster in order to dodge the points you are making here? If you saw the poster make a claim in another thread that directly conflicts with the one he is making here, wouldn't you call the poster on that claim?I'm not going to apologize if my questions force you to think about the problem in greater detail then the present poster.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

The problem I presented is that she has accepted anecdotal evidence for longerm harm on other subjects. This has included porn, prostitution, and sex for those underage. Thus this raises an issue of why she is knocking the other poster's use of anecdotal evidence.Further, she has made the argument (on all those other issues) that legal proscription should be available, in order to protect those that could be harmed, even if in the minority and so disallowing others that freedom. This raises the question of why the poster cannot avail himself to the same position?As it stands schraf's own countersource admits that some women do face problems, it is just not necessarily that the majority do, and some find good coming out of it. That underscores that last point I made above.If you don't know what she has said to me in the past what can I say? What makes YOU the expert on what she has said to me in the past?The idea that I am painting her position there or here incorrectly could easily be dismissed without even appealing to the other posts. All she'd have to say is that contrary to what she said in the past, or what I believe she said in the past, she does not think anecdotal evidence is sufficient for creating proscriptive laws of any kind, nor that laws should be made to protect minority groups that have problems where the majority does not face them. She has in the past, stated that all studies are open to bias. I was raising that in light or her defense of studies here. That you cannot understand my position in criticizing me is the continuing irony in your posts regarding my behavior. Apparently I am always in error regarding the positions of others and it is always my fault (not that they are mistaken or not being clear), and when you and schraf get my position wrong it is still all my fault.I'm not an idiot, and I think most can see what is going on here. When either of you two are challenged on facts or logic, you shift positions or attack people personally rather than dealing with the issue. If it was just a matter of my mistaking a position, it would be more than easily handled, with very little animosity.That I am apparently dealing with a tagteam match across several threads (none of which I have initiated as such) is pretty telling as well.Either deal with the use of studies, or anecdotal evidence regarding harm when creating laws against abortion, or get off my back.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

What's with you two ganging up on me across threads, bringing up totally offtopic discussions against me (essentially insults), and ironically suggesting I am bad for being offtopic?You know very well that you have made arguments that harm or potential harm, even if not to the majority involved with an activity, is enough to warrant proscriptive laws on those activities. You have argued such regarding porn, prostitution, and sex with minors.Further, you have accepted wholly anecdotal evidence as sufficient in those cases.Further still, you have made statements suggesting that all studies are open to bias.All of these raise questions regarding your criticism of this poster's position. IF the poster can show (which your own source essentially admitted) that some people do suffer from abortions doesn't that suggest (given previous positions) that there is a valid argument they could be proscribed, even if just to protect that small group?In addition, given the mechanics involved and your position on sex with minors, doesn't this at least give the poster the ability to make that appeal regarding minors having abortions?If you wish to claim you never held the positions I have described above, then I will keep that in mind in all future discussions you have regarding them. Indeed that's all you had to do, and I would deal with that claim even if I totally felt it was BS.But then my questions stand on their own to you anyway. Does the evidence of harm to some small group, especially minors, allow for laws against activities involving them? And hasn't the poster supplied that especially in light of your own source which only diminished, not removed, the poster's claim?If you don't answer, or continue to insult me, I will assume you are dodging the argument because you simply don't have an answer. That is after all what you have said to others who dodge you in that same way.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Thanks, I'll be back more than I thought I would be, but still prone to sudden disappearances for uncertain lengths of time. The nature of the biz I'm up to lately.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Your post was quite elegantly put. It really was just chance timing that I happened on crash and schraf's posts with errors I wanted to discuss, rather than CS and Tal. But I do agree with your point. I would even go so far as to say that dogmatism within liberalism is more scary.I might keep your quote for future use.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

What makes you the master of knowing what others have said or not at EvC?I have already stated why I am not going through your hoops, so your attempted inference that I am avoiding doing so because I am incorrect isn't going to work. As it is doing so is totally offtopic, which you claim to be an important thing not to do. Well you can deal with the question of whether studies which involve anecdotal evidence are in fact studies, as well as whether the counterreference that schraf gave still supports 2's point as it patently suggests some people do suffer longterm issues from abortion.I would find that MUCH more interesting than attacks on me personally. ??? I said you were apparently tagteaming me. In two different threads when I am addressing one of you on topic, the other comes in and attacks me personally. I didn't claim you were coordinating it offline. I have made no secret that I am for sexual rights for many different groups (many that I am uninterested in and even repelled by), as well as for proper scientific work. I'm not the person that created the situation where sex with minors is a hot topic socially, and that the science behind it counters social norms.In this case I am not even discussing, much less advocating, the right to have sex with minors. I am pointing to an inconsistency in schraf's position on abortion as related to the current poster. Look at this closely...In the past she has stated that sex with minors should be proscribed because it is possible (if not a fact) that minors can suffer longterm emotional damage from the activity. 2 is essentially making the same argument with regard to abortion. If one wants to say there is some line to be drawn for age, at the very least 2's argument holds true for minors. Thus laws preventing minors from having abortions should be supported, though I doubt schraf would agree minors should not be prevented from such access.Further given what is involved in abortions for minors, it is hard for me to understand how schraf cannot agree longterm emotional trauma is possible and desirable to be prevented.Please deal with the argument, or get off my back.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I am not dragging anything off topic. My last post rephrased the whole argument such that you didn't have to deal with whether you said anything in the past. So even that should not be an issue for you at this point. Here I shall strip it down further...Is the legal proscription of activity to protect one group, though it means denying the freedom of a much larger group, justified? If so, when?Is anecdotal evidence sufficient to identify that there is a group that has suffered from an activity? Doesn't the admission within your own source that some have suffered, though most do not, act as something greater than anecdotal evidence and support the poster's general argument, even if diminishing specific claims of numbers? If not, why not?If minors are considered necessary of special protection, isn't the poster's claim at the very least justified for arguing laws to prevent minors from having abortions? If not, why not?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

1) For a person who jumped in to criticize my use of the term CC, when I was discussing evidence regarding its effects, you are NOT one to be critizing anyone for pulling a thread off topic.2) This THREAD, if you look at the opening post, has NOTHING to do with the nature of affidavits, and really nothing to do with longterm emotional health of women having abortions. Excuse me for addressing an issue based upon something you ARE discussing, though as off topic as yours is from the thread's topic. I may be mistaken in 2's position, though it all leads to the same point. I mean why else are the sources he's pointing to making the claim they are unless it is to argue that legal protection should be given to prevent emotional harm to women? Why else are the sources you quoting making the point that most women do not suffer such problems, except as part of an argument that such laws should not be made?I think its a bit disingenuous to pretend these are not tied in at all, and that your soul interest in any of this discussion is whether 2 happens to have more than affidavits to support a position.Where would this move if he had more than that? Or are you claiming that would be the end of the discussion and no conclusions drawn on either side?And if that were the case, why did you thank crash for saying anything when the point he made is that the discussion was about abortion... which is exactly what I thought your conversation and this thread was about?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Since you don't seem to "get" what I am driving at, I'm going to take an alternate route to get to the same destination. I didn't see a response to his article reference at the obgyn site. He said you needed to be a member to get the full article, but the abstract was online. Intriguingly the authors also link the choice to abort with increased risk for breast cancer, which comes with a whole host of other psych consequences. But that is a side issue. What 2 gave you was a ref which states these researchers found a connection to mood disorders that could even lead to self-harm.So where is your rebuttal of that evidence? That could equally be described as a biased site and certainly didn't provide anything except for anecdotes from others, certainly not direct data or findings, and they all seem to have something to lose in this debate.What's intriguing is the sweeping under the rug that is done in the article itself... Uh... since when does rarity effect the ability to claim that a problem is real?The consistent message within your article is that severe trauma is low % wise (and so on a population scale), and others find abortion positive to their life, therefore sever trauma should not be addressed as if it is real consequence of abortion. Is that correct? If only 1% of gulf war veterans came down with a specified illness, and the rest of the soldiers or nation loved the war, would that make it NOT a syndrome they are suffering from, or that we should be concerned about?As I have already stated, you seem to be providing evidence that the Anti-Ab side is vastly inflating the issue, not that what they discuss doesn't exist to be considered.I might add that I have found no evidence to support the claims that those who do have problems, had them before they had the abortion. I'm not saying that can't be the case, just that I have not seen anything to support that position beyond speculation, assertion, and innuendo. And that means what exactly in terms of this thread's topic?In any case, from your own sources we can see that at the very least 1% are recognized as having had problems, and that from 2's ref some doctors found a direct connection to depression that could lead to self-harm (such that they recommend avoiding abortion to avoid that problem). His claim is supported in part, though not necessarily with regard to degree (prevalence).What does that mean to YOU with regard to the subject of abortion, or this the subject of this thread, if it is NOT abortion?Edited by holmes, : made paragraph more clearEdited by holmes, : another touch up

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't want to belabor this point, but that is EXACTLY the question I posed to you, and you said is not a pertinent discussion to this thread. Since you clearly believe it is, then you need to address the argument I made, at the very least the last post I made to you which drew out the numbers involved.From your own material we see that 1% face severe trauma, and from 2's we see that there is enough that at least two doctors are pushing a reduction in abortions in order to reduce the risk.In a clear analogy, if 1% of soldiers from the Gulf War suffer a malady, despite the fact that most did not and in fact felt great about what we did, does that mean that 1% does not suffer from a syndrome or that it should not be taken seriously as having come from the war? Your own source said severe trauma, and the doctors in 2's source said likelihood to engage in selfharm to an extent they recommend reducing abortions to avoid that outcome. That certainly reads as negatively impacted.What is YOUR definition of negatively impacted, and is there a point where the negative impacts on a small proportion of a society legitimates the proscription of an activity despite the majority having a positive outcome?I will also note that twice seems to be making the argument I suggested he was, or was available from the evidentiary argument he was appealing to.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

If you don't know whether she is lying, you cannot draw any conclusion as to whether I am lying or not regardless how often I might. As it is I have already made this moot by allowing her to make her position clear, regardless of whatever she has said in the past. She has declined to answer yet continues to argue the man, which while not conclusive is rather suggestive.Given that I am setting an olive branch out to you in another thread, I am not going to respond to any of the personal commentary. So 200 hand-picked exampled of soldiers that do not like the Iraq War and think it has hurt their life does not mean anything? I agree that statistically it doesn't. That is why I stated at the outset that I agreed in a general sense with schraf's position against 2.However there are greater complications than that, especially for her. And the way I have constructed my last 2 posts to her remove your need to defend her against suggestions of anything she may have previously said... let's concentrate on your position.Within schraf's own material we see that 1% do face severe trauma. Just because a majority do not and may even feel good, does that mean the 1% does not exist or should not be considered worthwhile. The testaments 2 read could very well be great in number, the only point being not in %. His point would stand, or at least need to be addressed. Holy smokes! No I am not. But I feel compelled to address your rather bizarre assertion.1) While not perfect, and in the thread I mention some of my own criticisms, Rind was forced into peer review beyond what other studies normally get and was accepted at each turn. A totally independent and highly credited science organization (AAAS IIRC) found NO problems with the study and chastised people for making the sort of claim you just did. If you have any evidence that it is considered "flawed" such that its findings are in dispute, by all means share it in the proper thread.2) Even if Rind were flawed, that does not suggest science has data to support social norms. And in such a case, lack of support really does stand as a counter to social norms. The prediction based on norms is something we find no support for in anything EXCEPT anecdotal studies (the kind of which you just pissed on) and clinical studies (which are discredited as being justified for drawing conclusions on behavior). If you have positive evidence to support social norms on that issue, by all means present them in an appropriate thread. As advanced notice I already went through this with someone in the clinical field at EvC, and the result was an admission there was no such evidence. The best which could be said is that I cannot claim there is NO POSSIBLE harm, which was not my position anyway. There begins to be a bit of absurdity when one claims that children should have the right to have someone manipulate their genital area and do physical damage (and perhaps psych damage) to remove a product of sexual behavior, yet at the same time argue that those same children should NOT have the right to have someone manipulate their genital area in ways that do not do physical or emotional damage.I might add that I NEVER said children having sex with adults. The proscription remains for children having sex with children as well. The POINT was MINORS HAVING SEX. You have read into my argument something that wasn't there. Actually prohibiting children from sexual contacts has been shown to lead to psych problems. So no specific sex is warranted at any particular time, but clearly sexual play as a child is necessary for sexual development of any person.And I don't think you can make the claim regarding negative consequences of abortion. You can certainly prove me wrong, but younger people may face worse results from abortion than carrying to term. In any case, that does not address the point here which was that abortion itself would cause harm. If there is any, should that lead to protections? Its nice that you have such a saintly image of her. Given her direct position on prostitution, which is that it should not be legalized, when all evidence indicates that illegality causes MORE HARM (this is even backed up by findings by police and feminist orgs) I find your claim disputable.I have found that her position is to protect certain groups from the potential of harm, regardless of what can be shown about actual existence of harm... including potential.But lets stop arguing about her position. All I did was ask you to deal with the argument or stop arguing with me. I don't see that its that egotistical to ask a person to stop arguing the man, and does not allow one to read into my request all the above. I certainly didn't mean anything like that.As I said, I've offered an olive branch in another thread (the humanity one), or at least a practical mechanism to remove the animosity. Lets move forward in that way please.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I absolutely agree, in fact I'll up that to: with very very few exceptions nobody has the right to demand anything of anyone. I never said, and certainly never meant, otherwise. I'm not sure if you are on something, or its your tearstained eyes, but you aren't able to see my arguments very clearly. It seems I can say "hello" and you'll turn it into "go to hell you're so low". Maybe you need to take a break.In the following, I break down the issue into offtopic and ontopic components. You don't have to answer any of it, and I am forced to assume you hold none of those positions so you can't answer them anyway. But I leave them for you and others to peruse regarding the connection between the two topics... Minors can be charged with rape of other minors, regardless of consent. It may not be a federal law, but it certainly holds true in certain states. In any case it is the causative agent which demands a law that we need to look at, if sex itself is the cause of harm, why would it be any different if it is between an adult and minor or just two minors?Reflected on topic issue: If the mechanics of sex itself is the cause, then how can abortion NOT cause the same problem?On the flipside, if sex itself is not the cause of harm what is the difference if it is between an adult and a minor or just two minors? Previously, people here have argued that the issue is that of "informed consent" not bare consent. Indeed some people claimed that minors are incapable of true consent because they wholly lack capablity for informed consent. How does that change when the sex is between two minors?Reflected on topic issue: how can minors give informed consent to an abortion, if they can't for sex?Still further, some have claimed that it is important to restrict sex involving minors because it would be incapable of knowing if a minor gave consent or not. How does that change if they are two minors?Reflected on topic issue: If we can't know when minors give consent for sex, how can we know that for abortion? I said something about prostitution. I brought up a few issues which involve legal proscriptions that restrict a majority in order to protect a minority. Apparently you have latched on to the subject of children like a drooling letch who won't let go, even when pointed to the original topic.The TOPIC is protection of a minority at the sake of a majority, especially based on evidence of harm. In this case it is about abortion. I mentioned other cases which reflect upon this one. As it stands, with schraf I have already left the other cases behind, regardless of their merit, so that abortion and evidence of harm can be concentrated on.Time to let go of the children. Seem fixated on that imagery. You want me to make some pictures for you or something? Apologize for what? You have approached me in more than one thread where I wasn't even talking to you, and then (to my mind, anyone else can make up their own) invented charges against me. That's not to mention the amount of direct personal insult I never gave to you, even if your other charges had been true.I have continually bent over backward to restrict debate totally on topic... just evidence... with no mention of personal position or issues, and you have refused.But you know what, at this point I do owe an apology to somebody. Sorry people at EvC for letting this drag out over several posts, over several threads. If I ever reply directly to crash it will be restricted to evidence and logical points alone, treating the rest as perhaps a lamentable case of Tourette's syndrome.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Somebody said the following, and here would be my reply to what I understand that position to be... In the past US law has stated that Blacks and to some extent women, did not have rights. Were those who stood up to change that holding themselves above the law? Should those who maintained that system, be thought of us good law abiding citizens? Would the author of the above have looked to the law to determine their position?It seems that appeals to law to determine a position is a bit of a circular process, and one that either suggests no laws should ever be made in the first place (because no one would have a starting position on whatlaws there should be), or no change in laws once they are posted. Some, though I am sure not this author, argue that execution is murder that most Americans find acceptable. Some others also claim this about war. I would agree with the sentiment but it is not taking into account what their view is of the issue. People could have been for allowing those who wanted to slave to continue slaving, and those who didn't want to didn't have to... thus pro-choice. Abolitionists wanted to remove that choice, that ability to compromise.It seems a tad askew to view the abolitionists as some sort of noncompromisers.Given their view of the fetus it makes sense that Anti-Abortionists fill the role of Abolitionists. I personally think there is more to the question than this semantic debate, but it does show an increased complexity of the issue.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)