Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

eviltwin

Mario852 wrote: »

Its based on logic => 2+2=4 would be right no matter who says it.

If that person is emotionally unstable or is very likely to commit self-hard or to harm other people then that person is obviously mentally ill.

An unplanned pregnancy and the decision to end it can be distressing but thats not the same as a "mental illness"....I would wager that the vast majority of women in that position would not be diagnosed with anything. I find it hard to believe that you really think there are thousands of mentally ill women out there going about their business.

Bannasidhe

Mario852 wrote: »

This is unfortunately has to be done to prevent greater loss.
I am against the not-needed type of homicide.

So in some cases the ending of a life is permissible?

robindch

Mario852 wrote: »

Please elaborate on that if you don't mind.

Please read the article on Godwin's Law and Reductio Ad Hitlerum.

It's bad style because it's predictable and boring.

Mario852

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So in some cases the ending of a life is permissible?

Yes, in most cases, to prevent much bigger loss of lives. *Thats my opinion

Mario852

robindch wrote: »

Please read the article on Godwin's Law and Reductio Ad Hitlerum.

It's bad style because it's predictable and boring.

I don't use it to be fun, or predictable.
This is not what discussing abortion is about.

I use it to help to express and explain my point of view.

Bannasidhe

Mario852 wrote: »

Yes, in most cases, to prevent much bigger, loss of lives.

Who decides that?
Who determines what is the greater good?
What is their criteria?



And no - sending in troops does not necessarily prevent further loss of life, in many cases it escalates the situation increasing and prolonging the loss of life.

robindch

Mario852 wrote: »

I use it to help to express and explain my point of view.

I'm not sure if you remember or if you read my post from an hour ago, or if you read any of the three or four intervening posts. So I'm going to try and make this post a bit clearer by effective, if arguably unoriginal, use of color and typography:

Invoking Hitler to support your argument is a crap debating tactic in any forum, especially one like A+A. Unless you want to turn yourself into a laughing stock, I would advise you to avoid invoking Hitler.

I hope this clarification helps.

Mario852

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure if you remember or if you read my post from an hour ago, or if you read any of the three or four intervening posts. So I'm going to try and make this post a bit clearer by effective, if arguably unoriginal, use of color and typography:

Invoking Hitler to support your argument is a crap debating tactic in any forum, especially one like A+A. Unless you want to turn yourself into a laughing stock, I would advise you to avoid invoking Hitler.

I hope this clarification helps.

In my opinion saying something in big red letter and not actually giving a reason for it isn't great for A+A section.

When I asked you why is it not good you said:
Because its boring predictable and crap!.
Yeah that explains your argument very well. This place would be a much better place if everyone had your level of debating skills. *sarcasm*

From "boring and predictable" to "crap". Yes this is a great clarification, but... wait... you still gave no reason why it is so 'crap', other than because I say so, in big red letters.

Mario852

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who decides that?
Who determines what is the greater good?
What is their criteria?



And no - sending in troops does not necessarily prevent further loss of life, in many cases it escalates the situation increasing and prolonging the loss of life.

You cannot accurately say what's a greater good, but generally smaller loss in men is better than a bigger loss in men.

Obliq

Mario852 wrote: »

You cannot accurately say what's a greater good, but generally smaller loss in men is better than a bigger loss in men.

This is why we use the word "choice" in terms of a woman's right to decide what to do with her body. Killing a small entity (though human) is to the greater good of the woman who decides she doesn't want a baby. The bigger loss in this case would be the woman's hopes, dreams and ambitions, if an unwanted pregnancy was forced to continue.

When you say "we cannot accurately say what's a greater good" in terms of killing people, you are by default admitting that we cannot decide what a woman will decide for herself.

Your sentimentality about "the right to life" of a fetus (although I agree it has potential to become a human) is hypocritical in the face of the values we place every day on life regarding our decisions to eat meat, wear cheap clothing, even to live here in the rich countries when others are starving worldwide.

MagicMarker

Mario852 wrote: »

This place would be a much better place if everyone had your level of debating skills. *sarcasm*

So far, you've implied that women should be locked up in mental institutions so they cannot have an abortion. You've compared women who have abortions with Hitler, and you say that fetuses should be brought to term so that when they are born they can decide for themselves if they want to die.

So..errr.... you're not debating here, you're just talking crazy talk and everyone else is sitting at their computers reading your posts with this look on their face.

28064212

Mario852 wrote: »

If they are emotionally unstable, suffering from a mental illness or in a danger of self-harm or causing harm to others then I think she should be helped by some mental-health institutions before its too late.

If they're not emotionally unstable, not suffering from a mental illness and not in danger of self-harm, but are going for a termination of a foetus, should they be locked up?

No Hitler side-tracking please, just answer the question straight

DB21

28064212 wrote: »

If they're not emotionally unstable, not suffering from a mental illness and not in danger of self-harm, but are going for a termination of a foetus, should they be locked up?

No Hitler side-tracking please, just answer the question straight

How are you not getting this? Clearly ANY woman who cares about her welfare ahead of a non-sentient (Before 10 weeks) bunch of cells is a demon-posessed, Satan loving NAZI!!!! God almighty, he can only post this crap so many times.

kylith

DB21 wrote: »

How are you not getting this? Clearly ANY woman who cares about her welfare ahead of a non-sentient (Before 10 weeks) bunch of cells is a demon-posessed, Satan loving NAZI!!!! God almighty, he can only post this crap so many times.

Exactly! Not wanting to have a baby is a mental illness.

robindch

Mario852 wrote: »

When I asked you why is it not good you said:
Because its boring predictable and crap!.

Last post on this topic, as you still don't seem to be getting the point.

My first post as mod on the topic of "invoking Hitler" was here. It was short and polite and included a link to further reading if it wasn't immediately clear why invoking Hitler was a bad idea out here on the internet. You complained and ignored the advice. The second mod post on the topic is here and it too referred you, politely, to the same wiki. Lingua Franca helpfully pointed you towards another article on the same topic, if my repeated reference to Godwin's Law wasn't clear enough. So did my third post. And you ignored all of those too. So rather than spending the rest of my evening -- hell, perhaps my life -- trying and failing to explain to you how to carry on a mature debate on the internet, I short-circuited it and resorted to crayon-level prose and crayon-level reasoning. Which you've ignored too. So at this point, I give up and I'm going to take out my mod stick.

The next post, from any poster, which invokes Hitler will be deleted without comment and if it's a mystery to the poster concerned, well, so be it.

That is all.

Nodin

Mario852 wrote: »

Its based on logic => 2+2=4 would be right no matter who says it.

If that person is emotionally unstable or is very likely to commit self-hard or to harm other people then that person is obviously mentally ill.

............

Ok. You've a study or survey to back up this assertion of mental illness in women planning an abortion?

old hippy

Mario852 wrote: »

No, i don't personally know anyone who has an abortion.
I don't also know any murderers, but that should not stop anyone from expressing their opinions on homicide.

It doesn't matter where the opinion come from to be a valid opinion/fact.

What's homicide got to do with this debate?

Maybe when you do get to know a person who has had to make the decision to terminate, you might have more of an idea of the issues and feelings at hand. In the meantime, all you have is spurious and nonsensical knee jerkery.

Mario852

MagicMarker wrote: »

So far, you've implied that women should be locked up in mental institutions so they cannot have an abortion. You've compared women who have abortions with Hitler, and you say that fetuses should be brought to term so that when they are born they can decide for themselves if they want to die.

So..errr.... you're not debating here, you're just talking crazy talk and everyone else is sitting at their computers reading your posts with this look on their face.

I can't even remember how many time i have explained that...
I never said (or implied) anything about locking women so they can't have an abortion.
Read back, because I am actually tired of repeating myself over and over again.

"you're just talking crazy talk" - Thats a very good debating skill:, refuse to listen, on purposely change the meaning of quotes, cherry-pick them out of the context and call them a 'crazy talk'.

I don't think I see a point of me wasting my time on taking part in this discussion.
People just don't seem to listen. Not only that, they pick random quotes of of context and change their meaning, not mentioning repeating questions over and over again.
Looks like most you you mind-blocked to only your own opinion and you see everything else as 'crazy talk'.

I thought this meant to be a discussion, where you actually try to put yourself in someone else's point of view.
No point of any kind of discussion in this thread as any opinion against the majority gets smashed by trolls, not being bothered to understand or even read properly a post.

Anyhoo, I say farewell to you. Good luck playing with you mod stick.
I hope sometime this crowd will be mature and open-minded enough for a proper discussion.
-Mario852

old hippy

Just adore when poster comes on thread and makes all sorts of offensive comments and then flounces because he or she can't answer the questions put to them.

NEXT! :rolleyes:

robindch

Mario852 wrote: »

I know what Goswin law is [...] "Its carp"

Mario852 wrote: »

People just don't seem to listen.

Double facepalm

Mario852 wrote: »

I hope sometime this crowd will be mature and open-minded enough for a proper discussion.

Plenty of people are. Don't let the door slam on your way out.

Bannasidhe

old hippy wrote: »

Just adore when poster comes on thread and makes all sorts of offensive comments and then flounces because he or she can't answer the questions put to them.

:

Henceforth and Forthwith this practice shall be known across the webverse as Goswin's Law.

What say ye all oh immature ones?

Yea or Nay.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Henceforth and Forthwith this practice shall be known across the webverse as Goswin's Law.

What say ye all oh immature ones?

Yea or Nay.

We need to get this this guy first before deciding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i8fln3vCo0

old hippy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Henceforth and Forthwith this practice shall be known across the webverse as Goswin's Law.

What say ye all oh immature ones?

Yea or Nay.

Yea :D:D

Delirium

Mario852 wrote: »

I can't even remember how many time i have explained that...
I never said (or implied) anything about locking women so they can't have an abortion.
Read back, because I am actually tired of repeating myself over and over again.

"you're just talking crazy talk" - Thats a very good debating skill:, refuse to listen, on purposely change the meaning of quotes, cherry-pick them out of the context and call them a 'crazy talk'.

I don't think I see a point of me wasting my time on taking part in this discussion.
People just don't seem to listen. Not only that, they pick random quotes of of context and change their meaning, not mentioning repeating questions over and over again.
Looks like most you you mind-blocked to only your own opinion and you see everything else as 'crazy talk'.

I thought this meant to be a discussion, where you actually try to put yourself in someone else's point of view.
No point of any kind of discussion in this thread as any opinion against the majority gets smashed by trolls, not being bothered to understand or even read properly a post.

Anyhoo, I say farewell to you. Good luck playing with you mod stick.
I hope sometime this crowd will be mature and open-minded enough for a proper discussion.
-Mario852

I'm afraid you did.

You were asked the following:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So a woman who wants an abortion should be placed in a psychiatric unit - against her will - so she cannot have an abortion?

Do you realise you are advocating incarcerating women and forcing them to bare children?

That is barbaric.

You responded with:

Mario852 wrote: »

They aren't prisons, they are mental institution made to help emotionally unstable people.

There's definitely an implication from your post that it's ok to lock up pregnant women and force them to have the child.

robindch

Mario852 is taking a week off to hyperventilate in the peace and comfort of his own company.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Mario852 is taking a week off to hyperventilate in the peace and comfort of his own company.

That sounds an awful lot like a euphemism for masturbation.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was against that too.

robp

old hippy wrote: »

Just adore when poster comes on thread and makes all sorts of offensive comments and then flounces because he or she can't answer the questions put to them.

NEXT! :rolleyes:

It sounds like debate is offensive to you.

Delirium

robp wrote: »

It sounds like debate is offensive to you.

you consider someone who "makes all sorts of offensive comments and then flounces because he or she can't answer the questions put to them" as someone engaged in debating?

robp

Obliq wrote: »

AND....Here's what ACTUALLY happens in Chile. http://www.ssds.net/ssds-products/peer-reviewed-pubs/Shepard-et-al--Abortion-Policies-in-Chile.pdf
Reminds me of a country....somewhere......ehhh, OH YEAH. Here:mad:

The journal that published E Koch's study (Plos One) has innumerable more credibility than Reproductive Health Matters. E Koch's study is not the last word but its the direction we will likely see the data leading.

Jernal wrote: »

And as I suspected at the time as with most academic papers quoted in the popular press, most people read the quotes and think they've understood the whole paper. Pathetic, but yeah I felt really sorry for those researchers as I rather liked the paper.

Is is awful that people flip out like and make silly threats that but I am sure they expected it. You have the same situation with many other contrarian issues like for instance there was a case of death threats issued over a paper arguing for longterm negative effects of same-sex parents on children. It really ruins the independence of academic investigation.

pauldla wrote: »

Still not understanding this 'pro-choice absolutist' term, Robp. Sorry. What's the difference between someone who is pro-choice and a 'pro-choice absolutist'?

I defined it earlier but for clarity it is someone who takes the typical logic in support of abortion to its natural end. Who brings it to its logical conclusion i.e. someone who sees the idea of choice as the overriding factor always. In many ways I would share many views with them because like me they acknowledge the arbitrariness of abortion time limits, 24 weeks in the UK, 12 weeks in Germany or in the third trimester in several countries.

robp

koth wrote: »

you consider someone who "makes all sorts of offensive comments and then flounces because he or she can't answer the questions put to them" as someone engaged in debating?

There is an issue of possibly willful misinterpretation going on in my opinion. This whole thread is opaque as hell though. It depends on what the 'offensive' issue was though. Is if was about abortion = killing well that is in no way offensive. If it was about abortion being something done by mentally women than its probably a misinterpretation. Since the X-case the topic of depression and pregnancy shadow abortion debates.