Options

ITT the abortions of strawmen

2456718

Posts

  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Well no, it was important because it was the first law to thumb its nose at the concept that a pregnant woman's health was worth preserving in an emergency situation.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Are you seriously saying that women who disagrees with you are mentally deficient?

    Is that in my post? Where is that in my post?

    Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological disorder holmes

    Its a known condition, not a 'deficiency'. You should probably try knowing what things are before posting about them. Also, don't lie about my posts.

    Hey let's play the semantics game!

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.

    Also this is the reason SCOTUS will never overturn Roe v. Wade. Stop deluding yourselves.

    From your article:

    " according to Scalia, "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right."[9]

    "Of the Court's current members, Justices Scalia and Thomas seem to have the most faith in the determinacy of the legal texts that come before the Court. It should come as no surprise that they also seem the most willing to overrule the Court's past decisions."

    Scalia and Thomas are the justices that are always pointed to as models for the type of justices that a prolife prez should nominate.

    And for the partial birth decision, yes there are still the same number of abortions, they just rip of pieces off and bring them out of the uterus instead of delivering most of the way and then crushing the head while still inside of the mothers body.

    It was considered important because it was the first restriction placed by the SC on abortioin since RvW, or at least that's the argument. It also signaled how close we were to a winning challenge if we can just get 1 or 2 more justices.
    Do you even understand the concept of Starry Decisis? Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned, barring the inexplicable appointment of 9 rabidly "pro-life" justices to the bench.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Hey let's play the semantics game!
    hey how about you stop trolling me, because I'm not in the mood for playing the 'let-another-mod-handle-jackassery-if-i'm-involved-in-an-argument' game!

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hey let's play the semantics game!
    hey how about you stop trolling me, because I'm not in the mood for playing the 'let-another-mod-handle-jackassery-if-i'm-involved-in-an-argument' game!

    It doesn't really look like he's trolling you so much as he resents that you attribute another woman's disagreement with you to Stockholm Syndrome. Which really, really doesn't make any sense.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    You implied that women who disagree with your position are not in their right mind. You then got upset (and rather evasive) when I asked you if that was what you really meant. So, like, I've asked a question, it'd be cool if you answered it rather than threatening to infract me because I said something that makes you uncomfortable and dodging the question.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"

    Not until there emerges a link between anti-abortion and anti-privacy and the latter proves to be more relevant to the current discussion than the former, no.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"

    now, now, that implies that the anti-choice crowd actually gives a shit about the non-abortion-related precedents that would be set by overturning Roe v. Wade.

    edit: like for instance the guy who posted right above me.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"

    We regulate medical procedures all the time. The idea that we cannot do so because it's not the government's business to be involved with medicine is kinda asinine.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"

    Not until there emerges a link between anti-abortion and anti-privacy and the latter proves to be more relevant to the current discussion than the former, no.

    Er, there is. It's called Roe v. Wade. Maybe you've heard of it?

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"
    Not until there emerges a link between anti-abortion and anti-privacy and the latter proves to be more relevant to the current discussion than the former, no.
    If you would bother to actually, I don't know, learn something about the subject before you started spouting a bunch of bullshit out your ass, you'd learn that--legally speaking--Roe v. Wade isn't actually a case about abortion, it's a case about privacy.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.

    Also this is the reason SCOTUS will never overturn Roe v. Wade. Stop deluding yourselves.

    From your article:

    " according to Scalia, "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right."[9]

    "Of the Court's current members, Justices Scalia and Thomas seem to have the most faith in the determinacy of the legal texts that come before the Court. It should come as no surprise that they also seem the most willing to overrule the Court's past decisions."

    Scalia and Thomas are the justices that are always pointed to as models for the type of justices that a prolife prez should nominate.

    And for the partial birth decision, yes there are still the same number of abortions, they just rip of pieces off and bring them out of the uterus instead of delivering most of the way and then crushing the head while still inside of the mothers body.

    It was considered important because it was the first restriction placed by the SC on abortioin since RvW, or at least that's the argument. It also signaled how close we were to a winning challenge if we can just get 1 or 2 more justices.
    Do you even understand the concept of Starry Decisis? Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned, barring the inexplicable appointment of 9 rabidly "pro-life" justices to the bench.

    No, I don't think I am understanding it in the way you would like. The whole neo nazi jew metaphor was a bit much, don't you think?

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"
    Not until there emerges a link between anti-abortion and anti-privacy and the latter proves to be more relevant to the current discussion than the former, no.
    If you would bother to actually, I don't know, learn something about the subject before you started spouting a bunch of bullshit out your ass, you'd learn that--legally speaking--Roe v. Wade isn't actually a case about abortion, it's a case about privacy.
    There isn't one single-issue voter that you can find who cares about that in the slightest.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"
    Not until there emerges a link between anti-abortion and anti-privacy and the latter proves to be more relevant to the current discussion than the former, no.
    If you would bother to actually, I don't know, learn something about the subject before you started spouting a bunch of bullshit out your ass, you'd learn that--legally speaking--Roe v. Wade isn't actually a case about abortion, it's a case about privacy.

    I am of the opinion that legality is not the only aspect to this. Just because a court case decided that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy based on a right to privacy doesn't mean it's so. It means that it is legally recognised as being so. It doesn't mean it's so.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    To a certain extent, it's probably best to let people name their own positions. Of course everyone wants to call their opposition "anti-choice," "anti-life," "I-hate-babies," or what have you, but there is unfortunately no impartial party to do the naming, so self naming will probably be the best way to keep things on the civil side.

    And Cat, when you say "most of them turn up at the backs of the abortion clinics," you're not being particularly accurate or helpful. You don't have to be nice, but at least ease up on the hyperbole.

    Tarantio on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    You implied that women who disagree with your position are not in their right mind.
    No, I did not. You appear to lack a basic understanding of psychology.
    You then got upset (and rather evasive) when I asked you if that was what you really meant.
    No, I did not. I got irritated, and have evaded you at no point. This is the last post in which i will request that you cease to lie about what I have said.
    So, like, I've asked a question, it'd be cool if you answered it rather than threatening to infract me because I said something that makes you uncomfortable and dodging the question.
    I've answered your question. I firmly believe that women who are in the pro-life movement - as in, those who work to ban abortion for everyone, rather than simply refusing to have them themselves - have been deluded by arguments that fundamentally sabotage their status as full human beings. They work actively against their own health and wellbeing and those of their fellow humans, and the evidence of their work is particularly, lethally, clear in the developing countries where the influence of the US anti-choice movement has actually had the most real-world impact through its influence on US-based public and private foreign aid. The overidentification with patriarchal concepts of ownership of female reproductive capacity can safely be referred to as Stockholm Syndrome in shorthand.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Do you even understand the concept of Starry Decisis? Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned, barring the inexplicable appointment of 9 rabidly "pro-life" justices to the bench.

    No, I don't think I am understanding it in the way you would like. The whole neo nazi jew metaphor was a bit much, don't you think?

    What does that silly analogy that wasn't even in the post you're quoting have to do with his argument?

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Tarantio wrote: »
    To a certain extent, it's probably best to let people name their own positions. Of course everyone wants to call their opposition "anti-choice," "anti-life," "I-hate-babies," or what have you, but there is unfortunately no impartial party to do the naming, so self naming will probably be the best way to keep things on the civil side.

    And Cat, when you say "most of them turn up at the backs of the abortion clinics," you're not being particularly accurate or helpful. You don't have to be nice, but at least ease up on the hyperbole.

    hyperbole my ass
    http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's enough of a problem that the professional advice tends to be "you are under no obligation to provide a service to these people and it can be regarded as professionally unwise to do so".

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"

    We regulate medical procedures all the time. The idea that we cannot do so because it's not the government's business to be involved with medicine is kinda asinine.

    Doctors and the AMA
    regulate procedures based on evidence related to their efficacy in accomplishing their stated goals. Don't try to state that that's the same as Jim-Bob McGee(R-MI) trying to ban lifesaving operations because 'they're icky'.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Not that you care, but not everyone that is against abortion wishes to prohibit life-saving operations or particularly cares that they are "icky".

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"

    We regulate medical procedures all the time. The idea that we cannot do so because it's not the government's business to be involved with medicine is kinda asinine.
    Doctors and the AMA regulate procedures based on evidence related to their efficacy in accomplishing their stated goals. Don't try to state that that's the same as Jim-Bob McGee(R-MI) trying to ban lifesaving operations because 'they're icky'.

    I don't know about you guys, but I haven't seen anyone walking around campus with pictures of bloody tonsils.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Not that you care, but not everyone that is against abortion wishes to prohibit life-saving operations or particularly cares that they are "icky".
    No, the rest just try not to think about the people who will die or be maimed without access to legal termination, or deny that they even exist.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    The whole neo nazi jew metaphor was a bit much, don't you think?
    The "pro-life" movment seeks to strip women of their reproductive rights, yet there are women members among their ranks.

    Neo Nazis seek to strip Jews and many other minority groups of their rights, yet there are Jews among their ranks.

    Both of these notions are similar, and similarly baffling. Now, was that easy enough for you to understand, or would you like me to explain it using sock puppets?

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Not that you care, but not everyone that is against abortion wishes to prohibit life-saving operations or particularly cares that they are "icky".

    The ones who don't should have a long hard think about the company they keep.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Tarantio wrote: »
    To a certain extent, it's probably best to let people name their own positions. Of course everyone wants to call their opposition "anti-choice," "anti-life," "I-hate-babies," or what have you, but there is unfortunately no impartial party to do the naming, so self naming will probably be the best way to keep things on the civil side.

    And Cat, when you say "most of them turn up at the backs of the abortion clinics," you're not being particularly accurate or helpful. You don't have to be nice, but at least ease up on the hyperbole.

    hyperbole my ass
    http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

    I just meant that "most" is inaccurate. Many of them, surely. But over 50%?

    That's a lot of abortions.

    Tarantio on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Not that you care, but not everyone that is against abortion wishes to prohibit life-saving operations or particularly cares that they are "icky".
    No, the rest just try not to think about the people who will die or be maimed without access to legal termination, or deny that they even exist.

    You'd be correct if you weren't wrong.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"

    We regulate medical procedures all the time. The idea that we cannot do so because it's not the government's business to be involved with medicine is kinda asinine.
    Doctors and the AMA regulate procedures based on evidence related to their efficacy in accomplishing their stated goals. Don't try to state that that's the same as Jim-Bob McGee(R-MI) trying to ban lifesaving operations because 'they're icky'.

    I don't know about you guys, but I haven't seen anyone walking around campus with pictures of bloody tonsils.

    I've seen Scientologists walking around campus droning on about how psychiatry is enslaving humankind. Do those count?

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Can we please stop referring to the potential justices as "pro-life" and start referring to them by the more accurate term "anti-privacy?"

    We regulate medical procedures all the time. The idea that we cannot do so because it's not the government's business to be involved with medicine is kinda asinine.
    Doctors and the AMA regulate procedures based on evidence related to their efficacy in accomplishing their stated goals. Don't try to state that that's the same as Jim-Bob McGee(R-MI) trying to ban lifesaving operations because 'they're icky'.

    I don't know about you guys, but I haven't seen anyone walking around campus with pictures of bloody tonsils.

    I've seen Scientologists walking around campus droning on about how psychiatry is enslaving humankind. Do those count?

    That's just ironic, really. And a bit sad.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Tarantio wrote: »
    I just meant that "most" is inaccurate. Many of them, surely. But over 50%?

    That's a lot of abortions.
    Well lets be fair, not all of them get knocked up, but given that the movement is also rife with opposition to the use of contraceptives, the sexually active ones do tend to luck out. I rather feel sorry for anyone living with that degree of cognitive dissonance/exceptionalism, but its not going to stop me making the real point, which is that a lot of ostensibly pro-life women aren't really.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Tarantio wrote: »
    I just meant that "most" is inaccurate. Many of them, surely. But over 50%?

    That's a lot of abortions.
    Well lets be fair, not all of them get knocked up, but given that the movement is also rife with opposition to the use of contraceptives, the sexually active ones do tend to luck out. I rather feel sorry for anyone living with that degree of cognitive dissonance/exceptionalism, but its not going to stop me making the real point, which is that a lot of ostensibly pro-life women aren't really.
    Not when it matters the most, no.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Do you even understand the concept of Starry Decisis? Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned, barring the inexplicable appointment of 9 rabidly "pro-life" justices to the bench.

    No, I don't think I am understanding it in the way you would like. The whole neo nazi jew metaphor was a bit much, don't you think?

    What does that silly analogy that wasn't even in the post you're quoting have to do with his argument?

    I am a prolife woman, I therefore am suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, and have been equated with a jew who joins the neo nazi party. All I am trying to point out is that in this specific election cycle for president , that the prolife issue will still bring out the "evangelical voter". If Obama or Hillary wins, and get 2 justices in, it is over for the next 20 years. Why do peolpe here need to insult me to disprove that argument?

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Not that you care, but not everyone that is against abortion wishes to prohibit life-saving operations or particularly cares that they are "icky".
    No, the rest just try not to think about the people who will die or be maimed without access to legal termination, or deny that they even exist.

    You'd be correct if you weren't wrong.

    You'd be debating if you weren't being retarded.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Not that you care, but not everyone that is against abortion wishes to prohibit life-saving operations or particularly cares that they are "icky".
    No, the rest just try not to think about the people who will die or be maimed without access to legal termination, or deny that they even exist.

    You'd be correct if you weren't wrong.

    You'd be debating if you weren't being retarded.

    So now we've got from Stockholm Syndrome to retardation for reasons that a person might disagree with us. How very reasonable.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Not that you care, but not everyone that is against abortion wishes to prohibit life-saving operations or particularly cares that they are "icky".
    No, the rest just try not to think about the people who will die or be maimed without access to legal termination, or deny that they even exist.

    You'd be correct if you weren't wrong.

    You'd be debating if you weren't being retarded.

    I'd argue that they who fail to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the people who would like to see abortion outlawed include a health exception are in fact the retarded ones.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    Ghandi 2Ghandi 2 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Tarantio wrote: »
    To a certain extent, it's probably best to let people name their own positions. Of course everyone wants to call their opposition "anti-choice," "anti-life," "I-hate-babies," or what have you, but there is unfortunately no impartial party to do the naming, so self naming will probably be the best way to keep things on the civil side.

    And Cat, when you say "most of them turn up at the backs of the abortion clinics," you're not being particularly accurate or helpful. You don't have to be nice, but at least ease up on the hyperbole.

    hyperbole my ass
    http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
    An interesting article, but most of that is anecdotal. The few statistics are not necessarily very reliable (I assume there are all kinds of response biases with this sort of thing that would be extremely difficult to control), and even then they say a small minority of patients are hypocrites. That doesn't even come close to translating into "most pro-life women" or even "most pro-life women who unexpectedly become pregnant".

    Ghandi 2 on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Not that you care, but not everyone that is against abortion wishes to prohibit life-saving operations or particularly cares that they are "icky".
    No, the rest just try not to think about the people who will die or be maimed without access to legal termination, or deny that they even exist.

    You'd be correct if you weren't wrong.

    You'd be debating if you weren't being retarded.

    I'd argue that he who fails to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the people who would like to see abortion outlawed include a health exception are in fact the retarded ones.

    Shut up, you're delusional. Better get you on some anti-psychotics and into a mental ward.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    I'd argue that he who fails to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the people who would like to see abortion outlawed include a health exception are in fact the retarded ones.
    Logically inconsistent, sure, but I'd love to see you argue that caring about women's health is 'retarded'.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    The whole neo nazi jew metaphor was a bit much, don't you think?
    The "pro-life" movment seeks to strip women of their reproductive rights, yet there are women members among their ranks.

    Neo Nazis seek to strip Jews and many other minority groups of their rights, yet there are Jews among their ranks.

    Both of these notions are similar, and similarly baffling. Now, was that easy enough for you to understand, or would you like me to explain it using sock puppets?

    Still not seeing it. Puppets please.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
Sign In or Register to comment.