Abortion

[chris epic]

I see. So I have to see it your way, or be lumped in, at least via insinuation, with the "equally destructive and misleading".

Nah.

Now you're just being a drama queen. I was asking you a question, I wasn't forcing you to "lump" yourself in, nor was I forcing you to see it my way. I asked you a question, now can you answer with sincerity or are you just going to keep being definsive? I was just saying that the justifications and feelings are felt on both side either way your spin it and I was ASKING if you could see that too. So can you? By the way, is it just coincidence that it says "grumpy old skeptic" beneath your name

 

[Euromutt]

Has anyone noticed that literally one person who actually has a damn uterus has weighed in on this thread, to wit Jas, and then only to ask about the mixing of milk and orange juice?

Somebody PM me when an actual female weighs in on the issues here. Call me weird, but my attitude towards men having an opinion on abortion is much the same as my attitude towards women having an opinion on circumcision. (I.e. if you don't have the bits, it's not your call.)

 

[jj]

Now you're just being a drama queen. I was asking you a question, I wasn't forcing you to "lump" yourself in, nor was I forcing you to see it my way. I asked you a question, now can you answer with sincerity or are you just going to keep being definsive?

Ble ble ble blah ble blah "I asked you a question" ble ble ble blah when did you stop beating your wife, ble ble ble blah...

Failed question, assuming facts not in evidence, introducing emotionally loaded terms, grandstanding, straw man ...

Man, y'all into them there rhetorical fallacies, ain't you? Yee haaa! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!

 

[JamesDillon]

Ble ble ble blah ble blah "I asked you a question" ble ble ble blah when did you stop beating your wife, ble ble ble blah...

Failed question, assuming facts not in evidence, introducing emotionally loaded terms, grandstanding, straw man ...

Man, y'all into them there rhetorical fallacies, ain't you? Yee haaa! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!

jj,
Do you always collapse into unintelligible gibberish when someone asks you to defend your opinions?

Chris,
Unfortunately jj does not deal well with having his views challenged, or the suggestion that those whose opinions differ from his may have valid points (or even be arguing in good faith). Take a look at pages 7-9 of the Roe v. Wade thread for further evidence of this.

 

[Abbyas]

But tell me you can't see the flip-side of that. Feeling as I do about the fact that even "potential-humanity" is precious, I find that defining abortion as a termination of something less than human promotes apathy which I find equally destructive and misleading as the truth is "vague and hard to pin down".

First of all, I'd like to thank you for trying to approach this issue with common understanding. Although, I wouldn't go so far as to call the pro-choice mindset apathetic, I do understand where you are coming from here.

The thing is, I also believe that "potential life" is precious. I applaud women that have the generosity to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption. I also hope to pop one of my own out someday. And if pregnancy caused no wear and tear on the mother, I would be anti-abortion in a heartbeat.

However, I don't believe that this "potential life" outweighs my right to not go through over a year at least of physical and emotional hardship.

I'd also like to see some more uterus owners piping in here.

 

[jj]

jj,
Do you always collapse into unintelligible gibberish when someone asks you to defend your opinions?

It's quite unsurprising that you would engage in this kind of behavior, given your own willingness to make up straw men and then ask your victim to defend them.

Chris,
Unfortunately jj does not deal well with having his views challenged, or the suggestion that those whose opinions differ from his may have valid points (or even be arguing in good faith). Take a look at pages 7-9 of the Roe v. Wade thread for further evidence of this.

The evidence is clear, I refuse to "support" others' illicit straw men. Given your "slick" behavior in the thread you point to, I'm not surprised that you chime in here.

Now, can you, like the other fellow, attempt a discussion in which you actually discuss the other person's position, rather than make one up that you can figure out how to attack?

Let's see. Give it a try, be a mensch.

 

[chris epic]

Somebody PM me when an actual female weighs in on the issues here. Call me weird, but my attitude towards men having an opinion on abortion is much the same as my attitude towards women having an opinion on circumcision. (I.e. if you don't have the bits, it's not your call.)

Your concern is founded- but this thread sprang from a thread about fathers rights so although its not my body its my child, 50% of me is inside that body so that's where we will disagree on the issue

 

[JamesDillon]

It's quite unsurprising that you would engage in this kind of behavior, given your own willingness to make up straw men and then ask your victim to defend them.

It looks to me like Chris was only asking you to concede that some pro-life advocates hold their views in good faith, and can articulate plausible defenses of the pro-life position. Your response to that?

Ble ble ble blah ble blah "I asked you a question" ble ble ble blah when did you stop beating your wife, ble ble ble blah...

Now, can you, like the other fellow, attempt a discussion in which you actually discuss the other person's position, rather than make one up that you can figure out how to attack?

Let's see. Give it a try, be a mensch.

I really haven't the slightest desire to engage in any further discussion of this or any other issue with you, jj. As for your personal comments, I invite anyone who cares to form an opinion on the matter to read our previous discussion that I cited above, pages 7-9 in the Roe v. Wade thread, and decide for themselves who was being unreasonable. I'm quite content to let our previous exchange speak for itself.

 

[chris epic]

Ble ble ble blah ble blah "I asked you a question" ble ble ble blah when did you stop beating your wife, ble ble ble blah...

Failed question, assuming facts not in evidence, introducing emotionally loaded terms, grandstanding, straw man ...

Man, y'all into them there rhetorical fallacies, ain't you? Yee haaa! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!

Actually, its my first year in school. I'm learning about fallacies and being here on the forum helps me even further, just be patient, I'm not a decrep....I mean old and wise as you are yet. But be patient, I know you don't have a whole lot of time left- but in the mean time maybe you can model some cochlear and masking thresholds, stereo imaging models and stereo imaging sensitivity models, methods of reproducing soundfields literally and perceptually, capture some more microphone and soundfield actively steered and time-invariants, and code some speech and audio methods, Mr. Ad Hominem.... see, told ya I'm learning. Of coarse, I'll be the first to admit I'm doing it to, I'm just probably not taking it as seriously as you are

That being said I will sincerely appologizing for resourting to my fallacies and immaturity as it is not conducive to a productive dialogue. So cheers to you JJ, I wish you the best.

 

[Abbyas]

Your concern is founded- but this thread sprang from a thread about fathers rights so although its not my body its my child, 50% of me is inside that body so that's where we will disagree on the issue

I understand what you mean. And I can understand you feeling at a loss when it comes to control of your potential offspring, (I don't necessarily believe that a father should automatically owe child support. In fact I did know one case where the father declined to pay child support by signing away his parental rights.) but I think calling the fetus part you is pushing it a little.

If I have an abortion, it does not physically hurt you. If I carry a baby to term it does physically hurt me. That's the important difference.

 

[Alliebubs]

*raises hand* I own a uterus. I've sort of chimed in under the "Roe v. Wade" thread a few days ago, and I do see abortion as killing a human life. I am, however, pro-choice.

That's all for now; I shudder to throw myself into this discussion, lest I be crucified.

Carry on.

 

[jj]

It looks to me like Chris was only asking you to concede that some pro-life advocates hold their views in good faith, and can articulate plausible defenses of the pro-life position. Your response to that?

Doesn't read that way to me, and I've never really suggested that even most of the extreme anti-woman's-rights people did not believe that their views were held in good faith. So I'm not sure why someone would ask.

I really haven't the slightest desire to engage in any further discussion of this or any other issue with you, jj.

Of course not, you don't want to discuss my positions, you want to discuss your straw men, and it's not very interesting for you to have them rejected outright as the constructs they are.

As for your personal comments, I invite anyone who cares to form an opinion on the matter to read our previous discussion that I cited above, pages 7-9 in the Roe v. Wade thread, and decide for themselves who was being unreasonable.

Pointing out your egregious rhetorical misconduct is not a "personal comment" except in that you engaged in that behavior.

I'm quite content to let our previous exchange speak for itself.

Then why are you showing up here to defend someone else's rhetorical malpractice?

 

[Abbyas]

jj does not speak for all pro-choice activists.

I am very curious to discuss this further with the pro-life supporters on this board.

 

[jj]

just be patient, I'm not a decrep....I mean old and wise as you are yet.

Yeah, yeah, what was that you said later, um "ad hominem"? Besides, oh, wait while I take my mid-morning nap here, ok?

zzzzzzz

Mr. Ad Hominem.... see, told ya I'm learning.

Not clear, pointing out your rhetorical misadventures is not ad-hominem. I am attacking your message, just not the way you want me to attack it.

An example of ad-hominem would be along the order of

YOU EAT FISH THEREFORE YOUR IDEAS ARE WRONG... N.B. yes, that's a preposterous example, and offered only for example.

Of coarse, I'll be the first to admit I'm doing it to, I'm just probably not taking it as seriously as you are

Well, one might then question the issue of "good faith", eh?

 

[jj]

If I have an abortion, it does not physically hurt you. If I carry a baby to term it does physically hurt me. That's the important difference.

That's a very nice, clear statement, and one that I think summarizes one of the most basic points involved. It's the woman who has necessarily to place life and limb at risk.

 

[jj]

jj does not speak for all pro-choice activists.

Indeed, and I've never claimed otherwise.

Please do tell me, by the way, what position I take that you disagree with?

(I would make a prediction here, but it wouldn't qualify for the prize, as it's based on a lifetime of experience, not any kind of prescience)

I am very curious to discuss this further with the pro-life supporters on this board.

Hm. I don't see many people who avow to be such.

I do see some folks who use what I would personally regard as an anti-choice argument but who none the less state a pro-choice stance. While that is indeed odd, one can not require others to use the same decision methods, or accept the same ethical paramaters. (Note, that's not accusing anyone of "bad" ethics, so don't go there.)

 

[Abbyas]

jj, the reason I posted that statement is for this reason. In many cases (especially in this one for me), I think it's more important to have the other side understand you versus win the arguement.

I genuinely think that the other poster was trying to reach some common understanding and you overreacted. And the more snarky posts back and forth, the more people will just dodge the thread. And I'd like to see more people at this one.

This is why I didn't say, "If I carry a baby to term, the pregnancy hurts me. Jerk! Creepo!" Just wouldn't get a lot across that way.

 

[elaine]

*raises hand* I own a uterus. I've sort of chimed in under the "Roe v. Wade" thread a few days ago, and I do see abortion as killing a human life. I am, however, pro-choice.

That's all for now; I shudder to throw myself into this discussion, lest I be crucified.

Carry on.

Seconded (though I did make some comments on the Taliban thread )

 

[JamesDillon]

I do see some folks who use what I would personally regard as an anti-choice argument but who none the less state a pro-choice stance. While that is indeed odd, one can not require others to use the same decision methods, or accept the same ethical paramaters.

Yes, jj, it is possible to hold a pro-choice position while agreeing that some pro-life arguments make valid points, such as the observation that abortion is, in fact, the termination of a human life, and that a legal prohibition of abortion would not violate the Thirteenth Amendment. This is called being "reasonable."

(Note, that's not accusing anyone of "bad" ethics, so don't go there.)

Maybe not this time, but you've already done that:

One might even suggest that you are a stealth propagandist.

As such, I've marked you as a person of questionable rhetoric, and whose ethics should be watched as well.

Take it or leave it, that's what I think.

 

[jj]

Maybe not this time, but you've already done that:

Indeed, am I supposed to presume innocence on your part, after you repeat (and more than once) your demands for me to address your own straw-man version of my position? After you evade the issue of the straw man you created entirely?

Sorry, that's how I see it.