Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 00:27am
brianbaby
wrote:
so what happens if this 35
year old woman get pregnant again right
after that abortion.....Still using birth
control and everything.....Should she be
allowed to go out and kill another
baby???
she didn't kill a baby to
begin with, and thus can not be killing
another. And having an abortion will
then occur before there is a baby,
antichoice revisionist linguistics none
withstanding.
That aside, it is none of your business
why she has an abortion or whether she was
on birth control or not.
But given that some fundies argue that
they should be on contraception, then
certainly if she got pregnant while on
contraception, even a second time, those
same fundies really don't have any
justification arguing that she shouldn't
have an abortion.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 00:29am
jlee77
wrote:
kourtney08
wrote:
yep, and I gave my views.
Im done now. I like to come and look at
everyone elses views. And if I have
something to say I will. But for now im
done :)
your no fun, what's the point?! This is
called a "debate" forum. Debating is
very
repetative.
no, jlee. Debate is not
repetitive, as it involves people
listening to the other side. Prolife
trolls coming in here and regurgitating
the same lies time after life, that is not
"debate." that is spamming, that is
trolling.
|
foreverblue
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 577
Posted: 01-27-05 03:06am
steen
wrote:
foreverblue
wrote:
Quote:
you have put a
gradinet of risks on different types of
surgery.
are you telling me there
isnt a gradient of risk to different types
of surgery,
nope, as that is true.
I am saying that you are now making that
gradient a criteria for whether the
surgery should be allowed or not. So I
am asking you were you are putting that
gradient? Shoudl any surgery with high
risk not be aloowed? Or are you saying
that only surgeries where the treated
condition carries a high risk, should
surgery be allowed? Because those are
the only two possibilities that I read
from your post. So which one is it?
.
steen please show me where I said that any
surgery should not be performed.I have not
said that,you are reading something into
one line out of my post that is not
there.I do not believe that any medically
required surgery should be banned{please
note I said medically required
surgery>.This is now getting boring
steen I have clearly explained what was
happening in that thread,and what you have
posted has nothing to do with what was in
the thread.As to putting a gradient of
risk to ban certain types of surgery,i
think you will find that was jlee,not me.I
just pointed out that to .N.O.T have heart
surgery carried more risks than .N.O.T
having an abortion,at no point did I say
that it should be banned.
|
foreverblue
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 577
Posted: 01-27-05 03:09am
steen
wrote:
Quote:
and no steen I
didnt put it there people with more
experiance than me or you decided
this.
what are you talking
about?
.
sheesh,the gradient of risk to certain
types of surgery,which you admitted did
exist ,was put there by people with more
experiance than you or me,i do not claim
to be in a position to do this
|
foreverblue
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 577
Posted: 01-27-05 03:11am
steen
wrote:
Quote:
are you now
telling me that the risk of .N.O.T having
heart surgery is equal to .N.O.T having an
abortion.
nope, I am not saying
that. Rather, I am asking you how you
see the issue of risk as having any
validity in determining whether abortions
are valid/allowed or not? I would love
to see how you come to a decision based on
that, without also affecting the right to
all sorts of other
surgeries.
i repeat I have never said that any
medically required surgery should be
banned or not.So please give it up
|
foreverblue
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 577
Posted: 01-27-05 03:22am
steen
wrote:
Quote:
yes, and
abortions are some of the most
life-improving surgeries there are. We
saw that in the past in the us, where
women were so desperate to terminate their
unwanted pregnancies that they would incur
tremendous risks in the process. And we
see it today in the countries where
contraception is limited and abortion is
illegal, where every hospital has a
"women's wing" for the women who have
undergone unsafe abortions and are
suffering the health consequenses of this.
Yet, women there still abort, despite
the risks. As such, the access to a
safe, legal abortion is a tremendous
relief. Only those who neglect women
completely can not see the value in
that.
do you have this empathy
with drug addicts in hospital from an
overdose,
yes, I treat them all the
time.
Quote:
do you have the
same feelings for a car thief in hospital
because he crashed a stolen
car,
yes. They are
patients. I don't judge their action,
only their needs.
Quote:
if a person
wishes to commit a *crime*{which they are
doing if abortion is illegal in that
country}they like any other criminal have
to take the
consequences.
and as such, they should
suffer preventable diseases. Yup, we
sure see how little compassion you store
you your little grinch heart.[/quote]
sorry I have plenty of compassion but its
all for the victims of crime,i can not
feel sympathy for an heroin addict who
mugs old ladies to support thier
addiction,or for a car thief who crashes
the stolen car into a group of
children,sorry but my sympathy is for the
family.Wanting the law to be obeyed as
nothing to do with being a grinch.When you
get into your car every morning,you are
accepting the risks involved,is that a
correct assumption,therefore if you take
drugs then you are accepting the risks
for that.Do you feel this sympathy with a
criminal after he has been convicted and
crys I shouldnt be here.I also wonder just
how much sympathy you would have for a
burns victim if it turned out they had
firebomed a womens health clinic.Please be
completely honest with your answer.
|
BrianBaby
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 1383
Posted: 01-27-05 08:08am
steen
wrote:
brianbaby
wrote:
so what happens if this 35
year old woman get pregnant again right
after that abortion.....Still using birth
control and everything.....Should she be
allowed to go out and kill another
baby???
she didn't kill a baby to
begin with, and thus can not be killing
another. And having an abortion will
then occur before there is a baby,
antichoice revisionist linguistics none
withstanding.
That aside, it is none of your business
why she has an abortion or whether she was
on birth control or not.
But given that some fundies argue that
they should be on contraception, then
certainly if she got pregnant while on
contraception, even a second time, those
same fundies really don't have any
justification arguing that she shouldn't
have an
abortion.
steen~it's your opinion that a baby was
never killed.......
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 11:17am
foreverblue
wrote:
steen please show me where I
said that any surgery should not be
performed.
you have made
implications about the validity of medical
treatment based on risks. Yes, as I
questioned earlier, I am not sure you
really want to go here. You seem
woefully unprepared for the issues in that
discussion. Go read up on the oregon
helth plan and the bitter debates that
erupted over that.
Quote:
i have not said
that,you are reading something into one
line out of my post that is not there.I do
not believe that any medically required
surgery should be banned{please note I
said medically required
surgery>.
all surgeries are
medically required. The surgeon won't do
the surgery without a valid reason.
Quote:
this is now
getting boring steen I have clearly
explained what was happening in that
thread,and what you have posted has
nothing to do with what was in the
thread.
so you are retracting the
implication that abortion somehow was not
valid or did not have enough adverse
potential outcome to be valid. Ok, your
retraction is duly noted. (because you
weren't trying some dishonest antichoice
word trickery here, were you? You are
not that dishonest, I hope.)
Quote:
as to putting a
gradient of risk to ban certain types of
surgery,i think you will find that was
jlee,not me.
ok, if you say so.
Sorry about the confusion.
Quote:
i just pointed
out that to .N.O.T have heart surgery
carried more risks than .N.O.T having an
abortion,at no point did I say that it
should be
banned.
ah, ok. Just like not
having an abortion carries ore risks than
having plastic surgery, f.Ex. Yes, and
the relevance is what, exactly? If you
are not talking about a risk-gradient, why
would you bring up the issue of one having
more grave consequenses than the other ( a
not entirely correct claim anyway, btw, as
I pointed out)?
Yes, I am awaiting your answer on that
one.
|
mom2trevor
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Posts: 694 Location: VA
Posted: 01-27-05 11:17am
And steen says *yup, we sure see how
little compassion you store you your
little grinch heart*
----what?? Steen telling someone else
they don't have compassion! Excuse me
while I throw up *gag*...How ridiculus!
Steen your little black heart ( the one
that advocates killing innocent unborn
children) has about the least compassion
of anyone i've ever came in contact
with....You are a sad, sick, twisted and
vile person...You are a misanthropist and
a misogynist because you advocate the
abortion of boys and girls....How dare you
say someone else has no compassion!
Women's rights right? What about all the
*little women* who have been
aborted...Where are their rights? That
right they dont' matter to you and that
makes you a hypocrit and a misogynist.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 11:19am
foreverblue
wrote:
steen
wrote:
Quote:
and no steen I
didnt put it there people with more
experiance than me or you decided
this.
what are you talking
about?.
sheesh,the gradient of
risk to certain types of surgery,which you
admitted did exist ,was put there by
people with more experiance than you or
me,i do not claim to be in a position to
do this
ah, ok. So you accept
the current risk assessment regarding
surgeries because they were done by people
who know what they are talking about,
right? Funny how abortion is part of
that risk gradient, and have been found to
be one of the most positive surgeries
because it is so very safe as surgeries go
and because it reaps so imense benefits
compared to not doing the surgery. So we
are in agreement that those who did these
risk gradients find abortion to be a safe
and beneficial medical procedure.
Great, then we don't have to argue over
anything.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 11:20am
Duplicate
Last edited by steen on 01-27-05 11:53am; edited 1 time in total
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 11:21am
Duplicate
Last edited by steen on 01-27-05 11:54am; edited 1 time in total
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 11:21am
Duplicate
Last edited by steen on 01-27-05 11:54am; edited 1 time in total
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 11:21am
Duplicate
Last edited by steen on 01-27-05 11:54am; edited 1 time in total
|
foreverblue
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 577
Posted: 01-27-05 11:34am
[quote="steen"]
foreverblue
wrote:
steen please show me where I
said that any surgery should not be
performed.
you have made
implications about the validity of medical
treatment based on risks. Yes, as I
questioned earlier, I am not sure you
really want to go here. You seem
woefully unprepared for the issues in that
discussion. Go read up on the oregon
helth plan and the bitter debates that
erupted over that.
[quote]
no steen I did not imply anything so that
is a lie a downright false hood,you tried
to imply that I had said something I had
not.So an apology will be required before
we commence battle again and for the
racist comment against the british
people.I will answer the rest of your
posts then please do not post to me untill
you have apologized for the lies.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 11:34am
foreverblue
wrote:
sorry I have plenty of
compassion but its all for the victims of
crime,i can not feel sympathy for an
heroin addict who mugs old ladies to
support thier addiction,or for a car thief
who crashes the stolen car into a group of
children,sorry but my sympathy is for the
family.Wanting the law to be obeyed as
nothing to do with being a
grinch.
yes, I am not at all
surprised. That is the lack of empathy I
have come to expect from prolifers. I
suspect that it the only reason you can so
completely ignore the woman. That aside,
where the law is broken or not is
irrelevant to whether the person needs
care or not. Caring for a patient
doesn't mean that I will feel sorry when
the law picks up that person afterwards.
That aside, your stereotypical and narrow
view of drug addicts is duly noted.
Quote:
when you get into
your car every morning,you are accepting
the risks involved,is that a correct
assumption,
and if I have an
accident, I also expect there to be a
medical system that can help me out.
That is also true, btw, if people engage
in sex and the woman ends up with an
unwanted pregnancy. It is no less an
unintended than driving and having an
accident.
Quote:
therefore if you
take drugs then you are accepting the
risks for
that.
and also that there is
medical treatment available to help me
Quote:
do you feel this
sympathy with a criminal after he has been
convicted and crys I shouldnt be
here.
i feel sympathy for his
distress. That has nothing to do with my
approach to medical care, though. Funny
how you tried to make that switch from
where we were talking about providing
medical care to people. I am sure it was
unintended, and that you meant no
deception, so I won't take it as such.
Quote:
i also wonder
just how much sympathy you would have for
a burns victim if it turned out they had
firebomed a womens health clinic.Please be
completely honest with your
answer.
i would be upset at their
action, and I would feel great compassion
for the horrible pain and pending horrible
rehab. Once again, you seem unable to
comprehend that there is a difference
between the approach to a patient and to a
patient's actions when not a patient.
Doctors don't check out patients’ morals
and actions before treating them. Have
you ever gone to the er and been asked
questions to determine whether you
actually deserved care? No, of course
not. That would sound outright silly.
But I really don't expect people with the
mindset of a prolifer to ever understand
that, so lets not continue a futile
discussion on this. Yes, you can
escalate the act of the person or the
personal effect on me, and the answer will
be the same, so lets not even bother.
You don't have the mindset to be a
physician, so you simply won't understand.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 11:38am
brianbaby
wrote:
steen~it's your opinion that
a baby was never
killed.......
and it is only your
opinion that there was a baby that was
killed.
And actually, there is more than my
opinion behind it. In science/medicine
(in other words, in the *factual* world)
"baby" is the developmental stage that
begins with birth, and thus does not exist
just prior to birth, when the stage rather
is "fetus." so it is a bit more than just
an "opinion." it is the revisionist
linguistics of prolifers that is pushing
the idea of a zygote as a "baby." yes,
dishonest imagery is just part of the
prolife trickery and deception we have
come to expect because your arguments are
based solely on emotional appeal with
complete disregard for reality. So you
need to resort to such trickery to make
your argument. We understand that
already, so there really isn't any need to
try to reinforce that impression.
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 01-27-05 11:40am
steen
wrote:
brianbaby
wrote:
steen~it's your opinion that
a baby was never
killed.......
and it is only your
opinion that there was a baby that was
killed.
And actually, there is more than my
opinion behind it. In science/medicine
(in other words, in the *factual* world)
"baby" is the developmental stage that
begins with birth, and thus does not exist
just prior to birth, when the stage rather
is "fetus." so it is a bit more than just
an "opinion." it is the revisionist
linguistics of prolifers that is pushing
the idea of a zygote as a "baby." yes,
dishonest imagery is just part of the
prolife trickery and deception we have
come to expect because your arguments are
based solely on emotional appeal with
complete disregard for reality. So you
need to resort to such trickery to make
your argument. We understand that
already, so there really isn't any need to
try to reinforce that
impression.
what the have sex are you on ?
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 11:52am
foreverblue
wrote:
steen please show me where I
said that any surgery should not be
performed.
Quote:
you have made
implications about the validity of medical
treatment based on risks. Yes, as I
questioned earlier, I am not sure you
really want to go here. You seem
woefully unprepared for the issues in that
discussion. Go read up on the oregon
helth plan and the bitter debates that
erupted over
that.
no steen I did not imply anything so that
is a lie a downright false hood,you tried
to imply that I had said something I had
not.
So an apology will be required before we
commence battle
again
bd1012 wrote:
yeah, there are health risks to open heart
surgery, should we ban that too?
Everything has it's risks and so does
pregnancy so that's why no one should be
forced to do either against their will..
Glad we cleared that up.
Do you really believe that open heart
surgery and abortion are even close,if you
do not have open heart surgery you most
probably die,are you trying to say that if
you dont have an abortion you will most
probably die?If that was the case shouldnt
pregnancy be banned?
<
span class="postbody">
here you tried to set up a risk gradien,
implying that risks should be used to
consider banning certaint procedures while
also trying to make such a differentiation
between abortion and open heart surgery.
Well, I just showed where you indeed did
make such an implication, so unless you
can explain that away, I see no need to
apologize for a direct observation. If
you can't stand by your own word, what
good is it to discuss with you?
Quote:
and for the
racist comment against the british
people.
pointing out that british
soldiers in belfast indeed have killed
children with rubber bullets is a fact, a
direct observation, not a racist comment.
What a nutty claim. Yes, I said it in
a harsh way to megamoron who had more than
warranted a harsh reply. So what?
Quote:
i will answer the
rest of your posts then please do not post
to me untill you have apologized for the
lies.
as there were no lies, I
can only conclude that you are getting out
of your dept in our argument and seek the
cowards retreat with a silly reply shouted
over your shoulder. Like the kid who
got insulted about not being picked first
and takes his ball and goes home. How
lame and pathetic.
|
msrosie
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 369 Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks: 12
Thanked:2
Posted: 01-27-05 11:54am
lil_blaze2004
wrote:
so if a woman has a right to
do anything to her body then suicide
should be legal. (i don't know if it
isin the states, but here it is considered
illegal)
suicide and attempted suicide: legal
issues.
Brown jm, cornish j, swart gt.
Canadian federal and ontario provincial
statutes are reviewed as they relate to
suicide and attempted suicide. Issues
addressed include involuntary committal to
psychiatric facilities, death by suicide
as a legal cause of action, insurance
exclusionary clauses and coroner's
inquests.
that does not mean it's illegal. It is
not illegal to kill yourself here in
canada. However, it *is* illegal to help
someone else kill him/herself.
