My take on the abortion issue.

[Fantasea]

That was a nice lesson on the origins of an expression, but now where is your real argument concerning the issues at hand? Oh, thats right, you have none, which is why you expound greatly on the one part of the post you could attack, but only dismissed the remainder of the post which spoke more to the issue at hand. Your floundering is laughable because it becomes more predictable with each post.

:rofl

Glad you liked it.

You gave up arguing anything a long time ago. All you do is repeat an opinion of yours that any first year biology student would find ridiculous. It's human, but it's not human yet; it's not a person, but it may become a person. It all depends on how the potential works out; or doesn't work out.

I confess. I have been floundering. And what is floundering?

Floundering is a form of sport fishing in which the angler's prey is a bottom feeding scavenger known as 'the flounder'; a flatfish whose eyes happen to both be on the same side of its head. Marine biologists believe that although this attribute keeps the eyes out of the mud, it is, nevertheless, a genetic defect which manifests itself in two ways.

First, the flounder is cockeyed and has great difficulty distinguishing left from right. Next, there has been noted a causal relationship which reveals an advanced degree of stubbornness or inflexibility demonstrated by a pattern of behavior that continually results in chasing down empty shells while ignoring the meaty muscles. For this reason, the flounder is easily hooked on tripe.

Fortunately for the flounder, its lips are disproportionately weak for its size so that the hook often pulls through and the flounder manages to escape. But it always comes back for more. However, when finally landed, flounders typically display scars from numerous hookings which indicates their inability to resist the bait.

I enjoy floundering. And I, too, find that it gives me a good laugh. Especially when the fish goes for it all the way; hook, line, and sinker.

:2rofll:​

 

[Alex]

Anecdotes, especially personal anecdotes never have and never will be the basis for sound judgment which is applicable to a mass audience. Including abortion propaganda doesn't help.

If you want to know it from the side of an abortionist, here's a link to Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of NARAL, the premier authority on abortion.

http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

After reading what he has to say, come back and tell us about it.

I did not post that, my friend. (The introduction line says I did.)

 

[jallman]

Glad you liked it.

You gave up arguing anything a long time ago. All you do is repeat an opinion of yours that any first year biology student would find ridiculous. It's human, but it's not human yet; it's not a person, but it may become a person. It all depends on how the potential works out; or doesn't work out.

I confess. I have been floundering. And what is floundering?

Floundering is a form of sport fishing in which the angler's prey is a bottom feeding scavenger known as 'the flounder'; a flatfish whose eyes happen to both be on the same side of its head. Marine biologists believe that although this attribute keeps the eyes out of the mud, it is, nevertheless, a genetic defect which manifests itself in two ways.

First, the flounder is cockeyed and has great difficulty distinguishing left from right. Next, there has been noted a causal relationship which reveals an advanced degree of stubbornness or inflexibility demonstrated by a pattern of behavior that continually results in chasing down empty shells while ignoring the meaty muscles. For this reason, the flounder is easily hooked on tripe.

Fortunately for the flounder, its lips are disproportionately weak for its size so that the hook often pulls through and the flounder manages to escape. But it always comes back for more. However, when finally landed, flounders typically display scars from numerous hookings which indicates their inability to resist the bait.

I enjoy floundering. And I, too, find that it gives me a good laugh. Especially when the fish goes for it all the way; hook, line, and sinker.

:2rofll:​

flounder1
verb, intr floundered, floundering

1. To thrash about helplessly, as when caught in a bog.

Thesaurus: thrash, fumble, flail, grope, falter, stumble, stagger, plunge, welter.
2. To stumble helplessly in thinking or speaking, struggling to find the appropriate words, etc.

source: allwords.com

Seems someone is floundering more and more with each post. You at least give me a good laugh even if you cant defend your position.

:boom Thats the sound of any credibility you have going up in smoke.

Come back at me when you get some game...or at least a coherent case to put forth.

:sword:

 

[Fantasea]

One question for you fantasea...why would it surprise you that I would use a phrase bearing religious overtones? Just a curiosity. Are you making some comment to my religious beliefs or disbelief?

I have no idea, nor am I curious to know, anything about your personal relationship with the Almighty, or the lack thereof.

Perhaps my comment falls within the realm of an unintentional Freudian slip in that I find it incongruous that one who places so little value on life in the womb would, at the same time, be inclined toward a devoutness of faith.

You asked; I toldl.

However, if I have tread upon your foot, as it were, I offer a sincere apology.

:spank:​

 

[Fantasea]

I did not post that, my friend. (The introduction line says I did.)

Perhaps the 'owner' will come forward.

 

[jallman]

I have no idea, nor am I curious to know, anything about your personal relationship with the Almighty, or the lack thereof.

Perhaps my comment falls within the realm of an unintentional Freudian slip in that I find it incongruous that one who places so little value on life in the womb would, at the same time, be inclined toward a devoutness of faith.

You asked; I toldl.

However, if I have tread upon your foot, as it were, I offer a sincere apology.

:spank:​

No, there was no offense taken at all, but the apology is noted and accepted nonetheless, but totally unwarranted. I am not easily offended. The value I place on life is quite high though, and it comes from no religious obligation, though I am Catholic. The value I place on life comes from a love for this life and all the beauty humanity can hold. I have given this issue a lot of thought and did I really feel and see evidence that a human life was at stake in the first 6-8 weeks of a pregnancy, I would definitely flip sides in a heartbeat. I am far from rigid in my thinking.

 

[Fantasea]

flounder1
verb, intr floundered, floundering

1. To thrash about helplessly, as when caught in a bog.

Thesaurus: thrash, fumble, flail, grope, falter, stumble, stagger, plunge, welter.
2. To stumble helplessly in thinking or speaking, struggling to find the appropriate words, etc.

source: allwords.com

Seems someone is floundering more and more with each post. You at least give me a good laugh even if you cant defend your position.

:boom Thats the sound of any credibility you have going up in smoke.

Come back at me when you get some game...or at least a coherent case to put forth.

:sword:

I always knew you could work a dictionary and thesaurus. However, you must have missed my opening paragraph.

 

[jallman]

I always knew you could work a dictionary and thesaurus. However, you must have missed my opening paragraph.

Only by the same margin you missed my point.

 

[Fantasea]

Of course life is a "continuum which begins at conception and progresses through many age related stages until death in old age." What does this prove? That does not mean conception or the early stages of life are "human" itself.

You are struggling with convolution.

Make up your mind. First you say it is; then you say it isn't. It certainly can't be both.

Except in your unfounded opinion, of course.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I have no idea, nor am I curious to know, anything about your personal relationship with the Almighty, or the lack thereof.

Perhaps my comment falls within the realm of an unintentional Freudian slip in that I find it incongruous that one who places so little value on life in the womb would, at the same time, be inclined toward a devoutness of faith.

You asked; I toldl.

However, if I have tread upon your foot, as it were, I offer a sincere apology.

No, there was no offense taken at all, but the apology is noted and accepted nonetheless, but totally unwarranted. I am not easily offended. The value I place on life is quite high though, and it comes from no religious obligation thouugh I am Catholic. The value I place on life comes from a love for this life and all the beauty humanity can hold. I have given this issue a lot of thought and did I really feel and see evidence that a human life was at stake in the first 6-8 weeks of a pregnancy, I would definitely flip sides in a heartbeat. I am far from rigid in my thinking.

Although I expressed no desire to know of your religious beliefs or lack thereof, you insist that I must be told.

Therefore, if you disagree with what follows, you have no justification to complain.

First, you say that the value you place on life is quite high, but that it comes from no religious obligation even though you profess Catholicity.

"Quite high" is not absolute and presumes occasions and situations in which you consider life to have no value. Your insistence that life, immediately after conception, may be summarily extinguished, is an instance of this.

Every practicing Catholic, in full communion with the Church, understands, accepts, honors, and respects life from the moment of conception, through all stages of pregnancy, and through all stages which follow, until natural death occurs.

To do less calls into serious question the depth and breadth of of the sincerity of one's Catholic faith. The Church extends its mantle upon those who are fully committed to the acceptance and defense of all of its teachings, not merely those teachings with which an individual may be comfortable.

The Church as made known through ex cathedra teachings that from the moment of conception, all human life is sacred and must not be interfered with in any way.

There are many individuals who, although baptized into the Church, have found themselves, for whatever reason, unable to fulfill all of the obligations required of them. Yet, since things spiritual leave no recognizable mark, they are able to conceal their true beliefs beneath the image of a masquerade, lest others may know them for what they are.

So much for the religious side of the discussion.

On the secular side, the research findings of biologists, fetologists, obstetricians, and geneticists bolster the position of the Church.

One may do whatever one wishes, ignore the Church, or ignore science. Individuals are never obliged to accept the truth; it has always been optional. At least in the temoral realm, one always has the right to be wrong.

All that being said, I have never seen any scientific or medical position that purports to justify the nearly fifty million abortions which have occurred since Roe v. Wade.

Opinion, based upon emotion and privacy abounds. However, it appears that no scientific or medical support exists to warrant this carnage.

You wrote, "I have given this issue a lot of thought and did I really feel and see evidence that a human life was at stake in the first 6-8 weeks of a pregnancy, I would definitely flip sides in a heartbeat. I am far from rigid in my thinking."

Given the gravity of the question, especially as it applies to the teachings of the Church, one cannot be faulted for wondering whether those who speak as you do are simply emulating a certain apostle whose initial was "T". One would sincerely hope that they, as did the apostle, eventually learn the truth.

How will they answer, when called to account, "When there was the possibility of doubt, what did you do to ensure that you were not in willful error?"

The days of the apostles being long gone, the only way to learn the truth is to make a deliberate, energetic, sincere effort to find it. Opining never was, never is, and never will be the way.

 

[Busta]

Who here says that Men have no right to an opinion on abortion?

 

[jallman]

Although I expressed no desire to know of your religious beliefs or lack thereof, you insist that I must be told.

Therefore, if you disagree with what follows, you have no justification to complain.

First, you say that the value you place on life is quite high, but that it comes from no religious obligation even though you profess Catholicity.

"Quite high" is not absolute and presumes occasions and situations in which you consider life to have no value. Your insistence that life, immediately after conception, may be summarily extinguished, is an instance of this.

Every practicing Catholic, in full communion with the Church, understands, accepts, honors, and respects life from the moment of conception, through all stages of pregnancy, and through all stages which follow, until natural death occurs.

To do less calls into serious question the depth and breadth of of the sincerity of one's Catholic faith. The Church extends its mantle upon those who are fully committed to the acceptance and defense of all of its teachings, not merely those teachings with which an individual may be comfortable.

The Church as made known through ex cathedra teachings that from the moment of conception, all human life is sacred and must not be interfered with in any way.

There are many individuals who, although baptized into the Church, have found themselves, for whatever reason, unable to fulfill all of the obligations required of them. Yet, since things spiritual leave no recognizable mark, they are able to conceal their true beliefs beneath the image of a masquerade, lest others may know them for what they are.

So much for the religious side of the discussion.

On the secular side, the research findings of biologists, fetologists, obstetricians, and geneticists bolster the position of the Church.

One may do whatever one wishes, ignore the Church, or ignore science. Individuals are never obliged to accept the truth; it has always been optional. At least in the temoral realm, one always has the right to be wrong.

All that being said, I have never seen any scientific or medical position that purports to justify the nearly fifty million abortions which have occurred since Roe v. Wade.

Opinion, based upon emotion and privacy abounds. However, it appears that no scientific or medical support exists to warrant this carnage.

You wrote, "I have given this issue a lot of thought and did I really feel and see evidence that a human life was at stake in the first 6-8 weeks of a pregnancy, I would definitely flip sides in a heartbeat. I am far from rigid in my thinking."

Given the gravity of the question, especially as it applies to the teachings of the Church, one cannot be faulted for wondering whether those who speak as you do are simply emulating a certain apostle whose initial was "T". One would sincerely hope that they, as did the apostle, eventually learn the truth.

How will they answer, when called to account, "When there was the possibility of doubt, what did you do to ensure that you were not in willful error?"

The days of the apostles being long gone, the only way to learn the truth is to make a deliberate, energetic, sincere effort to find it. Opining never was, never is, and never will be the way.

Bravo, Bravo

Way to take a side conversation, having nothing to do with the issues that were being discussed really, and turning it into another floundering attempt at discrediting and dismissing a case which you have not been able to give a rebuttal for. I am truly impressed by your use of smoke and mirrors in an attempt to make your debate look more credible. This has gotten nowhere and will continue to go nowhere until you decide to look at the issues at hand and address them. I think, though you are eloquent, everything you say lacks substance and has the smell of someone who just likes to hear himself talk.

Again, come back at me when you have something worthwhile to contribute.

 

[edb19]

I think showing an adolescent how to use a condom is not condoning it, though I do think that passing condoms out in school is too far.

Showing them how to be responsible with a choice and empowering them to make that choice in a certain direction is how I see the difference.

I'm pro-life when it comes to abortion, but I think the best way to prevent pregnancy isn't a condom it's proper education. Making them aware of responsiblities and how to be responsible.

Demonizing this problem down to abstinence has been proven to be ineffective. Tell them how to be resonsible so that you can expect them to be responsible.

Bravo - truly one of the best posts I've read.:applaud

 

[edb19]

The only real victims here are the women who choose to have an abortion being victimized by pro-lifers. Again I wonder why no pro-lifers can answer some important questions.

Why is it any business of someone else what a person does with their bodies?
What about the inevitable backlash illegal abortions will bring? Women seeking illegal abortions and risking their health and lives.
What will happen to all these unwanted children? There are not enough people seeking adoptions to cover all the children being born if abortion were illegal.

Pro-lifers provide the counseling to women (and men) suffering from PASS (post abortion stress syndrome).

'Short term follow up studies, of less than six months, typically report 10 to 20 percent of patients reporting significant psychological problems which they associate with their abortion experience.'

'Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions. Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.

In one study of 500 aborted women, researchers found that 50 percent expressed negative feelings, and up to 10 percent were classified as having developed "serious psychiatric complications.'

The Elliot Institute.

Pro-choice people don't even want to admit such a thing exists.

 

[Busta]

"Why is it any business of someone else what a person does with their bodies?"

Hell ya!!! It's nobodies business!! Men, ESPECIALLY 4 loud mouthe's named Harry Blackmun, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger and William O. Douglas, should never have a say in what a woman can do with her body!! These guy's should have kept their stupid opinions to them selfs. Imagine the nerve of these few Men...forcing their opinions on others.....it's unbelievable!!!

"What about the inevitable backlash illegal abortions will bring?"

Ya....Crack and Heroin are illegal too.....so what?

"Women seeking illegal abortions and risking their health and lives."

Hay....if a woman wants too put a wire hanger up her snatch and injure her self...it's non of my business, remember?

"What will happen to all these unwanted children?"

Gee...what a concept....Mothers who actually take care of and raise their children....they only do that in France.

 

[Fantasea]

Bravo, Bravo

Way to take a side conversation, having nothing to do with the issues that were being discussed really, and turning it into another floundering attempt at discrediting and dismissing a case which you have not been able to give a rebuttal for. I am truly impressed by your use of smoke and mirrors in an attempt to make your debate look more credible. This has gotten nowhere and will continue to go nowhere until you decide to look at the issues at hand and address them. I think, though you are eloquent, everything you say lacks substance and has the smell of someone who just likes to hear himself talk.

Again, come back at me when you have something worthwhile to contribute.

Everything else strained out of that post, this is what remains at its heart:

All that being said, I have never seen any scientific or medical position that purports to justify the nearly fifty million abortions which have occurred since Roe v. Wade.

Opinion, based upon emotion and privacy abounds. However, it appears that no scientific or medical support exists to warrant this carnage.

I am not surprised that you ignored those two sentences. Why not surprise me and rebut them? Let me tell you why. There is no ammunition with which to do so.

So, you will continue to opine, opine, opine.

 

[jallman]

Everything else strained out of that post, this is what remains at its heart:

All that being said, I have never seen any scientific or medical position that purports to justify the nearly fifty million abortions which have occurred since Roe v. Wade.

Opinion, based upon emotion and privacy abounds. However, it appears that no scientific or medical support exists to warrant this carnage.

I am not surprised that you ignored those two sentences. Why not surprise me and rebut them? Let me tell you why. There is no ammunition with which to do so.

So, you will continue to opine, opine, opine.

And again, I say to you that this goes much deeper than a scientific debate and includes elements of philosophy, ethics, and PRIVACY (which the constitution concerns itself with).

Repetition will not win you this debate. You have consistently produced works and commentaries that are based in bias and opinion...with a minimal scientific observation to back it. And for your expert in the "Confessions of an ex abortionist" or whatever nonsense...he can hardly be considered an expert at all being that he speaks mainly from the EMOTION of his conversion to Catholicism.

Consistently you have been given logical yet philosophical arguments to make a case for pro-choice. Consistently you have taken it upon yourself to dismiss each rather than refute them. You got no game. Such a disappointment...I was looking for a debater, not a whiner.

 

[edb19]

I could be wrong - but I have the feeling that in ~50 years much of the world will view pro-choice countries (including the United States) and their practices much as we currently view Hitler and his "final solution".


'The real extremists in this debate are those who have
never met an abortion they would not prevent.' Cal Thomas

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Everything else strained out of that post, this is what remains at its heart:

All that being said, I have never seen any scientific or medical position that purports to justify the nearly fifty million abortions which have occurred since Roe v. Wade.

Opinion, based upon emotion and privacy abounds. However, it appears that no scientific or medical support exists to warrant this carnage.
I am not surprised that you ignored those two sentences. Why not surprise me and rebut them? Let me tell you why. There is no ammunition with which to do so.

So, you will continue to opine, opine, opine.

And again, I say to you that this goes much deeper than a scientific debate and includes elements of philosophy, ethics, and PRIVACY (which the constitution concerns itself with).

Repetition will not win you this debate. You have consistently produced works and commentaries that are based in bias and opinion...with a minimal scientific observation to back it. And for your expert in the "Confessions of an ex abortionist" or whatever nonsense...he can hardly be considered an expert at all being that he speaks mainly from the EMOTION of his conversion to Catholicism.

And again, I say to you that your opinions are stuck in the rut of emotion and claims of privacy with which you opine that human life is of no value in its early stages.

Consistently you have been given logical yet philosophical arguments to make a case for pro-choice.

Logical arguments? BIOlogical arguments are what I have been after you to provide.

This is why philosophical arguments have absolutely no place in these discussions:

"Philosophy is a study that seeks to understand the mysteries of existence and reality. It tries to discover the nature of truth and knowledge and to find what is of basic value and importance in life. It also examines the relationships between humanity and nature and between the individual and society. Philosophy arises out of wonder, curiosity, and the desire to know and understand. Philosophy is thus a form of inquiry—a process of analysis, criticism, interpretation, and speculation."

I can't understand why anyone would "hang his hat" on a concept which is so filled with indefinites. It seeks; it tries; it examines; it arises. However, the final word in the final sentence sums it all up.

If you're interested in more on this discussion of philosophy, you can find the rest of it here: http://www.aolsvc.worldbook.aol.com/wb/Article?id=ar427200

Consistently you have taken it upon yourself to dismiss each rather than refute them.

My consistency is in repeatedly asking the questions which no one ever answers. One variation of them appears in bold type in my post above.

Do you intend to ever answer it in terms which are biologically or scientifically factual? I rather expect that you will continue to simply repeat the same old opinions which are based upon nothing more than emotion and claims to privacy invented by Justice Harry Blackmun? That is because there is no other ammunition in the arsenal of the Pro-Death crowd. Discerning folks realize that arsenal is full of blanks. Plenty of noise, plenty of flash, plenty of smoke, but no substance.

You got no game. Such a disappointment...I was looking for a debater, not a whiner.

If it is a game, then the score is lop-sided. Abortionists 50,000,000; Infants In The Womb zero.

I can understand your disappointment. No doubt that's why you're downgrading your comments to the "insult" stage.

 

[vergiss]

I could be wrong - but I have the feeling that in ~50 years much of the world will view pro-choice countries (including the United States) and their practices much as we currently view Hitler and his "final solution".

Hah. Universal forum rule is that the first side to compare something to the Nazis loses.

 

[jallman]

Hah. Universal forum rule is that the first side to compare something to the Nazis loses.

:applaud As it should be...

 

[Alex]

Pro-lifers provide the counseling to women (and men) suffering from PASS (post abortion stress syndrome).

'Short term follow up studies, of less than six months, typically report 10 to 20 percent of patients reporting significant psychological problems which they associate with their abortion experience.'

'Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions. Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.

In one study of 500 aborted women, researchers found that 50 percent expressed negative feelings, and up to 10 percent were classified as having developed "serious psychiatric complications.'

The Elliot Institute.

Pro-choice people don't even want to admit such a thing exists.

You didn't even respond to my post.

As far as your post goes, people feel these things for a variety of reasons. Your claim is in no way exclusive to abortions.

 

[Fantasea]

As far as your post goes, people feel these things for a variety of reasons. Your claim is in no way exclusive to abortions.

What's the name of that river in Egypt?

 

[jallman]

You didn't even respond to my post.

As far as your post goes, people feel these things for a variety of reasons. Your claim is in no way exclusive to abortions.

Exactly. A woman feeling the need to go have an abortion is obviously having some kind of issue in the first place. The pro oppression side would like to depict these women as simply irresponsible, heartless, loose women having abortions at will as a means of birth control. However, this is a very emotional decision for a woman to begin with, and it usually stems a lot from the factors that lead her to this decision. You cant blame the depression and the emotionalism on the abortion alone. Thats small minded idiocy.

In a lot of cases, I think the abortion and its related feelings were probably preferable to the lifetime of feeling unwanted that the baby who doesnt get adopted feels. Or even the lifetime of regret and remorse that a mother might feel when she knows she brought a child into this world whom she could not care for.

 

[vergiss]

What about the heartache of handing over a child she carried and bore, not to see him/her again for years - if ever?