That's it. I'm moving when I get my degree.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Isard

No, this had to do with an abortion bill passed in Idaho.

My mistake--don't know where I got that from.

Originally Posted by Isard

(btw, if that's how we're doing things, I'd like to eliminate 80% of military spending because I know there's alot of us who don't approve of the wars)

Yes please.

[Woodsprite]

Good Lord... I don't like interrupting good, solid discussion with something that has nothing to do with the subject, but whenever I think it's necessary, I have to respond. I apologize for having to do this; please disregard this post and continue on; it's meant for HNM.

Originally Posted by Human No More

EXACTLY. You do not need to have been IN something to know about it, and I find the premise of that assumption insulting.

Then you probably haven't read The Trivium. ...and you probably never read my response to the quote you just cited, either.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Woodsprite - your "Oh, I know someone who has had one" as an attempt to gain some kind of logical superiority in your own mind was completely pointless and added nothing...

What do you mean by "added nothing?" Of course it added something: it added that there are indeed many women that I've known throughout the course of my life that have been in such situations where regret was a main factor after abortions.

In addition to my own experience, I cannot count the number of documentaries or articles that have argued this very point from the same type of tests, surveys, and personal interviews with those who've been in these situations. To consider those women's testimonies as "pointless" (as you so courteously put it) is discrimination, and you know it.

Originally Posted by Human No More

...but you did it anyway just to attempt an argument from (presumed, in your mind) authority, which, I would say, is in the absence of an honestly considered viewpoint.

And yours is? I don't doubt you've had experiences of your own, from which you're arguing (but just not mentioning), which is why I respect your position as compared to mine. But if you're purporting that my opinions have no honest intentions or considerations toward any women in reality (which is what your statement above came off to look like), then you're seriously mistaken, and I can't believe you'd argue such a thing. Now you're just arguing with ad hominem attacks, and it hurts. Try to be more considerate...

Originally Posted by Human No More

Are you interested in 'validly supported'?

There.

Funny... I looked up the source, and found that this argument is based on a study conducted over 20 years ago. Likewise, some of the references for other surveys are even older than that. Do you ever bother to look at the references? Things change over time. It's a different world.

At least I'm citing polls from 2009. You're just listing a partisan website that lists a total of 10 references, every one of them being from pro-choice organizations or pro-choice doctors. At least the references from the website I linked to cited recent scientific journal studies, credentialed, unbiased doctors and professors, and even a cited video presentation of what actually goes on, and what it means (narrated by a former abortionist).

To shout "MYTH" and then cite a survey conducted in 1990 is a far cry from accurate.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Your claim that only someone with first hand experience can have an opinion on anything is both insulting and patronising, and purely a method to invalidate other opinions in your own mind.

Apparently, you've lost the ability to read (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by Woodsprite (to Human No More)

...your opinion is just as valid as mine.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

But no, I'm not saying no one can have a "real" opinion compared to me. I'm saying that many opinions of people here aren't as validly supported as mine and HNM's. In Grif's words,

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

...when I was debating auroraglacialis on environmentalism, I immediately ceased and desisted from debate once she revealed that she was credentialed (to some extent) in a scientific area greatly relating to the issue. She had experience, so I stopped. I still disagree with her, and I believe I can answer many things concerning her arguments, but experience trumps conviction. Yes, in all cases. Sometimes it's sad, but I do practice what I preach.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I don't dismiss everyone else in a thread just because they don't have experience. Most threads concerning a subject are on things I don't have much experience on at all, if any. The tying factor is that no one else does either most of the time.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The thing about this discussion is, I'm just saying that my opinion is a lot more valid than someone who hasn't been in my position. I'm not stopping anyone from giving their arguments. Many good questions and responses are posed.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

...I'm not saying my arguments are reflective of every woman out there (obviously not), and I'm not saying that I wish to impose my views on anyone here just by claiming I have experience. I'm not doing that. What I'm doing is simply stating that I have more validity concerning my opinion, and that it should be considered.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Just want to clarify that an empirical proposition can only exist with all three, meaning that experience alone does not qualify a more valid assertion than one who has fact-checked. If the person has experience, but hasn't really investigated into his idea or fact-checked it, it's not much of an argument. Someone may have experience with mowing the lawn, but if he's just been doing it ever since he was a kid without actually looking into the methods he was using to do it, his experience may mean nothing as compared to someone who's looked into various ways of mowing. The experienced one may have been mowing the lawn for 20 years... and for all those 20 years he was doing it wrong.

Now, learn to read the arguments I write before responding to them. Thank you...




NOW, back to discussion. Hopefully it will not be interrupted again with irrelevant differences...

[X.,.Pandora.,.X]

hahaha wooow woodsprite

[applejuice]

I think that this thread deserves a poll. Questions could be: Should Abortion in case of rape be:
1 Allowed?
2 Forbidden?
3 To be decided by a judge?

Or better.

[Woodsprite]

^In that case, I wouldn't want my own judgment. I'd rather a judge ruled the issue... a judge who knows the facts about everything concerning the arguments. In the case of the woman mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I agree with the judgment, but I don't think it was done with complete knowledge of all facts on the table, therefore making it an incorrect, and ill-informed judgment.

Just to clarify, people are going to jump on me for making this post by saying in effect, "Ah! Ah! Contradiction!" But the reason why I'm posting this here, now, is because I've just realized I never actually gave my opinion of the ruling; I just went straight to arguing points that others here brought up about abortion.

[zongtseng]

This thread is closed. It's been a long time since I've seen so much insulting going on here, and I very nearly temp-banned one person in this thread. It's done. I'm going to start watching this forum a lot more closely, and the leniency here will end if people continue to insult one another for their beliefs.