Amazing! A baby survives being born at 22 weeks. - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-25-2007, 10:27 PM   #136
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:18 AM
These are people who were pre-disposed to believing it in the first place.

It depends on your definition of a fence-sitter. If you are "undecided" but everything about you, your personality and your beliefs indicates you will sway AEON's way, of course his words can push you. These people will just be hearing what they've wanted to hear in the first place.

For everyone else, they won't. They'll only make the person more hostile.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:38 PM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I suppose we just have to respectfully agree to disagree. We have different opinions of what is true and what is effective.
Yes, we have different opinions about what is true, but that's not what you're saying in your arguments. Your arguments imply that pro-choice people actually agree with you on what is true, but choose to lie about it so they can go on their nefarious way.

We do agree on what is effective. We both agree that the tactics you're using ARE effective. Hitting below the belt, after all, is very effective. It's just low.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:38 PM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
These are people who were pre-disposed to believing it in the first place.

It depends on your definition of a fence-sitter. If you are "undecided" but everything about you, your personality and your beliefs indicates you will sway AEON's way, of course his words can push you. These people will just be hearing what they've wanted to hear in the first place.

For everyone else, they won't. They'll only make the person more hostile.
Are you learning this in law school? Dirty lawyer tricks!!
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:41 PM   #139
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
These are people who were pre-disposed to believing it in the first place.

It depends on your definition of a fence-sitter. If you are "undecided" but everything about you, your personality and your beliefs indicates you will sway AEON's way, of course his words can push you. These people will just be hearing what they've wanted to hear in the first place.

For everyone else, they won't. They'll only make the person more hostile.
Mmmmm. . .maybe. I'm not fully convinced. But I see how that could be true.

I still think the tactics encourage lazy thinking.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:47 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


I disagree. And AEON himself provides the evidence of that. Fence sitters, especially those who don't want to think too hard, who haven't "made up their minds" can be swayed by these tactics.

It's no accident that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and all the rest are so successful. A lot of people hear what they say, and think "wow, that sounds really true." And they buy it.
Not everyone who agrees with Pro-Life arguments is a drone or is someone refusing to think hard. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. The extreme examples are meant to make you think - to shake up preconceptions.

In all of the responses to my posts, I didn't see one that successfully refuted the logic in my arguments.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:57 PM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Not everyone who agrees with Pro-Life arguments is a drone or is someone refusing to think hard. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. The extreme examples are meant to make you think - to shake up preconceptions.

In all of the responses to my posts, I didn't see one that successfully refuted the logic in my arguments.
AEON, AEON. . .it's not your logic I take issue with.

And I certainly don't think that all pro-lifers are refusing to think hard or are drones. You're clearly a smart guy and so are the other posters who are representing a pro-life stance.

My issue is with tactics. . .these tactics could be--and have been--used just as well by the left. For example framing all opponents of abortion as "wanting to take away women's control over their own bodies" is just as disingenous and I disagree with that too.

My issue is with using hot-button words like "murder" and "liar" that automatically frame the issue in a way that is advantageous to you.

Maybe anitram is right. . .maybe it is that fence-sitters where jump over to whichever side they're already inclined towards, and maybe that's the problem in the abortion debate. Both sides are aiming squarely at the fence-sitters, trying to get them over to their side rather than engaging in genuine discussion with their "dyed in the wool" opponents--a discussion that could begin with something as simple as this--"Can we all agree that we don't want abortions to happen."

But this common ground seems to avoided like the plague by both sides.

Why?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:16 PM   #142
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean




But this common ground seems to avoided like the plague by both sides.

Why?
Not sure. I think stories like the one that started this thread puts a real human face on "the right to choose." I'm not sure why the Women's Rights groups are so ardently Pro Choice. It seems this baby girl would certainly benefit from a few rights thrown her way.

The bottom line of this issue is this - if you are someone who truly believes this is the murder of innocent life - then there isn't much room for compromise. Yet, even I am willing to compromise (allowing morning after pill for instance) if it means saving millions of lives.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 12:22 AM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

It seems this baby girl would certainly benefit from a few rights thrown her way.
How so? I don't remember reading that the mom was planning on aborting her or refusing her treatment.

I don't think this baby really helps your cause at all because abortion was never in the picture. However, I DO know of a true story that you might like. A biology prof at my college/work wrote an article for a Christmas edition of the news part of our website. The story went like this, it was actually because a student had given him a letter after a unit on embryos and fetuses. The letter explained that years ago, her mom had been in the same class with him, studying the same unit. At the time, she was pregnant and fearing the stigma of being unwed and still in college, had already decided to abort the baby. Then, during biology lab, the professor showed the class his collection of preserved embryos and fetuses at various stages of development. She could see what the baby inside her looked like at that time and right then decided she would not have an abortion. The letter was from the girl (the baby), thanking the professor for doing this lesson because otherwise she would not be there to learn it.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 12:31 AM   #144
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Not sure. I think stories like the one that started this thread puts a real human face on "the right to choose." I'm not sure why the Women's Rights groups are so ardently Pro Choice. It seems this baby girl would certainly benefit from a few rights thrown her way.

\


i can't say this any more clearly.

this is a BORN, VIABLE infant. how did it achieve that status? it was BORN because her mother wanted her to be BORN her mother didn't terminate the pregnancy in the first trimester when she was a zygote, read: NOT born, not a baby, not a person.

now, we can argue all we want about what a zygote is, what rights it gets, how those rights may or may not trump the rights of the breathing mother, but let's not say that a 22 week old BORN baby is the same thing as a zygote.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 12:38 AM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
but let's not say that a 22 week old BORN baby is the same thing as a zygote.
What about a 22 week old unborn baby? Is that the same as a zygote?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 12:47 AM   #146
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:18 AM
oh my god.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 02:46 AM   #147
pgv
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,979
Local Time: 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
oh my god.
I second that.


Aeon, first you say 'let's agree to disagree' and then you accuse all pro-choice of not 'thinking hard enough.'
I really can't bear to read any of your posts anymore, this thread is going nowhere.
__________________
pgv is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 08:55 AM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by partygirlvox


I second that.


Aeon, first you say 'let's agree to disagree' and then you accuse all pro-choice of not 'thinking hard enough.'
I really can't bear to read any of your posts anymore, this thread is going nowhere.
I don't think you read the discussion between maycocksean and I close enough.

And while I disagree with many of the posts in many of threads - I still read them and, believe it or not, try to understand why they take the stance they do - even if I consider it false or illogical. I am not ashamed to say that I've had my mind changed a few times in here.

I think the question I posed to Irvine is a valid one. I think it deserves more than a "Oh My God" and a "I second that and I can't stand reading your posts." The best answer I seem to get is "22 week abortions don't happen that often so stop worrying about it." Yolland suggested a compromise that abortions should be illegal after 12 weeks. Again, it seems that others still take the stance "it doesn't happen that often so stop worrying about it." Well, there are a lot of horrible things in this world that don't happen that often and yet remain illegal. Infrequency isn't a valid reason to keep something legal. That's one point I’m trying to make.

Irvine also states that a baby only achieves "status" after she is born, regardless of age. Does that mean someone could have a legal, non-medical-emergency abortion at nine months? I'm not asking how often this happens – I’m asking should it be legal to have it happen at all, even if only once? Does the “right to privacy” extend all the way until the very second before birth? These are valid questions.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:11 AM   #149
War Child
 
Butterscotch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 716
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Where is the 'right to privacy' in the constitution, and if it's there, why doesn't it include things like consuming illegal drugs in your own home, or sex with minors, or donkeys? If that's all Roe V. Wade stands on, it's hard to believe it was ever approved. What it comes down to is that people want to get rid of babies and people want to let them, all political, legal and religious stuff aside. That has to be what it is, it doesn't make sense otherwise.
__________________
Butterscotch is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 11:49 AM   #150
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

I think the question I posed to Irvine is a valid one. I think it deserves more than a "Oh My God" and a "I second that and I can't stand reading your posts." The best answer I seem to get is "22 week abortions don't happen that often so stop worrying about it." Yolland suggested a compromise that abortions should be illegal after 12 weeks. Again, it seems that others still take the stance "it doesn't happen that often so stop worrying about it." Well, there are a lot of horrible things in this world that don't happen that often and yet remain illegal. Infrequency isn't a valid reason to keep something legal. That's one point I’m trying to make.



for fuck's sake AEON. it's been stated OVER AND OVER that nearly all abortions that happen in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters are done for MEDICAL REASONS which is why it remains legal.


Quote:
Irvine also states that a baby only achieves "status" after she is born, regardless of age. Does that mean someone could have a legal, non-medical-emergency abortion at nine months? I'm not asking how often this happens – I’m asking should it be legal to have it happen at all, even if only once? Does the “right to privacy” extend all the way until the very second before birth? These are valid questions.
yes, someone does retain that legal right, and this is an area where some common ground could be achieved, HOWEVER, how the stated agenda of pro-life groups has always been to chip away at abortion rights, a classic "give an inch, take a mile" example, which is why pro-choice people dig their heels in, even at the theoretical 9 months and no medical necessity situation. it is here where we could indeed reach some agreement.

and if you say, "well, what's the difference between 9 months and 7 months, between 7 months and 5 months, between 5 months and 3 months, between 3 months and 3 weeks," then you've precisely validated the pro-choice conerns.

basically, the loudest elements of the pro-life/anti-choice movements have shown no willingness to compromise, so you get intransigence on the other side.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com