quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 3, 2014 7:56:47 GMT -5
You're pretty pushy for someone who blatantly ignores other people's counterpoints and questions...
"Ultrasound has irrefutably demonstrated the humanity of the unborn."
If it not human life, what is it?"
The 'humanity' of the unborn is a vague, abstract, subjective concept. Throwing the word irrefutably in there doesn't magically make it so. But I'll repeat this one more time: people who support abortion rights believe that the fetus is not yet a person. You already know this. You disagree. That's fine. That's my point on these questions, you're acting like by asking them you're making a point. They have been debated ad nauseum.
Why is it a women's rights issue? Probably has something to do with the government telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies in a way that could never apply to men.
What are the women's "rights to health care"? Please explain this I don't know what you're asking specifically. What of the rights of the baby? Same argument, it's not a baby. What of the rights of the father? Ultimately they don't supercede the woman's right to her own bodily autonomy. Government interest? What is the legal argument that the government must show an interest in ALLOWING something to happen? The onus is on you to show the government interest in not allowing this.
Now I explicitly addressed your points about the first amendment and contraception. Are you going to respond or just repeat the same questions?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Sept 3, 2014 8:45:20 GMT -5
Even if only contraception were at issue, why should people, whose religion forbids it, be forced to violate that belief? Why must their First Amendment rights be overridden? The only way it could "violate their belief" is if their belief is that no one should be able to take contraception. See: Fluke, Sandra.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Sept 4, 2014 20:06:07 GMT -5
Problem of Dog: "hoyaloya and pertinax are hilarious." Speaking of things hilarious, show us your dance moves again. God, I miss them!
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Sept 4, 2014 22:41:14 GMT -5
quickplay: Yes, the answers to the questions I posed do affect the validity of the conclusions you have asserted.
My requested response follows.
“What are the women’s rights to health care”? Please explain this”
I don’t know; it is the phrase used by the pro abortion advocates in an attempt to justify their agenda. See the Annas discussion above.
“…people who support abortion rights believe that the fetus is not yet a person…”
This does not answer the evidence shown by ultra sound. Is what is seen with the ultra sound human life? E.g. pregnancy.about.com/od/trimesterguide/ig/2nd-Trimester-Ultrasounds/ If it is human life, then what is the basis for destroying it – your “belief” that it is not a “person”? If so, what is the basis of that belief? What makes a “person”? In People v. Davis, the California Supreme Court ruled that an armed robber could be charged with murder in a situation where he shot a pregnant woman who survived but whose non-viable fetus was killed. Was that fetus a “person”?
“Why is it a women’s rights issue? Probably has something to do with the government telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies in a way that could never apply to men” What of the rights of the baby?. Same argument, it’s not a baby. What of the rights of the father? Ultimately, they don’t supercede the woman’s right to her own bodily autonomy.
These assertions are derivative of the old pro-abortion slogans: A woman has a right to control her own body and Abortion is a between a woman and her doctor
There is no dispute that a woman has a right to control her own body; so does a man; but not to cause deliberate harm to another.
Conception begins with the action of a woman and a man. They can choose not to create life but, when they do, another body becomes involved. What of the rights of the father and of that other body?
For decades, abortion advocates denied there was “another body” and claimed that abortion merely removed a "lump of tissue". Scientific research has proven that proposition wrong beyond any doubt. As early as 1990, Life Magazine, in its August issue on "How Life Begins", used fiber optics to present beautiful and dramatic photographs of the humanity and vitality of the first trimester fetus. Then there was that striking picture in Life’s December 1999 issue of a fetal surgery being performed and a little hand of a 24 week old fetus clasping the surgeon’s finger. And now, ever more informative ultra sound pictures.
There is no dispute that other body, well within the first trimester, has a heartbeat, brain waves, blood circulation, fingerprints, footprints - all distinct from those of the mother. If that other body is not human life, what is it? If it is human life, abortion ends it.
Government interest? [Full question was “What is the governmental interest in allowing unlimited termination of pregnancies?] What is the legal argument that the government must show an interest in ALLOWING something to happen?
The same argument for not allowing domestic violence, robbery, rape or murder, et al. Please realize that Roe/Doe changed the status quo and made the mother’s killing of her unborn child a constitutional right.
55,000,000 killed since Roe/Doe. We can but wonder whether abortion numbers among its victims another da Vinci, or Shakespeare, or Beethoven, or Washington, or Nightingale, or Curie or Edison. Perhaps, without abortion, we would have among us the woman who discovers the cure for cancer, the man who invents a reliable pollution free energy source or the people who bring peace to the Middle East.
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Sept 4, 2014 22:45:29 GMT -5
TC: “the only way it could violate their beliefs is if their belief is that no one should be able to take contraception”
No, it violates their beliefs if they believe contraception is morally wrong.
See: Fluke, Sandra
Sandra Fluke proves the points raised by the questions – she could get contraceptives easily, there was no showing her health was endangered and there was no reason shown why the state should furnish her contraceptives at the taxpayers’ expense.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 5, 2014 0:57:39 GMT -5
If you refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that people who do not view a fetus as yet a human life, whether it be random internet commenters, doctors, or the Supreme Court, are not all necessarily idiots, you're not going to change many people's minds.
I understand your arguments. I disagree. It's exceedingly patronizing when you ask these questions as if the only reason I don't agree with you is because I didn't think of them. They're basic. My opinion isn't formed on ignorance. It is not formed because I "like" abortion for some reason. It is formed based on my consideration of the issues from medical to ethical to legal and beyond. You can throw conclusory statements at me all day and it doesn't change things.
Which is why I find it so frustrating that individuals who are so ostensibly against abortion because it takes a life are also often against contraception and comprehensive sex education. You're not going to stop people from having sex. Accidental and unwanted pregnancies will always happen. Even taking a half step back from the idiotic "belief" argument that the real science doesn't matter that the conservatives on the Supreme Court ruled in favor of, sex education and contraception are demonized in this country.
Unfortunately, self-righteousness doesn't change reality. If abortion is killing babies and is horrific and must be stopped, you need to stop demonizing contraception and stop trying to impose YOUR morality on other people's sex lives. The cold hard reality is that sex education and contraception options drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies. That's a fact. You can't have your cake and eat it to; at least not while claiming moral superiority to everyone who doesn't agree with you.
Finally, the 55,000,000 stat. I'll believe conservative' concerns when they start showing more concern for people who are actually living. Children killed in war don't become doctors. I don't remember Jesus ever chastising the poor as lazy parasites (those last two points not at you directly but at the belief system that very often accompanies your arguments and refusal to engage with people like they're not idiots).
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Sept 6, 2014 13:42:38 GMT -5
"If abortion is killing babies and is horrific and must be stopped, you need to stop demonizing contraception." Sad to say, this is probably correct..
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Sept 14, 2014 13:03:00 GMT -5
quickplay - Just checked the site today and found your reply.
Much of your post is on other subjects –contraception, other pro-life programs to help people – worthy topics but the focus of our exchange has been abortion.
The question was: “If it is human life, then what is the basis for destroying it – your “belief” that it is not a “person”? If so, what is the basis of that belief? What makes a “person”?
Your reply : "My opinion isn't formed on ignorance. It is not formed because I "like" abortion for some reason. It is formed based on my consideration of the issues from medical to ethical to legal and beyond. You can throw conclusory statements at me all day and it doesn't change things. "
What are those “issues” and how do they support your “belief”? Are you not offering only what you call "conclusory statements”?
pregnancy.about.com/od/trimesterguide/ig/2nd-Trimester-Ultrasounds/ These ultra sound photos are not "conclusory statements." The point made was: “There is no dispute that other body, well within the first trimester, has a heartbeat, brain waves, blood circulation, fingerprints, footprints - all distinct from those of the mother. If that other body is not human life, what is it? If it is human life, abortion ends it.”
Do you dispute the highlighted facts? Do you contend these are “conclusory statements”?
Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 15, 2014 10:47:59 GMT -5
I don't feel the need to explain the details of my personal views on the subject. They are not unique.
It is a fetus. You can rephrase the question as many times as you want. Again, these are not new issues and you're not presenting some special analysis. This is the most basic stuff. Anyone with an informed opinion on abortion/reproductive rights (whichever side they come down on) has debated and analyzed these issues. Why do I need to answer to you as if my viewpoint's basic legitimacy is the question?
Further, you can just dismiss my point if you'd like but any discussion about reducing abortions needs to include comprehensive sex education and birth control. Do you not agree?
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Sept 20, 2014 11:21:34 GMT -5
It is really sad that hoyaloya signs every post with academic credentials, as if the rest of us don't have Georgetown undergrad or grad (or both) degrees.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Sept 20, 2014 12:54:46 GMT -5
"It is really sad that hoyaloya signs every post with academic credentials, as if the rest of us don't have Georgetown undergrad or grad (or both) degrees."
Which these recent days and years, sad to say, attest to a level of academic excellence that is the equivalent of "basket-weaving" courses for third-graders. But your point of view, while errant, is quite understandable, Problem of Dog. You cannot know -- and I say this with a kind intent -- what you've never been given. One other thing, if I may: hoyaloya signs his name and academic stats because, unlike you, he doesn't hide, as you and I do, in cowardly anonymity.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 20, 2014 19:20:59 GMT -5
I wouldn't call anonymity in the context of these boards cowardly. If I had to sign my name to each post I would certainly censor parts of my viewpoint. Not because I think it may be bad or wrong, but because these discussions hit some polarizing topics and I don't want anyone who searches my name on the internet to have a permanent record of them.
I'm 29 and trying to change careers. Names are searched, and while I stand by the things I say as I sincerely believe them, they are in a sense private. But being able to have these discussions anonymously on a well-moderated board allows me to talk about things I normally wouldn't with people who have viewpoints I don't often encounter.
I know you were mostly making a joke, but it's one of the things that makes me nervous about facebook and google's pushes to have your real name attached to all online action. Obviously some message boards are absolute cesspools, but much of the internet only exists by the grace of sweet sweet anonymity.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Sept 20, 2014 19:23:32 GMT -5
Which these recent days and years, sad to say, attest to a level of academic excellence that is the equivalent of "basket-weaving" courses for third-graders. But your point of view, while errant, is quite understandable, Problem of Dog. You cannot know -- and I say this with a kind intent -- what you've never been given. Just remember that 50 years ago, a 1909 Georgetown graduate was thinking the exact same thing about the quality of Richard M. Coleman's 1957 degree.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 20, 2014 22:07:27 GMT -5
Which these recent days and years, sad to say, attest to a level of academic excellence that is the equivalent of "basket-weaving" courses for third-graders. But your point of view, while errant, is quite understandable, Problem of Dog. You cannot know -- and I say this with a kind intent -- what you've never been given. Just remember that 50 years ago, a 1909 Georgetown graduate was thinking the exact same thing about the quality of Richard M. Coleman's 1957 degree. That could be. Then again, I took logic at Georgetown (the professor was hot garbage) and Richard M. Coleman doesn't have a clue as to what any of us do and don't know individually regardless of his willingness to post his name and credentials. Of course his name and credentials lend very little weight, if any, to his opinions. I don't often ask attorneys for clarification on biology-based discussions. It feels as though the name and credentials are added for effect like someone here will be impressed. No one is impressed. At a local cocktail party? Maybe. Not so much here. And, to those that find his views somewhat narrow and myopic in some regards (I'm not picking a particular issue here), I know that, personally, I wonder how a person who, apparently, is so well educated can be so closed-minded and unwilling to entertain much in the way of any discourse. Instead he chooses to assume that his thinking and morals are some form of high ground and that others are silly or uneducated if they somehow disagree. Maybe I'm wrong about that but, largely, that's the way it comes across. Having said that, it's probably pretty safe to accuse the educational system of degradation. I'd be careful, however, in what context. For instance, the Georgetown that I was admitted to was exceedingly more difficult to gain admission to than the Georgetown that Mr. Coleman, Esq. attended. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Sept 21, 2014 2:24:23 GMT -5
Just remember that 50 years ago, a 1909 Georgetown graduate was thinking the exact same thing about the quality of Richard M. Coleman's 1957 degree. It feels as though the name and credentials are added for effect like someone here will be impressed. No one is impressed. At a local cocktail party? Maybe. Not so much here. For instance, the Georgetown that I was admitted to was exceedingly more difficult to gain admission to than the Georgetown that Mr. Coleman, Esq. attended. Just saying. Bingo. And bingo.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Sept 21, 2014 11:42:16 GMT -5
Having said that, it's probably pretty safe to accuse the educational system of degradation. I'd be careful, however, in what context. For instance, the Georgetown that I was admitted to was exceedingly more difficult to gain admission to than the Georgetown that Mr. Coleman, Esq. attended. Just saying. +1 It's also easy to say that a 1957 education was more rigorous (and maybe it was, I have no idea, I wasn't around then), but a 1957 Georgetown education would give you 0 actual skills that would be applicable today and would shut you out of pretty much any high-paying job post-graduation without additional schooling. I'm sure you can make some intangible based critical thinking argument to counter this, but last time I checked Georgetown students were still pretty good at critical thinking and the differences were in concentrations on the classics, Latin, etc. and that they might not know Aristotle from Plato. Maybe when I'm 80 I'll be yelling at kids on my lawn and complaining that my alma mater is a worthless husk of what it was in my day, but I sure hope I have a better grasp of the world at that point.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 21, 2014 23:38:04 GMT -5
"It is really sad that hoyaloya signs every post with academic credentials, as if the rest of us don't have Georgetown undergrad or grad (or both) degrees." Which these recent days and years, sad to say, attest to a level of academic excellence that is the equivalent of "basket-weaving" courses for third-graders. But your point of view, while errant, is quite understandable, Problem of Dog. You cannot know -- and I say this with a kind intent -- what you've never been given. One other thing, if I may: hoyaloya signs his name and academic stats because, unlike you, he doesn't hide, as you and I do, in cowardly anonymity. This particularly bothers me because, as a population, many view Georgetown people as elitist and superior. I'm not sure why that's the case. The people that I was friends with in school were thoughtful, considerate people that were open to learning about subjects and, even more than that, the people around them. Day one of freshman year, my neighbors allowed me to sit in as they prayed because I had never seen any Muslim ritual of any kind. Pretty great. Not to mention that one of the guys was of Indian descent and the other of Pakistani descent. Right next door. Pretty great, no? Maybe I'm missing on your tone but it sounds incredibly condescending. I'm not sure what you, or others, think you know that others don't. Hoyaloya, while presenting some solid points here and there, mostly comes off as a person that feels superior in his morality and education and, as such, shoots himself in the foot because, having read his posts, he has no reason to feel that way as far as I can tell. If you want to say that the educational system has degraded and the education at Georgetown isn't what it used to be, that's fine. That's your opinion. Then again, I'm an alum and don't attend classes any longer so I wouldn't be stupid enough to make such a statement with zero basis for asserting such a thing. I might, however, in a moment of weakness, make a sweeping generalization (as you did) about education because I do, in fact, work in education. Do you? If not, please do enumerate what it is that you know that the rest of us don't? Keep in mind that it's not particularly relevant considering, for the most part, what is being discussed here isn't based in education but in ideology. I'm quite certain Mr. Coleman doesn't have a corner on the market in that regardless of how morally superior he believes himself to be. I'm tempted to conclude with his sign off just to demonstrate how truly ridiculous it comes across.
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Oct 5, 2014 16:02:44 GMT -5
10/5/14 Just checked into HoyaTalk this weekend and found my name taken in vain! As one poster correctly surmised, I state my name in my posts because I am not comfortable with setting forth positions under a cloak of anonymity. I state my GU degrees to show that I am not a stranger commenting on the University. And I set forth the years to give those who wish the opportunity to engage in ageism. [smile] Many years ago, I was lamenting to a friend my frustration that my letters to the editor rarely were published. She told me that I should continue to send the letters because at least one person would read them and who knows what impact that might have on that person. That is the mindset I have when I post on Hoya Talk. I have little expectation of persuading the regulars on the board of the points discussed, but I recognize that far more people read the posts than then comment on them. It is that audience that I hope to reach. In my posts, I provide factual basis for the points expressed. quickplay, do you not see that you fall back on what you decry as “conclusory statements”? You repeat your mantra that a fetus is not a baby with no supporting facts and you ignore everything to the contrary [e.g. the pictures of the fetus, the scientific evidence, the rights of the fetus and of the father, the court case.] I understand your reluctance to identify yourself for fear someone will hold your opinions against you. But do you not feel at all uncomfortable calling people names anonymously? As to your question about sex education, you put that same question to me months ago in the Go Blatty thread and I responded as follows: quickplay quote: The best way to reduce abortion rates is through comprehensive sex education and availability of contraceptives.
That was the party line in the 60s and 70s. We were told this would eliminate unplanned pregnancies and obviate the "need" for abortion. Those who disagreed and said that stressing the ready availability of birth control devices would send the wrong message and encourage promiscuity were derided as old fashioned.
Contraceptives became widely advertised, openly displayed in drug stores, readily available in vending machines and even given away to school children. Sex education moved from the high school level to the upper grades of grammar school and then down to kindergarten.
The result: more than one million abortions a year over the past four decades. Illegitimate births more than quintupled. In the mid-60s, the out-of- wedlock birthrate was 7.7% overall, now it is more than 41%!
The advice in the quote at the top of this post has been demonstrably and devastatingly proven false.
You questioned the statistics and I replied as follows: quickplay - checked the site you referenced- it does not refute the numbers cited in my post- the source is Guttmacher, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, and even it says more than 1 million abortions a year. After decades of "sex education and availability of contraceptive devices", what's your explanation?
You did not reply but another poster challenged the statistics and I replied as follows: TC The quintupling of out of wedlock births since the 60s is documented here in percentages. www.childtrends.org/?indicators=births-to-unmarried-women As for your question -is giving birth out of wedlock better than killing the baby. Absolutely. But is it something to “celebrate”? No. We are “living with it” with indisputably harmful social results. Further proof that “sex education and available contraceptive devices” did not deliver what was promised by its advocates – that there would be no unintended pregnancies and so no need for abortion.
Abortions have been declining in numbers since 1990 when abortions peaked at more than 1.6 million. That is good and I am glad BUT one cannot rejoice when the number of killings annually continues to exceed more than one million!www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html
And was the decline due to more than 2 decades of sex education and readily available contraceptives suddenly kicking in? Or is the more likely explanation 2 other events.
The sex-without-consequences attitude [don’t worry-you can always get an abortion] was significantly altered with the epidemic of deaths due to AIDS.
The legislation to ban partial birth abortions sparked public debate that broke through the mass media suppression of the details of abortion procedures. Many became aware that partial birth abortion meant extracting the entire baby from the womb but her head, puncturing her neck with a scissors, sucking out her brains and collapsing her skull. Moral revulsion entered the equation.
An example of fact suppression – I submitted a letter to the editor to a local newspaper on the subject of abortion on demand. It included the above description. I received a call from one of the editors that my letter would be printed only if I omitted that description. He did not contend it was inaccurate but that it was “inappropriate for a family newspaper.” Yet that family newspaper had no difficulty editorializing for abortion on demand, and no problem with keeping from its readers just what an abortion involved.
Nor is it just partial birth abortion that is horrifying. Have you seen these descriptions of other methods of abortion in the mass media? In suction aspiration, a hollow tube with a knife-like edged tip is inserted in the womb and a strong suction tears the developing body to pieces and draws the pieces into a container. In dilation and curettage, a loop shaped knife is inserted and cuts the body apart and scrapes the pieces out through the cervix. In dilation and evacuation, a grasping forceps (like pliers with teeth) is used when the bones have calcified to a point where the parts must be twisted and torn away. Sometimes the head must be crushed in order to be removed. In saline amniocentesis, a concentrated salt solution is injected into the amniotic sac. The solution is ingested, with death resulting from salt poisoning, dehydration, hemorrhages of the brain and other organs, and convulsions. The skin is often stripped or burned off by the solution.That poster did not reply. Will try to check in again next month, God willin’. Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 5, 2014 18:34:01 GMT -5
Whatever one's opinion of hoyaloya's opinions might be, his courage of conviction can not be argued.
He also refuses to go ad hominem, which is to be lauded.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Oct 5, 2014 18:36:12 GMT -5
TO TAS HOYA: My reason for making the "basket weaving" comparison can be easily found in the course listings under "theology" and "philosophy," with some, such as "Democracy and Star Trek," bordering on the hilarious, a trend that began, as best I can recall, decades ago when the college announced that Shakespeare, Milton and Chaucer would no longer be required courses provided one instead opted for courses in Black and Lesbian studies. And please don't call me either a racist or homophobe, nor do I expect, in view of your temperate tone, that you would do so. True, I haven't audited any campus courses lately, but I can certainly read the list of courses in two departments once envied for their high standards. You really find that I am wrong to do that? Well, no. I don't think you do. And I wish you well.
|
|