|
j_ung
Mar 20, 2006, 4:50 PM
Post #26 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: There is always someone somewhere that will be willing and able to take in and nurture that precious, voice-less life.
In reply to: They may not be wanted by their parents or by you - God knows there are plenty of vicious, stone-hearted monsters in the world - but somebody somewhere would love them.
There is no way that you can know this for a fact. And while I also can't counter it in the definitive, I can say with 100% certainty that there are huge numbers of babies born who will never find the someone of whom you speak. IMO, that makes your assertion irrelevent.
|
|
|
|
|
gene723
Mar 20, 2006, 4:55 PM
Post #27 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Posts: 651
|
In reply to: In reply to: We can't look into PTC's brain and see his real motivations for his views but I think it is tied in with his religious fervor. So, you admit that you don't know what PTC thinks and haven't asked. You are pre-judging his motivations. Pre-judging being, of course, the root of prejudice - and you're happily admitting to it. And you accused him of bias? WOW. :lol:
Hold on there buddy. Belief should always be proportional to evidence. I've given evidence to believe that PTC's political views are tied in with his religious views. Now this evidene isn't a clear demonstraton like a mathematical proof or someting but it is evidence nonetheless. I didn't conclude that I am certain about what I said but that what I say is probable.
Huge difference. :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Mar 20, 2006, 4:58 PM
Post #28 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
When one has a bible verse in one's sig, one must expect others to view every post in the context of religious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Mar 20, 2006, 5:03 PM
Post #30 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: In reply to: We can't look into PTC's brain and see his real motivations for his views but I think it is tied in with his religious fervor. So, you admit that you don't know what PTC thinks and haven't asked. You are pre-judging his motivations. Pre-judging being, of course, the root of prejudice - and you're happily admitting to it. And you accused him of bias? WOW. :lol:
I'm stating it because I know from prior arguments and interactions. Just like you know from prior arguments and discussions with me about my position on evolution, and I know your position on health care.
No thread is an island.
|
|
|
|
|
tradchick
Mar 20, 2006, 5:07 PM
Post #32 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 233
|
In reply to: In reply to: If you truly believe there are no unwanted babies in this world, then you need to get out more. Take a stroll around the inner city ghettos to start with, where unwed mothers don't know or care where their kids are...just as long as the kids are out of their hair. They may not be wanted by their parents or by you - God knows there are plenty of vicious, stone-hearted monsters in the world - but somebody somewhere would love them.
Now who's prejudging? You should go on the same reality tour as PTC!
|
|
|
|
|
gene723
Mar 20, 2006, 5:08 PM
Post #33 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Posts: 651
|
In reply to: In reply to: I've given evidence to believe that PTC's political views are tied in with his religious views. Not on this issue you haven't. PTC said the drug was unsafe. That much is under debate now. But that's all he said. You then inserted a religious element which was not there before, drawn from your prejudices concerning PTC - prejudgements you admitted to in a previous post. All you're doing is attacking Pinktricam over something about him that you don't like and which is completely irrelevant to this debate.
I've got nothing against PTC actually. I think he's a cool guy and that his views make for an interesting debate.
I've already established the connection between his religious views and his political views. As I"ve said before, this connection is not certain but it is probable. At this point you're just reiterating points I've already addressed. I'm going to move on now.
Smell ya later.... :righton:
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Mar 20, 2006, 5:11 PM
Post #34 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: I know your position on health care.
Well, that's.... frankly incredible. Tell me, what are my views on health care? As far as I know I've never posted them here, being as I'm not even american.
In reply to: No thread is an island.
I ask you as well: do you really believe that posts should be considered not on their own merits but on the merits of their author?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Mar 20, 2006, 5:14 PM
Post #35 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: If you truly believe there are no unwanted babies in this world, then you need to get out more. Take a stroll around the inner city ghettos to start with, where unwed mothers don't know or care where their kids are...just as long as the kids are out of their hair. They may not be wanted by their parents or by you - God knows there are plenty of vicious, stone-hearted monsters in the world - but somebody somewhere would love them. Now who's prejudging? You should go on the same reality tour as PTC!
Well well.
As I guessed, looks like somebody enjoys dishing it out but can't take it in return.
You've walked in to the trap and now you see how it works. Not very nice, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
digital0verdose
Mar 20, 2006, 5:16 PM
Post #36 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 92
|
Tradman, I can appreciate your concern but I think that by adding 1(PTC's concern with this subject) & 1(The content of his sig) you get 2(a conservative stance on abortion). This is a safe assumption, but yes, still an assumption.
If you are considering this drug to be unsafe then I would assume, again safely, that you consider just about every drug created as unsafe. You have to look at all the conditions involved with any drug related death to make sure that the drug was being used as prescribed, in a safe manner and with no neglect from the patient(s). If the patients are using this drug then at some point there was POSSIBLY some lack of responsibility or a lapse into a bad decision. If either of those happened once then you can again safely assume that the past will in some way repeat it's self.
Now if you really want to call a bear a bear, find all of us some actual cases where the drug has alone killed a patient. And for a control, also find out how many lives it has saved for the women who would have died during pregnancy/birth. Then we can compare the numbers and come up with a safe RC.com review on the drug and then have it published to medical rags across the world.
|
|
|
|
|
tradchick
Mar 20, 2006, 5:19 PM
Post #37 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 233
|
In reply to: I ask you as well: do you really believe that posts should be considered not on their own merits but on the merits of their author?
Get real! Everyone involved in this thread knows PTC's strong religious beliefs and undoubtedly they impact his statements.
The relevant point is he started this thread by pulling out 1 sentence from the article that supported his opinion. It was not a factual representation of the events. End of story.
|
|
|
|
|
gene723
Mar 20, 2006, 5:21 PM
Post #39 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Posts: 651
|
Hey...you know what...I've just been thinking..... hard.
well it seems like the controversy surrounding abortion laws has to do with the definition of a human.
That is really unclear and even philosophical.
It seems like the PTCian view thinks that the early formation of a child = human being while the opposite view thinks differently.
If it is a human, then we can't kill it. If it is not a human, then we can kill it.
None of us really know for sure and in the absence of knowing for sure, shouln't we not do the whole abortion thingy just because it could be a human life at stake here. :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Mar 20, 2006, 5:23 PM
Post #40 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: In reply to: When one has a bible verse in one's sig, one must expect others to view every post in the context of religious beliefs. PTC didn't put any religious beliefs into this debate. They were inserted by other posters in an attempt to discredit him. If a poster was black, would you consider that an important piece of information which should be considered when reading their every post? Do you really believe that posts should be considered not on their own merits but on the merits of the poster's beliefs, skin colour or perhaps nationality?
Religious beliefs, skin color, and nationality do not, in and of themselves affect my opinion of a post. However, if they are attached to the post, it is impossible to separate the two.
e.g. The fact that you are Scottish in no way influences my opinion of your posts. BUT... If you were to sign every post with the phrase If it ain't Scottish, it's shit!! then I would have to consider the possibility that there was a Scottish angle to everything you were posting.
|
|
|
|
|
digital0verdose
Mar 20, 2006, 5:27 PM
Post #42 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 92
|
I believe that every post that a person makes is because they find it interesting in some way, shape or form. This is called motive. What was PTC's motive? I can not tell you for sure, but I gave an assumption that I considered safe. You may not like it but I am willing to bet that anyone who makes a post like this and who has links pointing to Biblical quotes is heavily religious and while he doesn't want to preach to others, he will post things like this to get his point across. My former boss called them "Jesuscrispies," others call them Bible thumpers while they, themselves, say they are true believers.
|
|
|
|
|
gene723
Mar 20, 2006, 5:30 PM
Post #43 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Posts: 651
|
It's like I said before, I've already established the probable connection between PTC's poltical and religious views. Let me reiterate
"the Christian Right thinks that abortion is the same as killing babies.
PTC is religious and part of this Christian Right.
PTC thinks that abortion is killing babies.
We can't look into PTC's brain and see his real motivations for his views but I think it is tied in with his religious fervor."
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Mar 20, 2006, 5:33 PM
Post #44 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: In reply to: I know your position on health care. Well, that's.... frankly incredible. Tell me, what are my views on health care? As far as I know I've never posted them here, being as I'm not even american.
I probably got you mixed up with traddad. Sorry about that. Anyhow, you know my positions on evolutionary science, and you can successfully make inferences about what I think about closely related issues based on arguments I've made in the past. This is reasonable.
In reply to: In reply to: No thread is an island. I ask you as well: do you really believe that posts should be considered not on their own merits but on the merits of their author?
Well, if you want to consider this post totally in a vacuum, here's the analysis:
The assertion that RU486 is unsafe based on the data given is fundamentally flawed and totally wrong given any reasonable and sane definition of the term 'unsafe.'
The analysis given prior information about context and reasonable assumptions about the speaker:
The use of this data to suggest that RU486 is dangerous and ought to be banned on that account is a transparent attempt by anti-abortion activist to remove a woman's access to a largely uninvasive, safe, and effective method of abortion under the pretext of personal safety.
This ain't rocket science.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 20, 2006, 5:50 PM
Post #45 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: yes, stunningly safe...unless of course you're in one of those wombs.
Oh, that's a given!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 20, 2006, 5:51 PM
Post #46 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: In reply to: Get real! Everyone involved in this thread knows PTC's strong religious beliefs and undoubtedly they impact his statements. What, because you say so? He didn't even mention his beliefs. You did. You're prejudging his views based on something you think you know about him. You didn't ask him whether your ideas abou thim were correct, you just went ahead and made the judgement. Prejudice is ugly and unnecessary.
My opinion about PTC's religious motivation is based on years of interaction. Now, several of us may have jumped to a conclusion -- one that I still feel is accurate -- but to call that prejudice is to apply the word incorrectly. But then, you already know that, dontcha? :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Mar 20, 2006, 5:59 PM
Post #47 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Tradman, you remind me of some American politicians. Wading into the argument without even considering the argument itself but rather throwing mud (deserved or not) at the side that you oppose. It's rather entertaining but not doing you any favours. Who cares if most people are taking ptc's comments to have a right-wing bible thumping angle? The arguments are still there and you are conviniently ignoring them.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Mar 20, 2006, 6:01 PM
Post #48 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
It seems everyone is interested in the moral aspects of the product... not the health risks. :lol: :lol: :lol:
As Blondgecko already said (in the 2nd post), there's a 0.00125% mortality risk involved. That's one in 80,000. Seems like pretty good odds to me.
|
|
|
|
|
mikej
Mar 20, 2006, 6:26 PM
Post #49 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2006
Posts: 210
|
http://www.afterabortion.info/news/depressionbmj.html
as far as i can tell there's no religious affiliation with this website, some of the women in the articles talk some about belief in a few of their articles, but this article in particular is just a study.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Mar 20, 2006, 6:41 PM
Post #50 of 92
(1842 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: Two women AND (at least) 2 babies. Not to nitpick (I agree that Planned Parenthood F-ed up bigtime with its recommendation), but your assertion that two babies died is factually incorrect. There's nothing philosophical about this: RU-486 has killed precisely ZERO babies.
But how many lives have been terminated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
