Real World Event Discussions
Abortion
POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 03:33
VIEWED: 22628
PAGE 8 of 28
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Now you're just being childish. Rue pretty clearly cited the study which contradicts your point. Saying Rue never listens doesn't change the fact that your point has clearly been called into question.
Rue always contradicts whomever I find who will disagree with her. I stated as much. If you determine my stating of that fact to be "childish", so be it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
If you've got something to contradict Rue, post it. But whining doesn't support your point. clearly been called into question.
I could post several. But, why bother? Rue (and all those in agreement with Rue) will summarily dismiss them all, as they do with everything which contradicts their far more enlightened opinions.
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And give it up on that Nobel Prize winner. You fall back on that waaay too much. I remember that thread, and your Nobel Prize winner won that prize in a different field.
For the fifteen millionth time -- he was not in a "different field". He was a cosmologist speaking about how cosmologically, the universe could never have evolved.
How that's considered a "different field" somehow manages to escape my obviously limited intelligence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
For the fifteen millionth time -- he was not in a "different field". He was a cosmologist speaking about how cosmologically, the universe could never have evolved.
How that's considered a "different field" somehow manages to escape my obviously limited intelligence.
I was walking the world for a spell and I missed some things. There's a Nobel Prize in cosmology now?
Without wanting to restart previous discussions, who's the Nobel Prize winner you keep referring to? I want to do a bit of research on him.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:22 PM
Quote:If you mean Rue and other intelligent folk base who is credible on their, erm, well credibillity not just saying what they want to hear as you do, you are of course entirely correct, well done, I've always said there is a first time for everything.
Originally posted by Cartoon:
Rue always contradicts whomever I find who will disagree with her. I stated as much. If you determine my stating of that fact to be "childish", so be it.
Quote:In fact he was a cosmologist who said nothing of the sort brought up on a thread about biological evolution as a red herring that someone hoped no one would catch out, namely that when party A said 'Evolution' everyone would assume party A was talking about the topic of the thread so entitled 'evolution'.
Originally posted by cartoon:
For the fifteen millionth time -- he was not in a "different field". He was a cosmologist speaking about how cosmologically, the universe could never have evolved.
How that's considered a "different field" somehow manages to escape my obviously limited intelligence.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:23 PM
Quote:Pour salt on a snail and it will writhe. Put formaldheyde in water and protozoans and all kinds of other little critters will skeddadle out of the way. Poke an anemonme and it will close up. AFAIK all animals respond to noxious stimuli but that doesn't necessarily mean they feel "pain".
I just have trouble believing that the actions and what I perceive as reactions in the infant are reflexive and not based in some state of awareness.
When we talk about the "human brain" we really should be talking about the human brains because we all have several. Our thalami (deep gray matter) and cortex (gray matter) literally exist atop our lizard-brain (brainstem) and our worm-brain (solar plexus). Our "primitive" brains are functional units.
They have to be. For most animals, that's all they have. This "primitive" system stimulates the heart, lungs and digestive system, pumps out hormones, responds to stimulous (pleasureable or not) and stores basic behaviors (like instinct) in the many animals that don't have a cortex. We shouldn't overlook the power of the "lizard brain" in generating behavior.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:40 PM
Cartoon:
Quote:No, what I find off-topic is that, in discussing fetal pain you never actually get around to discussing fetal pain. You quote one article, which Rue disagreed with by pointing out that the basic central nervous system components that "feel" pain are not even developed at 20 weeks.
Rue always contradicts whomever I find who will disagree with her. I stated as much. If you determine my stating of that fact to be "childish", so be it.
You could have tried to draw a comparison between various animals at similar stages of neural development (worm, snail, lizard, bird) and correlate when we think THEY feel "pain" versus when a fetus with similar neural equipment feels "pain". Or- if you didn't feel like doing original research- you might have found contradictory quotes from other doctors and THEIR reasoning about when fetuses feel pain. (It IS an area of research).
But what you chose to do is tell us all about how old you are (sonny, I'm prolly older than you) and name-call.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Now you're just being childish. Rue pretty clearly cited the study which contradicts your point. Saying Rue never listens doesn't change the fact that your point has clearly been called into question.
Rue always contradicts whomever I find who will disagree with her. I stated as much. If you determine my stating of that fact to be "childish", so be it.Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
If you've got something to contradict Rue, post it. But whining doesn't support your point. clearly been called into question.
I could post several. But, why bother? Rue (and all those in agreement with Rue) will summarily dismiss them all, as they do with everything which contradicts their far more enlightened opinions.Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And give it up on that Nobel Prize winner. You fall back on that waaay too much. I remember that thread, and your Nobel Prize winner won that prize in a different field.
For the fifteen millionth time -- he was not in a "different field". He was a cosmologist speaking about how cosmologically, the universe could never have evolved.
How that's considered a "different field" somehow manages to escape my obviously limited intelligence.
If the sources you cite are so easily shot down, maybe you need to do better research, or revise your stance. I may not post a lot, but I read just about every thread, and yes, Rue usually contradicts you. But Rue backs it up with info. Do the same, and I will respect, if not agree with, your arguments. Right now, I see nothing to make me think you are arguing from anything other than a theological standpoint.
Crying because Rue shoots your claims down with evidence does not make your point any stronger - quite the opposite.
And saying you "could" back your claims, but won't because Rue will disagree is cowardly - I asked for the background, and your refusal to give any has diminished any chance of my taking your argument seriously.
As for your Nobel winner, I could tell the diference between the fields of study, and I am far from being a scientist. Others have quite succinctly pointed out how your use of that source is very much an apples to oranges situation, regardless of the inclusion of the word "Evolution". Beating the same broken drum just makes you look silly.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But what you chose to do is tell us all about how old you are (sonny, I'm prolly older than you) and name-call.
Hi.
Firstly, I'm not the one who brought up age. Causal posted the following: " It's also possible to have real-world experience and an unsheltered upbringing and still be against abortion."
I responded to Causal (in total agreement) supporting his/her supposition, and reinforcing said statement with a comment which clearly demonstrated that I certainly do not fall into the category of one who is an opponent of abortion, yet having no "real-world experience".
If my age and "real-world experiences" are the cause of intimidation to some in here, I suppose you'll have to primarily blame my parents for my conception and birth at a time which is apparently inconvenient to the theories of some in this forum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I was walking the world for a spell and I missed some things. There's a Nobel Prize in cosmology now?
Hi. No, George Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics. He is a cosmologist who has clearly stated that the cosmos (which is his field of expertise) are too extremely fine-tuned to have come about by chance.
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Without wanting to restart previous discussions, who's the Nobel Prize winner you keep referring to? I want to do a bit of research on him.
Sure. I have no intention of reopening that can or worms. I only mention Smoot as yet another example of how my sources are continually called into question by persons with obviously more knowledge than my sources in every field of human endeavor.
I've learned my lesson, though. No more sources who aren't atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, and anti-American.
I can deal with that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:38 PM
Quote:
Anyone who disagrees with their ideology is a "troll".
But then, since when did liberals ever want to take responsibility for anything they do. It's always someone else's fault
It's been said that one can judge a man by his enemies. If that's true, you should wear their insults as a badge of honor.
As related to real-world experience, I was probably involved in political discussion and debate before many of the posters in this thread were even born. I've also witnessed and experienced things firsthand which many of you can only have read about long after the fact.
Everything with which Rue disagrees is "bogus"
If my age and "real-world experiences" are the cause of intimidation to some in here, I suppose you'll have to primarily blame my parents for my conception and birth at a time which is apparently inconvenient to the theories of some in this forum
I've learned my lesson, though. No more sources who aren't atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, and anti-American.
Okay, let's get back to your original points:
The New Zealand study appears to have a problem of self-selection due to the REQUIREMENT that abortion be provided only in more dire circumstances. Do you have any arguments to refute that? Any other studies? And comments by the authors themselves on how they might have corrected for that?
The fetal pain argument appears to be derailed by the fact that the 20-week fetus doesn't have the central nervous system components to feel "pain". Do you have any comments to that? Any studies which- for example- show better development and more intact personalities when presumed fetal "pain" is controlled? Any comments on the mechanism of pain? Any insight on fetal EEGs? Comparative anatomy?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:44 PM
Quote:Someone can be a hundred years old and still have no real life experience, Cartroll,
Originally posted by cartoon:
I responded to Causal (in total agreement) supporting his/her supposition, and reinforcing said statement with a comment which clearly demonstrated that I certainly do not fall into the category of one who is an opponent of abortion, yet having no "real-world experience".
If my age and "real-world experiences" are the cause of intimidation to some in here, I suppose you'll have to primarily blame my parents for my conception and birth at a time which is apparently inconvenient to the theories of some in this forum.
.More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME