Pro-choice distortion

[carpedm9587]

Sure.

Or any moral sense. Or any hyppocratic sense.

Hippocratic

Yes, these, hopefully, attempt to improve human life, not destroy it.

Speaking of technology - advancements actually work against so much of Big Abortion's claims!

Are we still talking about abortion?

Abortion vs. other healthcare sectors.

If we're talking about an abortive procedure to save the life of a mother, it's in the same realm, yes. If we're talking about an elective procedure to terminate a human life, not so much.

I have no idea which statement you were disagreeing with.

[Cow Poke]

Hippocratic

I was just testing you.

Abortion vs. other healthcare sectors.

What other sectors of healthcare begin with the intent of destroying human life?

I have no idea which statement you were disagreeing with.

It's not unusual that you are confused.

[QuantaFille]

What other sectors of healthcare begin with the intent of destroying human life?

The billing departments. But that's an entirely different topic.

[carpedm9587]

I was just testing you.

What other sectors of healthcare begin with the intent of destroying human life?

Like I said, your language is colored by your "should not exist" perspective. We tend to use "Big X" in reference to industries for which there is documented evidence of their trying to deceive the public into continuing to use services that are bad for them. Usually, they are entire industries (e.g., Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Sugar, etc.). You seem to want to carve out one sector of a larger industry (healthcare) and give it the same treatment, presumably because you don't want it to exist.

Taken from the other perspective, if the belief is that this is not a human life, then abortion is a subset of "woman's healthcare" which is a subset of "healthcare." All sectors of the healthcare industry want to be profitable - or want to have their cost covered by other sectors (e.g., emergency rooms). Honors for providing an increased level of service/care is not "nefarious," it's just what every sector does (i.e., more patients means more services - awards are given for in increase in visits, etc.).

This is what I mean by "ending the war." The people I know who are pro-choice and work in the woman's health industry are not evil, baby-killing, nazi-like, atrocity mongers. They are not in the employ of "Big Adoption" out to kill as many children as it can. They disagree with you about whether or not a fetus is an independent human life. They disagree with you about the priority of the rights of the fetus/baby over the rights of the woman. They disagree with you that 9 months of pregnancy is "an inconvenience."

They disagree. And you disagree. So instead of focusing on what we disagree about - why not find what we agree on and build on it?

Or you can just continue to rail and disparage...

It's not unusual that you are confused.

And you still have not answered the question.

But I will ask one. You made reference in previous posts to my delighting in the war (which I don't). You seemed offended that I was suggesting you are part of the problem (which I believe you are). So if my message is "continuing an endless war will only ensure more infant deaths, and anyone perpetuating the war is part of the problem - not part of the solution," how would you suggest I articulate that in a way that would not cause offense or trigger a reaction? I'd be curious to know how you would have preferred to hear that message. Or would you simply rather not hear it?

[carpedm9587]

The billing departments. But that's an entirely different topic.

Now THAT was funny...

[Sparko]

then abortion is a subset of "woman's healthcare" which is a subset of "healthcare."

Pregnancy isn't a disease.

[carpedm9587]

Pregnancy isn't a disease.

I don't believe I said it was...


(This is what I meant in my other post about "really bad arguments." You tend to respond to things I never said. Then, when I explain why what you have responded to is not based on anything I said, meant, or think, you spend pages telling me that I actually did say/think/mean that. If you are true to form - I'll be told now how I actually meant/think/implied pregnancy is a disease.)

[Sparko]

I don't believe I said it was...


(This is what I meant in my other post about "really bad arguments." You tend to respond to things I never said. Then, when I explain why what you have responded to is not based on anything I said, meant, or think, you spend pages telling me that I actually did say/think/mean that. If you are true to form - I'll be told now how I actually meant/think/implied pregnancy is a disease.)

You are just a poor listener (or reader as the case may be)

You seem to think abortion is a cure to the disease of pregnancy so it is "healthcare" - it is not. It is terminating a perfectly normal biological function, the growing of a new life. That isn't healthcare, that is butchery. The only time it could be considered healthcare is if the mother's life is in danger. Then it is caring for her health.

[Cow Poke]

The billing departments. But that's an entirely different topic.

[carpedm9587]

You seem to think abortion is a cure to the disease of pregnancy so it is "healthcare" - it is not. It is terminating a perfectly normal biological function, the growing of a new life. That isn't healthcare, that is butchery. The only time it could be considered healthcare is if the mother's life is in danger. Then it is caring for her health.

Like I said - you will likely continue to insist I have implied/claimed/suggested/think pregnancy is a disease. I have never implied/claimed/suggested/thought that, so I will leave you to your own strawman. You have a habit of those. I try to defend positions I actually have - not positions someone else tries to foist on me.

[Cow Poke]

Like I said, your language is colored by your "should not exist" perspective. We tend to use "Big X" in reference to industries for which there is documented evidence of their trying to deceive the public into continuing to use services that are bad for them. Usually, they are entire industries (e.g., Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Sugar, etc.). You seem to want to carve out one sector of a larger industry (healthcare) and give it the same treatment, presumably because you don't want it to exist.

You left out Big Oil.

Taken from the other perspective, if the belief is that this is not a human life, then abortion is a subset of "woman's healthcare" which is a subset of "healthcare."

Science, my friend. Don't be a denier!

All sectors of the healthcare industry want to be profitable - or want to have their cost covered by other sectors (e.g., emergency rooms). Honors for providing an increased level of service/care is not "nefarious," it's just what every sector does (i.e., more patients means more services - awards are given for in increase in visits, etc.).

This is what I mean by "ending the war." The people I know who are pro-choice and work in the woman's health industry are not evil, baby-killing, nazi-like, atrocity mongers.

A) The Abortion industry is not "woman's health industry"
2) If you are truly interested in "ending the war", you wouldn't be so deceptive as to set up this jackass "evil, baby-killing, nazi-like, atrocity mongers" crap. You manufacture that so you can pretend to argue against it.

They are not in the employ of "Big Adoption" out to kill as many children as it can.

Um..... "Big Adoption" would be a great alternative to "Big Abortion".

They disagree with you about whether or not a fetus is an independent human life. They disagree with you about the priority of the rights of the fetus/baby over the rights of the woman. They disagree with you that 9 months of pregnancy is "an inconvenience."

They disagree. And you disagree. So instead of focusing on what we disagree about - why not find what we agree on and build on it?

Or you can just continue to rail and disparage...

It's not the workers in the Abortion Industry I fault - it's the drivers of the Abortion Industry. MANY people who have worked in the Abortion Industry wake up to realize they've been misled.

And you still have not answered the question.

Perhaps the question got lost in your verbosity!

But I will ask one. You made reference in previous posts to my delighting in the war (which I don't).

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

You seemed offended that I was suggesting you are part of the problem (which I believe you are).

Offended? I think you're wrong, but that's your privilege.

So if my message is "continuing an endless war will only ensure more infant deaths, and anyone perpetuating the war is part of the problem - not part of the solution," how would you suggest I articulate that in a way that would not cause offense or trigger a reaction? I'd be curious to know how you would have preferred to hear that message. Or would you simply rather not hear it?

I believe in free speech. I think you're nutty to call a human life "a blob of tissue", but I think that reveals your own prejudice. And I think that it's just birdbrained asinine to claim (paraphrasing) that those of us who are arguing for pro-life are guilty of the deaths of more children - or however you worded that. I think that was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you type.

[Cow Poke]

I don't believe I said it was...


(This is what I meant in my other post about "really bad arguments." You tend to respond to things I never said. Then, when I explain why what you have responded to is not based on anything I said, meant, or think, you spend pages telling me that I actually did say/think/mean that. If you are true to form - I'll be told now how I actually meant/think/implied pregnancy is a disease.)

You tend to say things that can easily be construed as something you apparently didn't intend to say.

Calling abortion "healthcare" implies that it is advantageous to the health of a human, as opposed to destroying the life of one. Abortion is elective surgery with the singular goal of terminating a human life -- with the exception, of course, when it is actually necessary to save the life of the mother.

[carpedm9587]

You left out Big Oil.

I did! :gasp:

Science, my friend. Don't be a denier!

I believe it is a human life...remember?

A) The Abortion industry is not "woman's health industry"
2) If you are truly interested in "ending the war", you wouldn't be so deceptive as to set up this jackass "evil, baby-killing, nazi-like, atrocity mongers" crap. You manufacture that so you can pretend to argue against it.

CP - look through this thread and all of the threads about abortion, and see how many you find that do not paint (at some point) the pro-choice advocate as "evil" or do not use the words "murder" or "kill babies." Look for how many do not, at some point, remind us that "that's what the nazi's said." If you don't think these are the messages being regularly flung out by the pro-life contingent, then I respectfully suggest you are not listening to your peers, or reading the literature, or listening to the speakers.

Um..... "Big Adoption" would be a great alternative to "Big Abortion".

You won't find ANYONE who agrees with you MORE than me! <---spoken in my best Trumpesque voice

It's not the workers in the Abortion Industry I fault - it's the drivers of the Abortion Industry. MANY people who have worked in the Abortion Industry wake up to realize they've been misled.

I see - those nefarious drivers out to make money by killing babies, I presume?

Perhaps the question got lost in your verbosity!

I asked which statement you disagreed with...several posts ago.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I say what I think - and let others make up their mind, CP. Whether or not you buy it is up to you.

Offended? I think you're wrong, but that's your privilege.

So not offended, then?

I believe in free speech. I think you're nutty to call a human life "a blob of tissue", but I think that reveals your own prejudice.

And just what "prejudice" do you think that is?

And I think that it's just birdbrained asinine to claim (paraphrasing) that those of us who are arguing for pro-life are guilty of the deaths of more children - or however you worded that. I think that was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you type.

I think anyone who is not willing to put down the animosity, seek common ground, and work to systemic solutions - anyone continuing the vitriol and perpetuating the war - is as guilty of the resulting deaths of the children who are killed as anyone else - regardless which "side" of the war they are on. This "war" has raged since I was in grade school - so over 50 years now (and perhaps before). It has not abated. It has not diminished. It has not resulted in any significant reduction in deaths due to abortion. It is clearly not achieving anything. Every second spent continuing the war - continues the death. Every person focused on the war - is contributing to the deaths.

And I see you doing exactly that.

I'm sure it's not a message you want/like to hear. It is what I firmly believe. If you are not actively looking for and promoting an end to the hostilities and an attempt to find solutions that respect the rights of BOTH individuals - woman and child - then you are part of the problem.

[Cow Poke]

I did! :gasp:

You did.

I believe it is a human life...remember?

Then stop calling it a blob of tissue.

CP - look through this thread and all of the threads about abortion, and see how many you find that do not paint (at some point) the pro-choice advocate as "evil" or do not use the words "murder" or "kill babies." Look for how many do not, at some point, remind us that "that's what the nazi's said." If you don't think these are the messages being regularly flung out by the pro-life contingent, then I respectfully suggest you are not listening to your peers, or reading the literature, or listening to the speakers.

Carpe - look at what you said -- "The people I know who are pro-choice and work in the woman's health industry are not evil, baby-killing, nazi-like, atrocity mongers." That, my friend, is not the same as "the pro-choice advocate". A very important distinction.

[carpedm9587]

You tend to say things that can easily be construed as something you apparently didn't intend to say.

First - horse crap. I communicate for a living. I don't have that problem anywhere else I communicate except here. I am no more prone to saying things people can misconstrue than anyone else.

Second - even if what you just said WERE true - it's not the misconstruing that is a problem - it's the insistence, after I respond and clarify - that what I actually think is whatever the person first interpreted. Sparko will misunderstand/misconstrue something I wrote and then cling to his interpretation even when I provide clarification, insisting that what I meant was not what I am explaining - but what he originally thought.

At that point, it's no longer misconstruing - it's either intentional misrepresentation and/or a need to put up strawmen because he doesn't have an argument to what I actually said. Several other here have that habit. The site seems to revel in this dynamic. I've wasted more time trying to clarify, and I've simply learned not to waste the time. I've come to believe he's not interested in actual discussion/debate - he just hates me and wants to do anything/everything to mock and tear me down.

His choice - but not worth my time.

Calling abortion "healthcare" implies that it is advantageous to the health of a human, as opposed to destroying the life of one. Abortion is elective surgery with the singular goal of terminating a human life -- with the exception, of course, when it is actually necessary to save the life of the mother.

Again you clearly don't want this sector of healthcare to exist - and you see it as a life. The pro-choice people generally do not believe it is a life - and see abortion as one of a range of healthcare options available to a woman in the midst of a pregnancy. When you take a moment to see the argument from the perspective of the other side - there is no animosity or ill will or hatred or evil involved - no death - no killing - just a woman making a decision about her healthcare.

When you decide it is an individuated human person (which is as much a philosophical issue as a scientific one), then suddenly it all looks awful and what you are saying follows naturally.

It is the inability/unwillingness of either side to see the argument as framed from the opposite side that has resulted in the polarized/intransigent situation we find today and have had now for 50+ years.