This describes you to a T.
Yes ladies and gentlemen. Classylady has whipped out the I know you are, but what am I? defense.
The thing about a large, active message board that’s been around for several years is that over those years, a lot of the regulars know quite a lot about each other. We know each other’s opinions on various subjects, and each other’s tastes. We’ve also figured out who is fairly bright and who isn’t…all based on people’s posts. Sometimes we meet up with each other in person. But mostly all we can judge a poster by is his/her posts.
So far, you’ve been acting like a not particularly bright teen, who keeps spitting weak insults at other people. If you’re going to insult people, you should attempt to at least do it in an interesting way, preferably with some creativity.
[quote=“elbows, post:594, topic:580935”]
[QUOTE]
I can produce many stories about adoptions that worked very well.
Yes. Yes, I am.
Those senetences make my point. I imagine you’re not swayed by my anecdotes; why should I be swayed by yours? The whole point of saying that I could produce many stories about adoptions that worked well was to show that anecdotes are not data.
Your group is self-selected. That is, a board dedicated to helping women from the emotional trauma adoption caused in their lives is not welcoming (or interesting) to a woman whose adoption experience was positive. I of course admit that adoption is not universally positive; I contend it’s positive much more often than not. Surely you can see that your experience on a “private board” self-selected for women distressed about the adoption, is not meaningful to refute this. How many women, annually, give up children for adoption? How many of them would now describe their experience as positive?
THOSE are the questions that must be answered. Your experiences on your board, while certainly meaningful to you, are not data.
Page 3:
Page 12:
I guess we can all see how long that high horse lasted. And I guess we can all feel sorry for poor classylady - after all, having so much hate inside cannot be healthy.
I agree that you may have a right to splatter information about third parties that you received in a private communication all over the internet. (Or you may not, depending on your state law on invasion of privacy.) I merely disagree that the decision to do so is classy. No matter how scurrilious the PM may have been as directed at you, including private information about third parties in your public response lacks the class that you claim to possess.
She should abort the hate that’s growing inside her. Just fish-hook that tangled knot of anger and fury right into the toilet.
I agree with this. I serve on the board of a pro-life charity. Our approach to being pro-life is to offer material support to women before and after the birth of their child. Free car seats, layettes, diapers, cribs, strollers, etc. and vocational training and support, plus referrals to other social services in the area for any issues we can’t help with.
I certainly wouldn’t reject a cite for not containing the phrase “farting rainbows” – that’s Diogenes territory.
But I’d like a cite that gets into the same meaning – a claim that there are no possible problems, ever, with adoption.
I of course concede that nearly every pro-life source will say that adoption is a good alternative to abortion. But that’s hardly a fair translation of “…adoption is la-la land where mother, baby and adopting couple are all farting rainbows over the procedure…”
Almost certainly according to whom? Even that falls under the scope of personal choice doesn’t it? Doesn’t the woman have the right to decide she doesn’t want to deal with the physical stress of pregnancy? Doesn’t she get to protect her personal privacy and deal with the situation without friends, family, and the general public know she is pregnant? Doesn’t she get to decide she doesn’t prefer the idea that she has a child out there somewhere, or not being able to give up a child carried to term?
Adoption is a fine choice for some ,but that doesn’t make it the preferred choice for everyone. A woman who chooses early term abortion gets to move on physically and emotionally much sooner. It’s their choice.
Concerning the false information and accusations of verbal and physical assault. The folks that protest across from my driveway have generally just stood and prayed. Months ago there were some disgusting and gruesome signs clearly intended to shock and intimidate. It didn’t seem to matter that they were on a street where people driving by and their kids were subjected to those signs.
I think we can accept that any large category of people will vary. Some jerks and some not. IMO there’s a certain responsibility for people to police their own. I don’t agree with religious folks who think they know what God thinks and wants concerning this issue, but I feel worse when pro choice people resort to name calling.
I support peaceful protest but IMO people physically interfering or verbally assaulting people going into a clinic ought to be arrested and spend a night in jail. If they want to rejoice in their suffering for a righteous cause great. At least they’re out of people’s faces. Chronic offenders should be dealt with more harshly.
Bricker, (or any of you) not being snarky, just honestly curious. Have you ever participated in an adoption first-hand? Adopted a child or been adopted? Given up a child? If that is too personal of a question, I apologize. I have seen both adoption and abortion in my family so I can kind of see both sides.
That’s awesome. More protestors ought to follow this example. I would think groups like yours could actually work with clinics to let women know their options.
I’d have said that the federal constitution is silent on the issue – I would have left abortion in the hands of the states, because to my mind, it’s manifestly not a federal constitutional issue.
However, in a future case, if Congress had passed a law mandating that no state law could interfere with abortion in the first trimester – bascially, if Congress had codified the Roe decision as law – I’d have upheld it under Congress’ Commerce Clause power (as defined in Wickard v. Filburn).
That latter case, by the way, would be the expression of the people’s will, via their elected representatives.
Yes and because YOU say so then it must be true:rolleyes:
Tumours do, of course, have XX or XY chromosomes (or XXY or whatever), because they carry all the same genetic information as any other cell in the body. Also, there are tumours called teratomas that can have hair, teeth, bones, and even organs. I’m not sure if ones have been found with hearts, but it’s certainly possible.
You have 47 chromosomes?
My first cousin is adopted. And I’m close friends with the couple I mentioned above, who adopted their daughter as the result of an abortion clinic meeting.
But that’s it.
Are you serious? Someone sent me a hateful DM and called me the most vile and hideous names yet I must protect their privacy? BULLSHIT.
I guess all the people with stalkers should just keep the letters sent form their stalkers to themselves then.
It should be clear that I am pro-life, and so my comment to you cannot be motivated by disagreement with your underlying thesis:
Your method is ineffective and your grasp of rhetorical skills is sorely lacking, You cannot, or will not, craft a solid argument. By offering up half-baked, poorly formed argument leavened with puerile insults, you do more harm than anything else, buttressing the confirmation bias that pro-life people are foolish ideologues.
You can dismiss Lynn’s critique as the words of someone who’s on the opposite side, and thus has every motive to attack you.
Why would I say these things to you, though?
Yes, I am dead serious. Be as vicious to dropzone as you want, but his brother and sister-in-law have done nothing to you and do not deserve to have their private business reported here.
Um… stalkers who send letters know where you live, thereby putting your safety at issue. It’s not really comparable to getting your panties bunched by an anonymous pm.