Indeed!
If dropzone wanted it to stay private he should have kept it to himself instead of calling me the most horrendous names in the book. I haven’t posted the actual DM but I can if you want. PM’s are not meant to be a way to verbally assault someone and their character you know?
Bless your heart ms. higher than thou.
Uh oh. Mom came home.
Hahahah…awwwww. Beaten to the punch by DianaG. 
See this is what happens when you claim to know shit you actually ‘know’ nothing about. The board in question is not pre selective to those traumatized by bad adoption experiences. It it for all women who surrendered children. There are women, on the board who had better experiences, were glad they made the choice they did. But they are all traumatized by the experience. That’s the point. Good or bad, it’s a traumatizing experience in a way you cannot hope to comprehend.
Fortunately, it’s clear you don’t let such things stand in the way of deciding/knowing what’s right for everyone else.
Hard facts are you live in a democracy, your opinion is the minority. No one more than women, realize exactly how difficult a position that is, get back to us when you’ve had to suck it up for over a century, and we’ll talk.
That’s really nice to make fun of people with Down’s syndrome:rolleyes:
Oh gosh not the stupid serial killers thing again?
Exactly. I’m somewhat dumbfounded by the statement.
It’s better that this embryo grow in your body and be adopted than you make a choice others don’t like concerning your own body and life. I fail to see how the logic and reasoning in that can be defended.
Offering and facilitating that choice is a great thing,… but it’s still the pregnant woman’s choice to make.
So to be clear, you contend that adoption is a net negative experience for the vast majority of women that choose it?
Acoording to this survey, attitudes by those who have adoption experience were overwhleming positive. 69% of those with adoption experience called their experience “Very Favorable.” Of those without direct adoption experience, only 51% rated their opinion of adoption “Very Favorable.”
26% of those with adoption experience called their experience “Somewhat Favorable.” Of those without direct adoption experience, 40% rated their opinion of adoption “Somewhat Favorable.”
So 95% of those with direct experience with adoption rated their experience either very, or somewhat, favorable.
The raw survey results were weighted to census targets for age, race, gender, income, region, and number of telephone lines to ensure that the sample represented all Americans. The sampling and weighting methods are the same as those used for The Harris Poll.
Given the sample sizes for this study, the margin of error for percentages near 50% is plus or minus 3 points for the entire sample. The margin of error for sub-groups varies depending on the size of the sub-group, but in no case exceeds 9%.
Now, there’s a cite. Beyond your “private board,” do you have any actual data, as opposed to self-selected anecdotes?
And something about this board that pisses me off:
In any conversation about a different subject, six people would have jumped down elbows’ throat for not understanding self-selection as a concept and not understanding how it relates to drawing conclusions from her “private board.”
But because the issue here is tangentially related to abortion, there’s a great reluctance to step in and address the issue.
Someone asked earlier about incoherent arguments on the pro-choice side. I conceded that the pro-life side had more than its share. But here’s an argument that’s manifestly incoherent, based on anecdotal data, and pretty self-evidently wrong. You may not agree that abortion is worse than adoption; you cannot think than adoption is so uniformly negative.
But because the argument appears on the pro-choice side, no one steps in and says anything.
Dam it. had a response almost finished, hit the wrong key and lost it. :mad:
okay, I vented.
What’s the point of getting people who are unreachable to consider their axioms? IMO, it’s a mistake to bring up religious beliefs until the religious people do. I think it’s progress that many religious groups are trying to cloak their beliefs in non religious terms and trying to convince people they are are logical and reasonable. IMO, it’s a matter of practicality and strategy.
I’d like to put something out there that I think a lot of people miss. People are multi faceted and made up of intellect, our ability to think reason and learn, and emotions. All people. The elements of character are not dependent on intelligence. Compassion, decency, courage, honor, kindness, loyalty, etc, the intangibles, do not depend on intelligence or education. Illiterate people can have tremendous character , and highly intelligent people with great educations can be assholes. and all stripes in between. Less educated people can be very practical while very educated can be very irrational.
I think processing facts has something to do with how and facts are presented and presenting them in a relevant timely manner.
People can be subject to propaganda and their own personal preferences but that I think that can be addressed by getting more information out there to more people. Society and religion has changed as that has happened and will continue to do so. As you say, some people are unreachable. I tend not to spend a lot of time trying to reason with those who demonstrate they’re not interested in listening. I just move on to someone else.
I suggest you missed the point of Annie’s anecdote. I read it as she didn’t want the cop to intervene, and when he did, Annie had the impression that his sympathies were with the protester, not with Annie who was arguably engaged in a distracting counter-protest.
Her belief about his sympathies are reflected in the last line of her post, where she (facetiously, I’m sure) suggested the cop wouldn’t take her side even if the protester had shot her.
The cop did not intervene. He asked what was going on, and he told the protestor that Annie “had every right to stand there.” To the extent that he did anything at all, it was on Annie’s behalf.
But I admit I didn’t understand at all what she was getting at with the last line, so perhaps she’ll explain.
I was waiting for this to be answered
It would unreasonable to assume this is true, just as I think it’s unreasonable to assume adoption is the better option in most cases.
Adoption, like most human endeavors, depends on the people involved for it’s negative of positive quality.
It’s easy for me to believe that some women are pressured into either adoption of abortions they regret. It’s an emotionally charged issue for almost everyone.
‘Adoption experience’, being defined as having adopted/surrendered, hmmm, wonder why the results come out as they did? Do you even understand that the women most traumatized by the experience, don’t answer surveys? I doubt it. It’s so intensely personal that privacy must be ensured, by making it a private board, so they will talk about it at all. The breadth of your ignorance is immense.
And no one cares what those, ‘with no adoption experience’, think, they are the same as you, no concern for the mothers, or their trauma, as long as it suits their political agenda.
Well, “intervene” / “walked over and asked what was going on”… whatever… he interjected his presence, which is of course not a bad thing in and of itself if he perceived trouble (or potential trouble) brewing between Annie and the protester. I didn’t get the impression Annie felt his presence was needed, and I get the further impression Annie didn’t view him as some impartial observer wanting only to keep things civil, but rather that he would have told Annie to move along had he been free to choose, and I’m confident my interpretation is far closer than Bricker’s, but if Annie wants to expand on it, I invite her to do so.
That’s not quite fair. For one thing, Der Trihs was taking some hits from pro-choice people earlier in this thread. For another, the attitude you describe is hardly unique to this board, or to pro-choice people in general. Most people are reluctant to attack their perceived allies in emotionally charged issues like abortion. I note that there aren’t a whole lot of conservatives in this thread, other than yourself, who are making the sort of concessions you’ve made. (Granted, there aren’t a whole lot of conservatives on this board to make those concessions in the first place…) And lastly, while your expectation may be reasonable, you’re on page fourteen of an abortion Pit thread. I think most of the reasonable people exited the thread about seven pages back.
Semi-related, the poster calling himself Omg a Black Conservative cited (in the current GD thread on abortion which is pretty much the same as this one except classylady’s trollery is mercifully absent) a study that he claimed linked abortion and child abuse. I read it, pointed out some flaws, including some “self-selected” aspects that could easily bias the results of a study with such a small sample size.
I don’t recall anyone commenting, though, on his behalf or mine.
I’ll go a step further and say that by all appearances and when directly questioned, the policy of the police departments in these four jurisdictions was for their officers (because it was a rotating cast of officers) to not intervene in client-protester interactions, no matter how fearful the clients’ reactions obviously were (women were regularly reduced to weeping, for pity’s sake) or how impeded their path into the facility until someone used their hands to shove or someone got hit.
No, no, there were more than 200 instances. I have been on scene at facilities on approximately 200 separate days. Each of those involved escorting multiple clients, a double-length Saturday shift might’ve included several dozen.
There weren’t the confrontational “sidewalk counselors” present during each of my escorting shifts but when they were around, especially on Saturdays, it was instance after instance of the aggressive, physically and emotionally intimidating behavior.
There’s a difference between the pray and sing and hold sign variety of protest and the “sidewalk counselor.” The latter have gone through some sort of training – typically at a crisis pregnancy center – to learn an “elevator pitch” to give a clinic client in the limited time they have while she’s on public property. Because their time is limited, and because there’s such urgency on their part, that’s when and why things get heated. I’d be hard pressed to imagine what a bunch of people standing and praying on a sidewalk could do that’s illegal besides blocking a public thoroughfare.
I’m not sure what kind of data you want. Other than a couple of blogs and a few escorts who are now tweeting during their escort shifts to catalog some of the more outrageous things they’ve seen and heard, it’s not as if anyone is keeping records of these interactions, even when they get severely ugly, that I could point you toward. If you’re willing to have a look, though, there’s Every Saturday Morning, and the top post right now contains a video from a client’s perspective, showing the effect of having to walk from the corner to the door of a clinic with people shouting at you, and some woman leaping out at you yammering at you about free ultrasounds and God deciding the gender of your baby and financial counseling (note: counseling, not assistance) and literally dozens of people are screaming about killing and shouting prayers at you (which can have a profound effect on clients who are religious) and so on.
No one should have to face that in order to get health care.
It’s also notable, in that video (taken at the clinic that the ACLU has called one of the worst in the nation for protest activity) you can see that the “sidewalk counselors” are wearing dayglo vests. This is significant. Clients are told, when they make their clinic appointments, to look for the clinic escorts, who wear vests that say “clinic escort” on them. The anti-abortion sidewalk “counselors” have taken, in many places (including at my local clinic) to also wearing vests in order to confuse the clients about who they’re meant to go to for protection, who it is that’s tasked with helping them into the actual clinic where they’ve got an appointment.
Their vests usually have some small insignia (often on the back) representing that they’re “pro-life escorts” or “life escorts” or something, but when they’re intentionally positioning themselves on the sidewalk just as close or closer to where clients exit their cars or come onto the public sidewalk from the parking lot as the real escorts, by the time the confusion is sorted out, they’ve already had a fair amount of time to get into their often exceedingly misleading shpiel.
This is especially true in places where the latest anti-choice coercion tactic is to set up one of their crisis pregnancy centers in the same building, same block or right across the street from reproductive health care providers, and give them misleading names like “Women’s Choices Clinic” even though there is no medical care provided at all.
They capitalize on misleading people through the intentional creation of confusion and blatant lies. Apparently I Corinthians 14:33 and Revelations 21:8 mean nothing to these good “godly” Christians. I’ve asked, I get blank stares.