And as a general statement: I love the posters here who indignantly point out the legality of abortion, saying how the protesters should not be inveighing against the exercise of these women’s legal right… and then faster than you can say “Sybil[sup]*[/sup]” are outraged at the idea that just because the protesters are technically “legal” they should not be somehow prevented from doing what they are doing.
You make an excellent point, thanks.
Off-hand, I’m gonna guess it bothers her because a) you’re tiresomely sanctimonious and condescending b) you’re holding other people to different debating/discourse standards than the ones you follow yourself c) you never ever shut the fuck up about it d) all of the above.
It has nothing to do with what side of the abortion debate you’re on–I’d find any opinion expressed the way you express yourself bothersome, even if that opinion was that child abuse is bad.
And how about me? I share your opinion that abortion is wrong, and I have criticized your contributions to this thread multiple times.
What do you suppose is driving me?
You, my dear, an incredibly judgmental and self-righteous. Good username by the way. You should have just kept the first 5 letters and erased the rest of it though.
I haven’t read the whole thread. Why do you think that abortion is wrong?
Now that is the best example I have seen in a while of the pot calling the kettle black!
…ignoring the troll post above. I have stated many times why I feel abortion is wrong. Whenever I say something I get attacked so there’s no point. This is the pit though so it’s a free for all. You can’t have an intelligent debate in this thread. You really can’t.
Well, you can’t.
Uh, Bricker…Did you happen to notice the group who did that survey? NATIONAL ADOPTION INSTITUTE.
Pro-lifers are still performing surveys that “prove” abortion causes breast cancer."
I’d like to see a survey from an impartial group.
BTW, all the experts agree that adoption is a factor in creating serial killers. Cite.
But the anti-abortion protestors do not bring that fact up.
Calling people bithces and dummies and pieces of shit is your idea of an intelligent debate, then is it? Well color me surprised. :rolleyes:
Hey! I know this is a public message board but stop harassing and and picking on people. You don’t have to read their responses. 
Not to my satisfaction. All I see is you stating that you think embryos are babies and refuse to explain why. You also made a vague personal reference which only hurts your position because it demonstrates that you are being irrational.
Again, what is it about the potential to be human that makes it so special that the government should interfere with the woman’s right to her own body? This question has been asked several times in this thread and you refuse to answer it.
Then cite one, or show some flaw in the methodology of the cited report. You cannot simply dismiss a cite because you claim the group has an agenda. I’ve provided a cite – the burden falls to you now to counter it.
I clicked on that link and found nothing about serial killers. Perhaps you could quote the portion of the link that says what you claim it does?
Because I contend that human life begins at conception, and that human life is worthy of legal protection by virtue of the fact that it is human.
And in both Robert Ressler and John Douglas’s books (founder and one of the first members of the FBI serial killers unit) you will find many examples of adopted serial killers.
ETA: I am not saying that I oppose adoption. I do think women should definitely have that choice. However, I don’t think it should be the only choice for a woman who is pregnant and does not want to have a child. And I also think that any woman considering adoption should hear both sides of the argument before deciding.
I’ll take a stab at this, though I most assuredly do not speak for classy.
I contend human life begins at conception. I reach this conclusion because any other answer is contradictory: first trimester? Then we say that at day 91 of the pregnancy, the fetus is human, but not at day 90? Not at minute 11:59, but at minute 12:00? The flaws in that seem obvious.
But conception is a key point: before that, we don’t have a unique human genetic signature; after it, we do.
You then ask: …what is it about the potential to be human that makes it so special that the government should interfere with the woman’s right to her own body?
Answer: first, of course, I reject your assertion that we’re discussing merely the potential to be human; I contend we’re talking about an actual human. Secondly – I agree that when the government forbids abortion, they are encroaching on a woman’s right to her own body. But I contend that our entire society is filled with examples of ther government interfering with how we use our bodies. I bet you, for example, would be fine with requiring that pharmacists fill prescriptions for “morning after” pills and never once blink at the idea that this is the government interfering with how the pharmacist uses his hands and his mind – both os which are reportedly parts of the body. Right?
So the real test is a balancing one: to what degree do we interfere with the right of the person to use his or her body, under what circumstances, and what competing harms or goods are we balancing against it?
And in this case, since I contend that we’re balancing the right of a human to continue living, to be born, live as an infant, a toddler, a child, a teenage, an adult, to love, marry, and have children of his or her own… and against that we have nine months out of a woman’s life… I contend that the balance of equities falls on saving the human life and accepting nine months of interference.
Actually, yes, there have been many intelligent debates in the Pit.
And “trolling” does not mean “this person disagrees with me” or “this person called me names”. This is the official staff position of the SDMB…and I’m actually an administrator for the SDMB, though I’m mostly retired. I still have all the abilities to do things like give warnings and ban people, though these days, I mostly ban the spammers who attempt to spam the SDMB in the middle of the night. The reason I don’t have an admin title is because I AM mostly retired. And the only reason I mention that I’m an admin is because I need to impress upon you that I know what I’m talking about, and that you are using the words troll and trolling incorrectly. And it’s not just the SDMB that uses these words in this manner, it’s the whole damned internet.
Yes, I’m aware of what subjective means. We’ve also seen protestors arrested haven’t we?
It’s up to the local governments to make the judgement call. Maybe they’d rather allow people to be harassed than to face law suits concerning free speech and religious freedom.
What I saw in the video was on the edge. Talking to 1 person is not the issue. I assumed that was their pattern. To stand there for hours and and verbally accost every woman entering the clinic. It’s affecting not only the women but the clinic as well. The stories I’ve heard of blocking the sidewalk, keeping people in their cars, laying hands on them, don’t seem questionable at all. Lock em up.
I’m growing increasingly fond of protesting churches that support these anti abortion folks. Protest the church offering to help save them from ignorance and superstition. The problem is church property would probably keep you from giving them a true taste of their own medicine.
You still haven’t quoted any text that supports your claim.
The closest text I found is this:
Nowhere does this claim that “adoption is a factor in creating serial killers,” much less that “all experts agree.” It merely substantiates the fact that some serial killers were adopted. Undoubtedly I can find serial killers that were not adopted. The question is: is the incidence of adopted serial killers statistically greater than serial killers drawn from the unadopted population? Even then, correlation is not causation – a careful study may discover some third causation factor that correlates with both adoption and serial killers… fetal alcohol syndrome, for example, might be more prevelant; drinking mothers might decide to give up their children for adoption more frequently than non-drinking mothers, and correcting for that factor would eliminate adoption as the actual cause.
But showing correlation would at least give you some basis to argue the point. You haven’t even done that.
It’s funny that you accuse the pro-life side of spewing bullshit, and I have concede that at least one claim you identified as being heard from the pro-life side (“abortion causes infertility”) is bullshit.
Yet you are comfortable making these bullshit claims, and secure in the knowledge that since it’s for a higher cause, it’s fine?