beagledave I doubt that PLG is ignoring your remarks. All this side tracking of who believes what about abortion started as a comment from PLG about most believing in abortion for rape/incest, she got called to provide proof of the statement (which, of and by itself, not germain to anything else) and it snowballed from there.
FTR, I provided a site that showed overwhelming approval among those polled in America for abortions in the cases of rape and incest. is that the exact same thing as saying ‘most posters at the SDMB who characterize themselves as pro-life are also in favor of abortions being available in the case of rape/incest’ ? nope. But, does it matter? nope.
The OP was about Bush’s Executive order and what effect it would have.
My position is that of course it would have the effect of reducing services to people in those countries. The order, as stated would give each clinic/provider the option of either not providing abortion services (which includes, as a matter of fact and eloquently posted by DoctorJ, providing the information that an abortion is a legal option, and what the relative risks are) or not have anyUSAID funds at all, which of course, would reduce the services available. So their choice is to reduce services or reduce services. Not based on their own perception of the needs of their patients, but based on the moral stance of an elected official from another country. Blackmail? sounds like it to me.
FTR, comparing the population at large (composed of at least 50% pro choice folks I would guess) with “pro life posters on the SDMB” is not even close.
Does it matter? Well as a pro life poster on the SDMB it does matter to me how I’m (and the other pro life posters that I’ve read) characterized, thanks…and I note that plg mentioned it not once but twice…
“comparing pop at large w/pro-life posters at SDMB not even close” .
No kidding. you missed the point, completely. The original statement was “most pro-lifers are in favor of abortions in the case of rape/incest”. She was asked for proof of that, and she offered up GWB and ‘in any thread here, you’ll find at least one or two who agree with that’. and then the race was on. So, her ‘mischaracterization’ of SDMB pro-lifers was : 'one or two will agree with this, and actually, Scylla came pretty close to saying exactly that, which makes “one or two” accurate. In any event, her comment came as a throw away comment in response to ‘where’s your proof’ of the original assertion (which was NOT about SDMB Pro life posters). sheesh.
If you want to go back and have people do a ‘mea culpa’ for every slight misstep (and since her one comment that you’re focused on was not at all the main thrust of her post, AND is apparently technically accurate, I’d say it was a slight mis-step), then, by all means, do so. First stop would be Connor who claimed that I mis-remembered Bush’s stated position in the debates about RU 486, he claimed (erroneously, as it turns out) that Bush promised that he would have the FDA re-evaluate their position, when in fact, his statements were much closer to what I remembered (that ‘as president, there wouldn’t be authority over the FDA’ -he DID say he was ‘disappointed’, but in no way indicated that he intended any action at all.)
Well no. Scylla is quite assuredly not pro life. As far as I can tell, although he personally thinks abortion is “wrong” except for rape/incest, he is opposed to any governmental role (at least until “viability”…) As I have been told before by other pro choice folks, that is a pro choice position. So again…PLG did not back up her characterization of pro life sdmb posters. I didn’t miss your point completely…
Is this off topic? (shocking, to have tangental conversations in GD )Yep…
Could this point have been answered or retracted quickly by PLG …yep
(and yes I did attempt to correct another “factual” issue…I provided a cite for Scylla’s question about the 1973 law)
If she chooses to not back up her statement, then fine I can drop it
Scylla, et. al.–thanks for the kind words. I don’t know for sure that the scenario I describe would result from the restriction, but it could, and I’m sure some (maybe most) pro-lifers would prefer that it did.
Keep your BS meter on yellow alert as the FDA “re-evaluates” RU-486, which new HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson said would be happening. My prediction is that they’ll point to some complication rate–for instance, one study I read said that 2% of women in the study were hospitalized after a medical abortion–and claim that the drug is too dangerous to allow on the market. The intellectually honest thing to do would be to compare the complication rate of RU-486 with that of surgical abortion, and to the complication rate of normal term pregnancy. I’d be willing to guess that RU-486 results in somewhat fewer complications than the former and a damn sight fewer than the latter.
I don’t expect anyone in this administration to do the intellectually honest thing, particularly on this issue.
Some here say there’s nothing wrong with Bush blocking all federal funding to organisations connected with abortion.
If that is so, then could Bush also enact measures that block all federal funding to organisations connected with homosexuals (eg. employing them or helping homosexual communities to gain wider acceptance in their area)?
What’s the difference between these two scenarios?
Right after I posted the above, I switched to anothe thread and saw Scyllas’ comment “I am not pro-life”.
I’ll post what I said there (paraphrased) - I believe that much of the confusion that comes about, happens when some one who thinks of them as pro choice will refer to others as “pro life” anyone who wants restrictions to abortions. The link I provided with stats etc. shows about 17% of Americans believe that abortions should be outlawed completely. I generally would call those folks “pro life”. However, it is entirely possible that many of the plurality of folks who want to allow abortions only in the case of rape/incest/life treat to mom, also consider themselves as pro life. If your point is that we should respectfully await a position paper from each individual with all possible scenarios/rationals before attaching lables to them, fine. It’ll make for some lengthy waits in debates, tho.
So it is back to plg made a statement relative to ‘pro lifers’ in general, was asked to prove it, gave “GWB” and ‘there’s at least one or two prolifers here who believe that’, and you’re still waiting for her to retract that. Fine. I still say that it was not germane to her arguement.
Her main point, seemed to have been that most people are in favor of abortions in the case of rape/incest. This seems to be true. Only 17% of folks wouldn’t be in favor of abortions in that case. So, either at best, only 17% of Americans are pro=life, or any in excess of that number hold the internally inconsistant belief that plg mentioned. And, if none of those are regular posters at SDMB, fine and dandy, I’ll give you a mea culpa on her behalf (if she’ll let me).
Of course, I’ll still point out that several posters here kept on stating “I don’t want my tax dollars paying for abortions in other countries” despite specific evidence that it wasn’t true at all.
If PLG was trying to say that most folks (at least Americans, I guess) favor abortion in the “hard cases” (rape/incest) I would completely agree with that (and your cite of the abc poll further supports that)
If she was trying to say that there are lots of pro life SDMB posters taking that position…I really haven’t seen that, at least in the abortion threads I’ve read lately.
And by all means point out the scalliwags who don’t understand the 1973 law…in spite of what you, pldennison (and even moi) have stated.
And the most interesting quote of all! From the same thread.
What did you mean there?
Were you saying you were opposed to abortion except in cases of “rape or life of mother etc…”?
Well, I was still researching in more threads, but my other windows are saying “Connection Timed Out” so this will have to be enough for now.
Is five enough?
And thank you wring for your help.
We can hold off the mea culpa for now, I think. I proved my point.
This thread is being submitted w/o preview. I hope it works…
The fact that you did not say that you couldn’t grasp the distinction does not mean that couldn’t. The fact that you said that it was without meaning suggests to me that you do not understand it.
PunditLisa
Fiirst of all, TAX DOLLARS ARE NOT BEING USED TO SUPPORT THIS PRACTICE.
Secondly, I certainly understand why he holds his position, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with him. Just because some people believe that their position is the only moral choice, that does not make it immune to debate and discussion. A lot of people in this thread are implying that they have a right to not have their tax dollars pay for stuff they don’t support. This is incredibly conceited.
You did NOT refer to “just people in GD”, you referred to pro life posters. I would agree that you can probably find people in GD (and the rest of the population) that would agree with the GWB position…you said that you could find at least one or 2 pro life posters saying that in ANY abortion thread.
You first said "1. The majority of pro-lifers believe abortion is ok in cases of “rape and incest” "
Later you said "Pick any abortion debate here in GD, and there will inevitably be more than one pro-lifer who states “The only time abortion should be allowed are in cases on incest and rape.” "
Jersey Diamonds post does not match your statement
Joe Cool…i don’t have access to his other posts…but is he pro life? If not…then his post doesnt match your statement
I’m not sure if Morgan would consider him/herself “pro life” since he/she states that there are “always extenuating circumstances”. Not to be flip, but if I say that capital punishment is murder, but that there are lots of instances where “extenuating circumstances” dictate the death penalty…am I really opposed to the death penalty?
PatrickM would be a poster who would match your statement.
My statement (somewhat out of context …(the context was about “punishing women” as a rationale for abortion…)also perhaps worded poorly by me in that post…
Do I think that women have a “right” to abortion in cases of rape/incest…NO(or as you put it "Do I think it’s OK?..NO). Do I think women have a “right” to abortion in the rare case of endangering the life of the mother…YES.
In POLITICAL reality, would I make a compromise for legislation that would lead to banning abortions, but allow the rape/incest exception? (especially if I believed that at least the short term political alternative was no ban at all)…yes I would.
I would still suggest that you have not supported your inital assertion that "1. The majority of pro-lifers believe abortion is ok in cases of “rape and incest” "
I’m just picturing the founding fathers rolling over in their graves…
I can only respond by saying that it is the epitome of conceit to have a government require me to hand over a third of my earnings, upon threat of JAIL, with no explanation as to how they plan to spend my money.
If my government is financing something I do not support, I have a right, and perhaps DUTY, to complain.
So, according to this pro life site, they specifically include as “prolife”, those who believe in abortions in cases of rape/incest only. and, it does seem to be the case that those who accept abortions in the cases of rape/incest comprise the largest percentage of those described on this site as “pro life”. whew. It’s a long way to Tippenary.
)Yep…
