So parents shouldn’t be able to force their pregnant daughters to carry to term?
No, I didn’t say that. I said that their decision to do so should not make it the teenage girl’s future burden. If the parents of the girl believe it best that the child not be aborted, they need to live with the consequences of that decision.
Well, I think I saw you moving them. Look, in the way of honest discussion, I pointed out a concern of mine, which I think is legitimate and should make you wary. That you tried to reduce it to a non-analogous example is not my fault. Abortions, I think we can all agree, are not bad grades. If I point out doctor-patient privilege or bodily volition, it’s in the way of pointing out, as you advise, why they are not analogous. You propose that the government force doctors to allow parents to force girls into medical decisions. I find this big governmenty and control freaky and wrongheaded. My initial response was to try to make even the proest lifest among us aware of the consequences of the laws they support. No matter of disinguine rhetoric on this board, or glib rejoinders, or calling me “dude” and telling me how to argue, will make things better when you authorize the government to force doctors to allow parents to force girls into medical decisions. These are real people we’re talking about. I think about this in terms of the real world, in which I live, in which children are pushed around quite enough, thank you. You will find, in fact, that I am perfectly willing to let parents find out about their children’s grades from their children, if we are sufficiently concerned about the way those parents will react to children’s grades.
The body adornments are non-analogous, too, but I’d just say kids have to be 18 for anything other than pierced ears and leave it at that.
Hey, you’re the one who insists that pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion. The statistics we have suggest otherwise. If you do have statistics on autoimmune disorders and suicides, please share them. (Also, like Chotii, I have never heard of pregnancies inducing lupus or other autoimmune disorders. I’ve read various articles that talk about the risks of pregnant women with lupus, but that’s obviously an unrelated matter.)
Moreover, if you trot those stats out, then you should also factor in deaths caused by ectopic pregnancies. [having an abortion vastly increases the risks of having an ectopic pregnancy](Having an abortion vastly increases the risks of having an ectopic pregnancy), and this is a fairly well-known fact.
In logic, that is known as an ad hominem argument – rejecting an argument based on its source without addressing its content. For shame.
Moreover, if you’re going to reject any pro-life sources, then we should immediately reject any claims by Planned Parenthood and NARAL – especially since they have a long-established tradition of dishonesty. Consider Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL. Nathanson himself admits,
“In NARAL we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ‘5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?”
Then there’s the pro-choice camp’s false testimony during the Roe v. Wade case that Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey was pregnant. And of course, the oft-repeated claim that the unborn is “just a blog of tissue.”
If you’re going to talk about dishonesty, NARAL and company certainly have a proven track record of that.
Do you understand what an anology is? Seriously. Here, let me help you:
The “like features” of the two scenarios, the “known similarity” is the key, the basis, the foundation (or so it appeared at the time) for your concern with this law: that it did not without fail guard against the possibility that a given parent could react abusively. You with me? In both scenarios, law or custom permits the parent a certain authority (to provide consent or to see one’s child’s grades), and in each instance it’s possible that a given parent will react in a tragic manner.
This is the very definition of an analogy, which does not mean (as you seem to think) a comparison between two situations that are exactly the same in every regard. Its usefulness in debates is to examine your logic and see if it withstands an application in a situation that appears similar as it relates to your concern.
Let me state this another way. You repeating ad infinitum that this is “non-analogous” will not magically render it so.
No, what this effectively does is to ignore your first argument. If bodily autonomy is the key distinction here, then parental abuse was a red herring.
See above definition, and re-examine the question relative to the “common feature” bodily autonomy. No disrespect intended.
Strat, whether you are concerned about children facing abuse at home is your ethical decision. I have decided I am concerned, and for this, and other reasons, don’t support the legislation. I don’t think this compels me to argue for an ideological extremism where parents never need know anything, nor do I care to argue that way. We’re talking about teen abortion, not grades or tattoos. If you want to talk about those issues, open another thread.
I am talking about consequences of the law which compassionate people ought to be concerned about. To me, this is not an abstract case. It’s about kids I know and work with and care about. I know the situation you will put them in. None of your arguing will make those situations not occur. None of your weak analogies will make them not occur. Even if I were to succumb to your brilliant rhetoric and join your side, these cases would occur.
Alright. And of course your prior cite (vanderbilt?) is to be dismissed too, since they managed to use 20-year-old statistics and apply it to modern times. In fact, quite a lot of groups are going to be dismissed under this, not just pro-choice ones.
Oh, and you’ll have to cite an actual case of Planned Parenthood being dishonest. You seem to have lumped the two together there in your outrage.
Norma McCorvey was pregnant, even according to that link. Her false testimony was in fact that she was raped, when in reality the father was her boyfriend. And of course the “blob of tissue” claim is, shockingly, related to time; I don’t think you’ll find many pro-choicers saying an 8 month old baby is a blob of tissue. And, again i’m sure you’ll find this shocking, but many pro-choicers use brain activity to define personhood, and not what a fetus happens to look like (and honestly, I can’t see what they’re pointing to as being anything like legs and arms, although i’m sure you’ve seen many arms disconnected from the body.)
Ouch. I’m sure what you mean to say is that one person in NARAL has a proven track record of that. Really, you shouldn’t expand blame like that. Tsk.
Plus of course you never did set out a rebuttal to my post pointing out that vanderbilt essay’s flaws. I suppose that means you wanted to let it stand…and I guess that makes you dishonest, too. Yay, dishonesty. 
(Oh, and your ectopic abortion link doesn’t work).
Tuesday 24th, 17:42 EST
Mood: vacant.
Music: Neil Young.
Sorry for the lack of updates; going through a really unmotivated phase at the moment. Spoke to Placey today; don’t think I’m getting the right nutrients. She can be such a bitch, you know? I’ve told her so many times I need more calcium or I’ll never develop beyond the amorphous blob stage. I think she wants to keep me like this; it’s like a power trip or something. Wait 'til I get arms, then I’ll show her. Endoskeletons rule.
Thinking about summer schools already; waiting list at Oslo is super-long, wouldn’t want to miss out. Got to start plugging those gaps if I want in to Brown. Not sure about frats yet, though. So cliquey, but the beer bong thing just seems homely somehow. Umbilical, I guess. Lol, listen to me planning how to dissolve my central nervous system before I’ve developed it.
p.s. @Kel: thx 4 the add - miss u loads babe x
Monday 2nd, 10:17 EST
Mood: Celebrating
Music: Tom Waits
I made triploblast! Awesome. Bite me, jellyfish.
Walt, my point remains that if you’re concerned in this instance, why aren’t you concerned where other abuse occurs? The distinctions you are drawing relate to the state of pregnancy itself, not to the potential abuse. In the most tragic instances, the kid killed over his grades is no less dead, nor is he dead in any different way, than the kid who is beaten to death for becoming pregnant. That’s all. That’s the point (in response to your original one). Your compassion apparently has some limits.
If you don’t hold other scenarios as equivalent, and your explanation relates to matters other than the abuse, then your point about abuse appears to be a red herring. Kids killed over their grades, which the law permits to be shared with their parents, are “consequences of the law which compassionate people ought to be concerned about,” right?
Anyway, we’re going round and round the same track, without you so much as acknowledging the counter arguments, so at this point I’ll wish you a happy Sunday and move on.
Who says I am not?
Absolutely.
Happy Sunday to you to!
I have never, not once, heard of a young woman or girl being beaten to death by her parents because she got pregnant.
By the father of the baby? Yes. That is unfortunately common enough. It even happens in marriages.
Islamic and seeing somebody the family doesn’t approve of (and not even pregnant?) Yes. Member of other ultra-conservative religious sect? Yes.
I have heard any number of cases of young women being thrust onto the compassion of strangers, because the people who allegedly love them, would rather throw them aside when they disappoint, than support them. I have heard of young women being bullied into abortions they didn’t want. I have heard of lots and lots and lots of cases of grandparents taking the responsibility for the grandchild, and raising it, because the daughter did not, could not, would not raise the child herself.
But never, not once, have I heard of parents “beating their child to death” for getting pregnant. I will concede that there may be an isolated incident or two extant in the literature, but under such a situation, I would expect the parents would have found something to justify beating the child to death eventually, and pregnancy just happened to be the unfortunate trigger, just as it was for the child beaten to death for bad grades.
Obviously, parents who did such a thing should expect to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Because even if abortion is not considered murder, the death of a teenaged child certainly is. The death of a pregnant teenaged child might, in some jurisdictions, even bring a double murder charge.
That “some parents are bad parents and might beat a child to death for becoming pregnant” does not strike me as a good reason to allow ALL minor girls old enough to get pregnant (and depending on the girl, this can happen as early as 5th grade - yeah, kids that age really do have sex) to seek an abortion without the parents, who are responsible for the child financially and in other ways, from having a role in a decision that will affect the child for life regardless of what the decision turns out to be.
Need the girl be beaten to death for it to matter?
Hey, you folks are the ones who are arguing that we should disregard the article in question, simply because it was written by pro-lifers. I’m simply demonstrating that, using that logic, we should ignore anything that comes from the pro-choice camp as well. At least we have actual evidence of dishonesty from prominent pro-choicers.
The question of using dated statistics is another matter. Is that article somewhat dated? Certainly; however, I have yet to see any statistics that refute it’s charge. Saying “Those statistics are from years ago!” does not automatically prove its invalidity. If anything, it seems like an attempt to attack one’s opponent without actually substantiating one’s position.
Just as you have lumped Dr. and Mrs. Willke with other pro-lifers. At least there is evidence of deliberate dishonesty on the pro-choice side. I have yet to see any evidence of similar dishonesty from the pro-life camp – whether by Dr. and Mrs. Willke or by anyone else.
Did I fail to mention the rape issue? If so, that was just a typo. Either way, we have direct evidence of dishonesty on the pro-Roe side.
Irrelevant. The “blob of tissue” claim was admittedly more common in the 60s and 70s, but that didn’t make it any more truthful. Any embryology textbook would have amply illustrated the falsehood of that claim. Heck, Life magazine did a famous photoessay on this topic, way back in 1965.
Moreover, people still reiterate the “blob of tissue” claim, though it’s not heard as often nowadays. Heck, I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve seen people make that assertion right here on the SDMB.
Irrelevant. We are talking about evidence of deliberate dishonesty. Sure, different pro-choicers will use different criteria. That doesn’t make the “blob of tissue” claim any less deceitful.
http://www.unborn.com/window/womb3.htm
Not just one person. This was the official NARAL party line, one that continues to be trumpeted hereabouts.
Moreover, why are you so outraged about “expanding blame” when it comes to pro-choice claims, yet have no objection to casting aspersions on the honesty of Dr. and Mrs. Willke, even though there is no record of malfeasance on their part? Talk about double standards.
[QUOTE]
Plus of course you never did set out a rebuttal to my post pointing out that vanderbilt essay’s flaws. I suppose that means you wanted to let it stand…and I guess that makes you dishonest, too. Yay, dishonesty. :)QUOTE]
Not addressing a post is the same as deliberate dishonesty? You’re using an awfully creative (and deceitful) definition of the term.
FTR, I have not addressed the points because I have not seen the post in question. Perhaps you have an infinite amount of time to devote to the 'net, but some of us have lives outside the SDMB. I suggest that you refrain from proclaiming triumph whenever someone fails to respond within 24 hours.
Heck, it’s bad enough that I have to point out the flaws in your most recent posting. I suppose we’ll have to accuse you of dishonesty if you fail to address each and every one, right?
Well, “Beaten to death!” is the dire possibility that has been used repeatedly as justification for stripping all parents of any role in the decision.
It occurs to me that requiring a notarized permission from parents - and as I said before, I think I would require it either way - makes certain that the parents are aware that yeah, other people do know what’s going on. Most people will be on their best behavior when they know they’re being watched. Even if it’s not actual official “watching”. Would you beat your kid if you had to take her in to sign a piece of paper in a couple days? Or if you had already done so?
BTW, Revenant Threshold… according to your logic, we’ll have to accuse Der Trihs of “dishonesty” if he fails to immediately substantiate his claim that pregnancy causes autoimmune diseases. I hope that you’ll heap the same amount of derision upon him as you do to your pro-life opponents.
(FTR, unlike Revenant Threshold, I would not accuse Der Trihs of dishonesty. I believe that he is probably misinformed. I’m also willing to admit that he might not have the right references at hand, or that he might not have time to respond within 24 hours. I’d like to think that I’m above that type of behavior.)
I said nothing of “death,” merely being subkect to violence. In any case, I would still be reluctant to tell the parents if I were a doctor, I don’t particularly want the government telling doctors to third parties into their confidential sessions and letting third parties make the decisions for their patients. Now, in most cases the children will tell their parents and the parents will be involved already. You can bet the kids coming in there have a good reason for leaving their parents out of it.
Given that abortion threads are so often the exact same points around and around and around again, I’d like to thank Dead Badger for making this thread worth reading.
Shall we start again? We both seem to be accusing the other of using broad brushed, and yet we both seem to be doing it (“you folks”?). So I apologise for my expanding of blame, and i’ll try not to do so in the future.
And we have evidence of honesty from one person who was a prominent pro-choicer many years ago. He’s now a prominent pro-lifer. And, given that (as you say) he has been deceitful once, how can we trust him when he says all the other people in his group were also deceitful?
Did you miss where I addressed the dated nature of their cite? I cited a more recent study (published in 2001, based on results from 2000) which not only seems to give a completely different view, also makes an interesting point of the essay of the Willkes. They claim that many pro-choicers say the maternal mortality rate is 11 in 100,000, and then say that that isn’t in fact the case, citing their study. The study I cited shows an MM rate of 11. This is really what suggests to me that the Willke’s essay is dishonest; as I can’t find a “last updated” date on the essay in question I of course cannot say for certain.
I very much substantiated my position. I would hope that, before addressing me in your latest post, you took the chance to read my last one; I sympathise with having other more important things to do, of course, but generally when you’re accusing someone based on a post of theirs to actually read the post in question.
You’ve cited one piece of evidence of deliberate dishonesty on the pro-choice side. Yep, that’s evidence. It does not, however, make the entire side dishonest.
You did indeed fail to mention the rape issue. And i’m afraid you don’t have such direct evidence; it was the defendant who misled, not the prosecution or the pro-choicers who supported her, who were acting in good faith that what she claimed was true.
Let me expand on this. When I say “blob of tissue”, i’m not talking about some amorphous blob. I’m talking about something with no consciousness and little to no brain activity. A person in a coma would be a “blob of tissue” (though I imagine, being somewhat larger, that I’d refer to them as a “big hunk of tissue” or “useless mass of tissue”).
I think the problem is that your definition of it is not the same as theirs (or mine). You should try asking people what they mean when they use terms; after all, only they know what they mean.
It’s not deceitful. Feel free to point out a pro-choicer who claims an 8-month-old fetus is an amorphous, featureless blob of tissue, and (assuming they know better) then there you’ve got some deceit. Until then…
I don’t see what this is meant to prove? Certainly the arm is now attached, but it appears to be attached directly to the head. It’s an unorthodox configuration, but certainly an interesting one. (And yes, i’m kidding. Well, it does look like the arm is attached to the head. But i’m aware that’s likely a problem with the imaging rather than a reflection of reality.)
Could you be more specific as to what that line was?
Because I percieve possible deceit on their part. Certainly you are correct to call me on my certainty; I claim that as a simple case of trying to put my case simply. But really, countering current pro-choicer claims (based on modern research) with older research seems somewhat fishy to me.
It was a joke. Hence “Yay, dishonesty”, and there was even a happy smiley… I’m not actually a fan of dishonesty, surprisingly enough.
Again, I would have thought that before you wrote this last post you could have taken the time to read it. After all, you’re challenging me on what I said in it. If you didn’t read it now, I suppose you’re just guessing what I said in it?
Ok, honestly? I apologise for casting aspersions where they are not clear. Please, read my post rebutting the quote you presented from the Willkes, and see what you think. I’d appreciate an apology likewise for your casting aspersions at pro-choicers in general, since i’m willing to do so.