(Prolifer)ations Top 5, 11-17-07
The latest from pro-life blogs….
1. Marybeth Hagan at ProLifeBlogs.com has an interesting theory on the NRLC’s endorsement of Fred Thompson, “that it may also be is also about putting the brakes on a nomination of… Mitt Romney.”
I have to say that while I’ve supported Romney’s conversion, this November 16 David Brody column gave me pause.
2. On the other hand, friend Nathan Sheets blogs in defense of NRLC. While disagreeing with its Thompson endorsement, Nathan makes a point similar to one I made as a comment to one of my posts on the topic (here and here) I’d like to reiterate. “To insinuate that they don’t care for unborn children is childish in of itself,” says Nathan.
3. Not Dead Yet (click NDY’s logo above to enlarge) tells the stranger the fiction latest development re: the Swiss group Dignitas, which helps dead-headed tourists euthanize themselves. The Association of Zurich Hoteliers has now banned Dignitas from using any of its premises to induce permanent sleep as corpses and body bags are turn-offs to nonsuicidal guests.
4. Fr. Frank Pavone updates Catholics on the latest “Faithful Citizenship” document from the US bishops, issued every 4 years. “[T]he document is certainly an improvement over past such statements,” states FP. “[T]here is more clarity about the fact that not all the issues are equal. It makes it clear that abortion is not just one issue among many.” FP’s explanation counters MSM’s misleading accounts of the document. (CNN and NYT provide ready examples.)
5. RealChoice updates us on abortionist Mi Young Kim, who is still registered to practice in VA despite abortion whoopsies. One of those resulted in the accidental termination of the mother as well as baby in 2002.
One important admission by Kim at that time, which I’ve told you before abortionists do, quoting RC: “Kim told the medical board that she didn’t give Adelle any analgesia for pain because she gives enough Versed to cause amnesia so that the patient can’t remember the pain.”
Pro-aborts, get it through your heads that the abortion industry does not care about women. It cares about money, and it cares about eugenics – ridding the world of what it considers the inferior.
“Pro-aborts, get it through your heads that the abortion industry does not care about women. It cares about money, and it cares about eugenics – ridding the world of what it considers the inferior.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Same thing with the Obstetrics industry.
Obstetricians are the most-sued quacks in all of medicine. They pay the highest malpractice premiums because thay really hate women, and just see them as shrieking, bloody, money holes.
Having babies should be outlawed so that those homicidal quacks can’t exploit women and babies for cash ever again!
I find the fact that the abortionist would not give a woman pain relief during the procedure appalling.
I’m betting if she did surgery on a cat and didn’t sedate it, she’d lose her license and be villified in the media.
Abortion is ALL about money.
Laura,
OBs are sued because we have come to expect perfect outcomes. A child born with a birth or genetic defect of any kind is no longer considered “an act of God”, but rather the failure of the OB to use his/her prophetic powers to predict an unfortunate outcome. OBs are sued for cerebral palsy, which is as old as the human race and no one is even certain as to its cause.
Sharp lawyers play on the emotions, not the good sense and judgement, of juries to win millions, thus the costs passed onto the OB and the consumer. The public views the insurance companies as bottomless pits of free money to be sued for everything from their own stupidity to what they see as medical malpractice.
All this “free” money is costing consumers dearly.
I find the fact that the abortionist would not give a woman pain relief during the procedure appalling.
I’m betting if she did surgery on a cat and didn’t sedate it, she’d lose her license and be villified in the media.
Abortion is ALL about money.
Posted by: Patricia at November 17, 2007 9:30 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She gave her Versed! The chick had to have been totally zonked. It’s better known as “twilight sleep.”
Versed
Versed is a sedative, anxiety, and anesthesia medication that is used before or during surgeries and medical procedures. This prescription medication works to reduce anxiety, cause sleepiness, relax the muscles, and impair short-term memory by enhancing the effects of a certain brain chemical. Versed comes in the form of an injection or a syrup and is very fast acting. Side effects of Versed can include breathing problems, tenderness at the injection site, and nausea.
Your right Laura, she was totally zonked – to death!
So was the baby, except he/she was ripped to pieces….
Versed is a drug you treat with a great deal of respect, to be used by people properly credentialled in the use of conscious sedation, with patients properly monitored and emergency equipment on hand. You don’t give a shot of this drug then turn your attention elsewhere.
Respiratory difficulties, yes, as well as full blown respiratory arrest. I’ve seen people very quickly turn blue with a minimal dose. Predicting patient tolerance is hit and miss at best.
Yeah, but Jill’s assertion is that the woman was given nothing for pain. Versed is a pretty potent anesthesia.
Patients will have pain, versed offers no pain relief in itself. It may dull the memory of the pain, it may not. We use versed in conjunction with local anesthesia blocks, often time with narcotics as well. We never rely on versed to provide pain relief alone. We always put patients to sleep when we must use the suction aspirator post miscarriage or for fetal demise. When versed and narcotic was a preference, the OB also put in a cervical block. We found this did not always work well, so general anesthesia is always our preference, mine anyway.
Pro-aborts, get it through your heads that the abortion industry does not care about women. It cares about money, and it cares about eugenics – ridding the world of what it considers the inferior.
HAHAHA! Do you realize how crazy that sounds? Legal abortion doesn’t “rid the world of inferiors.” The law doesn’t force anyone to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood doesn’t stand in the street and force women in to their doors. Medicaid doesn’t even cover elective abortion, so what the heck are you talking about?
Versed is glorious. They gave me a shot of that stuff before I went in to surgery last year. I was singing No Doubt (seriously, I was) the whole way down to the operating room and telling really, really bad jokes as they prepped me for surgery.
Rae,
I’ve had it too, prior to surgery and a diagnostic procedure. It was great, but as I said, a drug to be treated with a great deal of respect!
tp,
Prior to Roe, abortion advocates,struggling to overturn state laws against abortion and make it more acceptable to the public, argued that abortion would prevent the birth of children with birth defects and genetic disorders, cut down the birth rate of the poor and uneducated, reduce the number of drug and alcohol addicted newborns, and overall eliminate unwanted and unloved children.
Put simply, only the planned, perfect, and wanted would walk this earth.
In an effort to get FDA approval of RU 486, one of the original attorneys for Roe, Ron Weddington, wrote to then president-elect Bill Clinton and urged the use of abortion “to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country”.
Laura/tp, etc., as Mary expanded on my point, Versed does not relieve pain. It only makes one forget the experience of pain. Laura, your description of Versed’s actions only verifies this. Is it acceptable to you that abortionists practice this?
@Mary: All drugs should be treated with respect. Even Tylenol (which if overdosed can basically nuke your liver).
Oh! I should probably let you know that I am in the process of possibly going back on medications. As I told you before, things aren’t going too hot right now: I cry at stupid little things now that never ever used to make me cry, I get depressed more often (my moods fluctuate a lot anyway but I think it’s getting a bit worse) and I’m really irritable again (even more so than normal, which is more or less the reason I don’t come on here so much anymore, afraid I’ll verbally bite somebody’s head off, and that’s not cool). I am being very cautious at doing so and I’m making sure the psychiatrist has my complete medication history from previous therapists as well as talking to my parents and stuff. I hope this time around I’ll finally be put on the right anti-depressant/anti-anxiety (in conjunction with the DBT, which I’m still in).
Just thought I’d update and let you know!
What I don’t understand is why abortionists are allowed to sedate and/or anesthetize patients at all?
I’ve only had one surgery and my husband also had one, but an anesthesiologist was present, from what I understand, the entire time.
Why do these people get to dose medicine that is a specialty in any hospital you walk into?
Laura/tp, etc., as Mary expanded on my point, Versed does not relieve pain. It only makes one forget the experience of pain. Laura, your description of Versed’s actions only verifies this. Is it acceptable to you that abortionists practice this?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 17, 2007 11:27 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, a lot of specialties practice this.
Versed was the only anesthesia used on my sister’s last cosmetic procedure, my niece’s last dental surgery, and my boyfriend’s last back surgery.
It’s a pretty standard practice, and it apparently works like a charm.
(I do, however, share Mary’s reservations about who should be allowed to administer it. We had a long discussion about it on an ancient thread.)
Rae,
Thank you so much for the update. I appreciate your thinking of me.
Obviously this new therapy didn’t work but you gave it a try. That in itself was a big step and you deserve credit for trying. If it didn’t work, you’re smart to go back to what did.
It sounds like you’re taking control as well, by being very thorough as to what psychiatrist you see, his/her knowing your history and medications, involving your folks, etc.
Good luck to you Rae and thank you again for the update. Keep us posted. We’re all very concerned about you.
Absolutely, tyelenol can nuke the liver. I rarely touch it. I remember years ago we had a young woman take several tyelenol to scare her boyfriend. Even though we got her emptied as soon as possible, already her liver studies were out of whack. The doctor told her point blank that he hoped this guy was worth it, that she had just knocked 20 years off her life, unless of course she can get a liver transplant sometime in the near future.
Laura,
The procedures you described would require some kind of local anesthetic, i.e. dental, cosmetic, in addition to versed. People may not recall injection of the local because of the versed and believe they only had versed. We do that all the time, as injection of local can be painful. I may even give a little propofol to briefly put people to sleep during injection.
Your boyfriend probably had versed just prior to having a general anesthetic for his back surgery and recalled nothing from that point on. The same was done for my surgery a few years back.
Kristen,
Any licensed physician can administer these drugs. Also, nurses can be credentialled as well to administer versed, aka conscious sedation, and are already licensed to administer narcotics. The nurses in our GI diagnostic lab do conscious sedation all the time and have an excellent track record. Patients are carefully monitored, emergency equipment is available and people are trained to recognize and respond to an emergency situation.
In surgery where anesthesia is required, either an anesthesiologist or nurse anesthetist will administer it, unless it is just a local anesthetic and the patient and surgeon see no necessity for anything more to be given. Sometimes patients are absolutely adamant they want nothing more than local anesthetic.
Laura, you’re incorrect. It’s a false assertion that legitimate practitioners/surgeons do not alleviate pain during procedures. Totally fabricated. Show me the charting.
I find the fact that the abortionist would not give a woman pain relief during the procedure appalling.
I’m betting if she did surgery on a cat and didn’t sedate it, she’d lose her license and be villified in the media.
Abortion is ALL about money.
Posted by: Patricia at November 17, 2007 9:30 AM
…………………………………….
Doctors prefer not to give unecessary drugs to patients. Why do you believe that pain medication is necessary during an abortion? Both of my D&Cs were less painfull than a period. WAY less painfull than child birth without drugs.
Sally, Not everyone has the tolerance for pain that you might.
Sally said yesterday on another post, “I like the thorns left on my roses. Beauty doesn’t come without pain.”
Heather, this may explain it!
I have to say that while I’ve supported Romney’s conversion, this November 16 David Brody column gave me pause.
:)
@AB Laura: I’m not sure why Sally says she likes thorns on her roses implies she likes pain or has a high tolerance.
Because quite frankly, I agree with her. Beauty does bring pain.
@ Rae,
I think she was implying that beauty does not come without pain, not that it brings it!
@AB Laura: ‘pologies, I guess I misinterpreted.
But I guess to an extent it is true…beauty doesn’t come without pain. I mean look at the fashion industry, all those girls are starving themselves to fit some messed up definition of “beauty”.
*shakes head*
Anywho…back to this here debate.
Smish-smorshun.
Why is it that if abortions are only a 7-20 minute procedure, and these women (or girls) are in the mill approx. 3-4 hours, why do they come out looking “stoned out of their minds”, vommiting in the parking lot, etc.? If they require a 2-3 hour stay in “recovery”, why are they still so out of it when they come out? Are they being administered too much Versed, anesthesia, etc.? It is just so sad!
Whoa, Not Dead Yet is still around? (no irony intended) Cool.
Careless anesthesia is a common cause of abortion deaths. Scott Barrett, for example, liked to knock his patients out by massively overdosing them with Lidocaine when he was supposedly just numbing the cervix. His assistants testified that occasionally a woman would stop breathing and they’d resuscitate her. Until Stacy Ruckman. They couldn’t revive her.
Deanna Bellw as given enough Brevitol to knock out a horse. According to the clinic’s own records, they stood around and did nothing effectual for about an hour after she stopped breathing. (Brevitol isn’t approved for pediatric use in the first place; why were they using it on a 13-year-old? Isn’t she a pediatric patient?)
Hanan Rotem had his receptionist administering general anesthesia. Welcome to the wonderful world of the National Abortion Federation, Miss Aponte. We regret any inconvenience caused by your loss of life.
Christina,
Exactly the point I’ve tried to get across. In the wrong hands and without proper patient observation, monitoring, and resuscitation equipment, these drugs are deadly. Anyone who trivializes the danger does so because of their appalling ignorance.
Thanks for all the info on these drugs. I am pretty much the all natural type. I am going to add Versed to the list of drugs that I won’t let them give me in case I am ever in some medical situation. I think I will draft a letter for my doc stating specifically that I don’t want it. It sounds like something out of sci fi. I am very wary because when I took a tylenol with codeine tablet, I totally flipped out in terrified hysteria. It was scary and embarrassing.
Hippie,
Please don’t be fearful of versed, its an excellent drug that I administer all the time. Like any drug, when its in the wrong hands and given without proper knowledge of its use and risks, it can be dangerous. I’ve had it myself and it was great. I treat versed with the respect it deserves and my patients are continually observed and monitored.
Jill.
I asked a simple question to posters here going by the name Doug, Sally,Mary, and Laura.
The question was.
Is there anybody at this postboard that has a persuasive argument that a women should not have the freedom to do what she wants in matters of abortion.
No, answer was forth coming.
Although they answered the post by me with the usual remarks about me, which is fine and acceptable.So Jill, what you have here is a chat board, where people who have closed their minds, to anybody having a persuasive argument that a women should not have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion.
Quite amusing. A pro life board which has closed minded posters for women having the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion.
And I am sure it amuses Doug, Laura and Sally.
It assures them a platform to not really argue with honesty, since their failure to answer one simple question concerning your pro life posters ability to have a persuasive argument for Doug, Sally and Laura.
Which means, your pro life posters are unable to persuade by argument those posters mentioned before.
You have dogmatic, closed minded pro abortionist using your dime Jill.
And if I read one poster right, she asked another pro life poster if it was worth it, if the effort arguing for life was convincing anyone here.
Maybe having dogmatic closed minded abortionist post insults, arguing with no honesty, avoid answering crucial questions about abortion, and never going to change one thought about their desire to kill life in the womb, is good for nothing more then amusment.
Or maybe your pro life posters should have it made known to them, they aren’t really arguing with people who have a open mind about abortion.
Then they may discuss past loves, ballon accidents, their love for horses, and hundreds of other matters not concerning abortion. When it comes to matters of abortion, not one of your pro life posters simply has a persuasive argument, why a women should not have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion.
Or at least for Doug, Laura, or Sally.
yllas, your pants are on fire. I answered you.
Doug.
Is there anyone here at this postboard who has a persuasive argument that a woman shuold not have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion.?
One name please Doug.
Post the name(s) Doug. No need for your other answer which was they “think they do”.
Your game playing Doug, from being closed minded and a dogmatist for abortion.
Doug,
Does Jill Stanek have a persuasive argument that women should not have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion?
I want Jill to see your answer Doug.
yllas, Jill, for one, feels she does. I do not agree with her, but I certainly understand how and why she thinks as she does.
You are silly to say ‘no need for the answer about “they think they do” ‘ – this argument is all thinking/opinion/desire.
I am guessing that you know, down deep, that you don’t have any persuasive arguments, and your own emotional recourse is only the lame childish attacks.
That certainly sets you apart from Jill and almost all -pro-lifers.
When it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.
Of course, I don’t see any such thing, and thus I’m pro-choice. I leave it up to the women who are actually pregnant.
If we all agreed already, or if enough of us did, then the argument really wouldn’t be here in the first place.
Doug
Or maybe your pro life posters should have it made known to them, they aren’t really arguing with people who have a open mind about abortion…
Then they may discuss past loves, ballon accidents, their love for horses, and hundreds of other matters not concerning abortion. When it comes to matters of abortion, not one of your pro life posters simply has a persuasive argument, why a women should not have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion.
Or at least for Doug, Laura, or Sally.
To be honest, it’s not really Doug, Sally, or Laura that we debate with Doug, Sally, or Laura for, Yllas.
It’s the thousands of other people who silently read our debates day after day.
And also, we debate for the open minded people who do post here. Since I have been posting here at Jill’s blog, we have been blessed to see at least 3 different people who have changed from pro-abortion to anti-abortion. This tells me that something here is working.
So even though the talk may not always be about abortion, the point is that we show them first Christ’s love, through our actions and words, and secondly that we convince them that abortion is wrong. Some people, sadly, will never be convinced, and there is no persuasive argument that will win those certain people over. Because their minds are closed to the truth.
However, it’s worth it to deal with those who shut their eyes to the truth, so that we can help others to understand through our debates with those people.
You would be amazed how many people actually read these blogs, never posting, but are definitely learning about why human life should be protected. Many of them email Jill on a regular basis thanking her for the information they may not have had otherwise.
Bethany, great post.
Thanks Heather! I hope you are having a good Sunday. :)
Bethany, you too.
Huckabee Says Abortion Not for States
By WILL LESTER
Doug.
So Doug, Jill does not have a persuasive argument in your opinion.
And nobody else, only they think they have persuasive aguments. But, Doug knows they don’t.
What are you doing here?
Proselytizing for abortion at a pro life blog is amusing.
As I said Doug, your fact for abortion is simple.
A women has the right/allowed to murder a human being in her womb.
I find my fact is the women does not have the freedom to murder her own creation.
Second, your a hypocrite by definition and those that argue with you realize your hypocrisy.
It is a fact Doug.
Your a honest external hypocrite. Your stated belief in abortion contradict your personal actions for abortion, personally. Your stated belief in abortion is a strong conviction which you believe in internally.
To justify in your mind your lack of being a hypocrite is to state, your fact that your also for not having abortion as a right of women too. The choice. In your personal life you would not have a abortion. No hypocrisy there Doug, since you cover yourself with having two decisions or choices available to yourself. Your belief plus action match.
It is in your decision for abortion that your actions do not match your private/personal life for abortion. Belief-action= hypocrisy.
Although you may state abortion is for others, it must include you also in those decisions.
The defintion of hypocrisy is known Doug. It is in a dictionary and easily understood if one reduces it to not practicing what one preaches.
Your not a hypocrite to the principle of having the choice to not have a abortion, that is your believe which you profess.
It is in your advocacy for abortion as the other choice, that your hypocrisy is noted, when that “other” who has that right, becomes you, Doug, in your personal life. Your trying to have it both ways which makes you appear to think your intelligence is above your public advocacy for abortion.
To put it where you may understand, your a 50% hypocrite in your personal life and a 100% true believer in your public life. Your a hypocrite Doug. Others have noted and find your pontifications for others having the right to not, or to have a abortion, cheap rhetoric.
Your for abortion, and not for abortion “schtick”, is a fact in your mind Doug. Your for abortion.
I am Black, and I am White when it comes to my personal life is your silly argument Doug,which is a “personal” hypocrite.
Simply because you state your a man Doug is not a realisitic defence of your personal hypocrisy Doug. A man must face the decision of abortion too, especially when it is not the “other person”, but them personally.
A politician who states they are personally opposed to abortion but allows abortion is a hypocrite . The public see’s through such silly remarks. Preachers who preach against adultry, but perform a action which is adultry, have gone against a belief they stated in public, or never personally believed, what he publicly stated. If he never believed what he preached, he is a public hypocrite and personally honest to himself.
He never beliefed his professing of his public “schtick”.
There is no shame in being a hypocrite Doug. It just a fact.
As for naming you a “killing professional”, that is a fact Doug. Why, George Bush is a killing professional. His justification is self defense, spreadng democracy, protecting women’s rights, etc. Roosevelt was a killing profesional, directing professional killers in WWII. His justification was self defence of a nation.
You Doug, would never actually kill a baby in the womb, since it is for those who are professional killers. Or would you Doug, given the chance, kill a tiny human being? Again, if one professes for killing, but would not kill, is the definition of a hypocrite. Castro is a honest man, he professed for killing, and killed in a professional manner, all those who opposed his principles.
To state that one is for choice, comes down Doug, to you Doug, either upholding that “half of your principle of choice”, which is for killing tiny human beings, and killing that tiny human being or not. It is there that your hypocrisy is noted Doug.
And Doug, as for being a vicelord, you are. It is a fact. Some people take it as a compliment, why not you Doug? Appealing to sexual pleasure is nothing to be ashamed of Doug, and making money from lust is a honest living, is it not Doug? You just work the results side, of vice, Doug, and that makes you a vicelord of those who don’t think vice exist. You sly devil you, Doug.
Although you may not think your a vicelord, it is your penalty for being a vicelord. Not knowing your a killing professional, is another penalty of your self proclamed fact, your not a killing professional.
To use a liberal word on you Doug, your a “chickenhawk”. A chickenhawk hanging around a post board showing everyone here the definition of what a chickenhawk is, since you tell others to get a abortion, but won’t get one in your personal life.
Hey Doug, ask old wacky, deathsex Sally, to ponder a word for those who preach for abortion, but will not get one in their personal life. A chickenhawk for abortion deserves a more defined name.
Say, Chickenbort. Chickencrite. Abortocrite. Chickenchoice. Choicechicken.
yllas: So Doug, Jill does not have a persuasive argument in your opinion.
No, not enough that we should legally forbid women from having abortions.
……
And nobody else, only they think they have persuasive aguments.
Well of course, just as pro-lifers don’t think pro-choicers have good enough demonstrable reasons why abortion should not be further restricted or banned.
……
But, Doug knows they don’t.
Well, that right there is where you screw up. The argument is all opinion. There is no “knowing” like that, outside of opinion. It is not the external, objective things that are really at issue. It is the subjective, unprovable things that are – and until you realize that you’ll just be tilting at windmills.
The rest of your ranting post is based on that early error of yours, thus false.
Doug
The argument is all opinion. There is no “knowing” like that, outside of opinion. It is not the external, objective things that are really at issue. It is the subjective, unprovable things that are – and until you realize that you’ll just be tilting at windmills.
Good morning, Doug… :-)
But wouldn’t that (your above comment) also be your opinion, and isn’t it possible that your opinions could be wrong?
Doug.
Your here to be a schill, a foil, a counterpoint to pro lifers, Doug.. You do understand that Doug?
Fact are facts Doug. Without you Doug, it would be preaching to the choir.
Your a rant Doug, the same old rant that women have the right to do what they want in matters of abortion. Your mind is closed and that is why you allowed to post here Doug. Your opinion is that of a dogmatist. Your denial of humanity of human beings is moving more people to abandon your dogmatic, closed mind belief of allowing women to murder their own, from the motivation of pessimism, which you spread Doug.
You weigh life and find it is allowed to be destroyed from your closed mind that women need to murder their own.
And the more you post,Doug, the more a women who has had a abortion understands the kind of people who convinced her to have a abortion. You know Doug, a character assassinator, of a “hard person” you met, who accused others of being a “hard person”, and not knowing that he himself, is exactly that character he just assassinated. Plus they get the added free gift of Doug, being a baby terminator too.
Sally, is used to argue her pride and joy for abortion. Something you can’t practice, since your a man Doug, which could be used to argue your a chickenchoicer, Doug. Because if one reads Sally long enough, they understand that Sally is the result of untreated trauma.
OF course Sally does think she convinces total strangers for the right to murder babies in the womb from being a dogmatist for rotting tissue is,… just not good, No kidding.
But, because Sally uses death as a motivation for abortion, one must conclude that the results of sex, is dead rotting tissue inside you. After all, that’s more then a opinion, Doug, it is a fact of Sally’s becoming tramatized by sex. A appeal to abortion through sex causes death. And not only death, but death of a parasite living in you. Maybe Ivamec should be Sally’s form of contraception. Ask Laura the expert on animals what Ivamec is used for Doug.
You amusing Doug, being a schill and not thinking your being used as a schill, Doug. Kinda of like your being a hypocrite Doug, deny, deny, deny. Click your heels Doug, and repeat your mantra for abortion Doug. You persuasive argument Doug, convinces others to abandon you Doug, before you assassinate their creation from being a killing professional.
You do understand that Doug?
yllas, everybody understands you. I’m fine with the way things are.
“The argument is all opinion. There is no “knowing” like that, outside of opinion. It is not the external, objective things that are really at issue. It is the subjective, unprovable things that are – and until you realize that you’ll just be tilting at windmills.”
Bethany: But wouldn’t that (your above comment) also be your opinion, and isn’t it possible that your opinions could be wrong?
Nope – if there is a matter of physical reality to be discussed, that is one thing, but by definition the perceived right/wrong/good/bad of abortion are concepts of the mind, not matters of physical reality.
Doug
Nope – if there is a matter of physical reality to be discussed, that is one thing, but by definition the perceived right/wrong/good/bad of abortion are concepts of the mind, not matters of physical reality.
But, that moral matters are not physical reality is your opinion.
Bethany: But, that moral matters are not physical reality is your opinion.
Nope – again, they are concepts of the mind. What possible good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm do you think could exist without a mind caring about things?
Why chickenchoice Doug, you just cannot answer a simple question with a yes or no. Everybody understands your need to obfuscate your need to allow murdering tiny human beings. That is the physical reality of your judgement.
Your here to be a schill.
Replacing you might be bothersome, since Doug convinces more people, that people who allow killing tiny human beings is manly and noble.
What it assures Doug, is that women who get to know killing professionals, such as you Doug, know that killing professionals are hard people/persons.
A tuff guy, who is being used as a schill, and is fine with that.
Ps. Why is it impossible for Doug to express regret and ask pardon for any matters concerning abortion, or any matter that Doug’s mind thinks of.
Answer.
Because Doug is living in a physical reality of where asking pardon for killing the weak,defenceless, tiny human being, is a virtue decided by Doug, for the Doug, and of the Doug.
Roll those steel balls in your hand, Doug.
BTW Doug.
You sure seem grouchy when one addresses your ability to character assassinate women you knew.
Hundreds of words dedicated to some women who was suffering, and you assassinating her suffering as being a hard person.
And for Doug’s character being mentioned in that suffering women character assassination post, “I(Doug) might have made a mistake with her”.
Hundred of words dedicated to murdering her character, and for Doug’s character in that post?
A few words, admitting “maybe a mistake”.
Misogynist Doug, and the suffering women Doug used for sex. Great post Doug. It brings out your character.
Also, Doug, whenever a child is caught doing something wrong, they get mad and change the subject, or challenge the truth of reality being brought to their attention. Is that why you get grouchy when one shows/points out, your misogynistic character Doug?
You amusing Doug, being a schill and not thinking your being used as a schill, Doug. Kinda of like your being a hypocrite Doug, deny, deny, deny. Click your heels Doug, and repeat your mantra for abortion Doug. You persuasive argument Doug, convinces others to abandon you Doug, before you assassinate their creation from being a killing professional.
Posted by: yllas at November 19, 2007 8:54 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hate it when people fail to address their remarks.
Who exactly is she talking to?
You already know my answer, Doug. I believe God is truth, therefore truth is a physical reality. That’s how I see it…it’s my opinion, and your opinion is that it’s not.
You sure seem grouchy
No, yllas. I’ve had a great day today and as noted above – I’m fine with the way things are. People understand you.
I hate it when people fail to address their remarks. Who exactly is she talking to?
:: laughing ::
Laura, the world may never know, like with the owl saying it was only three licks to get to the center of the Tootsie-Pop.
I think we are seeing some echolalia, there, perhaps with a pinch of E. coli thrown in.
More proper studies have shown it’s 200 – 300 licks, by the way.
Doug
“What possible good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm do you think could exist without a mind caring about things?”
You already know my answer, Doug. I believe God is truth, therefore truth is a physical reality. That’s how I see it…it’s my opinion, and your opinion is that it’s not.
Doesn’t really answer it, Bethany, but it’s all the same thing here – your belief too.
So….what are you saying, doug? All I’m trying to do is get you to admit that it is your opinion vs mine, which I thought you agreed with?
So….what are you saying, doug? All I’m trying to do is get you to admit that it is your opinion vs mine, which I thought you agreed with?
It’s not merely a matter of opinion versus opinion, Bethany. My point is that opinions/moral valuations/subjective beliefs are all in the mind, while physical reality is not – it exists independently of the mind.
It’s not merely a matter of opinion versus opinion, Bethany. My point is that opinions/moral valuations/subjective beliefs are all in the mind, while physical reality is not – it exists independently of the mind.
But you yourself have admitted that you cannot know for sure whether reality even truly exists at all. Right?
Maybe we’re all part of a large weirdo dream or something…. maybe we’re really in the Matrix! hehe Just kidding.
Old Laura,
the goes around comes around philospher.
Now, that is entertainment.
The Doug.
Why did you character assassinate that women Doug?
We understand you Doug.
Misogynist need to degrade women, It’s their reality.
Bethany: But you yourself have admitted that you cannot know for sure whether reality even truly exists at all. Right?
Maybe we’re all part of a large weirdo dream or something…. maybe we’re really in the Matrix! hehe Just kidding.
Sure, there are those considerations. I’m making unprovable assumptions, yes, among them being that you are another person “out there” in computerland. Going with the idea of you being a separate consciousness, then I think you and I can agree that there is such a thing as physical reality, that something with physical existence is there whether you and I are aware of it or not.
Doug
The one, the only (credit where credit is due), yllas:
The Doug.
Good Morning, yllas! How ya’ doin’ today? Should I bow low, there?
……
Why did you character assassinate that women Doug?
I have four possible explanations for your question.
1.) Your own self-hatred has rendered your reading comprehension less than what it might be.
2.) There is foam on your screen, rendering your reading comprehension less than what it might be.
3.) About all you can do is make up silly stuff about people in lame attempts to pick at them.
4.) A great and powerful Vicelord has taken control of your keyboard.
Monty Hall says Door #3. (Likely with a pinch from the others as well.)
……
We understand you Doug.
No, despite the voices in your head, you do not.
…..
Misogynist need to degrade women, It’s their reality.
Indeed, and far be it from you to try and degrade any women, huh?
@@
Women are capable of knowing what is best for them. I say leave the choice of continuing pregnancies or not up to the woman involved. I certainly have no need to forbid her either choice, and neither do you. If we are to get to degradation, then the ball is entirely in your court.
Go Buckeyes.
Doug
@Doug, Bethany and yllas,
i has been very worthwhile reading the conversation between you three. Year ago, I was faced with a similar dilemma. … not knowing what truth was … should I be guided by logic/reason or follow my feelings/opinions which are not-as-provable but seemed more ‘humane’. From experience, I found that few people (although here are some) who are self-disciplined enough to follow the rigors of logic … after the eugenic thrusts of the Nazi’s; the twinning of science with the rigors of mathematics; and the advent of the computer. The vast majority of people tend to argue from an emotional perspective. This is one reason why MK’s quote of G. K. Chesterton that men talk about a topic and women talk to each other. This may have been at one time, a male/female split but now it is more of what-is-the dominant style, intellect vs emotion?
Perhaps if we understand how any thought is formed it will make this easier to understand … the frontal lobe section of the brain is associated with reasoning, intellectual functioning … language, mathematics, music, etc … emotions sre formed in another brain region, the R-complex(hypothymic axis). These two (+ movement) are coordinated in yet another brain region, the cerebellum.
To me the abortion ‘prblem’ stems neither from the intellectual(yllas) nor the emotions/feeling part(Doug) but from the cerebellum. If there is a zinc deficit, we’re way off what is normal in activirty.
I wondered if there was any kind of condition when even insisting his/her choice was good, was obviously not. Anorexia seems to fit exactly right. If we follow an anorexic’s self-assessment he/she will soon die. What he/she thinks ‘best’ is not. Is abortion the decision similar? … perhaps-YES!
John, did you come down to our fair country? I ask that because I think President Bush just pardoned you this morning!
Okay, people get more zinc, and keep legal abortion as we have it.
A given observer may think that any choice is “bad.” Depends on the observer and the situation. I can see hypothetical cases where I would feel strongly that a woman was making the wrong choice to have an abortion. Likewise for some very young girls who would be pregnant and wanting to “have a baby.”
Sure – anorexics – but from this are we to deny people the freedom to control their own nutrition, diet, etc?
Doug
@Doug,
another ‘iffy’ (where a woman knows ‘best’) is suicide … can’t tell you the many ways abortion seems like a type-of-suicide.
The whole point was to show you that your solid-argument wall has some serious flaws in it. This is exactly where the analogy of the child in the cardboard box fits in. Because your argumentation is not iron-clad, would it not be prudent to err on the side that you MAY be wrong.
If so, the practice of abortion should not continue, but end.
It’s all about the year 1948, John M.!
Doug.
You character assassinated that woman.
I didn’t write those words which described some woman and her family in a mysogynistic rant, where you Doug, spent hundreds of words demeaning her, and less then ten words descibing your “mistakes you might have made”.
Now Doug, being it would be demean you, could you actually describe your mistakes “you might have made” in more detail towards that suffering woman? Such as a few hundred word description of your mistakes in that relationship with the suffering woman.
It would make you a better man Doug, and prove your hate towards women is not a permanent character trait
yllas: You character assassinated that woman
No I didn’t. You’re so desperate for something to pick at me and others with that you can do no better than conjure up baloney.
“A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.
John M: another ‘iffy’ (where a woman knows ‘best’) is suicide … can’t tell you the many ways abortion seems like a type-of-suicide.
John, you may see it that way, but for many women it’s just the best thing to do in a given situation.
……
The whole point was to show you that your solid-argument wall has some serious flaws in it. This is exactly where the analogy of the child in the cardboard box fits in. Because your argumentation is not iron-clad, would it not be prudent to err on the side that you MAY be wrong. If so, the practice of abortion should not continue, but end.
Well, what exactly are you talking about? I haven’t put forward a “solid-argument” where I claim there are no exceptions.
If somebody is suffering from a vitamin or mineral deficiency, then by all means it’d be good to fix that. Will some women regret having abortions? Of course. So will some women regret not having abortions. There are no guarantees of what will later be felt, individual by individual, and I’ve never claimed any differently. The point remains that that does not constitute a good reason for taking freedom away from everybody.
Doug
@Doug,
but freedom does not lie in the ability to choose, but rather in what is chosen. A choice of death is not freeing for anyone. hmmmm … unless the choice of death is not serious but a whim.
but freedom does not lie in the ability to choose, but rather in what is chosen. A choice of death is not freeing for anyone. hmmmm … unless the choice of death is not serious but a whim.
John, it all seems to end up with you saying that women will somehow be “more free” if not allowed to have abortions, and I simply disagree with that.
Doug
@Doug,
any person exercises freedom by simply being who they are. Abortion marks or ‘tags’ a person and they are not ‘free’ from this ‘tag’ … somewhat like in the ‘Rhymn to the Ancient Mariner’. He is not free from the albatross he chose/demanded to kill.
John, often, having an abortion is the best thing for a woman to do in a given situation. She may be “marked” to an extent, yes, be it for better or for worse – that primarily lies in what she wants.
If a given woman feels like the Ancient Mariner, then perhaps she did make the wrong choice, whether it was to have a child or not.
Doug
“A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.”
You need to play that game for your own weak reasons, but not everybody does.
Doug, I know it may be hard to believe, but I think that Yllas is actually trying to prove a much larger point than what it seems when you first read her posts. Sometimes I have to read them three or four times before I “get it”.
I think she is not name calling to get you riled up or angry, but to think about something.
Nah – yllas is hung-up on lies and foolishness.