Yet another toilet abortion attempt
I’m thinking there needs to be a new official abortion classification: Toilet Abortions. Recall I reported one just the other day as well as closely related Shower Abortions.
But there is no correlation between wanton legalized abortion and infanticide of children being born. No. As friend Sandy noted, the parents of this girl must have been conservative. That explains it. Note this baby was left in the care of the mother who tried to kill her and who had apparently murdered the baby’s sibling. Reported Fox News March 2:
Authorities investigating a teacher’s aide accused of trying to drown her newborn girl in a toilet have found the decomposed remains of another infant at her southern IL home.
The remains apparently had been at Elyse Mamino’s home in the St. Louis suburb of Belleville for more than a year…. No charges in the child’s death had been filed as of Monday.
Mamino, 23, was arrested last week and charged with attempted first-degree murder. Authorities allege that in November, she was at a house party in nearby Columbia when she gave birth in a bathroom and tried to drown the baby….
Someone at the party called police, first reporting the infant as dead…. But emergency responders, with help from a bystander, managed to revive the girl by the time she arrived at the hospital….
The baby, now in a relative’s care, was hospitalized for about 2 weeks. Edwards said it is unclear whether she suffered brain damage.
Mamino remained jailed Monday on $250,000 bond, and it was not immediately clear whether she had an attorney. She worked as a teacher’s aide in Belleville for autistic children….
[Columbia police Chief Joe] Edwards called the case “very disturbing,” in part because state child-welfare officials let Mamino keep custody of her surviving girl from the time the baby was released from the hospital in December until Mamino’s arrest last week.
The child remained in Mamino’s custody despite investigators “airing concerns” that the mother perhaps tried to kill the girl, Edwards said.
[HT: friend Sandy]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Seriously people. If society says it’s ok to kill a child up until birth, why are we suprised that some people kill their child immediately after birth. Infanticide is becoming more and more socially acceptable.
I hate the whole “slippery slope” thing, but in this case I think we’ve just slid down the mountain.
how come pro-choice feminist blogs never cover these stories…
Maybe they think she is stupid. Stupid for not getting her little girl killed sooner and legally and thus avoiding this whole “jail mess.”
Jasper,
Hmmmmm…. because it was her CHOICE?
Ok, on the complete other end of the spectrum…Have you guys seen this?
http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/
This young woman just gave birth to a little girl with anacephaly. She is an unmarried college senior, who decided to carry her baby to term no matter what. The little girl is now 12 days old!
It’s so amazing to see God working through these two. Comments are closed on her site, because people were saying hateful things, but I think this young woman really shows what it means to value life!
Thank you Lauren!!
What a precious Mommy and baby girl!! Amazing!
It’s a great story Lauren. I hope the little girl survives.
I also enjoyed the message from the mother on the side bar and I would like to share this excerpt: “If anyone had an excuse to terminate their pregnancy, it was me. But I didn’t, not because it’s wrong, but because I love her.”
Infanticide is becoming more and more socially acceptable.
Posted by: Lauren at March 3, 2009 4:21 PM
How so Lauren? The mother is in jail and charged with attempted murder.
This is in Illinois?
Isn’t Obama the one that said there were ample protections for babies born alive and then he voted against born alive infant protection?
Obama rules says she is clear. Obama and the law are not the same.
Excuse me…. what this nonsense about no one protecting this baby and society thinking what she did was okay???? Hello.. the woman is in jail on murder charges.
asitis,
The “nonsense” is in reference to a second dead child.
Authorities investigating a teacher’s aide accused of trying to drown her newborn girl in a toilet have found the decomposed remains of another infant at her southern IL home.
The remains apparently had been at Elyse Mamino’s home in the St. Louis suburb of Belleville for more than a year…. No charges in the child’s death had been filed as of Monday.
What? The fact that charges haven’t been laid yet????? Or no one knew about the death prior to this? What????
Asitis, it’s becoming more socially acceptable in that when it happens people make excuses for the mother, and typically blame conservatives for the situation occuring.
Another spin….I wonder if this woman’s parents are liberal and she killed her newborn to hide the fact that she didn’t fullfill her liberal parent’s view that she should have had an abortion earlier in the pregnancy.
Wouldn’t want to disappoint those liberal parents!
I don’t know about that Lauren. I agree people may try to lay blame on others and make excuses, but that doesn’t mean that they find the act itself acceptable.
I don’t know about that Lauren. I agree people may try to lay blame on others and make excuses, but that doesn’t mean that they find the act itself acceptable.
Actually, that’s exactly what it means when people make excuses for such people. It means they are willing to tolerate such actions.
Sandy, you couldn’t be more right about everything you have said. I’ve missed you, by the way!
Asitis, suppose a man raped a woman and cruelly beat her to death afterwards.
Imagine that when I heard about it, my knee-jerk response was, “well, I imagine he’s had a very hard life..maybe his parents mistreated him and that’s why he felt like he had to do that. We should try to be more understanding of men who have come out of situations like that.”
Wouldn’t you be a little concerned that my reaction was not in horror about the woman’s fate, and rather was concern for the man who victimized her?
Would you not think I was being accepting of his behavior towards the woman, by my making excuses for him?
I thought the Safe Haven laws were supposed to prevent this, that it was merely a matter of educating women that they could drop their newborns off at designated places with no questions asked. Seems like the left thinks everything is solved by educating, yet they refuse to educate anything about right and wrong.
another child’s potential wasted……..this makes me angry.
Does anyone think the girl looks like the actress from the old NBC show “BLOSSOM”?
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3351089664/nm0080524
And yes, Safe Haven laws are meant to prevent these sort of incidents. :(
Would you not think I was being accepting of his behavior towards the woman, by my making excuses for him?
Posted by: Bethany at March 3, 2009 6:13 PM
Honestly, I don’t think so. I think it’s possible for someone to by horrified by the act and find it totally unacceptable and yet still see what might have contributed to the person’s crime. It doesn’t mean you don’t think what they did was horribly wrong.
People might say (as someone actually did) in the previous case of attempted murder (the one in the college bathroom) that maybe her parents were conservative and she was afraid to tell them she was pregnant. I don’t think they are therefore suggesting what she did was acceptable. That’s not the impression I get from a comment like that at all.
They are giving her an excuse. I din’t care what someone has gone through, it doesn’t excuse their actions. Bringing up some hypothetical explanation serves only to try to justify the actions, or at the very least spread around the blame.
Either way, it takes away from the condemnation of the act itself.
Would you not think I was being accepting of his behavior towards the woman, by my making excuses for him?
Just for the record, I wouldn’t think that. I’ve had a couple frightening things happen to me in my life, as a result of other people’s malice or selfishness. Both times, I was really angry, but in time I was also able to feel sympathy for the fact that someone — or some people — are so miserable, so desperate, so profoundly unhappy. In the volunteer work I do, I sometimes think about those people who hurt me, and I like to think that I’m helping a new generation have fewer incentives to hurt others in similar ways.
If a member of my family, or someone I loved, did something awful, I would be so unbelievably angry at them. But I would also feel so sad for them, that something went so wrong in their life. It is easiest if I imagine that the criminal is someone I love, but when it’s a distant criminal and a distant victim I find myself wholly capable of having sympathy for both, albeit in very different ways. It’s hardest for me when the criminal is someone I don’t know and the victim is someone I love. But overall I try to give everyone the understanding I would give to my own sister.
That is not to say that I don’t believe in justice. I am not inclined to think that prison is the most effective form of action in all cases, but I don’t think that someone should get away with something horrible just because they have some convoluted and sad reason for doing what they did. People horrify me with the things they do — but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they have reasons, which we might (or might not) be able to address and remedy to prevent future horrors from occurring.
Bringing up some hypothetical explanation serves only to try to justify the actions, or at the very least spread around the blame.
Posted by: Lauren at March 3, 2009 8:47 PM
I don’t think people bring up hyprothetical explanations in a case like the one I mentioned in order to justify the actions. I think they do it to get there head around how something so awful could happen, or worse, to use the story to support their own cause.
I din’t care what someone has gone through, it doesn’t excuse their actions.
I don’t think anyone is excusing this woman’s actions. I don’t think that discussing possible reasons why someone behaves in a certain cruel way is at all the same as dismissing their responsibility for their cruelty.
It’s like…I have a lot of sympathy for child-molestation victims who go on to molest other children. I really do. That’s an awful cycle to get caught up in. But you know what? Part of stopping that cycle is punishing people who molest children. So if some guy molests children, he gets punished. I’m sorry that he was molested as a child, I really am — and I’m more than willing to talk, even with him, about ways to help abuse victims recover in such a way that they don’t go on to abuse others, or whatever. Talking about it, understanding it, understanding how we as a society can react to or rectify situations — that’s really important. But at the end of the day, unless he was insane at the time, he knowingly molested a child. Us saying, “How, if at all, did other people in this guy’s life contribute to this?” does not absolve him of guilt.
Asitis, I think you hit the nail on the head with this:
to use the story to support their own cause.
Bingo.
They don’t actually care a bit for the victim, but they use the woman to prop up their agenda.
Alexandra, I do understand that, but it’s one thing to say a person was abused or molested or whatever. It’s quite another to say that someone’s actions are understandable because of conservative parenting.
Lauren’s much better at articulating it than I am. What she said.
Thanks Lauren, unfortunately I think people do that. Certainly it seems that’s the case of the letter writer Jill mentioned.
People thinking of reasons why a person might do something wrong or even horrific, in order to wrap their heads around it or even be sympathic is a different thing all together. And Alexander did a good job of elaborating on this.
In any case, it doesn’t mean you are diminshing their crime.
Hey Alexandra,
I once saw a billboard in MN and it said
Having Sexual Thoughts About Children?
We can help.
It gave an 800 number which I thought was awesome!! Maybe help potential molesters before they molest??
Whoa. I know like 20 people from Belleville
ACK MUST KEEP STUDYING
Asitis: “In any case, it doesn’t mean you are diminshing their crime.”
Many of those amongst the pro-choice movement also believe infanticide is moral. They have a consistent belief, more than can be said for you.
In fact, one of the more famous abortion philosophers ultimately supported infanticide if adoption wasnt an option.
I mean really, whats the defining difference between a newborn and a preborn?
Oh snap, I forgot you dont state your opinions on things….except this thread for some reason….hmmmmmm. I wonder why that might be? You apparently dont care if your opinions our scrutinzed here. Why would you care if your opinions on abortion are? What could possibly make that make sense? I just dont know.
Carla, that’s amazing! I’ve never heard of such a thing.
Lauren, I know there’s a difference between being molested or having conservative parents. And I don’t think at all that having conservative parents is an excuse for throwing a baby in a toilet! But if I were to read this article on my own, I would immediately become curious as to what life circumstances prompted this woman to behave in such a way. Whenever these things come up I’m far more likely to initially get angry at our culture, which sees pregnancy as failure and shame, and which views it as at odds with intellectual growth and success. To a lesser degree, I often cast my wary eye upon what I believe is increasingly becoming a results-driven culture. Where passing the test is seen as the goal rather than the byproduct (of learning, the real goal), etc. I think that in some women, whose maturity trails behind their intellect, a culture like this can produce a serious cognitive dissonance. After all, smart girls don’t get pregnant (we heard it here just the other day!). And “I have always been a smart girl, everyone’s always said so.” Smart and successful and “good” all become who you are on paper rather than what you do when no one’s looking — but even just the fact of getting an abortion acknowledges the initial problem, which is one that smart girls (‘like me’) don’t face.
Often parents tie into this, since I view both of these trends as being driven in large part by parents in some ways. In particular, I blame pro-choicers as a demographic for the idea that pregnancy is the end, or this horrible thing that only happens to immensely stupid women (“other women, you’ve always been so smart”). Pre-sexual revolution I think it was the opposite — the culture, by default, kind of confined women to a very specific life once they got pregnant. I don’t think that abortion solved the underlying problems that made pregnancy such a shameful thing — I think it has just transferred the shame. It used to be that pregnancy was merely the evidence of sex, which was shameful; but of course now the pregnancy itself is shameful. That’s a whole other can of worms I won’t even try to talk about now. The point is, that doesn’t mean that I’m blaming this woman throwing her baby into the trash on the pro-choice movement.
I’m less inclined to think that she needs a murder sentence in jail, and more inclined to think that she needs real mental help for some time. But either way I don’t think she’s off the hook. I just see a lot of understandable and identifiable factors that we, as a society, would be better off if we at least attempted to fix.
I guess a shorter version of all that nonsense I just typed would be: whether you point a finger at what you see as the culture of death, or the culture of shame — and whether you think that culture needs changing — does not affect whether you can also view the girl as ultimately responsible for her actions.
Many of those amongst the pro-choice movement also believe infanticide is moral.
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 2:16 AM
Well, I suppose “many” is pretty ambiguous. Though I do find it hard to believe that anyone would condone this.
Asitis,
how far along in a pregnancy should abortion be allowed?
Jasper, you know I’m not going to answer that. As I have said many times, I see no point. I am not going to change your position. You are not going to change mine. Nothing I say will have any effect other than bringing on your wrath. No thanks. Find someone else.
Oh snap, I forgot you dont state your opinions on things….except this thread for some reason….hmmmmmm. I wonder why that might be? You apparently dont care if your opinions our scrutinzed here. Why would you care if your opinions on abortion are? What could possibly make that make sense? I just dont know.
Really!
It’s nonsense to say that I don’t state my opinions. Clearly I do. I hope that they may give you a different perspective of an issue or maybe, just maybe, give you a different impression of pro-choice people in general. Because you seem to want to believe the worst.
As for my personal view of when abortion should and shouldn’t be allowed, I don’t get into that. I see no point. And no fun in that.
“I’m going to state my views on abortion over and over on this blog, but if you dare to ask me my reasoning for any of those stated opinions, I’ll accuse you of baiting and refuse to answer.”
Makes no sense.
. I see no point. And no fun in that
Maybe that’s the problem. This blog wasn’t created for “fun”. It was created to discuss the abortion topic and educate people about life in the womb and the atrocity that is abortion. It wasn’t created to be a fun chat haven for people to laugh and joke about abortion. It’s not a “fun” topic, in case you hadn’t noticed!
It’s fine to give your perspective- but when you state it time and time again, without giving any reason for your opinions, it becomes really nonsensical, and no one respects your point of view because you don’t even seem to know why you have your own opinions!
That’s too bad Bethany. Sorry you can’t see it. Makes sense to me.
just maybe, give you a different impression of pro-choice people in general. Because you seem to want to believe the worst.
Asitis, you could be the nicest person on earth- but when you support abortion, you are supporting something reprehensible and no matter how fun loving and caring you present yourself as being, we’re still going to hate abortion and be very opposed to the mindset of those who agree with it.
And when you refuse to explain your point of view, it really doesn’t make people get a different view of abortion proponents- it only confirms what we already know- that you have no defense or reasoning for what you support.
“Jasper, you know I’m not going to answer that. As I have said many times, I see no point. I am not going to change your position. You are not going to change mine. Nothing I say will have any effect other than bringing on your wrath. No thanks. Find someone else.”
Asitis,
I understand. It must be tough defending the killing of unborn children.
Bethany, I know this is a blog primarily about abortion, but it’s hardly restricted to that. I don’t think I’ve every joked aboyt or “had fun” with abortion per se, but certainly with other things here.
You don’t need to know my reasoning on abortion. What does it matter to you? All reasoning for it is wrong in your opinion. My reasoning makes no difference to you.
we’re still going to hate abortion and be very opposed to the mindset of those who agree with it.
And when you refuse to explain your point of view, it really doesn’t make people get a different view of abortion proponents- it only confirms what we already know- that you have no defense or reasoning for what you support.
Posted by: Bethany at March 4, 2009 7:08 AM
Thank you Betahny. There in, in a nutshell, is what I have been saying.
That’s where you’re wrong, Asitis.
But I am well aware of the reason you are afraid to expose your reasoning- you know that if it is held to scrutiny, your reasoning fails.
Like a cockroach hides itself when exposed to light, your ideals and reasonings cannot become exposed to light, they must hide themselves in the darkness where they belong.
Glad to know you agree, Asitis.
I know you will fail to see my reasoning Bethany. That does not mean my reasoning fails.
It has already failed because you have not yet explained it.
“That’s where you’re wrong, Asitis.”
Where? At 7:10? Becasue you pretty much confirmed what I saying (at 7:08) while I was typing that.
By the way, I explain my point of view and the reasonings for it day after day, even though many people do not recognize it, validate it, or agree with it. Some even demonize me for it. Yet, I still explain it. Why?
Because I know that my opinions and reasonings are valid regardless of other’s opinions.
Apparently, you are not that secure in your beliefs.
No, I didn’t confirm what you said. I said you have no defense or reasoning for what you support, and you confirmed that by continually denying opportunities to explain your reasoning to others here.
Maybe you like being attacked Bethany??? Nor more likely you hope you can change someone’s position on abortion. And that hope, that desire, is so intense that you will put up with the attacks. Well, I don’t really think I will change your position or any pro-lifers here. Nor do I have a burning desire to.
That’s the difference.
Why don’t you want to convince us, Asitis?
You are not secure enough that your position is worth fighting for? “Women’s rights” is not worth fighting for?
No, I didn’t confirm what you said. I said you have no defense or reasoning for what you support, and you confirmed that by continually denying opportunities to explain your reasoning to others here.
Posted by: Bethany at March 4, 2009 7:27 AM
Bethany you said that pro-choice have no defense or reasoning for what we support:
And when you refuse to explain your point of view, it really doesn’t make people get a different view of abortion proponents- it only confirms what we already know- that you have no defense or reasoning for what you support.
Posted by: Bethany at March 4, 2009 7:08 AM
Which just what I was saying. You beleive that no matter what we say (or what we don’t say) so why bother?
I have to go meet a group for a run shortly…
All you are concerned with is showing us you and others who support abortion really are not bad people.
Only problem is, no one ever said you are a bad person. We never said that every person who support abortion is a bad person.
You seem to think your mission is to make us see you as a person with feelings, etc. Problem is, we already do!
So it seems that your goal at the present moment is pointless too. Why continue to try that one, Asitis?
And why the guilty conscience? I don’t waste time trying to prove that pro-lifers are nice people. I don’t need to. I don’t worry if abortion proponents see me as mean. I know I’m not. To spend so much time and effort trying to prove otherwise would suggest a guilty conscience. Who is it you’re really trying to convince, Asitis?
Asitis,
Its simple logic. You claim that you do not state your opinion on abortion because you do not want to subject your opinion to scrutiny. Yey, here you are on this topic sounding off and putting your opinion up to scrutiny.
What explains this Asitis? What makes your stance on abortion any special from the other opinions you freely throw out? Why arent you concerned that your opinion on Reardon will be scrutinized? Why arent you concerned that your opinion on abortionists supporting infanticide will be scrutinized?
The ONLY reason could be that you do not want your opinion discected and challeneged in a way that you cannot defend. Again, if I recall, a while back you stated your opinion and it was totally arbitrary and you couldnt defend it based on reasoning.
Of course you’ll come back with the statement of “Oh nice try Oliver! You’ll not bait me here!” What I want you to understand is that my goal is not to bait you, but to make it pretty clear to everyone else on this board how worthless your prescence is. Are you noticing how others are asking these questions now? Thats exactly what Im looking for. You support the unjust killing of innocent humans without any real reasoning, and everyone is starting to see this, regardless of whether or not you post your opinion. Your refusal to post the opinion states more than you think. But by all means, keep posting great commentary on everything else other than the whole point of this blog!
Which just what I was saying. You beleive that no matter what we say (or what we don’t say) so why bother?
Bother because you believe in what you say!
The ONLY reason could be that you do not want your opinion discected and challeneged in a way that you cannot defend.
BINGO!
Well, I think perhaps you and Carla and maybe a few others feel that way but not most prolifers here. Wouldn’t you agree?
As for my conscience, that’s perfectly fine! Nope, not in need of saving Bethany.
Okay, I have to run. Literally.
Later…
Asitis: “Which just what I was saying. You beleive that no matter what we say (or what we don’t say) so why bother?”
Dont you see what a weak diversion this is Asitis? Dont fall for this Bethany. If she REALLY is concerned about her points of view being attacked, or if she is REALLY concerned that we wont change our minds anyways, what does she EVER post her opinion? Surely she knows that her post that “infanticide is not becoming more acceptable” would illicit a negative response that would attack her point of view. This is hogwash. She is very deceptive, dont stop the attack. When she ever posts an opinion, you have to not let her get away with it!
Thank you, Oliver. I agree with what you said, and it is just a diversion. She knows what she is doing.
Asitis: “Okay, I have to run. Literally.”
Anyone else notice this pattern too? She posts and runs when there is conflict. Isnt this the sign of a troll?
Oliver, I have many times wondered that myself. I don’t really know what her purpose is in being here. Anyone who really cared about the issue would be willing to defend it.
Well, I think perhaps you and Carla and maybe a few others feel that way but not most prolifers here. Wouldn’t you agree?
No, I wouldn’t agree.
Oliver, also, I don’t think Asitis is really gone.
No, me either.
She told Hal she would possibly “chase” me off, and I keep wondering how she would do that if shes afraid to post her own opinion?
Ha!Ha!Well if I didn’t just run 6 miles, why am I so sweaty?
Nice tactics but they aren’t going to make me play your game nor chase me away.
Oliver wonders “…if she is REALLY concerned that we wont change our minds anyways, what does she EVER post her opinion?”
Well, Oliver dearest, SOMETIMES I do think I might be able to change someone’s mind with my opinion.
Now if you’ll excuse me for a few moments, I need to have a shower and I’d like some privacy. ;)
Ha!Ha!Well if I didn’t just run 6 miles, why am I so sweaty?
Hmm..maybe you’re nervous.
Asitis: “Well, Oliver dearest, SOMETIMES I do think I might be able to change someone’s mind with my opinion.”
So Im curious, what makes you think that you can change our opinions on every other conservative concept, but not on abortion? You were damn sure you could change our opinions by attacking Reardon’s character. Certainly you had to know that ad hominem technique is one of the least effective of the fallacies, so certainly you had to know that you couldnt change our minds about Reardon. Why did you continue that argument for so long along the lines of ad hominem?
Your actions dont match your words. You frequently argue points that are inherently tied to abortion and therefore have the same chance of being altered based on our opinions on abortion. Just admit that you just dont know what to say for why you support abortion. Again, Im pretty sure that Ive seen you make your point a while ago, and it was not based on reason or your other morals, but just based off of what you intuition said. If I remember correctly, you got harshly called on it and had no response. I think youre afraid that will happen agin.
But, just so you know, I dont actually want you to respond. I actually love that you are so afraid to make your point. I just want everyone else to realize what you really are. A slice of Jill’s bandwidth. Looks like its already happening.
Hmm..maybe you’re nervous.
Posted by: Bethany at March 4, 2009 11:26 AM
about what?
Just admit that you just dont know what to say for why you support abortion.
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 11:41 AM
Why would I say that Oliver? I already told you I don’t lie.
But, just so you know, I dont actually want you to respond.
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 11:41 AM
A new tactic! You’re funny Oliver.
ASitis: “I already told you I don’t lie.”
Interesting because a few days ago I clearly demonstrated a lie that you told.
Don’t think so. Nice try.
Asitis: “Don’t think so. Nice try.”
You wont pull me into this again Asitis. Youre only trolling to draw me off from your fear of posting your opinions on abortion. The lie was demonstrated for all to see. Thats all I care about.
Well maybe for you to see. So it fits that it’s all you care about. It remains that I don’t lie.
Asitis: “A new tactic! You’re funny Oliver.”
No new tactic. I did the same to Cameron. He came in here with the respect of even the pro-lifers, but demonstrated that he couldnt actually debate reasonably. It took him a little longer than you to “crack” so to speak, but he eventually exposed himself to be nothing but a paper tiger in capable of creating a defendable position on abortion. He used the same tactics as you, subterfuge and general evasion. My goal was not to get him to admit he was wrong, that of course would be impossible. My goal was for his actions to demonstrate that he knew he was wrong. That was accomplished. It has been accomplished again with you. You can quip back “well if they helps you sleep at night, you can believe it!” but it doesnt change the fact that the other posters here are starting to understand how defenseless you are.
Why are you afraid of posting your opinion? You yourself said that you are afraid of scrutiny. Thats all I need for the posters here to see.
Oh and by the way Oliver, I have no “fear” of posting my opinion on abortion. I just don’t want to. And I don’t have to. And I’m beginining to think it really irks you, doesn’t it?
No, seriously, you really are funny Oliver.
Asitis: “I have no “fear” of posting my opinion on abortion”
Right.
I also love the statement “I dont lie” because it is so meaningless. If you DO lie, then this statement would just be another lie. Its like the statement “You can trust me!” which if I recall correctly, youve used before as well. Hmm…
Asitis: “It remains that I don’t lie.”
Im suddenly reminded of another lie…
Remember when you claimed to have understood the Monty Hall problem in under 3 minutes?
Was that not a lie Asitis?
I actually never claimed any such thing Oliver. As I recall, you claimed that I understood it in under 3 minutes and just ran with that thought.
Asitis “I actually never claimed any such thing Oliver.”
Im sure you were operating off the idea that I would not go back and check. Unfortunately for you I have a pretty good memory. Here is the post where you said you understand the problem…with time stamps.
“If you have trouble with the concept of probablity have fun with this little mind screw…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 8:26 PM”
“That’s okay Oliver. I get it. No skin off my teeth! :)
Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 8:31 PM”
Now, you also posted in between on a different topic at this time.
“Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 8:29 PM”
Notice the time difference. 8:29 to 8:31. Now, you MAYBE were posting as you were reading the explanation, but regardless, Im sure you spent less than 3 minutes reading over the problem.
Yet you said “That’s okay Oliver. I get it.”
You directly claimed that you get it, and ever said “thats okay” to imply that it wasnt too hard.
Now you say “I actually never claimed any such thing.” Another lie.
Again, this is more for the other posters to see, so they can understand your character and can see how easy it is to challenge you.
Love me some Monty Hall problem! :)
Oliver, you made a critical error back then… and again now. You assumed that when I said “I get it” the I was refrring to the Monty Hall vid. I never was. I was referring to the concept of probability.
Oliver: “If you have trouble with the concept of probablity have fun with this little mind screw…”
Asitis: “That’s okay Oliver. I get it.”
Bobby,
I was reviewing the work I did on the puzzle you gave me to figure how I missed the solution and I actually asked one of the God’s “Would you say Ja if I asked you whether or not either B or C was random?” I unfortunately incorrectly parsed the responses from the False God and failed to see the proper connection….so frustrating, but fun.
Did you figure out the 9 pound ball question? I may not have phrased it properly enough…
Oh, and by the way Oliver…. THAT was fun!
Asitis: “I was referring to the concept of probability.”
I suppose that could be true. Of course, you claimed that probability didnt “compound,” so that could be an untruth as well, although I imagine more from ignorance at not knowing what you dont understand about probability.
Regardless, it doesnt change that you lied about insulting me in the other thread. So you are still a liar.
Regardless, it doesnt change that you lied about insulting me in the other thread. So you are still a liar.
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 1:47 PM
I lied about insulting you? No I didn’t lie then either Oliver. I said something that you took as an insult. Boy you are stretching for something here. Try again.
No Asitis, you said that you never claimed something, and then I showed that you did. That was the lie. Regardless of whether or not it was meant as an insult, which it was.
“I actually asked one of the God’s “Would you say Ja if I asked you whether or not either B or C was random?””
Wow, to even have asked such a sophisticated question though is great. I came no where NEAR that close!
But yes, I think I did solve it. Number each of the 10 groups 1 though 10. Have one person from group 1 place one ball on the scale, 2 people from group 2 place two balls on the scale, 3 people from group 3 place three balls on the scale, etc. all the way up to having 10 people from group 10 place 10 balls on the scale. Now if ALL balls weighed 10 pounds, the total number that the scale would show would be 550 lbs. But we know that one group only has 9 lbs balls. If it is group 1, then they will only contribute a 9 lb ball and the total weight would be 549 lbs. If is is group 2, they will only contribute two 9 lb balls and the total weight would be 548 lbs. etc. In this way, the scale will display one of 10 numbers 540-549, corresponding to precisely one of the 10 groups. So for example, if the scale shows 544, we know that it was group 6 that had the 9 lb balls.
No Asitis, you said that you never claimed something, and then I showed that you did. That was the lie. Regardless of whether or not it was meant as an insult, which it was.
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 1:56 PM
Nope. Still haven’t lied.
Bobby,
Thats exactly it! It took me a good 10 minutes to piece the answer together, and even then it was one of those “this feels right…but I cant quite understand why” kind of deals. My friend had that asked to him in the middle of a job interview for an accounting firm. I wish I could go on an interview like that!
Asitis: “Nope. Still haven’t lied.”
Care to explain how it would be possible that is not a lie? Or is this another one of those things that you mysteriously cant comment on?
Well, I don’t remeber the particulars but I believe you claimed that I had had said you never amounted to anything. And I said that’s not so. And you called me a liar. Truth is, I never said you didn’t amounted to anything.
Still no lie
You said that you only compared my achievements to Josephine. The truth is that you specifically pointed out that I was not an achiever and had not achieved anything. That was the lie.
No, I said she seems to be “the achiever” here. It was meant in comparison to 21 year-old you, me, everyone. You took it to mean someting else.
We’ll already been all though this Oliver.
Still no lie.
And I must say… even if you didn’t get a run in today, good for you for doing some stretching!
Asitis: “No, I said she seems to be “the achiever” here.”
I guess you do not know how to speak English.
When you say something is “THE” X, you imply that everything is NOT a X.
Example. “Ted is THE number one guy to go to for computer problems.”
I was the only person in the pot at the time other than Josephine, and you said “well seems she is THE achiever” which is to say, quite plainly, that I was not AN achiever. The distinction between “the” and “a/an” is actually quite important.
So again, you claimed originally that I was not an achiever., not less of an achiever, but that Josephine was and I was not. You then claimed, and still claim, that you never did such a thing. This is a lie, unless you really are just so ignorant that you did not know what you were saying.
Trust me Asitis, I am not stretching. I admited that it was possible that you meant “I get it” to my point of you struggling with probability and not to the example of the Monty Hall problem. I am not petty. You lied about the comment and thats obvious.
Yet, again, I find it so interesting that you have no problem putting your opinion down here, but not when it comes to abortion. Of course, the truth is that you did put your opinion down at one point, Im pretty sure, and it wasnt pretty. I cant blame you for your fear of another challenge. Heck, if you cant defend your point of view, then what does that mean for your point of view?
No Oliver, the comment was about Josephine having achieved a great deal for a 21 year old. It was not about you not achieving anything. In comparison, she IS the achiever. I stand by that.
I have not lied. You are still S-T-R-E-T-C-H-I-N-G. Is this the best you’ve got? Gosh, I wonder why?
And is interesting how sensitive you are yourself…. and yet so insulting to others.
Asitis: “In comparison, she IS the achiever. I stand by that.”
Of course and that means that I was not an achiever. Just do you know, here is an example of a comparison word.
“In comparison, she is MORE of an achiever.”
That would mean that we could both be achievers, but ultimately she was more of one. As you put it, she is an achiever, and I am not. Period. You claimed it was only in comparison, yet you did not use comparative langauge. You used absolute language. Its pretty obvious, although I will admit, I am now less inclined to think that you lied and more inclined to think you dont know how the English language works.
Asitis: “And is interesting how sensitive you are yourself…. and yet so insulting to others.”
No, notice that I am not arguing whether or not I was an achiever. I took care of your absurd assumption in one post. My contention has nothing to do with my “sensitiveness” which is frankly not present. My post is clearly addressing your misleading language, and has been pretty much from the start. I even took the original comment in stride, in spite of how irrelevant to the conversation it was.
Heck, if you cant defend your point of view, then what does that mean for your point of view?
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 2:51 PM
It simply means that you will accept no other point of view than your own.
Asitis: “In comparison, she IS the achiever. I stand by that.”
Oliver: Of course and that means that I was not an achiever.
Oliver, when I say “achiever” I mean someone who achieves a lot and in this case it was with resepct to age (21). It does not mean that anyone else achieves nothing.
Wow. Okay, so now we’ve established that I don’t lie (apology accepted) but apparently I don’t have a good grasp of the english language.
You are funny Oliver!
Asitis: “It simply means that you will accept no other point of view than your own.”
First of all, this is false. I have switched my viewpoint on abortion multiple times from discussion. I used to believe abortion in the case of rape was justified. I now know that to be inconsistent with my other beliefs on abortion and have discarded it. I used to think abortion was not defendable or refutable through argumentation. I have obviously dropped that point of view. Ill probably change and refine my point of view even further in the future, hence why I post here.
Second of all, if that WERE true, why would you argue with me on every other point possible? You really think you would change my mind on every elese BUT abortion?
Well I changed your mind just now didn’t I?
Asitis: “Well I changed your mind just now didn’t I?”
So why not post your point of view on abortion?
The fact that I, unlike you apparently, can admit when I make a mistake only goes to show how incorrect you are by asserting that your abortion defense could never change my mind. Will it likely? Probably not. However, to hide it because you dont believe it would change anything is flawed reasoning. Of course, Im sure the real reason you are hiding your point of view is as you suggested earlier, you dont want to put it up for scrutiny.
And why don’t I want to put it up for scutiny? As I have already said (several times), not only will it have no effect on what you prolifers think of the prochoice view, it will have no effect on your own view. Furthermore, the abortion issue is so paramount to most of you that it defines your lives, your spouses, your friends, your kids’ friends, your politics…..
Asitis: “And why don’t I want to put it up for scutiny? As I have already said (several times), not only will it have no effect on what you prolifers think of the prochoice view, it will have no effect on your own view.”
I already demonstrated this to be false. I have personally changed my stance many times and I am open to alteration for my point of view. Obviously I can admit when I am wrong, unlike you, so where is the harm. Besides, you posted about homosexuality several times, which fills the exact same niche.
Asitis: “Furthermore, the abortion issue is so paramount to most of you that it defines your lives, your spouses, your friends, your kids’ friends, your politics….. ”
Abortion doesnt define my friends, my kid’s friends or even my politics, in the sense that I would still be conservative without the abortion plank. It may define my life, but I have pro-choice friends. In fact, almost everyone of my coworkers is a far-left liberal, a unfortunate side effect of working with a bunch of people who have all scored 99% on multiple college entrance exams. My best friend is pro-choice and anti-religion. Heck, when I married Lauren she was not Christian and was personally pro-life and politically pro-choice. Why would you think this Im curious? Do you definre your friends by your pro-choice stance? And if not, why on earth would you assume that we do the same?
Oliver: “Besides, you posted about homosexuality several times, which fills the exact same niche.”
Not exactly.
Do you definre your friends by your pro-choice stance? And if not, why on earth would you assume that we do the same?
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 3:30 PM
Do I? Not at all! Depending on whom I’m with I might be the liberal or the conservative (well, just!). Maybe you personally don’t, but that’s not what I’m hearing from others here. They are a one-issue voter, don’t hang out with pro-choice, don’t want their kids playing with pro-choice’s kids…..
So why assume that I do? First of all, I havent see any posters share that sentiment, so Im not sure accurate the statement really is. But, even if most people here do claim that, how could you extrapolate it out to be a sure thing for ALL pro-lifers? You assumed I was the case without real hesitation.
But regardless. I am not that way. So go ahead and throw your point out. I dare you.
Of course you wont though. because of some other reason you will make up.
No of course I won’t Oliver. For the same reasons I have always stated.
So here we are dear Oliver, back where we were this morning. Well, except now I’ve had my run, you have finally dropped this nonsense that I have lied and Bethany is M.I.A.
“In fact, almost everyone of my coworkers is a far-left liberal, a unfortunate side effect of working with a bunch of people who have all scored 99% on multiple college entrance exams”
Why is it, do you suppose, that the far-left are usually the smart ones? ;)
Oliver how can someone be “personally pro-life and politically pro-choice” ? Someone here (Bethany?) told Josephine that to be pro-life you had to support making abortion illegal.
Another question: when did you become pro-life?
Asitis, Oliver is gone but I have to respond to your little quips.
First “No of course I won’t Oliver. For the same reasons I have always stated”
Which have all been shown to be non-issues.
And then “Why is it, do you suppose, that the far-left are usually the smart ones? ;)”
Any proof at all to back this up?
Then she says “Oliver how can someone be “personally pro-life and politically pro-choice” ? Someone here (Bethany?) told Josephine that to be pro-life you had to support making abortion illegal.
Another question: when did you become pro-life? ”
Asitis, being personally pro-life and politically pro-choice is an inconsistent view. Basically it’s saying “abortion is horrible and I could never have one, but I can’t tell someone else what to do.”
Of course, the flaw is that if you believe something is horrible, it doesn’t make sense to believe that it should be a viable choice. Tons of people hold this view, and they are all wrong.
I’ll let Oliver answer for himself re: when he became pro-life.
Asitis, Oliver is gone but I have to respond to your little quips.
**** Quips????
First “No of course I won’t Oliver. For the same reasons I have always stated”
Which have all been shown to be non-issues.
***** NO, these have NOT been shown to been non-issues. he tried though, I’ll give him that.
And then “Why is it, do you suppose, that the far-left are usually the smart ones? ;)”
Any proof at all to back this up?
***** That was a joke Lauren.
Then she says “Oliver how can someone be “personally pro-life and politically pro-choice” ? Someone here (Bethany?) told Josephine that to be pro-life you had to support making abortion illegal.
Another question: when did you become pro-life? ”
Asitis, being personally pro-life and politically pro-choice is an inconsistent view. Basically it’s saying “abortion is horrible and I could never have one, but I can’t tell someone else what to do.”
Of course, the flaw is that if you believe something is horrible, it doesn’t make sense to believe that it should be a viable choice. Tons of people hold this view, and they are all wrong.
***** Okay, so why did Oliver claim that’s what you were? Was he wrong? Or did you cahnage your view? Did you used think aborion was horrible and should be illegal, but you purposely voted for the candidates that were prochoice??? I don’t understand his claim about you.
I’ll let Oliver answer for himself re: when he became pro-life.
**** Fair enough! Don’t you know?
Posted by: Lauren at March 4, 2009 4:51 PM
Yes, quips. How else would you describe this statement: “Why is it, do you suppose, that the far-left are usually the smart ones? ;)”?
As for your arguements, we have adequately addressed every one of your concerns. The fact that you still cling to them shows your own stubborn ignorance, not a lack evidence or logic on our part.
I was voted and supported pro-choice candidates. I had a pro-choice button on my computer bag. I approvingly nodded at my pro-choice professors. I thought abortion was horrible, but I thought the evil forces trying to “subjegate women” were worse because I didn’t really have a compelling arguement as to *why* abortion was wrong, just a gut feeling against it. I changed my views.
As for Oliver, he has always been pro-life, but he can explain the progression of his views in more depth than I can.
“As for your arguements, we have adequately addressed every one of your concerns.”
No you haven’t. Nice try Lauren.
“supported pro-choice candidates. I had a pro-choice button on my computer bag. I approvingly nodded at my pro-choice professors. I thought abortion was horrible, but I thought the evil forces trying to “subjegate women” were worse because I didn’t really have a compelling arguement as to *why* abortion was wrong”
So it sounds like when you were voting pro-choice you weren’t actually pro-life as Oliver claims, if you go by the definition that seems to be popular here that prol;ife means you want to make abortion illegal (correct me if I’m wrong on that please). You were pro-choice and voted pro-choice. And then you became pro-life… and voted pro-life.
Asitis, yes we have. Anyone with deductive reasoning skills can see that we have. You have not made one claim regarding your rational for hiding your beliefs that you have effectively backed up. It really matters very little if you see the truth or not. The other members of the board look through the comments and see that you were shown to be using flawed assumptions to back up your rational. Anytime you make the claim again, they can see for themselves that it is false and that you are simply refusing to contribute to the conversation.
Asitis, I was pro-life in that I believed abortion was a morally corrupt act. I described myself as personally pro-life and politically pro-choice. Of course, that manifested as an outwardly pro-choice view because the two are incompatable, but like many others I saw a distinction between myself and someone who felt no moral qualms about abortion.
The shift came when I realized that I could not support pro-choice policies because I really thought through my personal objections to abortion. When I rationally examined the issue I saw that my previous views were inconsistent. Thus, I became politically pro-life as well.
Asitis, I was pro-life in that I believed abortion was a morally corrupt act. I described myself as personally pro-life and politically pro-choice. Of course, that manifested as an outwardly pro-choice view because the two are incompatable, but like many others I saw a distinction between myself and someone who felt no moral qualms about abortion.
The shift came when I realized that I could not support pro-choice policies because I really thought through my personal objections to abortion. When I rationally examined the issue I saw that my previous views were inconsistent. Thus, I became politically pro-life as well.
Posted by: Lauren at March 4, 2009 5:43 PM
So it sound like you weren’t pro-life when you were voting pro-choice or , as you put it, “outwardly pro-chpoice”. You were pro-choice: Even though you yourslef had reservations about abortion you felt that others should have the right to abortion.
Is that correct Lauren?
“Anyone with deductive reasoning skills can see that we have.”
Nice try Lauren, but you haven’t. Did your husband teach you that ploy (to assume superior reasoning skills)?
Asitis, it isn’t a ploy. You have shown yourself again and again to be unable to grasp simple concepts.
Oh really Lauren? That’s news to me.
How many times have I been the one to correct you on a misconception?
And BTW Lauren, not sharing your beliefs is NOT necessarily a failure to grasp simple concepts.
You’re about as funny as your husband!
I don’t know how many times this has to be said, asits. I was politically pro-choice and personally pro-life. Any child conceived to me would not be aborted.
A person can value embryonic life, but through flawed reasoning, continue to support abortion.
Of course the key here is that doing so is the result of flawed logic. After I made this realization, I began supporting pro-life policies and politicians.
“I don’t know how many times this has to be said, asits. I was politically pro-choice and personally pro-life. Any child conceived to me would not be aborted”.
I understand that Lauren. But what I am saying is doesn’t that make you pro-choice through and through according to the definition of pro-life commonly used here?
Correct me if I’m wrong Lauren (or somebody!) but don’t you believe that prolife means you want abortion to be illegal?
Asitis we aren’t talking about my beliefs. Were talking about deductive reasoning. If you say that it’s pointless to to talk about your views because you won’t change anyone’s mind and we show that it is entirely possible for a person’s mind to be changed, we aren’t expressing our belief, we are expressing a fact.
For you to ignore that fact and continue asserting that you won’t change anyone’s mind is a failure on your part to grasp a simple concept.
Yes, Asitis -personally pro-life but politically “pro-choice” equals “pro-choice”. Lauren is not denying that that is what she was.
(I put pro-choice in quotes because there is no choice for the unborn, so the term pro-choice is a misnomer.)
Asitis, yes I was pro-choice. Supporting abortion’s legality is a pro-choiec position. However, I considered myself to be personally pro-life. This distinction was rightly critiqued because it is inconsistent, but it didn’t change the fact that it was how I described myself and believed myself to be.
Pro-lifers rightly put these people on the pro-life side, but that doesn’t mean they don’t consider themselves to be personally pro-life.
Lauren, I don’t believe that pro-lifers minds can be changed on this. I honestly don’t. And I think if you are honest you will agree.
Yes, Asitis -personally pro-life but politically “pro-choice” equals “pro-choice”. Lauren is not denying that that is what she was.
Posted by: Bethany at March 4, 2009 6:23 PM
Bethany, both she and her husband claim she was pro-life while she was voting pro-choice. Sounds to mean they are claiming she was pro-life. And now you are trying to saying that’s NOT what they are claiming?
Asitis, I think there are some that could be persuaded. Especially those who fall under the personally pro-life/politically pro-choice umbrella like Josephine.
I will tell you that Oliver and I debated someone who definitly stretched us and sharpened our arguements. Even if minds aren’t changed, hearing other’s viewpoints help to strengthen personal convictions.
Also, there may just be that one argument that shows that the right to privacy trumps all other rights, including the right to life. I doubt you have it, but if it exists it would be persuasive.
Asitis, yes I was pro-choice.
Posted by: Lauren at March 4, 2009 6:29 PM
Why did you husband claim you were pro-life voting pro-choice then? Does he not know there is no such thing according to your pro-life definition?
Also, there may just be that one argument that shows that the right to privacy trumps all other rights, including the right to life. I doubt you have it, but if it exists it would be persuasive.
Posted by: Lauren at March 4, 2009 6:34 PM
Lauren, given your beliefs (and others’), do you really think it exists? Be honest.
There’s no persuading you.
I daresay that in world history, for the various civilizations, infanticide has been the usual practice and Christianity merely an exception. Europe, having rejected Christianity, is returning to a justification of infanticide, e.g. the Groningen Protocol for euthanasia of new-borns.
Asitis, if someone could form a coherent argument that bodily domain overrid another’s life I could be persuaded to view it as a necessary evil.
However, I have yet to run across such argument and doubt one exists.
Asitis, in my perception I was pro-life voting pro-choice. At the time I was not aware of the gaping logical flaw.
However, I have yet to run across such argument and doubt one exists.
Posted by: Lauren at March 4, 2009 6:46 PM
Precisely. Ther’s no persuading you. As I said.
Asitis, in my perception I was pro-life voting pro-choice. At the time I was not aware of the gaping logical flaw.
Posted by: Lauren at March 4, 2009 6:47 PM
Lauren I’m not talking about a logical flaw per se. I’m talking about what those two terms mean.
And I’m not talking about what you would have called yourself then. I’m talking about what your husband (and you)today refer to you as back then.
Asitis, he was using the terminology that I used at the time. It is terminology that is understood by most people within the debate. I’m sure most people on this site would understand what it means to be “personally pro-life, politically pro-choice” even if they belive that position to be illogical.
That’s odd to hear you say that. Because before I came to this site I thought pro-life meant that you wouldn’t choose abortion yourself. It wasn’t until I was here that I heard that it meant you want it to be illegal. So that’s why it strikes me as odd to hear your refer to it as the former.
Using my current knowledge, I would call myself at the time “pro-choice,” but I certainly wanted to modify that title at the time by expressing my personal opposition to abortion. That was the mindset Oliver was refering to.
Asitis, it may have made more sense to you if he had put it in quotes? Either way, Lauren, Oliver, and I are in agreement on what it means to be pro-life.
Yeh, it probably would have. It would have been even more clear to just say she was pro-choice, but opposed to abortion herself.
Asitis, the phrase ‘personally pro-life, politically pro-choice’ is very common. Now that we’ve exhausted this rabbit hole, do you have any response to the substance of that post aside from semantics?
I’ve never heard the term myself. Do you still use it nowadays? Or do you just call such people pro-choice?
I don’t personally use it to describe anyone, but I have definitely encountered those who use it to describe themselves.
If I’m talking to someone who makes that distinction, I generally explain that her’s is a pro-choice view and explain the inconsistency.
Generally, these types of people will eventually come around to being fully pro-life.
Actually, I take that back. I might describe someone as such using quotation marks if I’m speaking to another pro-lifer about the person in question. I would do this to better express the person’s beliefs while still acknowledging that it is *really* a pro-choice viewpoint.
Gotcha.
If being consistent means I must remain as ignorant tomorrow as I am today. Then call me inconsistent.
yor bro ken