Abortion

[OntheWindowStand]

They start feeling guilt like a few weeks after But i am talking about the moment before the operation. In fact I have seen a few documentaries about the women who wish they didn't because they feel a lot of guilt after the biggest reason for them getting abortions was there boyfriend or whatever pushing them into it or them not being "ready" again though the guilt happens like weeks after

[Aedes]

Many of them are very torn before they get it done, which is why they make and then cancel appointments repeatedly before finally doing it. You've got to acknowledge that there are a lot of women who end up having their babies who had strongly considered abortion. They are the other half of a larger pool of women who are similarly torn over it and end up getting the procedure done in the end. I don't think there's any evidence that suggests this is an easy decision for women in advance.

In fact I just found a study (J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005 Mar;27(3):247-50) in which 26 out of 60 women presenting for abortion self-identified as anti-abortion, voiced anti-abortion attitudes, and felt strongly that other women should not be allowed to have abortions.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Aedes

These devolutions are easily prevented when people speak respectfully to one another, which indeed requires some degree of mutual respect. Disagreements should seldom result in disrespectful interactions. You and I may express shock at one anothers' opinions, and we may argue vehemently -- but if we're doing it right we're not going to let it melt into personal comments.

But being a rather frequent recipient of condescension from Prof. R. Logic here, I feel like we need to step back and read into what he's really posting in lieu of on-topic content. Quite telling is how many times he has thanked another member for a post. Perfunctorily selected polysyllabic, acrimonious, and self-aggrandizing blather cannot make disrespect somehow seem wise.

Are you finally happy now that I have accessed the members' thanks button? But I must say it was coerced, because as my cursor sweep towards the button and a moment later is when I heard it, the ominous Click of Contempt.

[Didymos Thomas]

Are you finally happy now that I have accessed the members' thanks button? But I must say it was coerced, because as my cursor sweep towards the button and a moment later is when I heard it, the ominous Click of Contempt.

God forbid you actually appreciate other people.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

Are you finally happy now that I have accessed the members' thanks button? But I must say it was coerced, because as my cursor sweep towards the button and a moment later is when I heard it, the ominous Click of Contempt.

You know how police recruits play first person shooter video games to desensitize them in case they ever need to shoot someone?

Maybe, just maybe, clicking the button once will serve that same purpose.

By the way, I don't regard you with any bitterness or contempt, notwithstanding all of our altercations and certainly notwithstanding our disagreements. When I get an attitude like that I generally ignore people rather than responding. I'm not out to start a war with you. I think we're all here to exchange ideas because we enjoy the interchange -- and if you and I have at least that belief in common, then I think respect follows closely behind.

[Zetetic11235]

Onthewindowstand, I think you would greatly benefit by a self reflection everytime you have a reactionary statement or point. If you really look at why you believe what you do about the subject at hand and really look at what validates such a beliefe for you you will gain a lot of center from which you can argue. If you know the facts, you help yourself, if you argue from blind or ingrained presumptions, you help no one.

You cannot count what you heard somewhere as valid, you cannot extrapolate upon nonexistent data or look at somthing selectively,i.e. only pick out what validates your opinion. If you go around making unjustified points, they will continue to be under cut. Be careful about what you say and be exact in your thoughts and you will know what is right for you about the subject and be able to convey it to others in a reciprocative fashion.

It seems like your heart is in the right place but your mind isn't, get them together and you might have somthing.

Also, I don't think thanking in posts is really that big of a deal, I only thank when a post really hits on somthing I missed or opens up a whole new viable sub-area for discussion in a thread. Just look at my thanks/post ratio, not that big. I have been thanked many more times than I have thanked because I am more selective than average. My point in this is that by presenting a moot fact and ascribing to it a value as evidence is presumptive. R. Logic's words should be taken for what they are, in the context of this thread alone, as is true for all of us; no extraneous evidence should be used to infer somthing about a poster. Such activity only adds fuel to the fires it aims to extinguish.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

Are you finally happy now that I have accessed the members' thanks button? But I must say it was coerced, because as my cursor sweep towards the button and a moment later is when I heard it, the ominous Click of Contempt.

Sarcasm is entirely anti-climatic if it needs to be explained. (I was bullied into clicking the button, so I have contempt for the instigator)

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

Sarcasm is entirely anti-climatic if it needs to be explained. (I was bullied into clicking the button, so I have contempt for the instigator)

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic
Are you finally happy now that I have accessed the members' thanks button? But I must say it was coerced, because as my cursor sweep towards the button and a moment later is when I heard it, the ominous Click of Contempt.

Your wit is nearly as sharp as your facillity with the english language, allow me to correct your statement:
Are you finally happy now that I have accessed the member's(remember that the possesive has the apostrophy before the s unless it is a word ending in s) 'thanks button'(member's is redundant and out of place but fine, single quotes for denotation). But I must say it was coerced(here is where you loose the sarcasm, by blatantly stating the circumstance), because as my cursor swept(you changed tense here) towards the button it was heard quite momentarily, the ominous click of contempt.(that last fragment was pretty much a train wreck).

Now, were you meaning to say that you clicked the icon with contempt? This could be clearer and more facetious, observe:I must say, I was so enthusiastic in my clicking of said button that I nearly burst! I assure you, the click was cluck with nothing but the warmest and utmost contempt for you all!

It gets the sarcasm across much better when you impliment some standard form of sarcasm rather than none.

Now, you see, we are both capable of condescending pedanticism and hopefully as well you see that you get what you give, and the discussion goes nowhere.

Does anyone have anything pertinent to say of abortion? If not, maybe this thread should be closed, its gotten quite a bit off topic with little hope of return.

[Aedes]

As there are indeed some useful on-topic posts still happening here, let's keep the topic open. Let's do our best to ignore the off-topic posts henceforth, because honestly these conversations never get better in the end.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Ruthless logic, a solution derived by the necessity of compromise is not absolute. A solution of that sort does not equate to a black and white view on the subject, but rather chooses to remain dismissive in regards to the grey area by necessity and is thus subject to change upon review. 'Abortion shall be constrained' is a possible compromise between two groups each with an opposite, black and white view pertaining of either 'no abortion' or unrestrained 'abortion'. Once more, to come to a conclusion in regards to a problem which must be resolved is more relfective upon the times and the people than the value of the solution, which is made explicit by its actual impact. I shall issue this single coveat to those who believe in an absolute morality/solution, you shall find that no matter the solution proposed there will be at least one consequnece which you had not anticipated, which may or may not be acceptable upon review.

Ruthless logic, your indulgence in sophistry and self validation, as well as your generally presumptious, dismissive attitude disgusts me.
Although your use of logic may be to ruthless ends, its propositions still remain grossly inconsistent. I think we both know what that equates to:emotional validation of assumed truths. I defy you to correct me.

Okay, If you must insist. You said “to come to a conclusion in regards to a problem which must be resolved is more reflective upon the times and the people than the value of the solution, which is made explicit by its actual impact” A classic nonsensical claim reflective of your poor reasoning skills, because you try to separate the solution of consensus and the subjective measurement of success that you conveniently create by your own self-serving statement.

On the topic of the consideration process (grey shading), it is cognitively consistent that any process that involves the evolutionary procedure of further refinement of any Public Policy Mandate (i.e. Abortion laws) cannot circumvent the CURRENT legal constraints which can only be viewed (black or white) with the detail of described LAW, until the new legal parameters are adopted. The term black or white is clearly reflective of the inherent rigidity of enforced LAW, while the term of grey shading is clearly reflective of the non-legal binding consideration process. Any attempt to provide an alternate process that is based in reality would be patently INSANE.

Lastly, you said “I think we both know what that equates to: emotional validation of assumed truths”. Please provide one SINGLE measurable example that reflects the process of validation WITHOUT the ensuing empirically measurable component of emotion, regardless if it encompasses the detailing of personal morality, or describing the constraints of mathematical axioms. It would be exponentially more productive if you could consider the implications of your statements and claims, before the subsequent vetting process discredits them. I must say, based on the quality of the other posts that I responded to, your composition is clearly the least articulate.