Do you support abortion as

[Jiro]

No not Fallacious. One opinion among many about guns. Just as Roe V Wade is one opionion among many about life. Even though the argument was decided based on a complete lie. So we have a whole class of humans denied right to life because one woman lied about how she got pregnant. People used to think slaves should be denied the right to life if the master chose. Now no one thinks that is true. Some day I hope people will feel the same about all babies.

and some day... I hope people will feel the same as I do about guns. Improbable, right? yea there you go.

 

[jillio]

No not Fallacious. One opinion among many about guns. Just as Roe V Wade is one opionion among many about life. Even though the argument was decided based on a complete lie. So we have a whole class of humans denied right to life because one woman lied about how she got pregnant. People used to think slaves should be denied the right to life if the master chose. Now no one thinks that is true. Some day I hope people will feel the same about all babies.

What lie exactly, was Roe V Wade decided on? And, again, this is exactly why I continue to call your arguments fallicious. Slavery has absolutely nothing to do with Roe V Wade, or with a woman's right to choose. The issues are totally separate concepts, and your insistence on attempting to use one emotionally charged argument to support another is fallicious. Argue abortion on the facts of abortion, not on unrelated topics.

I don't think anyone is in favor of killing babies, but your insistence on calling an embryo 2 weeks into gestation a "baby" is just more indication of thew fallicious nature of your arguments.

But if you want to cloud the issue, would you also grant a married couple the right to IVF?

 

[fredfam1]

No, not funny. I think it is cute.[/QUOTE]

That is patronizing.

You are such an instigator Jillio. I really think it is cute. And many of my Deaf friends and I have made jokes about things that vibrate, and the many ways to get someones attention. There was even a funny commercial about a couple of Deaf guys who lost an address and leaned on the car horn because they knew the house where the lights didn't come on was their Deaf friend. Bottsi simply misunderstood me. You on the other hand are just trying to nit pick.

 

[jillio]

You are such an instigator Jillio. I really think it is cute. And many of my Deaf friends and I have made jokes about things that vibrate, and the many ways to get someones attention. There was even a funny commercial about a couple of Deaf guys who lost an address and leaned on the car horn because they knew the house where the lights didn't come on was their Deaf friend. Bottsi simply misunderstood me. You on the other hand are just trying to nit pick.

That is not instigating. It is pointing out that your comment is patronizing. Had you used the word "interesting" or "adaptive" or "creative". it would not have been patronizing. "Cute" however, is. To illustrate, your insistence on comparing slavery to abortion is cute. Your claim that you were reviewing an edition of a manual that has not even been compiled, and will not reach the market until 2012 was cute.

Unless you are referring to a small child, a kitten, or a puppy, the use of the descriptive "cute" is patronizing.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Oh, man!

Not all pro-lifers force women to not choose an abortion.

*shm* :roll:

If you really think all of us force women to not choose it, then I am certainly sure you guys blame me (as if it's my fault) for "force" a woman...

Look! I am force no one cos, obviously, I don't tell anyone what to do. I simply stand my thoughts and I share my opinions...

Some wise pro-lifers are NOT force women like I did, too. Oh, wait! I guess you guys just want pro-lifers to be an idiot and stupid.

::roll: in annoyance:

 

[fredfam1]

What lie exactly, was Roe V Wade decided on? And, again, this is exactly why I continue to call your arguments fallicious. Slavery has absolutely nothing to do with Roe V Wade, or with a woman's right to choose. The issues are totally separate concepts, and your insistence on attempting to use one emotionally charged argument to support another is fallicious. Argue abortion on the facts of abortion, not on unrelated topics.

I don't think anyone is in favor of killing babies, but your insistence on calling an embryo 2 weeks into gestation a "baby" is just more indication of thew fallicious nature of your arguments.

But if you want to cloud the issue, would you also grant a married couple the right to IVF?

Since when is using parallel examples fallacious? The lie was that she was gang raped and therefor should not be forced to carry the baby to term.

The lie of Roe v. Wade

Like he says in the article, "Can good law ever be made based on a foundation of lies and deceit?"

And I would support a married couples right to IVF as long as they didn't have to murder a baby to get it. And yes I am opposed to selective reduction personally, but since too many babies in the womb posses a serious threat to the womans life I would not deny her that right. I might be tempted to regulate the number of embryoes implanted, but I am still undecided on that. And as long as I am undecided on an issue I would not help inact legislation one way or another on it.

 

[jillio]

Oh, man!

Not all pro-lifers force women to not choose an abortion.

*shm* :roll:

If you really think all of us force women to not choose it, then I am certainly sure you guys blame me (as if it's my fault) for "force" a woman...

Look! I am force no one cos, obviously, I don't tell anyone what to do. I simply stand my thoughts and I share my opinions...

Some wise pro-lifers are NOT force women like I did, too. Oh, wait! I guess you guys just want pro-lifers to be an idiot and stupid.

::roll: in annoyance:

If you support a candidate that states he is in favor of overturning Roe V Wade, then you are supporting a man that refuses to allow all women to make that choice for themselves. Why? Because they don't believe the same as him. That, in no uncertain terms, is force. If you are in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, it is an attempt to take choice away and force others to adhere to your value system.

 

[jillio]

Since when is using parallel examples fallacious? The lie was that she was gang raped and therefor should not be forced to carry the baby to term.

The lie of Roe v. Wade

Like he says in the article, "Can good law ever be made based on a foundation of lies and deceit?"

And I would support a married couples right to IVF as long as they didn't have to murder a baby to get it. And yes I am opposed to selective reduction personally, but since too many babies in the womb posses a serious threat to the womans life I would not deny her that right. I might be tempted to regulate the number of embryoes implanted, but I am still undecided on that. And as long as I am undecided on an issue I would not help inact legislation one way or another on it.

When they are not parrallel.

Well, that is a pretty hypocritical stance, don't you think? Supporting IVF, but not a woman's right to choose an abortion?

And again, exactly what lie was Roe v Wade founded on? You keep talking about the lies, but have failed to identify the lie of which you speak.

Instead of posting links to right wing propoganda, how about reading the legislation itself. Find me a lie in the legislation, and then we will have something to discuss.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/

 

[fredfam1]

That is not instigating. It is pointing out that your comment is patronizing. Had you used the word "interesting" or "adaptive" or "creative". it would not have been patronizing. "Cute" however, is. To illustrate, your insistence on comparing slavery to abortion is cute. Your claim that you were reviewing an edition of a manual that has not even been compiled, and will not reach the market until 2012 was cute.

Unless you are referring to a small child, a kitten, or a puppy, the use of the descriptive "cute" is patronizing.

Wasn't I refering to small dogs? And you are being misleading. You know I was talking about trying to review the new mannual. And in researching it I found out the new manual draft will be out in 2009. I told you that. And it is cute to think about tiny little dogs barking so hard they make the windows vibrate. And you are an instigator. You like to portray yourself as a logical debator, but you have a "sniper" tendency to make snide, sarcastic remarks, designed to try and humiliate and embarrass others.

 

[KarissaMann05]

If you support a candidate that states he is in favor of overturning Roe V Wade, then you are supporting a man that refuses to allow all women to make that choice for themselves. Why? Because they don't believe the same as him. That, in no uncertain terms, is force. If you are in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, it is an attempt to take choice away and force others to adhere to your value system.

So are you blame me for that, just because what I believe, huh?

Well... there are very rare that pro-lifers, like I do, who not favor illegal abortion. So I don't support abortion as illegal or legal. I don't care if you call me pro-choice cos you want me to be.

So if you really don't care about unborn sprongs, then you don't have any feeling for those descendants of little unborn trolls too. =/

 

[fredfam1]

Since when is using parallel examples fallacious? The lie was that she was gang raped and therefor should not be forced to carry the baby to term.

The lie of Roe v. Wade

Like he says in the article, "Can good law ever be made based on a foundation of lies and deceit?"

And I would support a married couples right to IVF as long as they didn't have to murder a baby to get it. And yes I am opposed to selective reduction personally, but since too many babies in the womb posses a serious threat to the womans life I would not deny her that right. I might be tempted to regulate the number of embryoes implanted, but I am still undecided on that. And as long as I am undecided on an issue I would not help inact legislation one way or another on it.

Did you not see the link I provided? The exact lie was that because she was gang raped she should not be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. She says she was asked to lie by prochoicers in order to guarantee pasage of Roe v Wade.

 

[jillio]

Wasn't I refering to small dogs? And you are being misleading. You know I was talking about trying to review the new mannual. And in researching it I found out the new manual draft will be out in 2009. I told you that. And it is cute to think about tiny little dogs barking so hard they make the windows vibrate. And you are an instigator. You like to portray yourself as a logical debator, but you have a "sniper" tendency to make snide, sarcastic remarks, designed to try and humiliate and embarrass others.

No, you were referring to Bott's claim that she could feel the vibration of her small dog barking through the window. She described an action, your replied to it as being "cute". You did not say her small dog was cute.

And again you are mistaken. The new edition will not be out until 2012. Unless you are on the advisory board, or a contributing author, you will not have access to a copy until it is published in 2012.

If you have a problem with being corrected when you are posting innaccuracies, perhaps you should make sure they are accurate statements prior to posting them.

 

[jillio]

Did you not see the link I provided? The exact lie was that because she was gang raped she should not be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. She says she was asked to lie by prochoicers in order to guarantee pasage of Roe v Wade.

That is stated no where in the actual Roe V Wade decision, and therefore, is nothing more than anti-abortion propoganda.

So, you think that someone who is gang raped should have to carry the pregnancy that results to term?

And yes, I saw your link. I supplied one that is accurate in reply. Roe V Wade was not decided based on the issue of gang rape. It was decided based on the constitutionality of a woman and her physician to make a decision regarding termination of a pregnancy in the first trimester without interference from the state or the federal government, or from those who have a different set of beliefs.

 

[jillio]

Posted September 3, 2008 7:10 PM

by Mark Silva

ST. PAUL - This wouldn't be the first first couple that disagrees about abortion.

Sen. John McCain has said that he believes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, should be overturned.
But Cindy McCain doesn't think so. She said so in an interview with Katie Couric, anchor of the CBS Evening News.

She also suggested that her husband doesn't think so - though he has publicly said he does. There could be some confusion about what she does believe -- follow along.

In any event, this wouldn't be the first first lady, should John McCain get elected president, who disagrees with her husband on the question of abortion. First Lady Laura Bush has refrained from voicing her personal feelings about abortion, and so had Barbara Bush.

But Cindy McCain, while declaring herself "pro-life'' and an opponent of abortion, says the legality of it should be left to the states - which in effect might happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned and states were able to outlaw abortion within their borders.
"Do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned?'' Couric asked.

"No, no, no, no,'' McCain said.

"No? Why not? Your husband does, Couric said.

"No, I don't think he does,'' the candidate's wife said.

"He believes that it should be overturned, that's what he told me, and that it-- it should go to the state,'' Couric said.

"Well, in that respect,'' she said, as the conversation moved to an off-microphone dialog."Yeah, yes, I do. That-- I understand what you're saying now, I agree with the states, it should have...'' she said.

"But you,'' Couric asked, "so you do believe it should be overturned or it shouldn't be overturned?''

"I believe it's a state issue, that I do believe,'' McCain said.

Okay.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/cindy_john_mccain_split_on_roe.html

Maybe you should find out what the candidates really believe before you assume they support a pro-life position. It would appear that McCain's stance changes depending on his audience.

 

[fredfam1]

That is stated no where in the actual Roe V Wade decision, and therefore, is nothing more than anti-abortion propoganda.

So, you think that someone who is gang raped should have to carry the pregnancy that results to term?

And yes, I saw your link. I supplied one that is accurate in reply. Roe V Wade was not decided based on the issue of gang rape. It was decided based on the constitutionality of a woman and her physician to make a decision regarding termination of a pregnancy in the first trimester without interference from the state or the federal government, or from those who have a different set of beliefs.

The real 'Jane Roe'
Well how about an interview with Roe herself? And I think it would be much less damaging physically to continue the pregnancy and give the babies up for adoption. Interuption of the pregnancy cycle carries its own set of problems.

 

[jillio]

The real 'Jane Roe'
Well how about an interview with Roe herself? And I think it would be much less damaging physically to continue the pregnancy and give the babies up for adoption. Interuption of the pregnancy cycle carries its own set of problems.

What does an interview with Roe have to do with the constitutionality of women to choose?

And what you think, and what is actual, are obviously 2 different things. What about psychological damage? That is every bit as destructive to an individual as is physical damage. What about the woman who resorts to illegal means to terminate a preganancy and dies as a result? That certainly sounds as if it is physcially damaging to me.

Overturning Roe v Wade will not lead to fewer abortions. It will lead to more dead women.

And again with the religious argument of a constitutional issue. More fallicy. Separation of church and state. You have the right to choose the religious values you want. You don't have the right to dictate constitutional law based on your religious views.

Roe V Wade was simply the one case that the constitutionality of the law was decided on. You can no more use her individually as support for law, or as a base for law, than you can your own individual views.

And you might want to keep in mind that she sought out the lawyers to defend her case, not the other way around.

And you have still failed to address the issue of hypocracy in supporting IVF while opposing the right to choose. In IVF, several emryos are intentionally implanted with the knowledge that most will not survive. Several embryos that were not implanted are also destroyed. Now if life begins at the moment of conception, and an embryo is a "baby" as you so claim, what about the destruction of these? Is this murder?

 

[fredfam1]

What does an interview with Roe have to do with the constitutionality of women to choose?

And what you think, and what is actual, are obviously 2 different things. What about psychological damage? That is every bit as destructive to an individual as is physical damage. What about the woman who resorts to illegal means to terminate a preganancy and dies as a result? That certainly sounds as if it is physcially damaging to me.

Overturning Roe v Wade will not lead to fewer abortions. It will lead to more dead women.

And again with the religious argument of a constitutional issue. More fallicy. Separation of church and state. You have the right to choose the religious values you want. You don't have the right to dictate constitutional law based on your religious views.

Roe V Wade was simply the one case that the constitutionality of the law was decided on. You can no more use her individually as support for law, or as a base for law, than you can your own individual views.

And you might want to keep in mind that she sought out the lawyers to defend her case, not the other way around.

And you have still failed to address the issue of hypocracy in supporting IVF while opposing the right to choose. In IVF, several emryos are intentionally implanted with the knowledge that most will not survive. Several embryos that were not implanted are also destroyed. Now if life begins at the moment of conception, and an embryo is a "baby" as you so claim, what about the destruction of these? Is this murder?

I stated that I might support the implantation of fewer embryoes, say no more than two because a woman can handle two babies. And yes I beleive the destruction of these is murder. There needs to be a way to implant one embryo successfully and that is currently being developed.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Okay...

I feel I have to defend pro-life belief...

I will post it an explaination later since, obviously, they accuse all pro-lifers as our fault.

Yay! Pro-lifers kill women!!! Yeah, yeah, that's right. It's our fault. :roll:

I'm outta of here. Will come back here later.

 

[fredfam1]

No, you were referring to Bott's claim that she could feel the vibration of her small dog barking through the window. She described an action, your replied to it as being "cute". You did not say her small dog was cute.

And again you are mistaken. The new edition will not be out until 2012. Unless you are on the advisory board, or a contributing author, you will not have access to a copy until it is published in 2012.

If you have a problem with being corrected when you are posting innaccuracies, perhaps you should make sure they are accurate statements prior to posting them.

You don't have to be on an advisary board to read comments by people on the advisory board or to read comments by contributing authors.

CONCLUSIONS

The DSM-V research agenda is ambitious and will embrace the whole of the present classification. The somatoform disorders section was introduced as being speculative, has been much criticized, and lacks a substantial evidence base. It has, however, become a major focus of consultation-liaison psychiatry. It refers to clinical problems in which there is an interaction of physiology, pathology, and psychological factors, factors for which consultation-liaison psychiatrists are arguably better placed to understand than any of their colleagues. We call for further research and debate about our basic concepts and terminology and also for active involvement in the political process that is the inevitable and fundamental part of revising a classification. We should at least contemplate the more radical solutions, such as abolition, even if in the end we opt for caution. At the same time, we need to much more effectively assert our clinical expertise. This should depend on saying and demonstrating what we can do rather than clinging to a terminology and classification that we ourselves know to be unsatisfactory, poorly understood by others, and unlikely to be acceptable to our patients.

We suggest that consultation-liaison psychiatrists should set out the ways in which the program for DSM-V might most usefully deal with a major developing area of their clinical expertise. Whether the outcome is major revision of the present category or abolition, this is an opportunity for fundamental discussion and further research. It is an opportunity to try and ensure that the issues that are not well understood within psychiatry, or in medicine as a whole, are given the attention they deserve. We hope that Psychosomatics will be a major forum for the debate.

 

[fredfam1]

What does an interview with Roe have to do with the constitutionality of women to choose?

And what you think, and what is actual, are obviously 2 different things. What about psychological damage? That is every bit as destructive to an individual as is physical damage. What about the woman who resorts to illegal means to terminate a preganancy and dies as a result? That certainly sounds as if it is physcially damaging to me.

Overturning Roe v Wade will not lead to fewer abortions. It will lead to more dead women.

And again with the religious argument of a constitutional issue. More fallicy. Separation of church and state. You have the right to choose the religious values you want. You don't have the right to dictate constitutional law based on your religious views.

Roe V Wade was simply the one case that the constitutionality of the law was decided on. You can no more use her individually as support for law, or as a base for law, than you can your own individual views.

And you might want to keep in mind that she sought out the lawyers to defend her case, not the other way around.

And you have still failed to address the issue of hypocracy in supporting IVF while opposing the right to choose. In IVF, several emryos are intentionally implanted with the knowledge that most will not survive. Several embryos that were not implanted are also destroyed. Now if life begins at the moment of conception, and an embryo is a "baby" as you so claim, what about the destruction of these? Is this murder?

Actually she asked the two lawyers to help her find a place she could legally obtain an abortion. She said they would not do that because they wanted her to be pregnant during the trial. Is that looking after her best interests? Or do you think the end justifies the means?