The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 6

I can address the stem cell argument later when I have more energy.  Tomorrow's my anniversary, Still preparing for Christmas, I'm behind in work, and I'm devoting too much time already to the collaborative ROTJ edit.  Besides, this thread weighs very heavily on me.  Last night as I put my daughter to sleep, the conversation here just made me sad.  It's hard for me to address this topic, and I feel particularly self-conscious about my style of late anyway.  I can come back later when I feel better prepared emotionally.

darth_ender said:

the conversation here just made me sad. 

You expected something different?

EXPECTATIONS!

For my third audio interjection, fast forward to the last 7 minutes of this podcast:

http://www.startalkradio.net/?p=441

When Science Crashes the Party | StarTalk Radio Show by Neil deGrasse Tyson interviewing Janeane Garofalo

DONE and GONE!

I don't understand Garofalo.   She complains about the media not leaning left enough, yet most people believe that the media leans very much toward the left.   Most on the right complain that the media is biased against them.  

Warbler wrote: I don't understand Garofalo.   She complains about the media not leaning left enough, yet most people believe that the media leans very much toward the left.   Most on the right complain that the media is biased against them.

FOCUS!  This is the ABORTION thread.  Take the media left/right stuff to the POLITICS thread.

You posted the Garofalo thing in here, so I responded in here.  

Warbler wrote: You posted the Garofalo thing in here, so I responded in here.

Yes you did, sweat loaf*.  What did you think about the ABORTION point they made? (at around 7 minutes left in the program)

(paraphrasing) the abortion point made in the podcast was that more fetuses are dispelled from human female bodies by natural causes then by abortion technicians*.  (I believe this applies to Locust* ones too.)

"Daddy, what does regret mean?"*

(* reference = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYGoougMHSQ )

Alexrd said:

none said:

(paraphrasing) the abortion point made in the podcast was that more fetuses are dispelled from human female bodies by natural causes then by abortion technicians*.

Erm... What's the point they're trying to make?

THIS.

bingo ^

Pro-Metheus :

georgec said:

georgec said:

This made me laugh.

Wasn't sure if I should put this in the politics thread, but oh well.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/16/985393/-Rick-Santorum-is-against-abortion-for-any-reason,-with-one-exception-

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Or it's another politician saying "do as I say, not as I do."

Daily Kos argues here that if you favor any kind of choice, in this case when someone's life is at risk, then you should favor all choice.  I really is an either-or fallacy.  If he has never said he opposes abortion when a mother's life is at risk, then he is clearly not being hypocritical.  Note that I don't entirely agree with his stance, though we are rather close (I allow exceptions when mental health is at risk as well, which allows specifically for the incest and rape cases).  But this blog is not presenting the case fairly.  I also advocate Medicaid for the destitute, but that doesn't mean I advocate mandated tax-funded health care for everyone.  To say that supporting one means I support all creates a false dilemma.

Also note that being a hypocrite, while it does often invalidate a person in the eyes of the populace, does not actually invalidate the point.  If a man who opposes adultery commits adultery, that doesn't suddenly mean adultery is okay.

And after all this in his defense, I'm not even in favor of Santorum.

darth_ender said:

If he has never said he opposes abortion when a mother's life is at risk, then he is clearly not being hypocritical.

When I was leading the charge on partial birth abortion, several members came forward and said, "Why don’t we just ban all abortions?" Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective.

georgec said:

TV's Frink said:

Or it's another politician saying "do as I say, not as I do."

You mean like the ones who hate gays but love meeting up with them in gas stations and motels?

Then such statements are hypocritical unless he had a genuine change of heart, (which I am more willing to grant a politician than most).  But even if he is a true hypocrite, it does not invalidate the point.  It merely makes him look weak on his stance.

darth_ender said:

But even if he is a true hypocrite, it does not invalidate the point.