posted on March 16, 2001 02:33:11 PM
As you probably already know, the first PBA thread was locked because the moderator thought the "discussion…was losing it's perspective. It was becoming combative as well."
It just goes to show that there are certain things that certain groups don't want anyone to know about, and will do anything to stop people from hearing about it. This is one of the main reasons why you don't hear very much about PBA, among other things, in the media. It's a form of censorship. “We don’t like what you are saying, so we will start a riot to block your expression.” The locked thread proves this again.
Whenever the facts about certain topics are stated, some people fall all over themselves desperately doing anything they can to get the topic back into the dark and out of sight. Some go so far with name-calling and behaving with rudeness and hostility.
This was demonstrated by some of the posters with the last PBA thread. Some of those who want PBA legal came up with every excuse came out as to why the PBA thread was 'inappropriate'. When that didn’t work, those few resorted to bullying tactics—attacking anyone who seemed to agree with the first post. Some of the things said were so ridiculous—it was funny in a sad sort of way. If you go back and look at the thread, there are a few who have no respect for others (possibly no self-respect either), respecting only those who agree with them.
On the other hand, there were a few who might have disagreed, but were respectful. With the posters like this, a fruitful discussion is possible. I appreciate discussion with posters like this, because I learn much from them. Some that come to mind right away from past threads I’ve participated in are RainyBear, jamesoblivion, and bobbysoxer. Too bad there aren’t more posters like these folks here at the AW Round Table. There probably are, but they see all the bashing going on and hesitate to post.
It's too bad the thread got locked, because it seemed the initial ranting was starting to die down so that a serious discussion could begin. I hope we can have productive discussions in the future about controversial topics without the hysteria.
posted on March 16, 2001 02:37:15 PM I hope we can have productive discussions in the future...
I wonder, what do you mean by 'productive discussions'? Do you really think that you can 'bring folks around' to your thinking by posting on a message board?
It ain't gonna happen.
I will say that everytime I see this 'stuff' it just reinforces my desire and action to keep the government and the religious right out of MY body.
posted on March 16, 2001 02:39:16 PM
Maybe not you particularly, lotsafuzz, but someone. Why not? After all, I see lots of people here posting their ideas.
I see you are making assumptions--'religious right'...
'productive discussion'...can you say you have never learned anything from a discussion on a message board?
posted on March 16, 2001 02:56:59 PM
zazzie, yes I have, and am grateful for it. Message boards are wonderful tools for that. Haven't you?
muriel, heh heh! I hope not! But the first topics you mention are my favorites...
lotsafuzz, yes I agree on your comment about your body--but why have so many people forgotten about a baby's body (especially when the baby is nearly out of the mother's body)?
posted on March 16, 2001 02:57:01 PMthe initial ranting was starting to die down
... having been incited by the ranting in the initial post...
-gaffan-
posted on March 16, 2001 02:59:15 PM
Personally I see a productive discussion as an exchange of ideas...not as someone spamming a board with quotes, misquotes and outright crap. There is a valid argument against PBAs and you have not seen it yet.
Do you know what was previously done medically in many similar cases that PBAs are now used?
Do you realize that many of the quotes you posted...were only partial quotes that carried a completely different message when quoted completely?
Do you realize that some of your sources were noy credible as they based their findings on an agenda, not research?
I thought that most everyone in that thread was extremely calm...even when one person went over the edge and just copied and pasted quote after quote after quote...that did not give a complete story, the complete picture.
PBAs are also used in the case where the fetus (infant) has died. They are used in hydrocephalic infants that are not viable.
A very few infants between 20-24 weeks gestation have survived after birth...most with major medical problems and a tremendous cost. They overall consider 26 weeks gestation as viable.
I personally doubt your claims that PBAs are performed on demand on a regular basis.
Mental health is essential to physical health.
Lisa pointed out several times various aspects of where your tale was flawed...you did not even show her the curticy of a response.
I think you started this thread solely to start a problem here at the RT. You deliberately accused others of causing the PBA thread to be locked...yet you were the one being disrespectful and rude to any who disagreed with you. I personally believe this is nothing more than a troll thread.
I thought the thread was quite calm, considering that you would never answer any direct questions, and just kept posting links to very biased sources, or extremely biased or misleading "facts", or just downright misquoting.
And then came the amazing Mommy thread....
JEEEZ!
Again... What would you rather happen instead? Come up with some viable alternative that addresses ALL the issues, moral, personal, medical... and THEN maybe we can have a DISCUSSION!
posted on March 16, 2001 03:07:44 PM
Had your quotes come from the AMA and not from Right to Life, or a Catholic site(btw, I am Catholic, if it matters), perhaps your motives would not have been called into question.
I don't see the ACOG calling for a ban, but rather from some who would like to push their morals onto others.
Until you have been in the position of having to make such a decision, be it a early or late termination for whatever reason, you have no right to foist this upon others.
posted on March 16, 2001 03:08:55 PM
No...it was pointed out to you at the time.
You said you just went back and reread the thread...did you ignore it this time too, but you think I should show you. Go read it again...just read what other people said too...not just your own post.
Crap is the inaccuracies that you repeatedly posted...even after it was pointed out to you. I find crap to be a polite word...but if you feel better...substitute BS for crap.
You are repeatedly condescending and rude to any who disagree with you...yes you do sugar coat it...but that makes it no less rude.
With that I will not post any more to this troll thread.
posted on March 16, 2001 03:28:20 PM
I'm waiting for God to strike me dead.
The more I am exposed to this stuff, the happier I am to attend Quaker meetings. I love going to services where there is just silence, as people sit in quiet contemplation. No sermons, no prayers, no hymns.
When people feel the spirit move them to speak, they do, and it is often about something relevant to others in the meeting. It can be something quite simple, like noticing the spring returning, and this can spark others speaking about renewal, death and re-birth, or just the pleasure of being alive.
It can sometimes be more difficult, speaking of the torment of finding forgiveness difficult, and others opening their hearts to reveal that they too have/had the problem, and what they seek to do/have done.
But best of all, is sitting in a room full of people from mixed backgrounds, ethnic and religious, who have found a comfortable place there, seeking their own light to guide them in the company of others who also wish to seek, rather than be directed.
posted on March 16, 2001 03:44:15 PM
mivona, by the way...I appreciate the way you respect other posters. I should have mentioned you earlier. The 'Mommy' story was good, even though it is fiction. It makes people think. There is nothing wrong with that.
The main point of the first thread was how PBA is kept from discussion in the media.
Discussion did start, then came a wave of hysteria. I suspected the thread was going to be locked, so I was posting all I could before that happened (remember the main goal of the thread). Most weren't posting anything to back up the opposing argument. A few did (you were one), and we didn't get to discuss or thank those that did (THANKS TO THOSE WHO DID). I was waiting for the hostility to go away--and it did start to, but apparently not soon enough. Maybe we can now, if the troublemakers stay away.
"Shall we discuss why it is that those who have "morals" think that their "morals" are the only ones that have value?
Or what it is that makes (fill in the blank) so rigid in their perspectives?
Or why some people believe they have the right to determine what goes on in the privacy of another's life?" --It's amazing how the same can be thought by people in both camps.
toollady, did you miss the AMA citations? I might have gotten items from Catholic church sites and such, but they were still from neutral parties. Anyway, what is wrong with posting prolife citations? I'm surprised you are a Catholic for PBA? I haven't been with the Catholic church now for over 20 years--aren't they still staunchly prolife?
"...who would like to push their morals onto others..." And what about the babies who are having morals pushed on them?
"Until you have been in the position of having to make such a decision, be it a early or late termination for whatever reason, you have no right to foist this upon others." --you are making assumptions about me. How is posting in a thread 'foisting' on you? I don't have the right to post something you don't agree with? I'm not forcing you to read it, am I?
grannyfox, now I see your disclaimer, and will just leave it at that.
posted on March 16, 2001 03:53:51 PM
The AMA citations were partial, and quoted out of context in a manipulative way...
Would you care to post/link the whole JAMA thing?
Nope... probably not... but they were backed up in the other thread.
You still haven't come up with anything positive... like what you want INSTEAD, like how you think you could fix this without just out-and-out banning it.
The opposing arguments suggested several actions that could assist in the reduction of need for D&X abortions.
You have come up with zilch, beyond throwing a lot of misleading "facts", misquotings and bias.
posted on March 16, 2001 03:56:56 PM
Hello Everyone,
First let me say that a thread is only a post until someone other than the originator hits that 'post reply' button.
The posts in this thread are all disruptive and insulting to many of the AuctionWatch.com Membership.
mzalez,
You said some people fall all over themselves desperately doing anything they can to get the topic back into the dark and out of sight. Some go so far with name-calling and behaving with rudeness and hostility
This thread appears to be here for the purpose of flaming the people that disagreed with you in the other thread you started.
Knowing abortion is such a hot topic with high emotional value for so many, makes me wonder why you are starting anew.
Keep to a subject and no insults, veiled or direct and that goes for everyone!
posted on March 16, 2001 04:12:40 PMso if someone says something you don't agree with it's a 'rant'?
...'scuse me? Did you not characterize the posts of others as "rants"?
...and just augmenting (as though she needs it) Granny Fox's comments - I found the repeated references to testimony given before a congressional committee as though that somehow conferred the stamp of Truth upon them to be laughable. In aggregate, testimony before congressional committees is the closest humankind has ever come to putting an infinite number of monkeys in a room with an infinite number of typewriters. Testimony is typically adversarial and intended to further the stance or interests of the testifier, without regard to accuracy or truth. Citing such testimony as factual evidence is beyond the pale of reason or logic.
posted on March 16, 2001 04:13:36 PM
Thanks for your observation Joice.
"Knowing abortion is such a hot topic with high emotional value for so many, makes me wonder why you are starting anew." --My intention was not to flame anyone. I was just backing up the claim in the original thread that this is a subject some people want desperately hidden.
"This thread appears to be here for the purpose of flaming the people that disagreed with you in the other thread you started." --If anything, I was flamed by those who didn't agree with what I posted.
Perhaps they are at it again...make it a combative thread and it will be shut down.
No insults or threats from me here.
mivona, the whole JAMA citation is there in the other thread. I would like to discuss with you, if you are willing to do so respectfully and without games.
posted on March 16, 2001 04:16:22 PM
Actually... one last post before I retire...
I was just wondering about the title of this thread... including WARFARE.
What's the deal about that, mzalez? Feeling beleagured? Tired of people not agreeing with you? Actually having to ARGUE the point to win it? Having to try to come up with FACTS that are properly researched and not taken out of context?
You seem to take it that we are on morally opposing sides. Listen to this very carefully.
Nobody likes D&X.
Let me repeat that....
Nobody likes D&X.
But some of us recognise that life is complicated, and even though it is unpleasant, sometimes unpleasant things have to happen. It is about determining which is less unpleasant and... this is a personal choice.
What I do with my life, you may never wish to do with your life. Your lifestyle may be completely repugnant to me. But do I have the right to tell you how to live? No. And you have no right to tell others either.
That is the bottom line. It is not about WARFARE. It is about knowing when not to engage with others whom you perceive as alien.
posted on March 16, 2001 04:24:26 PM
Just because I am of the Catholic faith, does not mean I go along with the church on every level.
There are several issues I have with the church: birth control, divorce and abortion just being three off the top of my head.
If you would like to get into a discussion about the Catholic Church, please feel free to start another thread and I will be glad to share my views and experiences with the Church.
Bottom line is, the government and church have no right to butt into reproductive rights of women.
