Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

If a person does not get the response they wanted within a thread in the timeframe they wanted, sometimes there is a good reason for that. People like me need a break from all the abortion talk and with the way mindspin keeps these threads going, the only way to take a break is to flat out ignore something for a bit and get back to it later.

If you U2U me with the exact same argument you made in the thread, I am going to inform you that my U2U messages are not a place to fight thread arguments. It will not happen. I will ONCE nicely inform you that I do not take kindly to having the same argument hand delivered because I have not gotten to it fast enough.

When you persist and I tell you that being pushy does the opposite of help. Take the hint. When I say I will not argue the argument from the thread in my U2U messages and you send me 9 more messages trying to get me to do it, chances are I am going to go out of my way to let you hang longer.

So to you folks that know who you are...lying, being rude, assuming authority, and demanding that I give in...

ALL THINGS NOT HELPING THIS DISCUSSION GO ANYWHERE.

If this is confusing, take a look at the last 70 pages and see how many hearts and minds have been changed by these techniques so far.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

MindSpin has tried to bully everyone in the thread

You are the third person to accuse me of being a "bully".

Like I said to the other two...a bully needs leverage or an advantage to bully others.


What is my leverage or advantage that is allowing me to "bully" others?

Dear me i touched a nerve didn't I, the fact you trawled back to get that little reply. I would argue that using the number of personal insults you have (without evidence) and insinuating things about people (without evidence) are the actions of a bully. Also continually claiming your question hasn't been answered when it has been answered repeatedly and ignoring people who point that out is like using a psychological battering ram. Furthermore manipulation could be argued to be a form of bullying if it is being used to illicit an angry response, and trolling has been compared to bullying, and oh dear how troll like you are sir.

Naughty bully.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

He may have pushed the "man hater" term to far

Examples please???

Or have you been reduced to baseless claims?

I have directed my "man hater" comments to one or two members...never have I made a blanket statement.

But please...prove me wrong...if you can

reply to post by Kailassa

If the discussion was about life on other planets, whose opinion would have more validity, yours or an astrobiologist's?

There's nothing sexist about giving more credit to the opinion of the person with more knowledge of the subject.

I agree 100%...the word of the experts should matter the most.


Let's listen to the biologists

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by MindSpin

But I got your private message, so bye...again. (Is this the 4th or 5th time you said you are done with me????)

I said i was done debating you, exposing you are a liar and manipulator is never getting old

That's all you'll get, me proving you are a liar and i already gave a detailed post on that one.

And I disputed it...and you ignored it.

So...please try again.

Originally posted by MindSpin
And I disputed it...and you ignored it.

So...please try again.

the post about you lying is there for all to see, it's very clear, you didn't dispute anything, you tried to spin it as you did with your original reply.

But nice try my little friend.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Dear me i touched a nerve didn't I, the fact you trawled back to get that little reply. I would argue that using the number of personal insults you have (without evidence) and insinuating things about people (without evidence) are the actions of a bully. Also continually claiming your question hasn't been answered when it has been answered repeatedly and ignoring people who point that out is like using a psychological battering ram. Furthermore manipulation could be argued to be a form of bullying if it is being used to illicit an angry response, and trolling has been compared to bullying, and oh dear how troll like you are sir.

Naughty bully.

Touched a nerve...nah...entertained me...absolutely.

You are just giving my arguments more credibility by calling me a bully...because you are implying leverage...so thanks for that.


If you could so kindly provide me with examples by quoting where I have personally insulted someone without evidence...I would appreciate it. Most of the time....the people are insulting themselves...they just don't realize it.


I am sorry if you can't keep up with my questions, that you can't look forward to where the questioning leads and that you were so easily manipulated into admitting you support the killing of human life.

The truth hurts sometimes...instead of lashing out at me about it...maybe it is some time for a little self reflection and examine how you feel about supporting of killing humans.

reply to post by Sinnthia

It will not happen. I will ONCE nicely inform you that I do not take kindly to having the same argument hand delivered because I have not gotten to it fast enough.

When you persist and I tell you that being pushy does the opposite of help.

Aren't you a bossy little one...how does that work out for you?

Just for the record...I haven't sent Sinthia one U2U...she must be directing her anger issues to another member.


Have a good day hun...take a deep breath.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Aren't you a bossy little one...how does that work out for you?

Of course, what right do I have to ask that people not litter my own inbox with 20 requests I answer their post in this thread. That sounds about right from you. Since I am still getting them, I guess it is working out as well for me as your lies are for you here.

I asked that the conversation stay in the thread, not my inbox. I am not sure why that is pushy. I do know that 20 private messages later, I am not CLOSER to wanting to respond though. I never said they came from you. Guilty conscience?

reply to post by Sinnthia

I never said they came from you. Guilty conscience?

Nope...I don't think I might have accidentally sent them

Guilty conscience doesn't even make sense here.

I just know that people in this thread realize that you and I have been going back and forth...so I just wanted to clear up an assumptions that may be made.

Ok???

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984




Sorry i cant offer an opinion on kidney stone pain. But i do have an occuring back problem

from time to time (touch wood i havent had it for some time now) When it happens i can

hardly walk and have to have bed rest with strong pain killers for anything up to a week.....

and no childbirth is MUCH MUCH worse...........Try passing a melon from a small orifice

and you may have some idea !! I think it is fair to say that probabaly every woman in the

thro's of childbirth says NEVER AGAIN.................

I did say in my post everyone's opinion was valid but it is the persons personal experience

(man or woman) that form their opinions so there is always going to be a bias of sorts.

I am well aware again from personal experience that for years women had no rights..........

When i got divorced i was unable to take out HP agreements without the guarantee of a man's

signature and when i went for a coil fitting i was told i would need my then husbands written

permission!! My body my responsibility.Thank God society has moved on from there.

Now back to your question of a man supporting a womans right to an abortion (his opinion

meaning less) If a woman wanted a man to have a circumcision surely it would be right for

her opinion to mean less than that of the man.

reply to post by eletheia


Well my doctor (female btw) said terrible back pain is comparable to child birth, at the time i was on heavy opiate medication to deal with it so i'll just take her word, and she did have a child btw. But hey each to their own

Quite simply everyones opinon is valid, including a womans if she's talking about circumcision, as long as she sticks to facts. If she starts venturing into the area of "whats the big deal" i would say she is crossing a line, just like a man would be if he stated that abortion is no big deal because that's an emotional perspective.

owever simply debating the facts is something a man can do as well as a woman.

IRONY

Some male member sends me a private message to convey how upset he is with the way he feels I have portrayed men with my words in the thread. I respond that I saw that and I will get to it...later. I am then told that I really need to get to it now. I then inform said poster that not only will I get to it when I DECIDE to get to it, I will certainly not have the same argument in my U2U box and no more of that would be nice. So then I get over a dozen more messages basically demanding I respond now to charges that I have said ugly things about men in general. I am just curious if this man realizes the irony in trying to force a woman to submit to him in order to retract a statement he feels makes men seem like bullies.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Lets me clear madam, you contacted me, i didn't contact you. And i did not demand you responded to me staight away, i simply relayed my opinion in the hope you would understand it better and you responded with vitriol.

I have asked you to leave me alone multiple times and you keep bothering me via U2U, i tried to make peace and you used profanity. I asked to be friends and you used more profanity.

Don't make yourself out to be an innocent victim.

If this continues i will get the mods involved and they can trawl through our U2U's. I never asked you to reply in the thread, i actually asked you to settle our issues via U2U as they were off topic and i was hoping we could resolve them peacefully. And i only asked that in REPLY to the U2U that you sent to me.

But you just kept U2U'ing profanity at me and calling me this and that.

reply to post by Kailassa




In any discussion i would take the opinion of someone with more learning and knowledge

than myself be they male or female.

And i think the rest of your questions have been answered in my previous post to

ImaginaryReality gender is immaterial. I once worked for a 'blue chip' company the only

woman in a sales force of aprox 100 men !!

reply to post by Sinnthia


At least we have something in common.

Imaginary Reality is flooding my inbox as well.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984




I can well imagine a doctor saying that.............I well remember saying to the midwife

whilst giving birth for the third time "Why do we always kid ourselves that it's not as bad as

it is" And i still went on to have another !

Ain't nature wonderful if it didn't give us birth 'amnesia' humanity would die out

reply to post by MindSpin

I'm glad to know that I was on your mind enough for you to come back and check on me

Wow, I specifically said, "on this thread"? Do you presume you are the only person who matters in this thread? What an ego!

Originally posted by 22ndsecond
reply to post by MindSpin

 

I'm glad to know that I was on your mind enough for you to come back and check on me

Wow, I specifically said, "on this thread"? Do you presume you are the only person who matters in this thread? What an ego!

I seem to be the only one you are responding to. 9 of your 13 replies in this thread are directed towards me.

So.......

reply to post by MindSpin

None of your "sources" say this. And like your source says...little research has been done since the 1960's. They may know more about the adult human brain...but your source trying to extrapolate that to the developing brain is a huge logical leap with no backing SCIENCE.

The source says this clearly:

There are reasons, based on the physics of the EEG, why this has to be so. Remember, an EEG involves measuring varying electrical potential across a dipole, or separated charges. To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record "brain waves" prior to 20-24 weeks. Period. End of story. Scientists do not attempt to find electrocortical activity in embryos and fetuses because they know more about the physical structure of the developing human brain than they did in 1963.

And about your "source"...it is a pro-choice blogger....FOR CHRISTS SAKE MAN...WTF??? Do you really think that is a credible SOURCE???

Is there a factual error somewhere? Attack the message, not the messenger. Is Talkorigins not a credible source on evolution, just because its anticreationist? I have never said you cannot link prolife sites, if you think they contain factual and correct information. Feel free to do so.

OK, if you dont like it, here is a paper saying exactly the same thing:

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39

Seriously...1987 paper??? Can you get something from at least this decade??? Your blogger dismiss 1964 studies...but uses 1987 studies as cutting edge science???

My blogger does not dismiss the "study" because of its age, but because its not a study at all, but opinion piece, and the information there is simply incorrect. Is the 1987 paper not correct? Do you have some newer paper that contradicts it?

Here is a blog about the blog:
tigtogblog.blogspot.com...

Sykes digs through the generations of pamphlets citing other pamphlets to find the original science on which the factoid is based, and comes up with a cite from a 1964 AMA convention speech transcript (not a research paper at all) published in the JAMA arguing for brain function rather than heart function to determine cessation of life, and a 1982 letter (not a peer-reviewed paper) published in the NEJM. As Sykes says, "no original research is being described here, which makes it dishonest and misleading to quote it as the source of a claim".

Sykes dissects the misuse of these citations (both should strictly mention the status as convention proceedings/letters rather than research papers), showing that both of these opinion pieces incorrectly summarise science that is now either discredited or obsolete (and always refers to "electrical activity" rather than "brain waves"), then goes on to detail what medical science actually does show about the development of a functioning human brain:

Let's go to the debate forum....PLEASE???? Let's let others judge your wikipedia and pro-choice blogger sources vs my medical website sources. Are you willing to do that?

If you change the topic from "when does biological human life begin" (where we simply agree, so there would be no debate) to "what qualities must life have to be protected", I might consider that...

MRI scans need a specific target to focus on. It would probably take an entire month or longer to scan the entire body using MRI.

That depends on the technique used, but it would certainly not take whole month. OK, lets just say we would scan only the brain for tumors, every month. It would still save many lives. If its saves even one life, we cannot look at economics at all, right?

So if a fetus develops brain waves early...that means it is going to die???
How exactly does that logic work???

In the same way how allowing cars on public roads or airplanes work. Its an acceptable risk, compared to the benefits it brings, and potential bad effects of banning it. And the probability that someone will get hit by a car is ridiculously high compared to the probability that a living fetus will have BW in third month (which is virtually zero, unless its a grey alien-human hybrid or what ), and the mother would not want it, and it wont get aborted sooner (overwhelming majority of abortions happen in the first month). You are using virtually impossible situations to try to prove me wrong.

Philosophy is not a science...sociology is a "social science"...why do you continue to try to distort these facts??? If you call philosophy a science...then I guess you are calling Religion a science.

Philosophy uses scientific method, you cannot seriously compare it to religion.

It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3]

Social science is science.

Objective moral bassis??? Nothing you have been saying is objective...it is all SUBJECTIVE...confirmed by the fact that not everyone agrees on your set of morals.

If all people claimed the earth is flat, it wont change the fact that its round. What people think is not important, what logic and science says is important.

Further...your "source" you are using here is saying "consciousness"...which you previously dismissed...because you know as well as I it is hard to prove a newborn baby is "conscious".

Newborn baby is definately conscious, there is no question about that.

Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic consciousness and they still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness.

There is a very thin line between sentience and basic consciousness, the difference is only being actively aware of the self, and the world (if even inner world qualifies, then this is surely contained in sentience too). But I agree that Harris should have used the more correct term sentience (and probably meant it if you follow the thought process), it directly comes from the derived goal of reducing suffering, since beings can probably feel even when they are not actively aware of the self. People often confuse the two terms and use them interchangeably, because they are almost similar.

The fact is, neither sentience not consciousness can exist without brain waves, so if they are not present, we can safely say neither are there with 100% certainty. Thats what is used and what should be used as a basis for protection, since its a basic common physical criterion that establishes any non-zero probability that those qualities even exist (or lack of it establishes 100% probability that they dont exist - brain death as the end of protection). And thats all we need, to determine till when the protected qualities are surely NOT present, and only till then allow abortions. Or to put it better, we dont even have to know exactly when or even what protected qualities are, we must know only when and what they are not.

The questions were already answered many times, look them up in my previous posts.