Political Crossfire Forums

[Sailor Moon]

The testimonies of ex abortion providers isnt good debate?



:lol:

Could've fooled me!

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: The testimonies of ex abortion providers isnt good debate?



:lol:

Could've fooled me!

It has nothing to do with content, all to do with perception of potential bias. Doesn't matter what you quote, if the site has a bias toward a specific argument.

[Sailor Moon]

So does every pro choice site. I oppose the pro choice abortion movement, and most of my best stuff to oppose this is on pro :shock: life sites.


What is youre problem? Cant take a little truth?

[Gryff1nd0r]

Sailor Moon wrote: You didnt read any other stories? There are quite a few of them. I implore you to read them.

http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/


And also, WHY oh WHY is it safe? Really. Tell me this.

If you read that testimony, it speaks of people with no medical background and minimal training performing dangerous operations, and they have no idea of how to handle an emergency. There is no argument against the fact that fully trained and educated doctors, with proper facilities, equipment, and staff would not be safer than the situation described by the woman in the testimony. If its going to be done, let it be done correctly.

[Sailor Moon]

One testimony. ONE.

The rest are all accredited doctors trained to do abortions.

Wanna keep lying about my sites, or will you actually use your guts and read up a little more?

[Gryff1nd0r]

UrielsFyre wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: The testimonies of ex abortion providers isnt good debate?



:lol:

Could've fooled me!

It has nothing to do with content, all to do with perception of potential bias. Doesn't matter what you quote, if the site has a bias toward a specific argument.

I don't know if it is possible to find a reliable, un-biased website on a topic like abortion.

[Gryff1nd0r]

Sailor Moon wrote: One testimony. ONE.

The rest are all accredited doctors trained to do abortions.

Wanna keep lying about my sites, or will you actually use your guts and read up a little more?

Is that directed at me? Did I lie?

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: So does every pro choice site. I oppose the pro choice abortion movement, and most of my best stuff to oppose this is on pro :shock: life sites.


What is youre problem? Cant take a little truth?

No, I have no problems with any "truth" that you bring forward. Just letting you know how percieved bias in source citation can effect an audience's perception of the argument presented.

[Sailor Moon]

Why is it that you consider a source that used to be pro choice biased?

Just because they changed to pro life, that makes them biased?

Thats ridiculous! You cant face the truth. Thats the bottom line here.

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: Why is it that you consider a source that used to be pro choice biased?

Just because they changed to pro life, that makes them biased?

Thats ridiculous! You cant face the truth. Thats the bottom line here.

I wouldn't make assumptions about what I can and can not handle.

Pro-choice, Pro-life, whatever. It matters not what side of the argument they are on. Using a site supporting a cause as evidence of the righteousness of that cause is poor debate.

[Sailor Moon]

Oh.. so pro lifers should go try to get on some "unbiased" website and have their testimonies posted on the web? And you wouldnt call this unbiased website that allows pro life statements, "biased"????

Interesting. Hmmm... :roll:

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: Oh.. so pro lifers should go try to get on some "unbiased" website and have their testimonies posted on the web? And you wouldnt call this unbiased website that allows pro life statements, "biased"????

Interesting. Hmmm... :roll:

Apparently trying to get you to understand the concept of source bias is not possible. :roll:

Continue on with your biased sources, that's fine.

[Sailor Moon]

No, I do understand. Heres the problem:

Anyone who is pro life is biased (according to pro choicers) regardless of their experience in the field of abortion, and regardless of any prior pro choice stance they ever had.

For instance, soooo many people claim that Roe VS wade was a fair and constitutional trial decision, but people consider Norma McCorvey, who was the ROE of Roe vs Wade, and who is now pro life's statements about being pro life as "biased" even though she is commonly mentioned in support of Roe VS Wade, from her past pro choice standpoint.

Quite hypocritical.

If you want the whole truth, you have to accept the whole truth. Half truths are simply not allowed. In other words, to say that you would consider a site to be biased even though it had several pro life, reformed abortionists (who used to be pro choice) statements in it, then it is unfair and it disallows people with actual experience to state their case, the truth, about abortion.

If you really want the truth about abortion clinics, then you need to go right to the source. Really. Go volunteer. Then you will see the unbiased, cold hard truth of it all.

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: No, I do understand. Heres the problem:

Anyone who is pro life is biased (according to pro choicers) regardless of their experience in the field of abortion, and regardless of any prior pro choice stance they ever had.

For instance, soooo many people claim that Roe VS wade was a fair and constitutional trial decision, but people consider Norma McCorvey, who was the ROE of Roe vs Wade, and who is now pro life's statements about being pro life as "biased" even though she is commonly mentioned in support of Roe VS Wade, from her past pro choice standpoint.

Quite hypocritical.

If you want the whole truth, you have to accept the whole truth. Half truths are simply not allowed. In other words, to say that you would consider a site to be biased even though it had several pro life, reformed abortionists (who used to be pro choice) statements in it, then it is unfair and it disallows people with actual experience to state their case, the truth, about abortion.

If you really want the truth about abortion clinics, then you need to go right to the source. Really. Go volunteer. Then you will see the unbiased, cold hard truth of it all.

Okay, one more time Sailor. You are quoting a site called PROLIFEACTION to support a PRO LIFE argument. That is like using the GOP website to back up claims about what the Republican politicians are up to. You are only going to get the information that supports THEIR claim. You can not make an accurate statement about an issue when you are using information provided only by one side. It matters not that there are testimonies from people on that site who were once pro-choice. Do you honestly think they would put something up that disagreed with them?

That is what bias is all about. Sites, newspapers, radio programs, anything that is designed to tell only one side of a story is going to be biased. It is just that simple.

[Selfish_Meme]

Pro-choice websites are just as biased as Pro-life websites.

The best way to support an argument about any subject is to use statistics from an organisation that just collects statistics and shouldn't have any bias to your cause, like these:

National Center for Health Statistics (Center for Disease Control)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/

American Statistical Association
http://www.amstat.org/

FedStats Home Page
www.fedstats.gov/

Also testimonials are never evidence, they are hearsay. That is because, surprisingly enough, some people lie.

Statistics normalise the replies for a lot of people so the lies are normalised against the true responses. Because, surprisingly enough, most people tell the truth when they are anonymous.

[Gryff1nd0r]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Pro-choice websites are just as biased as Pro-life websites.

The best way to support an argument about any subject is to use statistics from an organisation that just collects statistics and shouldn't have any bias to your cause, like these:

National Center for Health Statistics (Center for Disease Control)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/

American Statistical Association
http://www.amstat.org/

FedStats Home Page
www.fedstats.gov/

Also testimonials are never evidence, they are hearsay. That is because, surprisingly enough, some people lie.

Statistics normalise the replies for a lot of people so the lies are normalised against the true responses. Because, surprisingly enough, most people tell the truth when they are anonymous.

Good post, good post. Wecome to PC.

[Selfish_Meme]

Back to the topic though,

It seems to me if abortion was illegal because of the rights to life of the unborn then:

the unborn babies rights to life is greater than Womans rights to bodily autonomy

then

the unborn babies rights to health greater than Womens rights to harmful behaviour

My opinion on what should happen given this was true:
Q. A woman takes heroin while aware of being pregnant.
A. She can be prosecuted for proven heroin induced birth defects.

Q. A woman accidentally falls down or is injured while aware of being pregnant.
A. She is not legally responsible for damage to unborn. Maybe charged with recklessness, depending on circumstances, ie. playing a contact sport.

Q. A woman falls down while aware of being pregnant. It is discovered that she wrote down how much she wanted to get rid of the baby and concocted a plan to fall down and abort.
A. She can be prosecuted for murder.

Obviously abortion is not illegal in the states so these are not real scenarios, just my opinion on what logically follows the granting of unborn babies rights.

[Sailor Moon]

I love how the pro choice pro half truths CDC doesnt collect data or post data on sexual assault inside abortion clinics. I also love how their so called "accurate" figures and stats are so much lower than the Alan G institute, the one that works directly with Planned Parenthood, including in states that dont report to the CDC.


...So dont give me any crap about this 'unbiased' vs "biased" baloney. The CDC could use some of that information as well, you know.

Furthermore, anyone on here who has something to say about a pro lifer who has been on the inside..

Answer me this ONE question:

What is so informative about calling the life that lives inside a womans uterus "the contents of the uterus"? Please tell me how this is not a paternally flinching, outright denial from abortionists that a life really dies?

And tell me why.. oh why.. do you call yourself pro choice if you support doctors using such misleading statements?


There is no such thing as pro choice, unless the woman is informed of whats REALLY going to happen to her unborn child.

[Enoch]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Pro-choice websites are just as biased as Pro-life websites.

The best way to support an argument about any subject is to use statistics from an organisation that just collects statistics and shouldn't have any bias to your cause, like these:

National Center for Health Statistics (Center for Disease Control)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/

American Statistical Association
http://www.amstat.org/

FedStats Home Page
www.fedstats.gov/

Also testimonials are never evidence, they are hearsay. That is because, surprisingly enough, some people lie.

Statistics normalise the replies for a lot of people so the lies are normalised against the true responses. Because, surprisingly enough, most people tell the truth when they are anonymous.

Exactly my point. However, you articulated it in a way that, for some reason, escaped me. Well done. Oh, and welcome to PCF. :)

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote:
There is no such thing as pro choice, unless the woman is informed of whats REALLY going to happen to her unborn child.

Umm...the baby (fetus, embryo, zygote, etc) is going to die. Afterall, isn't that the reason she is there?