Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: Didnt I already say that it was 2 years ago and that it was a study on abortion?yes i did.

But you still fail to prove it beyond saying that you saw it. Provide a third party source or some evidence that this film actually exists beyond "I saw it, and it was scientific." Anyone can conduct a study on abortion, but it does not make it an objective scientific study on the topic.

[Plodder]

If one of my old class mates were here then they would vouch for me. but seeing as they are not and that not everything is on the internet I cannot continue past this point.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: If one of my old class mates were here then they would vouch for me. but seeing as they are not and that not everything is on the internet I cannot continue past this point.

Then your "evidence" of the "scientific study" on abortions is discreditied.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: Quote: Prove it. provide the SCIENTIFIC reference for this study. No?
Didnt I already say that it was 2 years ago yes.

Quote: and that it was a study on abortion?yes i did. You CLAIMED that it was a study on abortion. If it was a scientific study, then the results would have been presented in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal as all scientific data is. So please provide the reference to the original scientific article or stop your lies.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: If one of my old class mates were here then they would vouch for me. but seeing as they are not and that not everything is on the internet I cannot continue past this point. And as a movie is not peer-reviewed, scientific evidence, it wouldn't matter much. Anybody can make a movie and claim it to be scientific. the only actual scientific evidence comes from peer-reviewed, scientific sources and those who reference and compile the results from these studies.

THAT is science. You obviously are utterly and completely ignorant of this, confirming my previous suspicion that when you claim something to be scientific, it is the height of dishonesty as you don't even know what science is.

So you are again dishonest AS USUAL. No surprise there.

[Plodder]

arent you full of hate today.

Hey I dont have to give you anything. In fact I wont even bither to give you anyrefences because all aill gey is : "lies, lair ect"

you are hopless and you are not convincing anyone but die hard aboirtionist. everyone else sees a raving lunatic.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: Hey I dont have to give you anything. In fact I wont even bither to give you anyrefences because all aill gey is : "lies, lair ect"

Actually, you do. That's what it means to debate. You provide evidence that supports your claims, and the opposition has an opportunity to debunk it, and provide their own claims. Without evidence, your entire argument is flawed and therefore dismantled through your own lack of evidence.

Or is it that you won't provide any references because you don't have any?

Plodder wrote: you are hopless and you are not convincing anyone but die hard aboirtionist. everyone else sees a raving lunatic.

Actually, I see someone who values the choice of the mother to the fullest. While steen can be aggressive at times, that aggression is usually provoked through someone else's stupidity... mainly you.

Plodder wrote: arent you full of hate today.

Aren't you full of stupid today?

[steen]

Plodder wrote: arent you full of hate today. I merely disagree with your endless lies. If that disturbs you, perhaps you should stop lying? Just a suggestion.

Quote: Hey I dont have to give you anything. In fact I wont even bither to give you anyrefences because all aill gey is : "lies, lair ect" Ah, the coward's retreat. Sure, why not.

[Plodder]

here is something i found

Quote: Abortion deaths: These have been grossly under-reported. The expose’ on this is detailed in Lime 5 published by Life Dynamics. The author and his staff have verified 23 deaths from induced abortion in 1992-93. All were reported to state agencies. There is documentation from state health departments that 18 were reported to the Federal Center for Disease Control. However, the official report of the CDC listed only 2 deaths. "At Life Dynamics we knew abortion complications were grotesquely under-reported, but attributed it to garden-variety bureaucratic incompetence." But after continuing research, they documented "that the flawed abortion data from the CDC was not from ineptitude but of dishonesty and manipulation" after finding that "a large percentage of CDC employees had direct ties to the abortion industry," they retitled the CDC to stand for "Center for Damage Control" — "The CDC doesn’t oversee abortion, it justifies it." M. Crutcher, Lime 5-Exploited by Choice, Genesis Pub., Chapter 4, "Cooking the Books," p. 135.

The claim that relevant statistics can be collected from the place where the abortion was performed "is little short of science fiction."

"Complications following abortions performed in free-standing clinics is one of the most frequent gynecologic emergencies . . . encountered. Even life-endangering complications rarely come to the attention of the physician who performed the abortion unless the incident entails litigation. The statistics presented by Cates represent substantial under- reporting and disregard women’s reluctance to return to a clinic, where, in their mind, they received inadequate treatment." L. Iffy, "Second Trimester Abortions," JAMA, vol. 249, no. 5, Feb. 4, 1983, p. 588.



so dont use the abortionists at the CDC as an exampole

[steen]

Plodder wrote: ...so dont use the abortionists at the CDC as an exampole Hmm, an administration of very conservative leanings, using its CDC for political purposes, and yet it STILL doesn't report a lot of deaths from abortion, so it must be a liberal conspiracy.

Amazing, the self-delusion you will push in order to not admit the FACT that abortion is a very safe surgical procedure, and that the pro-life claims of its lethality is a flat-out lie.

How sad and pathetic of you.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: here is something i found

Quote: Abortion deaths: These have been grossly under-reported. The expose’ on this is detailed in Lime 5 published by Life Dynamics. The author and his staff have verified 23 deaths from induced abortion in 1992-93. All were reported to state agencies. There is documentation from state health departments that 18 were reported to the Federal Center for Disease Control. However, the official report of the CDC listed only 2 deaths. "At Life Dynamics we knew abortion complications were grotesquely under-reported, but attributed it to garden-variety bureaucratic incompetence." But after continuing research, they documented "that the flawed abortion data from the CDC was not from ineptitude but of dishonesty and manipulation" after finding that "a large percentage of CDC employees had direct ties to the abortion industry," they retitled the CDC to stand for "Center for Damage Control" — "The CDC doesn’t oversee abortion, it justifies it." M. Crutcher, Lime 5-Exploited by Choice, Genesis Pub., Chapter 4, "Cooking the Books," p. 135.

The claim that relevant statistics can be collected from the place where the abortion was performed "is little short of science fiction."

"Complications following abortions performed in free-standing clinics is one of the most frequent gynecologic emergencies . . . encountered. Even life-endangering complications rarely come to the attention of the physician who performed the abortion unless the incident entails litigation. The statistics presented by Cates represent substantial under- reporting and disregard women’s reluctance to return to a clinic, where, in their mind, they received inadequate treatment." L. Iffy, "Second Trimester Abortions," JAMA, vol. 249, no. 5, Feb. 4, 1983, p. 588.



so dont use the abortionists at the CDC as an exampole

... Way to change the subject completely...

[Plodder]

i was getting bored of you paired rantings.

Quote: Amazing, the self-delusion you will push in order to not admit the FACT that abortion is a very safe surgical procedure, and that the pro-life claims of its lethality is a flat-out lie.
amazing how you can delude yourself into beliving any sources presented by a pro lifer are auotmatically false. You are amazing in the fact that youre so predictable.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: amazing how you can delude yourself into beliving any sources presented by a pro lifer are auotmatically false. Not automatically. But it simply just turns out that way.

[Nicholas]

steen wrote: Plodder wrote: amazing how you can delude yourself into beliving any sources presented by a pro lifer are auotmatically false. Not automatically. But it simply just turns out that way.

Ah, thanks for conceding your falsification just happens to turn out that way.....

[steen]

Nicholas wrote: Ah, thanks for conceding your falsification just happens to turn out that way..... Why are you lying about me? You MUST be a pro-lifer with that blatant display of dishonesty.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: Why are you lying about me? You MUST be a pro-lifer with that blatant display of dishonesty See? Everyone who disagrees with him is a liar.

[Nicholas]

steen wrote: Nicholas wrote: Ah, thanks for conceding your falsification just happens to turn out that way..... Why are you lying about me? You MUST be a pro-lifer with that blatant display of dishonesty.

False.

[steen]

Nicholas wrote: steen wrote: Nicholas wrote: Ah, thanks for conceding your falsification just happens to turn out that way..... Why are you lying about me? You MUST be a pro-lifer with that blatant display of dishonesty. False. Ah, so you are not a pro-lifer even though you are dishonest. OK, whatever.

[Nicholas]

steen wrote: Nicholas wrote: steen wrote: Nicholas wrote: Ah, thanks for conceding your falsification just happens to turn out that way..... Why are you lying about me? You MUST be a pro-lifer with that blatant display of dishonesty. False. Ah, so you are not a pro-lifer even though you are dishonest. OK, whatever.

Another example of an irrevelant, twisted statement in order for it to favour your accusations is pointless.

[Izzibeth]

attacking one another on a personal level pretty much makes the argument about your original topic come to a complete standstill. you're getting nowhere with those one-liners.