Abortion is wrong, yet I am pro choice

angelica · December 2008

catefrances wrote:

in ALL cases.

gravity is not a consistent universal law. sure it exists. but it exists differently dependent on where you are in the universe. but of course i understand that when we say universal sometimes we dont actually meanuniversal

and its own context is pertinent only to those women that were surveyed. that is hardly ALL women who have had abortions. but merely those women that were asked about their experience. this does not equate to some universal proof. it is just a sample of a bigger demographic.

I didn't say all women. And if you noticed...what scb and I were debating, is that she thought I meant that statement to be universal. I said I did not say it was universal to all women, nor mean that it was universal to all women.

the statement is factual (the truth) unto itself.

angelica · December 2008

Sweet Emotion wrote:

No insult. You have the floor. I'm not looking for you or anyone else to reaffirm my opinions for me. There seem to be several people asking the same of you.

several people insulting me and degrading my style, reading into what I'm saying and openly judging me shows me clear signs that it's time to save my breath in regards to them. I'm not here as a punching bag for those with poor interpersonal skills.

catefrances · December 2008

angelica wrote:

I didn't say all women. And if you noticed...what scb and I were debating, is that she thought I meant that statement to be universal. I said I did not say it was universal to all women, nor mean that it was universal to all women.

the statement is factual (the truth) unto itself.

i didnt say you did say ALL women angelica. i was relating my post to the quote. i know twas not your own words.

my argument was that the survey is the truth for ONLY those women that partook in it. which i imagine is what you are saying, yes? it is not universal. because as we know anything universal comes form a eurocentric p.o.v which as history has shown us has the shocking habit of invalidating and dismissing through ignorance any other view.

angelica · December 2008

catefrances wrote:

i didnt say you did say ALL women angelica. i was relating my post to the quote. i know twas not your own words.

my argument was that the survey is the truth for ONLY those women that partook in it. which i imagine is what you are saying, yes? it is not universal. because as we know anything universal comes form a eurocentric p.o.v which as history has shown us has the shocking habit of invalidating and dismissing through ignorance any other view.

what I'm saying is the truth is that there were huge consequences for women in those studies. and I'll further clarify and say that it's SOME women in those studies. I'm not saying it's the encompassing truth. I could say that the first word in that sentence is " ..." and that also would be the truth. If we're philosophically discussing the truth...what I said was the truth. I don't claim it was the encompassing truth. It was accurate. It was factual. Which doesn't pull rank on other truths or facts in any way, shape or form.

What I don't accept, though, is when people try to squash this truth. And since often these truths are minimized...I make it a point to speak to them. Minimization is not okay, despite the many, many ways people justify it.

My actual purpose in these threads is to speak for the women who are marginalized due to the politics of abortion.

catefrances · December 2008

angelica wrote:

what I'm saying is the truth is that there were huge consequences for women in those studies. and I'll further clarify and say that it's SOME women in those studies. I'm not saying it's the encompassing truth. I could say that the first word in that sentence is " ..." and that also would be the truth. If we're philosophically discussing the truth...what I said was the truth. I don't claim it was the encompassing truth. It was accurate. It was factual. Which doesn't pull rank on other truths or facts in any way, shape or form.

What I don't accept, though, is when people try to squash this truth. And since often these truths are minimized...I make it a point to speak to them. Minimization is not okay, despite the many, many ways people justify it.

My actual purpose in these threads is to speak for the women who are marginalized due to the politics of abortion.

and all im saying is it is A truth. not THE truth. im neither squashing it or minimising it as truth. just pointing out that it is ONE of MANY truths. and that this truth pertains only to those women involved in the survey.

i think perhaps the quote in regards to the survey is faulty.

catefrances · December 2008

angelica wrote:

it's common in evolutionary theory to see perpetuation of ourselves/our races, etc. is the ultimate purpose of our existence...our survival as a species. This is the very core of it! To go against that is not adaptive, but maladaptive.

Plus, all the studies on abortion, done before they became political taboo, showed huge negative effects of abortion on the women who had them. These have now been swept under the rug by the politics of abortion, and the going thing is to further burden those who have emotional negative effects after abortion, by labelling them as having been weak, emotionally, to begin with. Again, more dysfunction, and more burden for the one person in our society taking it for the team of humanity when our relations break down and an unplanned pregnancy presents itself.

And that's not to mention the cancers, etc, over the long term that occurred at higher numbers in women who had abortions.

i stand corrected. i was incorrect when i chose not to attribute these words to you angelica.

on the women who had them.

this is too all encompassing. there is no room for exclusion with such a statement. i would be very much surprised if EVERY woman in ALL studies was negatively affected by her abortion.

angelica · December 2008

catefrances wrote:

i stand corrected. i was incorrect when i chose not to attribute these words to you angelica.

on the women who had them.

this is too all encompassing. there is no room for exclusion with such a statement. i would be very much surprised if EVERY woman in ALL studies was negatively affected by her abortion.

right...even though I've specified what I meant, and what I did not mean, numerous times...even though I've clarified.

do you think the women who had negative effects after abortion aren't "women who had them"?

I didn't say all women. And I clarified.

Now if you're looking to debate this "principle", independent of what I meant, then you're having an argument that is outside my view and you don't need me.

aka: I'm not here to debate or attest to the truth of a view I do not represent. If you would like to discuss one that I do represent, I'm here...

catefrances · December 2008

angelica wrote:

right...even though I've specified what I meant, and what I did not mean, numerous times...even though I've clarified.

do you think the women who had negative effects after abortion aren't "women who had them"?

I didn't say all women. And I clarified.

Now if you're looking to debate this "principle", independent of what I meant, then you're having an argument that is outside my view and you don't need me.

aka: I'm not here to debate or attest to the truth of a view I do not represent. If you would like to discuss one that I do represent, I'm here...

its semantics angelica. i know this.

this is what you said:
Plus, all the studies on abortion, done before they became political taboo, showed huge negative effects of abortion on the women who had them

there is no specification here. it says rather broadly on the women that had them. not on the majority of women or some women or even a percentage of the women. but simply on the women that had them. to me those 6 words encompass funnily enough the women that had them[abortions]. no percentage. no fraction.

anyhoo tis moot cause im fairly certain you and i are on the same side here. i can get quite pedantic when it comes to this shit. were square .

angelica · December 2008

catefrances wrote:

its semantics angelica. i know this.

this is what you said:
Plus, all the studies on abortion, done before they became political taboo, showed huge negative effects of abortion on the women who had them

there is no specification here. it says rather broadly on the women that had them. not on the majority of women or some women or even a percentage of the women. but simply on the women that had them. to me those 6 words encompass funnily enough the women that had them[abortions]. no percentage. no fraction.

anyhoo tis moot cause im fairly certain you and i are on the same side here. i can get quite pedantic when it comes to this shit. were square .

now can you also adjust your perspective to see it as I was saying in literal terms?

Sweet Emotion · December 2008

angelica wrote:

now can you also adjust your perspective to see it as I was saying in literal terms?

Your arrogant condescension is, in literal terms, unbelievable.

catefrances · December 2008

angelica wrote:

now can you also adjust your perspective to see it as I was saying in literal terms?

i could try. theoretically. but for me it would be warped. and thus its truth would be negated. i do not see in it literal terms. your literal in this instance is ill defined. as ive said before there are MANY truths and this is just ONE of them(as it pertains to the women in the studies, though not ALL the women in the studies and definitely not ALL the women who have ever had an abortion).

angelica · December 2008

catefrances wrote:

i could try. theoretically. but for me it would be warped. and thus its truth would be negated. i do not see in it literal terms. your literal in this instance is ill defined. as ive said before there are MANY truths and this is just ONE of them(as it pertains to the women in the studies, though not ALL the women in the studies and definitely not ALL the women who have ever had an abortion).

okay...good enough............
I agree with ill-defined, even though that's still truthful as ill-defined. If I'd said "all women", I could agree with you, that what I said was an absolute statement.

and I take responsibility for that my wording for that line could be definitely seen as misleading as to my intent.

angelica · December 2008

Sweet Emotion wrote:

Your arrogant condescension is, in literal terms, unbelievable.

coming from one who routinely points out that you are right and others are wrong, or from one who degrades other perspectives rather than understand them, that's rich.........

Sweet Emotion · December 2008

angelica wrote:

coming from one who routinely points out that you are right and others are wrong, or from one who degrades other perspectives rather than understand them, that's rich.........

I've never told you that you are right or wrong, Angelica. I've never said that I was either. I've questioned your explanations of things as you are not easily understood. You get very defensive and dismissive. You make it quite difficult to understand what you have to say. You do not like to be challenged. You think that your very complicated circular writing is a display of great intellectual prowess. Which makes you feel you are addressing the earth below. Like it or not, Angelica, I'm a straight shooter. And don't have any need to over intellectualize a position to dazzle anyone with bullshit.
I'm glad to have enriched you. Have a pleasant evening.

_ · December 2008

angelica wrote:

in terms of my having said this: "Plus, all the studies on abortion, done before they became political taboo, showed huge negative effects of abortion on the women who had them." it was literally accurate (truthful or factual) within it's own context. Even though it was also representing my own personal perspective/context/slant.

Exactly. It's literally accurate that there were studies done a long time ago that indicated some negative effects of abortion. That's a fact. Just like there were studies done a long time ago that indicated that the world is flat.

But the question is whether or not in saying this you are suggesting that abortion is risky, or causes psychological trauma, or whatever. You know the statement you made will send this message. But as soon as I refute your implications, you can say, "I never said that."

So the question is - what exactly is your point? If you aren't trying to suggest that these old studies are accurate, why the hell did you bring them up? And if you're really interested in truth, why did you carefully omit all the more recent studies which have refuted the ones you cited?

_ · December 2008

angelica wrote:

I didn't say all women. And if you noticed...what scb and I were debating, is that she thought I meant that statement to be universal. I said I did not say it was universal to all women, nor mean that it was universal to all women.

I did not think you meant that every single woman who has an abortion will experience psychological trauma. I think you are taking the negative experiences of the few, omitting the positive experiences of the many, and using this to suggest as some kind of universal generalization that abortion causes psychological trauma, and/or that women who have abortions are universally at significant risk for psychological trauma, as if this is something they should be warned about and fearful of.

angelica · December 2008

Sweet Emotion wrote:

I've never told you that you are right or wrong, Angelica. I've never said that I was either. I've questioned your explanations of things as you are not easily understood. You get very defensive and dismissive. You make it quite difficult to understand what you have to say. You do not like to be challenged. You think that your very complicated circular writing is a display of great intellectual prowess. Which makes you feel you are addressing the earth below. Like it or not, Angelica, I'm a straight shooter. And don't have any need to over intellectualize a position to dazzle anyone with bullshit.
I'm glad to have enriched you. Have a pleasant evening.

There is no point speaking to people who are insulting, degrading and minimizing of my view.

angelica · December 2008

scb wrote:

Exactly. It's literally accurate that there were studies done a long time ago that indicated some negative effects of abortion. That's a fact. Just like there were studies done a long time ago that indicated that the world is flat.

But the question is whether or not in saying this you are suggesting that abortion is risky, or causes psychological trauma, or whatever. You know the statement you made will send this message. But as soon as I refute your implications, you can say, "I never said that."

So the question is - what exactly is your point? If you aren't trying to suggest that these old studies are accurate, why the hell did you bring them up? And if you're really interested in truth, why did you carefully omit all the more recent studies which have refuted the ones you cited?

I'm definitely saying these studies are as accurate as any studies we have, until proven otherwise. That's how science works. And the current reports I linked and quoted from afterabortion.com do bear out that in practical experience numerous women do experience all kinds of complications, physical and psychological, post-abortion.

For one woman to be ill-informed--and this is beyond one woman--is enough for me to know there is a problem here that is not being appropriately addressed.

What I did not intend to say is that every woman who has an abortion has these effects.

Any woman going for an abortion deserves to know possible risks, just like any medical procedure. Maybe they are told across the board. I don't know. What I do know is that often in discussions like this, pro-choice people like to minimize the possible effects for some reason....and by the reports of some girls on that site, they were not informed in advance, of the possible complications after-abortion.

angelica · December 2008

scb wrote:

I did not think you meant that every single woman who has an abortion will experience psychological trauma. I think you are taking the negative experiences of the few, omitting the positive experiences of the many, and using this to suggest as some kind of universal generalization that abortion causes psychological trauma, and/or that women who have abortions are universally at significant risk for psychological trauma, as if this is something they should be warned about and fearful of.

Since I notice no one speaks for those who have negative experiences, or the studies about negative experiences, I speak to those.

This is where I am responsible for what I say, not what people read in. When I say that abortion causes trauma universally, then I am responsible for that. I have not even hinted at that.

Also, I speak to the biases of those who tend to want to sweep under the rug, studies about abortion that haven't been disproven, etc. I do imply there may be "hidden" agendas....or social and political pressures to peoples social conditioning, careers, etc. that prevent people from seeing what goes on.

The human brain is interesting, in how we filter information unconsciously to our own best interests, thereby disabling ourselves from being able to effectively discern the truth beyond social conditioning.

_ · December 2008

angelica wrote:

Any woman going for an abortion deserves to know possible risks, just like any medical procedure.

Any woman going for any medical procedure has a right to know about all REASONABLE risks, and medical professionals have a medical & legal obligation to tell them - and they do. (For instance, there is a risk that you may be struck by lightening during your abortion procedure. But this risk is not reasonable enough to counsel all patients about.)

But you seem to forget that risk is relative, and must be based on valid scientific research, not anecdotal "evidence" like the testimonials on your website.

I realize that there are some women who experience serious psychological trauma after having an abortion. Their experiences are valid.

But it would be medically inaccurate to, based on these experiences, start telling all women that abortion causes or puts them at significant risk for serious psychological trauma. You've got to ask a few questions first:

1. Is there a CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP between the abortion and the psychological trauma?

2. If a pregnant woman choses abortion, is she at GREATER RISK of psychological trauma than if she chooses to continue the pregnancy?

3. If there is a significant risk, HOW GREAT is the risk?

Have you answered these questions? Also, how would you counsel women who are trying to make this decision?

Abortion is wrong, yet I am pro choice

Comments

Categories