Scalia and Ginsburg

[byco42]

it's not a straw man, unless you believe a significant portion of the anti-choice believers out there really are spending their time working with mothers considering abortion, finding adoption services, helping poor, unwed mothers raise their kids. I don't.

There are avenues for the mothers to consider and to leverage for exactly that. If they can drive to an abortion clinic they can also drive to adoption organizations. Here's just one. I referred a woman pregnant with twins to this organization recently. She was leaving an abortion clinic and changed her mind about aborting them after she discovered she was pregnant with twins. My sister has three adopted children, all from teen-aged unwed mothers. Two from the same mother.

oh yeah... today is ash wednesday. Usually my atheist lawyer drinking buddy texts me about how ridiculous people look walking around with ashes on their foreheads, but he hasn't so far. I just texted him a reminder.

Maybe he has come to his senses.

 

[Spartanmack]

DO you think I'm arguing aborting a baby is a good thing? You do understand the distinction between denying someone else a right, and doing something yourself?

(That's just rhetorical. I know you don't.)

Pretty funny coming from a guy who clearly missed the point of my post. What makes you think I'm saying that at all? It's pretty obvious that I'm making the point that the pro-lifer movement is not being driven by science-denying religious zealots as you like to believe. On the contrary, the trend toward the pro-life movement is being driven by science and technology, not religion.

How you got "I think you think killing babies is a good thing" from that is beyond me. Just kidding, it's not beyond me at all - I know who I'm talking to here - DSF's greatest false-framer and king of the straw man.

 

[Michchamp]

...



Maybe he has come to his senses.

he texted me back. he has not. he said he hadnt been outside his office all day.

 

[byco42]

he texted me back. he has not. he said he hadnt been outside his office all day.

Okay, he hasn't.

 

[hailhail]

Entire generations of kids have grown up with ultrasound pictures of their siblings in the womb on their refrigerators and they learn at a very early age that it's a person and not just a clump of cells. And they conclude for themselves that the barbaric practice of killing and innocent and defenseless human being is wrong.

I'm pretty sure my generation (I guess Millenials/Gen-Xers?) is decidedly more pro-choice than older age groups (especially among women). I don't know how that compares with older cohorts' beliefs in that same age group, but I'd be interested to see those numbers.

Either way, your conclusion that "generations of kids" are growing up seeing ultrasounds and thus more inclined to believe that abortion is inherently immoral is nonsense on its face. And I bet religiosity is a pretty strong determinant of pro-life beliefs generally.

Personally, I'm happy I've never had to make the choice, hope I never have to, but am pleased that if my current girlfriend ever got pregnant we'd have the choice to terminate the pregnancy if we wanted.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm pretty sure my generation (I guess Millenials/Gen-Xers?) is decidedly more pro-choice than older age groups (especially among women). I don't know how that compares with older cohorts' beliefs in that same age group, but I'd be interested to see those numbers.

Either way, your conclusion that "generations of kids" are growing up seeing ultrasounds and thus more inclined to believe that abortion is inherently immoral is nonsense on its face. And I bet religiosity is a pretty strong determinant of pro-life beliefs generally.

Personally, I'm happy I've never had to make the choice, hope I never have to, but am pleased that if my current girlfriend ever got pregnant we'd have the choice to terminate the pregnancy if we wanted.

Well, who needs numbers when you're "pretty sure" and can dismiss arguments as "nonsense on its face". Well done hail, well done. You're almost as good at this as thumb. Maybe you can find a sweet meme to show how smart you aren't?

If your generation was decidedly more pro choice, then the trend probably would not be toward pro life like it is, unless millennialist is the generation is the generation that's dying off. If you'd like to see the facts, you can go to Gallup.com. Would you like me to google that for you?

 

[hailhail]

Well, who needs numbers when you're "pretty sure" and can dismiss arguments as "nonsense on its face". Well done hail, well done. You're almost as good at this as thumb. Maybe you can find a sweet meme to show how smart you aren't?

If your generation was decidedly more pro choice, then the trend probably would not be toward pro life like it is, unless millennialist is the generation is the generation that's dying off. If you'd like to see the facts, you can go to Gallup.com. Would you like me to google that for you?

You mean like this, from 2014?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx

50% of Americans 18-34 in this poll identify as "pro-choice" while 40% identify as "pro-life." Like I said, I'd love to see similar data on comparable age cohorts ten, twenty, thirty years ago.

Here are a series of additional polls that show some stronger "pro-choice" numbers when respondents are asked more specific questions: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

There are clear majorities that feel abortion should be legal in these polls (going back one or two decades in most cases) in the first trimester, when the woman's life is in danger, when the child might have a mental-health disorder, etc.

So yeah, your claim is nonsense on its face, and the stats I've seen previously are backed up by the above. Sorry I didn't go out of my way to demonstrate that the first time around in response to your very well-reasoned and analytical post.

 

[Spartanmack]

You mean like this, from 2014?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx

50% of Americans 18-34 in this poll identify as "pro-choice" while 40% identify as "pro-life." Like I said, I'd love to see similar data on comparable age cohorts ten, twenty, thirty years ago.

Here are a series of additional polls that show some stronger "pro-choice" numbers when respondents are asked more specific questions: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

There are clear majorities that feel abortion should be legal in these polls (going back one or two decades in most cases) in the first trimester, when the woman's life is in danger, when the child might have a mental-health disorder, etc.

So yeah, your claim is nonsense on its face, and the stats I've seen previously are backed up by the above. Sorry I didn't go out of my way to demonstrate that the first time around in response to your very well-reasoned and analytical post.

Thanks for posting the links to surveys I've already read months ago with numbers that prove my point which was about the trend in abortion opinions in the US. It wasn't necessary because I already made it clear that I knew, but thanks anyway.

Maybe you should look up the word "majority" before you start claiming to see a "clear majority" when there isn't even a slight majority in those stats. Want me to google it for you? Maybe you meant "plurality" and are just too dumb to know the difference. If you did mean plurality, good job proving me wrong about something I didn't say - again I was talking about the trend.

You're also right about the correlation between being religious and pro-life but I never said there wasn't. What I said was the trend is toward pro life and it's not being driven by religion because people who identify as religious is trending down. You're good at proving me wrong about things I didn't say.

You're so bad at this it's funny. Thanks for the laugh kid.

 

[hailhail]

Maybe you should look up the word "majority" before you start claiming to see a "clear majority" when there isn't even a slight majority in those stats. Want me to google it for you? Maybe you meant "plurality" and are just too dumb to know the difference.

And thanks for posting the numbers that I'm already aware of that prove my point which was about the trend in abortion opinions in the US. It wasn't necessary because I already made it clear that I knew, but thanks anyway.

You're so bad at this it's funny. Thanks for the laugh kid.

Did you read the polls in the second article? A majority (pretty consistently at different intervals of time) exists in favor of everything I mentioned: legalized abortions in the first trimester (between 61 and 64% between at different points in time between 1996 and 2012), when the woman's life is in danger (over 80% at similar intervals), when the child might have a mental-health disorder (between 51 and 54%).... Wait, do YOU understand what a majority is?

You're not even worth my time. Kid.

 

[Spartanmack]

Did you read the polls in the second article? A majority (pretty consistently at different intervals of time) exists in favor of everything I mentioned: legalized abortions in the first trimester (between 61 and 64% between at different points in time between 1996 and 2012), when the woman's life is in danger (over 80% at similar intervals), when the child might have a mental-health disorder (between 51 and 54%).... Wait, do YOU understand what a majority is?

You're not even worth my time. Kid.

I'm not a millennial or a gen-xer, kid. And yes, I read them both well before this thread was started. Excellent, so now you're parsing it into abortion in the first trimester when the woman's life is in danger - well, you kinda got me there but I'm actually not against abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy and never said anything about it. My wife is though - she's super pro life. Would you like me to read your post to her? And you really don't have me there either because while you did cherry pick the one scenario where a majority says it should be legal, after a slight bump in the early 2000s, it's clearly trending down. Oh, and it seems you added the circumstances because unless I missed it the survey makes no mention of what those certain circumstances are.

You got any other ideas or beliefs you want to attribute to me so you can prove me wrong even though I didn't say them and may not actually believe them! kid?

 

[hailhail]

I'm not a millennial or a gen-xer, kid. And yes, I read them both well before this thread was started. Excellent, so now you're parsing it into abortion in the first trimester when the woman's life is in danger - well, you got me there but I'm actually not against abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy and never said anything about it. My wife is though - she's super pro life. Would you like me to read your post to her? You got any other ideas or beliefs you want to attribute to me so you can prove me wrong even though I didn't say them and may not actually believe?

I'm not attributing any arguments to you, and I wasn't parsing the issue. I would have a good-faith discussion with you if I thought you were capable of it, btw, but your oddly defensive internet persona is getting in the way.

Kid.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not attributing any arguments to you, and I wasn't parsing the issue. I would have a good-faith discussion with you if I thought you were capable of it, btw, but your oddly defensive internet persona is getting in the way.

Kid.

I'm not being defensive, I'm just showing you the same level of respect you showed me when you tried to (incorrectly) dismiss my point off hand and make arguments against points I wasn't making because you were "pretty sure" even though you hadn't looked at the data. Then after looking at the data you continued to argue against points I wasn't making while parsing the data to point out the one instance where a majority supports legal abortion (one I'm not strongly opposed to) to make incorrect claims like there are clear majorities in favor of abortion, when in fact there are not. And you made these false arguments about majorities when I was talking about the trend and not the spread.

You clearly have attributed arguments to me, tried to reframe the argument and you were a jerk about it from the beginning. If you're going to be a jerk, at least man up and don't whine when someone is a jerk right back - especially when you're wrong.

Finally, when you make statements about how pleased you are to know that you and your girlfriend can kill and innocent and defenseless human being because "you want to" you're clearly demonstrating your carelessness, immaturity, amorality and unbelievable selfishness. So you shouldn't be surprised when grownups call you a kid.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, who needs numbers when you're "pretty sure" and can dismiss arguments as "nonsense on its face"....

how is that any difference than you just pulling the "argument" out of your ass in the first place?

 

[Spartanmack]

how is that any difference than you just pulling the "argument" out of your ass in the first place?

Do you mean the argument I made about the trend which was supported by data that has been available for years that was confirmed by links hail himself posted? That the trend is toward pro-life while religious affiliation is trending down? Is that argument I pulled out of my ass?

Where's the data that supports the trend being driven by "religion, der, republitards, derr, war on women, derrrr"?

 

[hailhail]

I'm not being defensive, I'm just showing you the same level of respect you showed me when you tried to (incorrectly) dismiss my point off hand and make arguments against points I wasn't making because you were "pretty sure" even though you hadn't looked at the data. Then after looking at the data you continued to argue against points I wasn't making while parsing the data to point out the one instance where a majority supports legal abortion (one I'm not strongly opposed to) to make incorrect claims like there are clear majorities in favor of abortion, when in fact there are not. And you made these false arguments about majorities when I was talking about the trend and not the spread.

You clearly have attributed arguments to me, tried to reframe the argument and you were a jerk about it from the beginning. If you're going to be a jerk, at least man up and don't whine when someone is a jerk right back - especially when you're wrong.

Finally, when you make statements about how pleased you are to know that you and your girlfriend can kill and innocent and defenseless human being because "you want to" you're clearly demonstrating your carelessness, immaturity, amorality and unbelievable selfishness. So you shouldn't be surprised when grownups call you a kid.

You really believe all this, huh?

 

[Spartanmack]

You really believe all this, huh?

back to your original tactics? Well, there is the evidence...

 

[hailhail]

back to your original tactics I see. Well, again, there's the evidence...

I've backed up every single one of my claims using the source you recommended. You made a causal claim about a trend line, and haven't attempted to back it up. I said your claim is nonsense. Without considering the simple fact that more people still identify as pro-choice than pro-life (especially at younger ages), when the question is framed in numerous different ways that disparity increases. For example, a majority of the population (consistently over time) favors legalized first-trimester abortions.

What part of this are you taking issue with, or being intentionally dense about?

 

[KAWDUP]

I'm not being defensive, I'm just showing you the same level of respect you showed me when you tried to (incorrectly) dismiss my point off hand and make arguments against points I wasn't making because you were "pretty sure" even though you hadn't looked at the data. Then after looking at the data you continued to argue against points I wasn't making while parsing the data to point out the one instance where a majority supports legal abortion (one I'm not strongly opposed to) to make incorrect claims like there are clear majorities in favor of abortion, when in fact there are not. And you made these false arguments about majorities when I was talking about the trend and not the spread.

You clearly have attributed arguments to me, tried to reframe the argument and you were a jerk about it from the beginning. If you're going to be a jerk, at least man up and don't whine when someone is a jerk right back - especially when you're wrong.

Finally, when you make statements about how pleased you are to know that you and your girlfriend can kill and innocent and defenseless human being because "you want to" you're clearly demonstrating your carelessness, immaturity, amorality and unbelievable selfishness. So you shouldn't be surprised when grownups call you a kid.

Pardon the butt-in, hail, but the first part of this is dead on. Your first post in the thread was condescending, and made assumptions about what the arguments were.

 

[KAWDUP]

I've backed up every single one of my claims using the source you recommended. You made a causal claim about a trend line, and haven't attempted to back it up. I said your claim is nonsense. Without considering the simple fact that more people still identify as pro-choice than pro-life (especially at younger ages), when the question is framed in numerous different ways that disparity increases. For example, a majority of the population (consistently over time) favors legalized first-trimester abortions.

What part of this are you taking issue with, or being intentionally dense about?

This is nonsense on its face. He actually did everything you say he didn't. Reading comprehension a problem for you?

 

[hailhail]

I'm pretty sure my generation (I guess Millenials/Gen-Xers?) is decidedly more pro-choice than older age groups (especially among women). I don't know how that compares with older cohorts' beliefs in that same age group, but I'd be interested to see those numbers.

Either way, your conclusion that "generations of kids" are growing up seeing ultrasounds and thus more inclined to believe that abortion is inherently immoral is nonsense on its face. And I bet religiosity is a pretty strong determinant of pro-life beliefs generally.

Personally, I'm happy I've never had to make the choice, hope I never have to, but am pleased that if my current girlfriend ever got pregnant we'd have the choice to terminate the pregnancy if we wanted.

THIS is condescending?

Edit: And your reading comprehension comment isn't I'm sure?