Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Options
1…5152545657…124

Comments

  • Options
    #1592
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,721 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    It's a hypothesis at least. You could probably find stats for miscarriages per live birth.


  • Options
    #1593
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Is it too much of a logical leap to infer that in a country which bans abortion except when the mother's life is at risk, that the large majority of teenage pregnancies result in either birth or miscarriage?
    Don't all pregnancies that don't end via procured abortion ... result in either birth or spontaneous miscarriage?


  • Options
    #1594
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Remember the five rules: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge. ;)
    Don't forget misdirect ;)


  • Options
    #1595
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ah, the problem here is either a simple misreading or else a pretty simple strawman. PopePalpatine references 700 girls of 14 or under recorded as pregnant, then offers the conjecture that the real figure (of pregnant girls under 14) could be much higher..
    Well.. no. PopePalpatine referenced "more than 700 girls aged 14 and younger gave birth in this South American nation of seven million people. " but rewrote it as "about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant"; he may have simply misread it, but I don't think he was creating a strawman.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Absolam takes the suggested notion (that the figure could be higher) and applies it to a different value - 'girls recorded as giving birth', and argues against that notion (using legitimate arguments it has to be said).
    I did indeed read the article rather than take PopePalpatines rewriting as the content.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    However PopePalpatine's conjecture is absolutely valid given that the set of girls who give birth (article references 700) must be a subset of (or be exactly the set of) those who were pregnant, as it is not possible for someone to give birth without ever being pregnant.
    I don't think so; neither the number of girls who were pregnant nor the number of girls who gave birth could have increased if Paraguay had a liberal abortion regime. Both numbers can only decrease as a result of more abortions.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Either Absolam has misread PopePalpatine's post and has unintentionally argued against a notion that was not offered, or they have intentionally misrepresented that post. In either case, I don't think a claim against PopePalpatine's actual conjecture has been registered once, and I don't think it can.
    I read the post correctly, and even correcting PopePalpatines rewriting of the headline, the conjecture that the real figure could be much higher doesn't stand.

    As I said originally, despite PopePalpatines leading statement that this is The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban, the root of the problem isn't the abortion ban, it's the rapes.


  • Options
    #1596
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Is it too much of a logical leap to infer that in a country which bans abortion except when the mother's life is at risk, that the large majority of teenage pregnancies result in either birth or miscarriage?
    Is there a country in the world, whether it has a restrictive or libel abortion regime, where a large majority of pregnancies (teenage or otherwise) do not result in either birth or miscarriage?
    I've never seen a statistic anywhere that showed a country with a majority of pregnancies that result in elective terminations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1597
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well.. no. PopePalpatine referenced "more than 700 girls aged 14 and younger gave birth in this South American nation of seven million people. " but rewrote it as "about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant"; he may have simply misread it, but I don't think he was creating a strawman.
    Nobody's suggested that PopePalpatine created a strawman.

    PopePalpatine's direct quote and following conjecture was regarding numbers of pregnant children.

    Their citation/reference gave a number of children who gave birth.

    Given that it is impossible to give birth without being pregnant, the citation backs up the sentence that they wrote, and the conjecture that they wrote.
    Absolam wrote: »

    I did indeed read the article rather than take PopePalpatines rewriting as the content.

    As did I. Again, as above, what PopePalpatine wrote is valid from the article. They did not claim to be quoting from the article. Hence there was no rewriting, just their own take-out from the article.

    Surely you then 'rewriting' is pretty much exactly misrepresentation? You didn't argue against the point that they made.
    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't think so; neither the number of girls who were pregnant nor the number of girls who gave birth could have increased if Paraguay had a liberal abortion regime. Both numbers can only decrease as a result of more abortions.
    I read the post correctly, and even correcting PopePalpatines rewriting of the headline, the conjecture that the real figure could be much higher doesn't stand..

    Where did they state that? They said, rather simply, that the number of children being pregnant in Paraguay could be much higher than the number of children giving birth.

    Perhaps you might attempt to discuss their statements and not ones that you misrepresent/misapply/fabricate? As said, it could have been by accident or design, but in either case, PopePalpatine's point stands true, and their conjecture follows, without any legitimate challenge.
    Absolam wrote: »
    As I said originally, despite PopePalpatines leading statement that this is The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban, the root of the problem isn't the abortion ban, it's the rapes.
    Correct, and hasn't been contradicted yet so I guess we're almost all in agreement on this. But we're back to the stab victim analogy. Preparing responses to illegal and despicable activity isn't inappropriate, it could be claimed that refusing to prepare could be negligent though.


  • Options
    #1598
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Nobody's suggested that PopePalpatine created a strawman.
    Perhaps you should have specified then when you said "the problem here is either a simple misreading or else a pretty simple strawman.".
    Deleted User wrote: »
    PopePalpatine's direct quote and following conjecture was regarding numbers of pregnant children. Their citation/reference gave a number of children who gave birth.
    Ca you pick out that quote in PopePalpatines post? I can't; the article cited never referred to a number of girls recorded as pregnant.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Given that it is impossible to give birth without being pregnant, the citation backs up the sentence that they wrote, and the conjecture that they wrote.
    How precisely could the number of girls who became pregnant or give birth be increased by liberalising abortion?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    As did I. Again, as above, what PopePalpatine wrote is valid from the article. They did not claim to be quoting from the article. Hence there was no rewriting, just their own take-out from the article.
    I never said PopePalpatine quoted from the article; I said he rewrote it. You're the one who referred in your own post to "PopePalpatine's direct quote". If you disagree taking the headline "Last year, more than 700 girls aged 14 and younger gave birth in this South American nation of seven million people" and rendering it as "about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014" is rewriting fair enough, but it sure seems that way to me.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Surely you then 'rewriting' is pretty much exactly misrepresentation? You didn't argue against the point that they made.
    Not really; as I said, there's the headline, and PopePalpatines rendition. And I did argue against both the point PopePalpatine made, and the same argument from the original text.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Where did they state that? They said, rather simply, that the number of children being pregnant in Paraguay could be much higher than the number of children giving birth.
    I'm afraid not. "about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher" is precisely what PopePalpatine said. Where he said the real figure could be much higher is right at the end of the sentence.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Perhaps you might attempt to discuss their statements and not ones that you misrepresent/misapply/fabricate? As said, it could have been by accident or design, but in either case, PopePalpatine's point stands true, and their conjecture follows, without any legitimate challenge.
    Let's try that shall we? I've quoted and linked where PopePalpatine said precisely what I said he said.
    Can you do the same for your assertions that PopePalpatine said rather simply, that the number of children being pregnant in Paraguay could be much higher than the number of children giving birth?
    Or can you show where PopePalpatine provided a direct quote regarding numbers of pregnant children?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Correct, and hasn't been contradicted yet so I guess we're almost all in agreement on this. But we're back to the stab victim analogy. Preparing responses to illegal and despicable activity isn't inappropriate, it could be claimed that refusing to prepare could be negligent though.
    I don't think anyone has suggested no action should be taken to care for these victims of rape, have they? The argument put forward so far is that the number of teen pregnancies resulting from rape in Paraguay is not the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban; it's the harsh reality of Paraguays child abuse.


  • Options
    #1599
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The circle continues

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96967844&postcount=1590

    Answers all that, with the verbatim quotes as asked for and consolidates the scatter gun too.

    As a point of order, PopePalpatine never once mentioned anything regarding a liberalised abortion regime or its affects on anything whatsoever. The constant reiteration of the strawman is odd, given that it was exposed and dismissed above. Their conjecture, once more, based upon the referenced article, was that the real number of pregnant children in Paraguay could be greater than the recorded number of children giving birth (recall that to give birth you must have been pregnant). Do you disagree?

    Neither has one person even suggested anything similar to
    The argument put forward so far is that the number of teen pregnancies resulting from rape in Paraguay is not the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban; it's the harsh reality of Paraguays child abuse.


  • Options
    #1600
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The circle continuesAnswers all that, with the verbatim quotes as asked for and consolidates the scatter gun too.
    Amazing... without even providing the quotes too :)
    Deleted User wrote: »
    As a point of order, PopePalpatine never once mentioned anything regarding a liberalised abortion regime or its affects on anything whatsoever. The constant reiteration of the strawman is odd, given that it was exposed and dismissed above.
    Did anyone say he did? I said that liberalising abortion wouldn't increase the number of girls either giving birth or getting pregnant; so the potentially higher number of girls who might get pregnant (or who might give birth) is not demonstrative of the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Their conjecture, once more, based upon the referenced article, was that the real number of pregnant children in Paraguay could be greater than the recorded number of children giving birth (recall that to give birth you must have been pregnant). Do you disagree?
    I do. Once more, it's not what PopePalpatine said. But I think you know that; it's why you decided not to quote Popepalpatine when asked.
    PopePalpatine offered no comparison between the number of pregnant children and the number of children giving birth; he made a straightforward statement "about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher" (even if he intended the statement to be really about those recorded as giving birth, per the article, he certainly didn't offer one compared to the other).
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Neither has one person even suggested anything similar to "The argument put forward so far is that the number of teen pregnancies resulting from rape in Paraguay is not the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban; it's the harsh reality of Paraguays child abuse."
    No? PopePalpatines post looks pretty similar.
    "The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban - about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher. "


  • Options
    #1601
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The quotes are in the post I linked to. :confused:

    You appear to have edited it out whilst quoting me.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96967844&postcount=1590

    Post 1590 of this thread. Nothing you've said since I posted this changes any of it. If you'd like to offer an argument against PopePalpatine's conjecture or data, please do. Otherwise we're simply circling a drain.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1602
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The quotes are in the post I linked to. :confused:
    I don't think so. Though I did ask you for quotes from PopePalpatines posts, rather than a link to your own post. Shall we try again?
    I asked you for;
    A quote of where PopePalpatine provided a direct quote regarding numbers of pregnant children.
    A quote of PopePalpatine said rather simply, that the number of children being pregnant in Paraguay could be much higher than the number of children giving birth.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, when PopePalpatine referred to the harsh reality of Paraguays abortion ban, and when he referred to about 700 girls of 14 or younger being recorded as pregnant, he wasn't quoting; they were his own words.
    And when he offered the opinion that the real figure could be much higher, he appended no than anything at all to the opinion.
    But, if you can quote where actually did either of those things, then like I said, please do.


  • Options
    #1603
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam. That is absurd. I linked to my post, post 1590 which has a quote from PopePalpatine, and a quote from yourself. I am a fan of precision, but that is an outrageously pedantic request which I'm happy not to fulfil. The quotes that you required are a single link away, with an accurate dismissal of your issues with that post.

    Resist from going out on a limb, instead attack what was posted.


  • Options
    #1604
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Absolam. That is absurd. I linked to my post, post 1590 which has a quote from PopePalpatine, and a quote from yourself. I am a fan of precision, but that is an outrageously pedantic request which I'm happy not to fulfil. The quotes that you required are a single link away, with an accurate dismissal of your issues.
    Resist from going out on a limb, instead attack what was posted.
    You did link your post, it just doesn't contain the quotes I asked for, as I said.


  • Options
    #1605
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Right. I'm fine to stay out of the drain.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban - about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Not sure how the real figure could be much higher? The article says 'were recorded as giving birth', are you suggesting that more would be recorded as giving birth if there wasn't an abortion ban?

    Ah, the problem here is either a simple misreading or else a pretty simple strawman.

    PopePalpatine references 700 girls of 14 or under recorded as pregnant, then offers the conjecture that the real figure (of pregnant girls under 14) could be much higher.

    Absolam takes the suggested notion (that the figure could be higher) and applies it to a different value - 'girls recorded as giving birth', and argues against that notion (using legitimate arguments it has to be said).

    However PopePalpatine's conjecture is absolutely valid given that the set of girls who give birth (article references 700) must be a subset of (or be exactly the set of) those who were pregnant, as it is not possible for someone to give birth without ever being pregnant.

    Either Absolam has misread PopePalpatine's post and has unintentionally argued against a notion that was not offered, or they have intentionally misrepresented that post.

    In either case, I don't think a claim against PopePalpatine's actual conjecture has been registered once, and I don't think it can.

    This hasn't been refuted and I repost so to ensure it does not get lost in this gish gallop.


  • Options
    #1606
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Right. I'm fine to stay out of the drain.
    Sure. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story :-)
    Deleted User wrote: »
    This hasn't been refuted and I repost so to ensure it does not get lost in this gish gallop.
    Apart from here obviously, though I'll agree that your idea of adding attributed content to PopePalpatines statements didn't add to the clarity of the discussion.
    If we get back to his original point though; do you imagine that the number of teen pregnancies in Paraguay is linked to their abortion legislation?


  • Options
    #1607
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    That's not rebuttal of his point. It's an explanation of your misrepresentation of his point.

    Regarding your question, given that I don't think anyone has written that notion, and that I can't attribute it as PopePalpatine's original point, I'm not sure the benefit of my answer (no - as before when asked) adds to anything here? It's not really up for question, nor refutes or rebuts any of the points raised!


  • Options
    #1608
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's not rebuttal of his point. It's an explanation of your misrepresentation of his point.
    I don't think so; if you're adding additional content to his point you're not explaining how I misrepresented his point, you're misrepresenting his point.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Regarding your question, given that I don't think anyone has written that notion, and that I can't attribute it as PopePalpatine's original point, I'm not sure the benefit of my answer (no - as before when asked) adds to anything here? It's not really up for question, nor refutes or rebuts any of the points raised!
    But I think PopePalpatine did write the notion; he said that about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher; that this was the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban. If one is supposedly the harsh reality of the other, it's a bit difficult to say they're not being linked by PopePalpatine. But I do agree with you; I don't think they are linked. Regardless of whether you're talking about the number of teens recorded as being pregnant (as PopePalpatine was) or the number of teens recorded as giving birth (as the article he quoted was), there's no reason to think that the number could be higher as a result of Paraguays abortion ban. If anything, without the abortion ban the number (of births, if not pregnancies) could be lower.


  • Options
    #1609
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Why the need to once more edit, re-align or paraphrase PopePalpatine's post? Here it is verbatim, again;
    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban - about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher.

    The link is to an article which discusses the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban. 700 children had no option but to go through with a pregnancy and give birth following a rape. PopePalpatine's headline here is fair no?

    The next statement, once again, is a perfectly logical statement and conjecture, which follows from the linked article, in effect using it as a citation. The statement is backed up by the article, the conjecture follows too.

    Given that 700 children were recorded as giving birth in Paraguay, then the number of child pregnancies must be 700 or more.

    I'm not sure why you're tying yourself up in knots here. Once more, you choose a metric to apply the conjecture to that PopePalpatine's post (above) does not mention
    If anything, without the abortion ban the number (of births, if not pregnancies) could be lower.


  • Options
    #1610
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why the need to once more edit, re-align or paraphrase PopePalpatine's post? Here it is verbatim, again;
    In fairness, editing realigning and paraphrasing PopePalpatines post would be claiming he offered a direct quote or saying that he argued that the number of children being pregnant in Paraguay could be much higher than the number of children giving birth, when as the quote you've just provided, he didn't. I've stuck to answering his text throughout.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The link is to an article which discusses the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban. 700 children had no option but to go through with a pregnancy and give birth following a rape. PopePalpatine's headline here is fair no?
    The article discusses the harsh reality of child rape and pregnancy in Paraguay, and attacks the lack of availablity of abortion compared to the UK; so more the harsh reality of child abuse in Paraguay, though obviously that's not the aspect that PopePalpatine would like us to focus on.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The next statement, once again, is a perfectly logical statement and conjecture, which follows from the linked article, in effect using it as a citation. The statement is backed up by the article, the conjecture follows too.
    The next statement is certainly a conjecture, since it's not offered by the article. However, it's the conclusion, that 'he real figure could be much higher', preceded by the idea that this is 'the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban' that I take issue with, as I've said.
    Oh, and the fact that this is presented solely as an abortion issue by PopePalpatine, rather than a child abuse issue, of course.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Given that 700 children were recorded as giving birth in Paraguay, then the number of child pregnancies must be 700 or more.
    Which doesn't meant that the number of pregnancies could be much higher as a result of Paraguay's abortion ban, does it? PopePalpatine has told us that the number could be much higher is the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban; which I dispute.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you're tying yourself up in knots here. Once more, you choose a metric to apply the conjecture to that PopePalpatine's post (above) does not mention
    In fairness, I've stuck with the same statement throughout, so I'm hardly tying myself in knots. I haven't tried to say PopePalpatine offered a quote, I haven't claimed he said that the number of children being pregnant in Paraguay could be much higher than the number of children giving birth. That was all you.


  • Options
    #1611
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    In fairness, editing realigning and paraphrasing PopePalpatines post would be claiming he offered a direct quote or saying that he argued that the number of children being pregnant in Paraguay could be much higher than the number of children giving birth, when as the quote you've just provided, he didn't. I've stuck to answering his text throughout.
    The article discusses the harsh reality of child rape and pregnancy in Paraguay, and attacks the lack of availablity of abortion compared to the UK; so more the harsh reality of child abuse in Paraguay, though obviously that's not the aspect that PopePalpatine would like us to focus on.
    The next statement is certainly a conjecture, since it's not offered by the article. However, it's the conclusion, that 'he real figure could be much higher', preceded by the idea that this is 'the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban' that I take issue with, as I've said.
    Oh, and the fact that this is presented solely as an abortion issue by PopePalpatine, rather than a child abuse issue, of course.
    Which doesn't meant that the number of pregnancies could be much higher as a result of Paraguay's abortion ban, does it? PopePalpatine has told us that the number could be much higher is the harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban; which I dispute.

    In fairness, I've stuck with the same statement throughout, so I'm hardly tying myself in knots. I haven't tried to say PopePalpatine offered a quote, I haven't claimed he said that the number of children being pregnant in Paraguay could be much higher than the number of children giving birth. That was all you.

    T.e.d.i.o.u.s.

    I've already said that I shan't be engaging in the Gish gallop. To humour you perhaps, the very fact that PopePalpatine wrote a post on this thread, which we are able to quote, is evidence of PopePalpatine offering a direct quote. This direct quote is later in this post, and perfectly backs up what I've said and not what you have offered.

    You build a strawman, attribute it to PopePalpatine, and tear it down unopposed. Fair play.

    What PopePalpatine actually said, and once more (my final post on this, I promise) has not been attacked, is here for all to see.

    This post summarizese their point, and your misrepresentation of it.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban - about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Not sure how the real figure could be much higher? The article says 'were recorded as giving birth', are you suggesting that more would be recorded as giving birth if there wasn't an abortion ban?

    Ah, the problem here is either a simple misreading or else a pretty simple strawman.

    PopePalpatine references 700 girls of 14 or under recorded as pregnant, then offers the conjecture that the real figure (of pregnant girls under 14) could be much higher.

    Absolam takes the suggested notion (that the figure could be higher) and applies it to a different value - 'girls recorded as giving birth', and argues against that notion (using legitimate arguments it has to be said).

    However PopePalpatine's conjecture is absolutely valid given that the set of girls who give birth (article references 700) must be a subset of (or be exactly the set of) those who were pregnant, as it is not possible for someone to give birth without ever being pregnant.

    Either Absolam has misread PopePalpatine's post and has unintentionally argued against a notion that was not offered, or they have intentionally misrepresented that post.

    In either case, I don't think a claim against PopePalpatine's actual conjecture has been registered once, and I don't think it can.

    PopePalpatine's point is extremely clear. The abortion ban means that 700 raped children had no option but to remain pregnant and subsequently give birth in Paraguay last year.

    The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban is that children who have already suffered, are forced to bear other children, the children of their rapists.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1612
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    T.e.d.i.o.u.s..
    Gosh... rude.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I've already said that I shan't be engaging in the Gish gallop. To humour you perhaps, the very fact that PopePalpatine wrote a post on this thread, which we are able to quote, is evidence of PopePalpatine offering a direct quote. This direct quote is later in this post, and perfectly backs up what I've said and not what you have offered.
    It's not though? He offered no quote. If he did, you could quote it yourself; you haven't despite being offered the opportunity.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    You build a strawman, attribute it to PopePalpatine, and tear it down unopposed. Fair play.
    There's only one of us has said PopePalpatine said something he didn't though, isn't there? I can quote it again if you like....
    Deleted User wrote: »
    What PopePalpatine actually said, and once more (my final post on this, I promise) has not been attacked, is here for all to see.
    I think I remember; it's the one I've been quoting every time you said it contained words that it didn't. Like a quote for instance..
    Deleted User wrote: »
    This post summarizese their point, and your misrepresentation of it.
    So when you add text that's summarising? I'd call it extrapolating....
    Deleted User wrote: »
    PopePalpatine's point is extremely clear. The abortion ban means that 700 raped children had no option but to remain pregnant and subsequently give birth in Paraguay last year.
    The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban is that children who have already suffered, are forced to bear other children, the children of their rapists.
    Not what PopePalpatine actually said (though you know that, since you quoted him), but I'll happily agree it's what you appear to think.


  • Options
    #1613
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    When I do this
    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban - about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher.

    I am quoting the poster.
    That is their direct quote.
    It is why they are known as quote html tags.


  • Options
    #1614
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    When I do this
    I am quoting the poster.
    That is their direct quote.
    It is why they are known as quote html tags.
    Yes you are, but that's your direct quote. Their direct quote would be where they quoted something.


  • Options
    #1615
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What is argumentum ad waste of time um?


  • Options
    #1616
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What is argumentum ad waste of time um?
    In fairness, I did point out you were wrong when you started....


  • Options
    #1617
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    In fairness, I did point out you were wrong when you started....

    No. You explained your misrepresentation of PopePalpatine's post.

    Here's a simple and obvious instance of how you misrepresented the post
    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't think so; neither the number of girls who were pregnant nor the number of girls who gave birth could have increased if Paraguay had a liberal abortion regime. Both numbers can only decrease as a result of more abortions.

    Care to point out where anyone has said anything along those lines other than yourself?


  • Options
    #1618
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    I am so confused...

    dog-chases-tail-o.gif


  • Options
    #1619
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,844 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    robdonn wrote: »
    I am so confused...

    dog-chases-tail-o.gif

    Crap, that means Absolam's obfuscation is working. :/


  • Options
    #1620
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,721 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    What did I just read?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1621
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    MOD NOTE.

    Let's have an end to the nitpicking back-and-forth regarding the use of "pregnant" vs. "gave birth".
    The children who gave birth obviously would have been pregnant.

    I read the PPs as introducing a talking point about young girls would have been sexually abused and became pregnant as a result. Should they be allowed have an abortion or not?

    And less of the sniping at each other please.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



Advertisement