Fighting Tao wrote: » Oh, you had me for a second thinking of all that life you were killing.
Cupcake_Crisis wrote: » I’m a woman, my self indulgence is relatively sin free!
....... wrote: » Doctors treat their patients. The living born women in front of them. The prescribing of tablets for termination of a pregnancy in the first 12 weeks would not strike most medical professionals as something to need counselling for. Is this the new No voter line of rhetoric? Doctors will need counselling? They seem to manage fine in other countries.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » At no point did I claim, as you have falsely suggested here, that you claimed the study has shown the fetus was trying to speak. I claim you reacted to it emotionally in that sense.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » There was a study posted, and deeply misrepresented, by another user of boards related to playing music at the fetus for example. The music resulted in autonomic responses including mouth movements. In describing what the movements LOOKED like, the researcher wrote that it looked "like it is trying to speak". The user who posted it took this to mean the fetus looked like it was ACTUALLY trying to speak.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » ... the boards.ie user grabbed that description and ran with it as not just LOOKING LIKE that fetus was trying to speak....... but the fetus ACTUALLY WAS trying to speak.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » All rationality went out of the user at that point and he interpreted it looking LIKE "trying to speak" as pretty much being the fetus ACTUALLY trying to speak. Which was both sad AND comical at the time.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » In trying to describe what this movement LOOKS LIKE the writer of the paper said it looks like the fetus "trying to speak". Which the boards user in question appears to have parsed as if the fetus actually was trying to speak.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » But alas the user appears to have read that as the fetus WAS trying to speak, rather than making movements similar to those of trying to speak. And got rather emotive on the subject of abortion as a result
Gintonious wrote: » The highlight of the whole campaign. This was when Sky couldn't get anyone from the NO side, so this is what they had to settle on. She is absolutely out of her mind. Incredible.
Just her wrote: » According to this GPS would be in the minority in Europe if expected to provide abortions, also abortion clinics are widespread in America. Which countries have abortion provided by their gp?https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/twothirds-of-gps-will-refuse-to-provide-abortion-pills-36682050.html
fxotoole wrote: » Depends what stage the pregnancy is at. If it's within the first trimester, the abortion would consist of 2 tablets, which could easily be administered be a GP. Later stage abortions would require surgical intervention, and that's assuming the legislation will even allow later stage abortions.
Just her wrote: » Would you know what countries have their GPS provide the abortion pills?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » <Predictable obfuscating...... snipped>
Outlaw Pete wrote: » lol. Nozz, you can try and twist and squirm your way out of this as much as you like, but it won't wash. If someone posts a study and they do so in a way that would be indicative of them believing that it showed X, then that is the very same as them claiming that the study showed X. Nice try though.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » In actual fact you seem to have had something of an obsession of referencing my posting of that study and then going on to mock and poke fun at me over it. For reasons only known to yourself. Usually I ignore it. Well, not today.
fxotoole wrote: » Absolute car crash TV It's almost as if Sky News deliberately found the weakest debater they could for the No side because they were biased towards the Yes side
Cupcake_Crisis wrote: » That was PAINFUL to watch.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Oh good, I am glad you left that out then. Gives you less to type if you leave our your predictable obfuscating! Keep it up. Well that did not last long, here is your predictable obfuscating. Taking the usual form of merely trying to tell me what my own words mean, when I assure you they meant something else. But AGAIN when I say you reacted to the study emotionally "as if" it was trying to speak, then that is 100% exactly what I meant. I know it would serve you to have me mean something different, but twist and squirm as much as you like, it won't wash. But whatever way you want to dig up my phrasing it, the point is he same. Every. Single. Time. Your emotional reaction to the study scales not just with it looking like speech, but like it is actually trying to speak. Not that the fetus IS actually trying to speak. But that your reaction to is is of a level that would scale with thinking it is actually tying to speak. Now you can continue to pretend to know what I mean with my own words, and find sentences that if you squint at them look like I am saying something else...... but I would suggest if someone tells your their own words mean X, then telling them they actually meant Y is just your own projection. Well I guess it was your need to ignore things that left you thinking it was for reasons "only known to me". You do ignore and skip over quite a lot, some of which you admit most of which you do not, but I fear you do it deliberately so you can, like here today, feign ignorance about things I have been very open and articulate about. I have been very clear why I bring up that subject, and your tongue reference particularly. I have explained exactly why numerous times. I can do so again: There is no moral and ethical argument indicting the practice of termination of a fetus at 10 weeks. The majority of people who have an issue with it, yourself being an ongoing and consistent example, base it on nothing but emotion. And that emotion is something that is fuelled by, or they try to fuel it by, or both, appeals to the appearance and movements in the fetus. You in particular link to videos, gifs and more in this attempt. Often multiple times in one post. So yes I often reference people who have made that move, and your example in particular is a very useful one to employ as it shows very clearly a strong emotional reaction to a study that said nothing of any actual relevance to the morality of fetal termination. And you once again remain reticent, despite a direct question, about what you think the relevance is/was. No surprise there. See, nothing mysterious. Very easily explained. And most people who have not simply ignored my posts knew this already. So it most certainly is not and was not "only known to me".
Just her wrote: » Why do you say 'there is no moral or ethical argument.....' as if it is a fact, instead of 'in my opinion....' Do you consider yourself a superior authority over everyone? Why would that be?
Fighting Tao wrote: » This is probably my favourite video on the internet now. It was a very unfair contest. Someone with facts against a loon that doesn't seem to know anything factual at all.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » People often talk in absolutes. Context usually tells you that do not mean it absolutely. I have been on threads about abortion on boards for 10 years now. To date no moral or ethical argument has been presented that in any way indicts the termination of a 10 week old fetus. Which is when the majority of terminations tend to happen. Nothing whatsoever to do with me feeling superior. It is just an evaluation of all the threads and 10s of 1000s of posts I have read on the subject. If such an argument does exist, it certainly is not forthcoming. So I am as happy to speak in absolutes on that, as I am on the topic of goblins. While I can not know 100% there are no goblins, I can still formulate the sentence meaningfully "There are no goblins" and most people will generally know what I mean without having to make me go all Russels Teapot on it. Are we to reduce this, in other words, to equivocation over sentence structure? Or shall we simply agree at this time you for one simply have no such argument to present. There may be goblins, but none are here today, and you have not got one to show us.
Wrongway1985 wrote: » It's actually quite sad and unbelievable; a guy who has been knowledgeable on the content for years versus a headbanger who seems to have only been made aware of the matter from a sole TV debate.
Just her wrote: » No we won't agree Nozzferrahhtoo, but as you would say, I think you already know that.
Fighting Tao wrote: » This is probably my favourite video on the internet now. It was a very unfair contest. Someone with facts against a loon that doesn't seem to know anything factual at all. I love the guy at the end in the white van parking, getting out, realising he is on TV, gets back in and then reverses so he is off camera.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I would say you not having presented such an argument, and not presenting one here, is a tacit agreement that the argument in question simply does not exist to be presented. But.... I think you already know that
Fighting Tao wrote: » Sad, unbelievable and funny. She appears to be an adult and therefore it can be assumed that she had the capacity to say she didn't want to take part.
retro:electro wrote: » “97% of pregnancies in the UK end in abortion” I’m actually weak who is this gowl
Outlaw Pete wrote: » <bickering bickering rabble rabble bickering> So again, nozz, I'll repeat my offer: find just ONE time on Boards where I referenced that study in a such way that would be indicate of my believing that the fetuses in it did not just look as if they were trying to speak but had "ACTUALLY" been trying to speak. If you can do that, I'll pay €100 to the SSF or a charity of your choice.
Any chance you give that kind of nonsense a rest? Asking someone did they "invent" something they have said is tantamount to asking them if they have lied. A simple request for the source would suffice: [source relating to study showing fetus responding to auditory stimuli by mouthing/"trying to speak"]
The researchers stated that the 16-week-old fetuses included in the study moved their mouths and tongues in response to music as if they were trying to speak. That is much different than a "blob of biological matter" moving it's muscles and/or nerves after they have been stimulated. This was very soft low level music which they reacted to. Not a pin prick.
Studies have all but confirmed that fetuses as young as 16-weeks respond to auditory stimuli:
fxotoole wrote: » She's an actress, singer, burlesque performer and Marilyn Monroe impersonator. She was in Cardboard Gangsters apparentlywww.sarahlouisemulligan.com
