Friday, May 04, 2012

Conversation with ORCRC


  • Another great editorial. The Tulsa World is to be commended for calling it like it is on several issues related to justice issues for women. Thank you for you guts and great journalism.

      • Tory 
        ‎'Guts'? How about guts to stand up for the unborn, innocent lives being discarded every day?
      • Stacey
        I don't think it takes guts to do that. It has more to do with fanaticism.
      • Tory 
        Oh ok. But it takes guts to kill innocent life repeatedly. That makes sense....
      • Oklahoma Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
        Tory, how about the guts clinic escorts have to stand up to screaming protestors who harass our patients (...and patience...) every single day? How about the guts to do it after escorts have had acid thrown in their faces by fanatic anti-choice protestors and doctors like George Tiller have been shot while WALKING OUT OF CHURCH? That takes more guts than preaching away women's rights.
      • Tory 
        Well, for one, we don't agree with nor do we condone anyone throwing acid in anyone's face, nor killing an abortionist. So, that is simply not consistent logic to apply to all "anti-choice". However, this is not simply a women's rights issu...See More
      •  Ian John Philoponus
        Hi ORCRC, could you please give me some evidence to support your claim that clinic escorts are repeatedly screamed at, "every single day." and that they have had acid thrown in their faces. Could you also prove that everyone who is oppossed to abortion agrees with, and participates in, such behaviour.

        Thanks.

      • Rhology
        Since a clinic escort is aiding and abetting in the murder of a preborn child and is giving comfort (rather than proper information and assistance) to a woman who is about to take her child's life away, are you seriously asking me to feel pity for that escort? 
        See, people are upset b/c babies are being murdered. I'm really sorry that people are screaming at you. 0h n035. Compared to the unprovoked death the baby is about to undergo, it's hard to make a real comparison.

        \\ doctors like George Tiller\\

        LOL Tiller :: doctor as Stalin :: philanthropist

      • Stacey
        A life that has not yet begun cannot be taken away. Please take your fallacies and fanatacism elsewhere.
      • Rhology
        Do you really think that the "product of conception" is not even alive? 
        If you do think that, may I ask when life begins?
      • Oklahoma Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
        Tory, thanks for your reply. I like how you put it. It's important to respect both sides of this controversial issue, and easy to get worked up. 
        Ian -- Google search those topics and I'm sure you'll find whatever information you need -- and to clarify, of course OKRCRC doesn't think all people opposed to abortion participate in such behavior. Most people are perfectly within their rights when they discuss the issue. It is only extremists who resort to violence; I think we can all agree on that.
      • Tory 
        Violence does not mean killing innocent lives though? Not that I am trying to diminish the murder of Dr Tiller, but it just boggles my mind how the ones who are so outraged by his death are not as outraged by thousands of innocent lives being lost every day! It it quite inconsistent. And, OKRCRC, IJP simply asked a question, and if you can't give answers to things you are saying, that is scary. I could quote things all day long, but if I don't have any resources to back up my claims, my claims are empty. I ask that you either stop talking about people harassing "your patients", escorts having acid thrown in their faces, etc etc, unless you can support it. I am sure you can, but I'm just asking you to come up with the evidence, rather than say it, then tell someone that asks for proof to go look somewhere else. That's sad.
      • Rhology
        We can definitely agree that violence is not the answer. 
        Ironically, we are the only side that is anti-violence; abortion is approximately the most violent thing anyone could do. Unprovoked killing of innocents.

        You had said "every single day". Ian asked for evidence. You didn't give any but rather said "Google it". Does this mean you don't have any evidence? That you just made it up out of bias?

      • Stacey
        Rhology, you may ask, but you will probably not like the answer you're going to get. I do not believe that life begins at conception. The potential for life is there, but a fertilized egg cannot sustain itself outside of a woman's body. In fact, a fetilized egg cannot even begin to develop the features of life until it implants itself within the mother's uterus. Only then can it begin to develop the functions it needs to live outside of its mother. With all of this in mind, I do not believe that a person's life begins before the moment of birth.
      • Rhology
        ‎\\you will probably not like the answer you're going to get\\

        That's OK. Happens all the time. :-)

        \\The potential for life is there, but a fertilized egg cannot sustain itself outside of a woman's body\\

        Emphysema patients cannot sustain their lives outside of an oxygen tank. Shall we consider them not-alive as well?
        What I'm trying to get at is that life is a question of ESSENCE, not of PERFORMANCE or ABILITY. You seem to want to make it about ability, but that's because you're relatively free from danger and threat to life and limb right now.
        No, laws protecting human rights are to restrain the strong from redefining or threatening and oppressing the weak, which is what abortion does - it destroys the weakest among us.

        \\With all of this in mind, I do not believe that a person's life begins before the moment of birth.\\

        With respect, I didn't ask when life DOESN'T begin. I asked when it does.
        And as a hint, after you tell me, I'm going to ask you how you know that.

      • Oklahoma Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
        One: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/butyric_acid.asp -- yes, I'm aware this is a pro-choice site, but their statistics are backed up by media and police reports. 

        Two:
        Between 1982 and 1996, there was "over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups, in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings."
        --"Anti-Abortion Violence Movement," Office of International Criminal Justice of the University of Illinois at Chicago at: http://www.acsp.uic.edu/

        Three:
        Naral Fatchseets: "Clinic violence, intimidation and terrorism," at: http://www.naral.org/

        Four:
        "Between 1998 and 2000, more than 80 letters which threatened Anthrax contamination were sent to U.S. clinics in 16 states. Anthrax is a potentially fatal bacteria if its spores are inhaled into the lungs. All of the letters turned out to be hoaxes."
        --Marie McCullough, "Anthrax letters to clinics hoaxes, early tests show," Philadelphia Inquirer, 2001-OCT-17 at: http://inq.philly.com/

        Five:
        Lots of good (and cited) statistics here. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

        And for fairness' sake:
        Here are some actively anti-violence anti-choicers. The text of the Pro-life Proclamation Against Violence is at: http://www.all.org/ The list of agencies that support this proclamation is at: http://www.all.org/

      • Oklahoma Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
        Here's one of several active anti-abortion terror groups in the US who support the murders committed by Paul Hill and Scott Roeder, whom they call American heroes: http://www.armyofgod.com/
        (Disturbing text and images at the link)
      • Rhology
        ‎$13 million in 15 years is less than $1million per year, you know. 
        More babies were murdered in that time span than dollars of damage caused to abortuaries.

        \\"Between 1998 and 2000, more than 80 letters which threatened Anthrax contamination were sent to U.S. clinics in 16 states.\\

        Illegal, yes. A huge deal? I guess it depends how you define it. I'd call a letter containing real anthrax far worse.

        \\clinic violence\\

        You said "every day". Are you telling us that you don't have evidence to support this claim?
        As for that spreadsheet, again, we don't condone violence.

        \\butyric acid\\

        You know, when you said "acid thrown in people's faces", I was thinking a corrosive liquid that would cause pain and disfigurement, crippling a person.
        You're talking about the equivalent of a rotten egg stinkbomb.
        \\In addition, even after cleanup, butyric acid's smell leaves a reminder of the incident for months, and often years, to come.\\

        It's hard for me to feel too much pity for those who suffered this horrible assault. You mean, you mean, it made the place *smell bad*? God forbid.



      • Rhology
        And the cleanup of butyric acid 'attacks' still amounts to less than $1million per year. Perhaps they should hire someone a little more expensive to clean up? 
        I don't want to give the wrong impression, that I condone this kind of activity. I've made no statement either way on something like this. I'm saying that it's very hard to feel pity for the 'victims' who've had to spend less than $1/dead baby to recover from these pro-lifers' actions.
      • Stacey
        Again, you use fallacy, Rhology. You cannot compare the emphysema patient to the fertilized egg. One has been born and lived; the other has not. On another point, you assume that I am "free from danger and threat to life and limb right now." First, you do not know me, so you cannot possibly know that. Second, I am currently facing a high-risk pregnancy which could, in fact, threaten my health, life, and future fertility, and I expect the law to protect me against pro-life legislation that could decide my fate on any of these counts if something were to go horribly wrong. As to my response on the question of when life begins, I have already answered that, but allow me to clarify. A person's life begins at the moment of birth. You say that you will ask me how I know that. I know it in the same way that others know what their own beliefs are. I rely on my experience, education, and rational thought to provide me with the answer to that question.
      • Rhology
        ‎\\ You cannot compare the emphysema patient to the fertilized egg. One has been born and lived; the other has not.\\

        1) Stop saying "fallacy" unless you mean it, please. It makes you look like you don't know the definition of the word.
        2) What is it about birth that magically grants human rights to someone? Please cite your source.

        \\you assume that I am "free from danger and threat to life and limb right now."\\

        Um, you're typing on a keyboard on Facebook. I'd say it's a reasonable assumption.

        \\I am currently facing a high-risk pregnancy which could, in fact, threaten my health, life, and future fertility\\

        I am truly sorry to hear this. What are you doing here?

        \\. A person's life begins at the moment of birth\\

        1) What specifically in your "experience, education, and rational thought" have provided you the answer to how you know this?
        2) If someone else relies on their experience, education, and rational thought and comes up with the exact opposite conclusion, who is right and how can we know?
        3) Is it justifiable to sever a baby's spinal cord and dismember him 5 minutes before birth?

      • Stacey
        As an instructor of English composition, I do know what a fallacy is and can provide you a list of common fallacies.

        The law recognizes that a person's life begins at birth. One cannot become a citizen of his or her homeland until that point. One cannot be issued any form of identification (birth certificate, SSN) until after birth. A parent cannot claim a child on his or her taxes until after the child has been born.

        What am I doing where?

        I cannot recount all of my experiences and education for you, but I have thought long and hard about these issues, and I stand by my conclusion. If someone comes up with a different conclusion, he or she has a perfect right to do so just as I have a perfect right to reject that conclusion. And we would both be right to stand by our conclusions.

        I never suggested that it is justifiable to sever a baby's spinal cord five minutes before birth.

      • Tory 
        So Stacey, let's say (hypothetically speaking), that our government decided tomorrow, to make a law that a person's life begins at 20 weeks. Would you then change your position because the law changed? It seems that your definitions for life are being based on law. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right.
      • Rhology
        ‎\\A parent cannot claim a child on his or her taxes until after the child has been born.\\

        What do these things have to do with anything?

        \\ I have thought long and hard about these issues, and I stand by my conclusion...If someone comes up with a different conclusion, he or she has a perfect right to do so just as I have a perfect right to reject that conclusion.\\

        The question at hand is not whether one has a right to a different opinion on a matter than another person. The question is: Who is correct?
        Could you please answer that? If two ppl come to 2 diff conclusions, how can we know which of them is correct?

        \\And we would both be right to stand by our conclusions.\\

        If you think abortion is OK and I think it's murder, we can't both be right, can we?

        \\I never suggested that it is justifiable to sever a baby's spinal cord five minutes before birth.\\

        May I ask why not? You've just told us that human rights begin at birth. What would be your objection to this surgery on the baby 5 mins before birth?

      • Stacey
        Tory, I am not basing my position on what the law currently says. I am merely citing this as a source for my position because that is what I was asked to do. I also base my position on the fact that a fetus at 20 weeks cannot survive outside the uterus.

        Rho, with an issue that is not black and white, no one can be completely correct. I accept that there are points where I am probably wrong. However, I do believe that the rights of the already living supercede those of the unborn, and I would hope that the medical profession, the law, and society as a whole would seek to continue to protect a woman's right to choose.

        I am pro-choice, but this does not mean that I like abortion. However, I like the government interfering with a woman's reproductive choices even less. I think abortion should be as former President Clinton described: "legal, safe, and rare." I also think that ideally an abortion should occur within the first trimester (which is when the majority of abortions do occur). The only times I believe a late-term abortion should occur are when the mother's life is in danger or when the baby has a condition that does not support life, and in those cases, I believe that there should be an alternative to severing the spinal cord. I stand by my conviction that life does not begin until the moment of birth and that a person should not be granted rights until he or she is born, but I concede that some forms of abortion are not humane.

        On a final note, I do appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position, but I will respectfully decline any further comment. I believe I have addressed the counterarguments sufficiently.

      • Rhology
        If someone has come to the completely opposite conclusion than you with respect to whether the rights of the already living (by which you mean, no doubt, the already-born, for it can't be denied that the preborn child is LIVING) supercede those of the unborn, who is correct and how can we know?
        *Can* we know that?

        \\I am pro-choice, but this does not mean that I like abortion\\

        You like it enough to argue for its continuance.
        Put your words in the mouth of a 19th century Southerner: "I am pro-choice, but this does not mean that I like slavery."
        How much respect would you have for a person that said that?

        \\ I believe that there should be an alternative to severing the spinal cord\\

        Why does this matter? The baby is just as dead either way, is he not?

        \\. I stand by my conviction that life does not begin until the moment of birth and that a person should not be granted rights until he or she is born, but I concede that some forms of abortion are not humane. \\

        The baby 5 mins before birth has no rights, and yet you care about the manner used to dispatch him? Why?

        \\I will respectfully decline any further comment. I believe I have addressed the counterarguments sufficiently.\\

        You haven't even gotten close to doing so, but nice talking to you.

      • Stacey
        I know I said I would not comment further, and I do not intend to comment on any of the points you have raised because to do so would be to give them validity, which they do not have because they resort to circular logic and fallacy. (Yes, I say fallacy, because there are errors in your reasoning. The fallacy you continue to use is a false analogy. You cannot compare the pro-choice movement to 19th century slavery. These are two different issues based on different assumptions.) I only wish to say that your argument would be stronger if you were to avoid taking someone's words out of context (and twisting them to serve your own argument) and making false comparisons.

        And yes, I have addressed every single one of your counterarguments sufficiently. You may not agree with what I say, but that does not make my argument deficient. Good day to you.

      • Rhology
        ‎\\which they do not have because they resort to circular logic and fallacy.\\

        Without an argument, this is a mere naked assertion. As Christopher Hitchens liked to say, "That which is asserted without evidence may be safely dismissed without evidence."

        \\there are errors in your reasoning\\

        What are they?

        \\You cannot compare the pro-choice movement to 19th century slavery\\

        I'm not. I'm pointing out the numerous parallels between the way oppressors of weaker people's human rights argued in the 18th-19th centuries and the way oppressors of weaker people's human rights argue today.

        \\I only wish to say that your argument would be stronger if you were to avoid taking someone's words out of context (and twisting them to serve your own argument) and making false comparisons. \\

        Since you didn't provide any examples, there's no way to respond. I'll just have to disagree with you and wait for someone to show me where I have erred.
        I have a great deal of experience with these arguments and have talked to many people just like you. Just as they have failed to show where my arguments are faulty, I fully expect you to fail as well.

27 comments:

Stacey said...

I see you have failed to ask permission to use my comments from yesterday's conversation in your blog.

Rhology said...

You are correct. If you want the right to restrict viewing of your statements, make statements in private, not in public.

Stacey said...

Where I say it is not the issue; what you do with my words is. Putting my comments on a facebook page does not mean that I want them used in your blog.

Rhology said...

OK.
You put them in public, however, and that's the nature of things.
Are you unhappy with your words being spread around? Are you unwilling to stand behind them?

I'd say you'd have a valid complaint if I'd cut up your comments or edited them, but I pasted it all exactly as it appeared originally.

Stacey said...

If I want my words spread around, it should be done at my discretion as I am the owner of those words. I am perfectly willing to stand behind my words, just not so willing to have someone use them without my permission. I would not do that to you or anyone else.

Rhology said...

I understand. I disagree that it "should" or "must" be done at your discretion.
I do not believe you or anyone else have the right to obligate anyone to ask for your permission before they quote your public words.

Stacey said...

Do you make a full disclosure that when you enter into a conversation with someone that you may be using that conversation in another forum? It seems that you do not. Rather, it seems that you enter into conversations with those of dissenting opinions just so that you can use those conversations to promote your own cause. At best, this type of behavior is discourteous, and at worst, it is unethical. When you do this, you not only make yourself look bad, but you make that which you stand for look bad as well.

Rhology said...

it seems that you enter into conversations with those of dissenting opinions just so that you can use those conversations to promote your own cause

That's probably a fair statement. I do so by demonstrating the falsehood of the competing position.
It would *not* be fair to say I do so to promote my*self*, though.

Why is it discourteous?
How is it unethical?

stacey said...

I did not suggest you were doing so to promote yourself. I believe my exact words were "your own cause." If you have misunderstood my words, allow me to clarify. By "your own cause" I meant your position on the issue. I did not mean that you intended to make yourself look good.

You ask how what your actions are discourteous. Let's say that you are seeking someone else's view on an issue for an essay or article that you intend to publish. If you begin asking questions of a person without letting that person know of your intentions, you are not giving that person the courtesy of knowing that what he or she says will be used for another purpose. When I entered into conversation with you yesterday, I did so because I saw it as an opportunity to make my position clear to someone of an opposing view. I also saw it as an opportunity to strengthen my own argument skills. I was not told that my words would be used in another forum. If I had been, I might have chosen to debate with you privately because I would not have approved of my words being used in your blog.

As to how your actions are unethical, let's say that you are a student and your instructor has asked you to write an essay on an opposing view. If you enter into conversation with someone without disclosing your intentions and then use what he or she has said in an assignment, you have not done your research fairly or responsibly. This may not seem to be so bad because it's just a school assignment. (Yet, as an instructor, if I were to find out that the research had been conducted in this way, I would not accept the source as valid.) Now, let's say that you are a journalist. It is your job to get a story, but you cannot publish someone's words in a column or put that person on camera without first getting his or her permission. Doing so would cost you your own credibility and threaten that of your employer. It could also be grounds for a lawsuit.

I enjoyed debating with you. It is not often that I find someone who argues the opposing view so articulately. It is also not often that I find myself in a debate where I feel challenged but not threatened. As I have already stated, I did appreciate this opportunity because it allowed me to hone my own argument skills. Unfortunately, though, I will not be debating with you further on this or any other issue because you have not treated our conversation in a way that I consider to be fair.

Stacey said...

Correction: You ask how your actions are discourteous.

(Despite proofreading my comment several times, I missed an error.)

Rhology said...

So you might have chosen not to put your words out in public if you thought they might be visible to the public? I'm afraid I don't follow. You may not be clear on what "public" means.

Neither of us are in a student-instructor relationship with the other. This is a public blog, and the ORCRC FB page is public as well.
Neither was it research. It was a public dialogue.
Neither is it journalism.

I might indeed accept your attempts at analogies as correct for their own sake. Yes, a journalist should protect his sources unless he gets permission to reveal their identity. Etc. But the analogies don't hold b/c they're not this situation.

I do appreciate the compliment, and I would also like to extend the same to you. It's a pleasure at least to talk to someone who is able to express herself in proper English.

I'm sad to hear you don't consider my treatment of you as fair, but I don't believe you have any grounds to complain. Like I said, if I'd misquoted you or edited your comments to try to weaken your expressions, that would be something other than what it is.

Stacey said...

No, you did not misquote me. And I do understand what "public" means. However, I did not seek to make my words public within this forum. I posted elsewhere, and that does not automatically make those words yours to do with as you wish. I did not consent to be published here. If I had been invited to share my view on your blog, I might have. Yet, this invitation was not extended to me. Instead, you decided to use my words for your own purpose. I maintain that this is discourteous and unethical regardless of what our relationship might be. And on those grounds, I do have a very valid complaint. Public elsewhere does not equal permission here.

Rhology said...

Public elsewhere does not equal permission here.

You can say so, but your mere ipse dixit does not make it so.

Cheers.

Stacey said...

"This is a public blog, and the ORCRC FB page is public as well."

I see your ipse dixit and raise you a non sequitur.

Rhology said...

:-)
Blogs and public Facebook pages are not very dissimilar.

Matthew C. Martellus said...

Accusations of "unethical behavior" presuppose a normative standard of ethics that applies to all parties involved. Stacey's objection is rather vapid, as far as I am concerned, unless she can state succinctly what this standard of ethics is, and why it applies to Rho. And this involves more than merely presenting a false analogy.

It's been my experience that when pro-choicers are unable to answer these kinds of arguments (like Rho presented on the FB thread), it is not uncommon for them to divert attention from the murder of preborn children to the supposedly "improper" way that we have presented our arguments and conducted ourselves.

Rhology said...

I do find it a bit strange that she said she didn't want to talk about abortion anymore and gave the impression that she didn't have any more time, but she has spilled quite a bit of ink here, arguing that public FB pages aren't the same as blogs.

Stacey said...

I am not comparing the two. I am again asserting that my choice to post comments elsewhere does not give you permission to use them here. It does not follow that posting on a Facebook page means you have the right to use my words in your blog.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have my own blog to attend to, one that does not resort to such tactics.

Rhology said...

I am again asserting that my choice to post comments elsewhere does not give you permission to use them here.

You keep accusing me without substantiation. I'm afraid I must ask you directly.
Prove it.

Rhology said...

Quite à propos.

Stacey said...

Matthew, I suppose then, that neither you nor Rho would object to me using your comments without seeking permission to do so? Also, I am more than capable of answering Rho's arguments, but I choose not to engage in a discussion that will get neither of us anywhere.

Rho, I would debate with you further on the issue, but I no longer trust you to do so fairly.

Rhology said...

I suppose then, that neither you nor Rho would object to me using your comments without seeking permission to do so?

Correct. That's why I have a public blog.


I no longer trust you to do so fairly.

An empty complaint w/o supporting argumentation as to why I'm untrustworthy. It is merely emoting at this point.

Stacey said...

You want proof for an accusation, but as I have made no accusation, I see no need to submit proof. Also, I did not say you were untrustworthy. I said that I don't trust you to treat my words fairly. I do not know you personally, so I cannot make a judgment as to your trustworthiness. Finally, though your blog is public, I do not believe this gives me permission to use anything you say for my own purposes, so I will not do so. On that note, I will be signing off from this conversation, and I will not be communicating with you further here or elsewhere.

Chemist said...

That was an entertaining dialog of posting etiquette. Alas, I was hoping that Stacy was returning to actually defend her view on what life actually is.

BooBoo McBride said...

And there's our answer! thanks for playing, coward.

John said...

"BooBoo McBride" slanders Rhology and calls him a coward, all the while remaining hidden behind a curtain of anonymity. What a cowardly and infantile troll.

Rhology said...

BooBoo has apparently confused where we are. We think this is a blog; he thinks this is a playground in 4th grade.