Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Here on dakka I've had to point out to the same people more than once that no Planned Parenthood funding can be used for abortion, only for those same people to mention it again later on.

Actually, if you don't mind me diverging for a second here (again); maybe you guys can help me with this. I once read an article that talks about a rubber band effect; whereby if you believe something enough, someone can show you clear evidence it's not true, and if you're reasonable, you'll then agree it was not true, but later on you will return to the original belief instead. It's not so much being disingenuous as an actual psychological phenomenon.

I've seen it as well, with a co-worker who was convinced Al Franken only got elected because "the democrats found a bunch of votes at the last second in the trunk of a car*". I showed many sources showing this wasn't so, he came around... and then a few months later, repeated the original belief. God, I wish I could find that article again.

*this thread is not the place to rehash that, I'm simply using it as an example

Confirmation Bias could also be the cause.

I now see posts on my facebook timeline featuring a student-ID from Obama that proves that he was a foreign student in New York. Of course the same people who think that this is 100% legit are also the same people who claim every birth certificate is photoshopped.

Oh man, I found it (not the article). It's called "Belief Perserverance". I'll read more about it when I'm not wearing one shoe and running out the door to work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias is the best I can come up with, or watching FoxNews

 Ouze wrote:

Actually, if you don't mind me diverging for a second here (again); maybe you guys can help me with this. I once read an article that talks about a rubber band effect; whereby if you believe something enough, someone can show you clear evidence it's not true, and if you're reasonable, you'll then agree it was not true, but later on you will return to the original belief instead. It's not so much being disingenuous as an actual psychological phenomenon.

I think you're talking about suggestibility. The idea is that people vary significantly in terms of their willingness to accept, and seemingly espouse, new ideas. So, while you might seemingly convince someone that their first belief was false, they may well return to it when again exposed to the source of that belief.

In essence, a highly suggestible person not only lacks strong beliefs, but is unwilling to express doubt with respect to the beliefs of others.

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They weren't saying it. Only Akin did. No-one was agreeing with the words at face value, even Akin.

They would only be 'dumber than 10 year olds' if they literally agreed with the original comments. No-one does, including Akin, even though most are pro-life, many as much or more so than Akin.

Except that isn't true. Here's a 1999 article that claims the same nonsense as Akin;
"What is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle."
http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461

In 1995 North Carolina Rep Henry Aldridge made the same stupid claim; "The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lawmaker-Says-Rape-Can-t-Cause-Pregnancy-3036411.php

In 1998 Pennsylvanian Rep Stephen Freind claimed that during rape women "secrete a certain secretion" that kills sperm.
http://articles.philly.com/1988-03-23/news/26277205_1_freind-woman-secretes-luigi-mastroianni

This is not some totally out of the blue nonsense. It's stupid, loathsome gak that's been present in anti-abortion circles for more than a quarter of a century.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Greater than the Holocaust?

/hyperbole

Well, thing is, the numbers add up fast enough so that there's been more abortions than victims of the holocaust, so by pure bodycount maths it holds up.

The trick is, of course, that in the same period ten times that number of unborn children have been lost through miscarriage, and yet you don't hear anything about that from anti-abortion crusaders. You don't hear them campaign for better medical techniques, and for the funding needed to make those medical techniques available to all pregnant women. It's almost as if when talking about abortion they absolutely 100% believe the unborn is completely equal to a person, but outside of that their assumptions tell another story entirely.

I hear that doctors say that women produce saddness hormones that make her depressed when she is not near a stove. It has to be legit because I am pretty sure it was a doctor who said that.

Troll link redacted

Y'all will get a kick out of that.

 Melissia wrote:
There's also a huge difference between a zygote and a human being.

There is, or there isn't, depending on your beliefs. End of the day we really don't have a definition for when life begins that's at all objective, and people have to go with what they personally believe.

 Amaya wrote:
Troll link redacted

Y'all will get a kick out of that.

Do you want this thread to be locked THAT badly?

 Amaya wrote:
Troll link redacted

Y'all will get a kick out of that.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
I could tell you that the majority of people who use the services of abortion clinics are undereducated, poor, and of a different class and race than those that predominantly judge and dictate how "wrong" abortion is. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that abortion clinics are an agent of slow acting ethnic cleansing because those who need it most lacked the effective educational resources that could have prevented them from needing a clinic in the first place. If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.

It would be a massive, crazy pants stretch to claim that. It would be the silliest thing claimed since... well, since Rep Akin claimed that woman have biological defences to prevent rape during pregnancy.

If someone desired ethnic cleansing they wouldn't prevent access to birth control in the hope that some of the babies would be aborted... they'd just provide birth control. Seriously, your claim makes no damn sense at all, even if we assume there's a secret genocidal conspiracy.

Legitimate rape is Legitimate.

Trolling is not welcome here.

 Ouze wrote:
Actually, if you don't mind me diverging for a second here (again); maybe you guys can help me with this. I once read an article that talks about a rubber band effect; whereby if you believe something enough, someone can show you clear evidence it's not true, and if you're reasonable, you'll then agree it was not true, but later on you will return to the original belief instead. It's not so much being disingenuous as an actual psychological phenomenon.

Yeah, and that happens to me, to you, and to everyone. It'd be nice if we were all perfectly rational beings, but we're not. But not all instances of phenomena like this are equal - the question at hand, why you believe as you do, and to what extent you're willing to believe it matters makes a difference.

I'd be happy to believe someone who is marginally interested in abortion would forget specific details of an abortion debate they had a year before, especially if that point wasn't the cornerstone of their debate. I'm a lot less likely to extend that forgiveness to someone who is an active, constant campaigner on abortion who undergoes self deceit to produce ignorance like Rep Akin showed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 youbedead wrote:
Not just that, being shown evidence that directly refutes what you believe will simply reinforce your belief

Yeah, I remember that study as well. It explained a lot about dakka, and especially how threads tend to get worse and worse as they go on - the opinions get more strident, especially among whichever side happens to be losing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Confirmation Bias could also be the cause.

I now see posts on my facebook timeline featuring a student-ID from Obama that proves that he was a foreign student in New York. Of course the same people who think that this is 100% legit are also the same people who claim every birth certificate is photoshopped.

Absolutely, but like I said to Ouze above not every instance of irrationality like this is the same.

sebster wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
I could tell you that the majority of people who use the services of abortion clinics are undereducated, poor, and of a different class and race than those that predominantly judge and dictate how "wrong" abortion is. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that abortion clinics are an agent of slow acting ethnic cleansing because those who need it most lacked the effective educational resources that could have prevented them from needing a clinic in the first place. If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.

It would be a massive, crazy pants stretch to claim that. It would be the silliest thing claimed since... well, since Rep Akin claimed that woman have biological defences to prevent rape during pregnancy.

If someone desired ethnic cleansing they wouldn't prevent access to birth control in the hope that some of the babies would be aborted... they'd just provide birth control. Seriously, your claim makes no damn sense at all, even if we assume there's a secret genocidal conspiracy.

The article you linked to was a troll article.

 sebster wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
I could tell you that the majority of people who use the services of abortion clinics are undereducated, poor, and of a different class and race than those that predominantly judge and dictate how "wrong" abortion is. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that abortion clinics are an agent of slow acting ethnic cleansing because those who need it most lacked the effective educational resources that could have prevented them from needing a clinic in the first place. If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.

It would be a massive, crazy pants stretch to claim that. It would be the silliest thing claimed since... well, since Rep Akin claimed that woman have biological defences to prevent rape during pregnancy.

If someone desired ethnic cleansing they wouldn't prevent access to birth control in the hope that some of the babies would be aborted... they'd just provide birth control. Seriously, your claim makes no damn sense at all, even if we assume there's a secret genocidal conspiracy.

And how does my claim not make sense? I'm not championing for us to accept a conspiracy because you're assuming I'm inferring there is one by suggesting it. The facts are though that minorities and those of lower classes, especially minorities in a lower economic status constitute over 50% of abortions in this country, and little effort has been done to change it. Our government, and this thread seems to care more over who is right and who is wrong about the debate on abortion when they fail to realize that neither side's philosophical victory changes the situation of literally millions of lives. If abortion becomes illegal, women and families will die. If it remains legal, unborn children will die. The majority of which on both sides will be whom I've already mentioned and nobody seems to care. We talk about laws, order and the like, but fail to see the injustice of debating such polar aspects of life and miss what the real problems are. I mean, if people were properly educated, had the resources, the support, and were truly protected from crime what need would there to be to even decide to have a child or not?

 Mannahnin wrote:
The article you linked to was a troll article.

Arousal and consent are two very different things.

http://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/rape/do-women-enjoy-being-raped-myths-about-rape/

Myth: Women usually get lubricated vaginally during rape and that means women love being raped.

Fact: Recent research conducted by Kelly Suschinsky and Martin Lalumiere, show proof that vaginal lubrication occurs during both consensual and unwanted sex, such as in sexual assault. The study shows that while an erection does indicate sexual arousal in men, sexual arousal in women requires a complex mix of intimate connection, physical stimuli, and emotional presence. Vaginal lubrication occurs during even violent sexual assaults as the body's defense against genital injury and urinary infection from forced, rough intercourse.

Scientific evidence supports the exact opposite of what Akin is suggesting. Did you even read the article or just lock it based on the title?

I read the article on "a voice for men".

Including the part at the end where the author admitted that he made up the studies and statistics he quoted in the beginning of the article, and that the entire point of the article was to troll people because he thinks other people make spurious arguments, and clearly two wrongs make a right.

Amaya wrote:Arousal and consent are two very different things.

As are lubrication and arousal, as this new article you're quoting explains.

Well... he hasn't stepped down...

But, again, here's the weird thing. He may still win.... Missourian DO. NOT. LIKE. McCaskill.



The furor is really on a national scale. The locals *know* what Atkin stands for... (he has 100% pro-life rating for feth sakes)

I want him gone simply because of his stupidity for engaging this conversation... that man was up like 20% over McCaskill and now made it almost impossible to win.

 Amaya wrote:
Yes, but blacks do get abortions and triple the rate whites do, which should raise some alarms.

What alarms? Unplanned pregnancy tracks fairly closely with income, we all know that.

If you want to change that then you have to move towards racial income equality, and one of the best ways to do that is to take about the poverty trap. That poverty trap is, in part, caused by teen pregnancy, and one effective way of taking that down is, of course, abortion and safe sex teaching in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
And how does my claim not make sense? I'm not championing for us to accept a conspiracy because you're assuming I'm inferring there is one by suggesting it. The facts are though that minorities and those of lower classes, especially minorities in a lower economic status constitute over 50% of abortions in this country, and little effort has been done to change it. Our government, and this thread seems to care more over who is right and who is wrong about the debate on abortion when they fail to realize that neither side's philosophical victory changes the situation of literally millions of lives. If abortion becomes illegal, women and families will die. If it remains legal, unborn children will die. The majority of which on both sides will be whom I've already mentioned and nobody seems to care. We talk about laws, order and the like, but fail to see the injustice of debating such polar aspects of life and miss what the real problems are. I mean, if people were properly educated, had the resources, the support, and were truly protected from crime what need would there to be to even decide to have a child or not?

Are you honestly claiming that no-one cares about poverty among minorities? I mean, seriously?

You could argue that we don't do enough, and we can all acknowledge that breaking the poverty cycle is incredibly hard... but arguing that no-one does anything at all? That's just not sensible.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I read the article on "a voice for men".

Including the part at the end where the author admitted that he made up the studies and statistics he quoted in the beginning of the article, and that the entire point of the article was to troll people because he thinks other people make spurious arguments, and clearly two wrongs make a right.

Amaya wrote:Arousal and consent are two very different things.

As are lubrication and arousal, as this new article you're quoting explains.

Bleh, mixed up my links then.

While I am pro choice (or more accurately anti-anything that isn't me) I've always wondered if the "It's only a (zygote,collection of cells, fetus, et cetera)" crowd applies that logic across the board. Like can you be okay with abortion and also be against say animal testing? I'm sure that there is some convoluted moral hyjinks that say it's okay to kill a potential human because it's in a person who doesn't want it, but it's not okay to kill an animal to theoretically keep a different person alive. Or the mentally handicapped, or euthanasia. Is that the same, less, worse whatever than regular murder? Is there just a point where it goes from being okay killing a potential person to it being abhorrent, or is it all relative?

whembly wrote:Well... he hasn't stepped down...

But, again, here's the weird thing. He may still win.... Missourian DO. NOT. LIKE. McCaskill.



The furor is really on a national scale. The locals *know* what Atkin stands for... (he has 100% pro-life rating for feth sakes)

I want him gone simply because of his stupidity for engaging this conversation... that man was up like 20% over McCaskill and now made it almost impossible to win.

Wait... so you want him to step down... not because he is hateful, misogynistic, uneducated and completely crazy... but because he let people become aware of his horrendous beliefs.


Are you for real?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:While I am pro choice (or more accurately anti-anything that isn't me) I've always wondered if the "It's only a (zygote,collection of cells, fetus, et cetera)" crowd applies that logic across the board. Like can you be okay with abortion and also be against say animal testing? I'm sure that there is some convoluted moral hyjinks that say it's okay to kill a potential human because it's in a person who doesn't want it, but it's not okay to kill an animal to theoretically keep a different person alive. Or the mentally handicapped, or euthanasia. Is that the same, less, worse whatever than regular murder? Is there just a point where it goes from being okay killing a potential person to it being abhorrent, or is it all relative?

I'm for:
-pro-choice
-euthanasia
-animal testing for medical (not cosmetic) purposes
-mass-produced meat industry (chickens are NOT naturally intelligent, inquisitive creatures- they are as dumb as fish)
-death penalty for capital crimes

Anything else?

While I am pro choice (or more accurately anti-anything that isn't me) I've always wondered if the "It's only a (zygote,collection of cells, fetus, et cetera)" crowd applies that logic across the board. Like can you be okay with abortion and also be against say animal testing?

I've met people who hold those two positions, and consider them consistent because an animal has a developed nervous system- can feel pain and suffering- but a zygote does not and can not. I rarely see anyone say "just a fetus".

Is there just a point where it goes from being okay killing a potential person to it being abhorrent, or is it all relative?

It depends on the person judging. For me, abortion is much less abhorrent if it occurs before the point where electrical activity can be measured in the conceptus' brain; which is likely the point at which brain function begins.

 sebster wrote:

Are you honestly claiming that no-one cares about poverty among minorities? I mean, seriously?

You could argue that we don't do enough, and we can all acknowledge that breaking the poverty cycle is incredibly hard... but arguing that no-one does anything at all? That's just not sensible.

No one in power has done much about poverty in this country in past 80 years because it equates to socialism in many arguments. The cycle really isn't that hard to break but it's held in place because it's a well kept lie being pushed in the other direction. The motivation and drive is there for those in poverty to remove themselves from poverty, the resources, knowledge, and connections politicians have to do it just aren't being used effectively - literally ever, in anything.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It depends on the person judging. For me, abortion is much less abhorrent if it occurs before the point where electrical activity can be measured in the conceptus' brain; which is likely the point at which brain function begins.

Mn, for my part, I've not been talking about late abortions. At some point, the foetus is indeed capable of surviving outside of the mother, and has developed enough that it can feel pain, and begin to think, even if only in rug-crawler terms.

What point that is... that's something I'd want to ask a child-development specialist or seven. But considering that we're talking about people trying to ban ALL abortion, no matter the situation, this sort of fine distinction hasn't really come up.

It does get claimed that women can't rape men unless the man has an erection, which means he must be enjoying it and be up for it (literally). How anyone can say this is beyond me, are they saying that every time a man wakes up with morning wood they are consenting to sex with the nearest person, or at least having them stick a dildo up their arse?

A lot of bodily functions are not entirely under our control, just because a woman gets a bit lubricated or a man has a stiffy doesn't mean they are as good as consenting to having sex. Some teenagers suffer from it endlessly. People who dream this stuff up about bodily functions and consent don't even seem to look at their own life experience.

Considering that there have been many studies showing that the most rabid homophobes become exceptionally aroused when exposed to gay porn, one wonders if the more homophobic portions of the groups who make such claims would say that this means that they consent to gay sex?

But that's a topic for another thread, I think.

Well, there is the theory that the most rabid homophobes who talk about it being a 'choice' think that way because they actually have those urges to resist being at least bisexual themselves. They don't get that for most people, gay or straight, there's no choice about it because they simply aren't attracted to more than one gender.

That's probably a bit optimistic really, but it might explain why you get a surprising few of these really public Christian family-values sorts being caught with rent boys in private...