mooeypoo

No.

! Moderator Note dalemiller, saying "X is crackpottery" is not the same as calling YOU a crackpot. Now that that's settled, you do need to consider this is a science forum, and hence, you are required to support your claims with valid scientific evidence, even if you think said claims are the most obvious thing in the universe.

That's because you keep refusing to answer that last part, and out of attempting to be patient, I keep repeating it. So as we can see, you're absolutely not interested in any form of actual debate. You think that what you think is truth regardless of evidence or proper logical succession of claims, and no one can even suggesting to attempt to hint that you may be convinced otherwise. That, beyond being a pointless base for any debate, is also borderline trolling, which is against our rules. And yes, I will keep repeat this fact until you change your way or get kicked out for refusing to follow the rules, so that no one can even suggest we didn't warn you. So, until that happens, it seems there's no real reason to waste time here any longer. You don't make the rules here, and moderators do not act alone. Phi might have been the one who pushed the button and posted the note, but it was a staff decision which you don't get to argue, not even as a method to shift the argument again trying to hide the fact you have no clue what you're talking about, and don't quite care to check. That ain't a-workin'. ~mooey

And on top of that, morals are supported by SOME logic (otherwise why bother) When you look into why it is considered immoral to kill puppies and drink their bloods in the USA, you won't find that the answer is "it doesn't feel right", you'll find that the answer lies into the fact we consider puppies (and dogs, and other animals) to have sentience, which means we value their lives above mere food sources. You will get a different answer if you drink the blood of a goat, by the way, because we seem to consider a goat's life as valid food source - unlike dogs. Is this a valid claim? Maybe yes, maybe not, we can argue, but the way to argue on that one is to use EVIDENCE. For instance, I may supply evidence to show that dogs have much higher capacity for intelligence than goats, and therefore make a logical argument of why dogs are above being eaten. Someone else may point out that life should be valued even without higher intelligence, and explain why they became vegetarians. We may disagree, then, on the analysis or interpretation of the evidence, or on what is MORE important (the value of all life without distinction, or the need to eat beef while not harming higher intelligence animals). That argument may truly depend on personal viewpoints -- but we wouldn't have GOTTEN there at ALL without at the very least supporting our claims with *some* logic that has SOMETHING to do with reality. I'm still waiting for the logic that supports your claim, chilled_fluorine. So far, you are avoiding from even trying it by arguing it's not needed. Well, you're wrong because of the reasons above, and you're also wrong because we're a science forum and that's what our rules demand. There is nothing to argue with here. Either start working with us, or go. I'm waiting. ~mooey

You're moving the goal post now. "Her best interest" wasn't the issue previously, was it. "WANTS TO" is different than "in her best interest". A woman with advanced breast cancer might have it on "her best interest" to have a masectomy. I don't see many women who "want to". Difference clear now? Please stop moving the goal post. Now, if you want a reminder about why it may be for women's best interests', read people's posts. There were quite a number of examples given (SUPPORTED by real cases, surprise). That said, you're making claims to support your position that are either turning out to be an exaggerated falsehood, or they turn out not to support your position. When that happens (more than once now) you turn around and Red Herring your way through the debate by pointing a finger at others. Let me make it simple: Even if I cannot support *my* position, that doesn't remove the responsibility you have from supporting yours. Not so, clearly, since your attempt to support your position are clearly untrue (READ the actual papers!) which means that there's nothing to support your position. If you can come up with real actual supported claims, we can argue on opinions. Check this bit of logic: "It's my opinion that all men are grumpy because shaving is scary. Who in their right mind would put a knife next to their necks!" How about this: "It's my opinion that all american people all murderers because they kill children in iraq." .... would you truly argue that "you can't argue on opinions" ? Really? When all evidence show these are absolutely ridiculous claims? Let me make this clear: Preaching is against the forums' rules. While the staff has been patient in trying to let you know in more than one moderation note, gentle nudge and hint, this gentleness will not continue. Stop preaching. Start debating. Can you? If you could show how your opinion is supported by facts -- that is, how your interpretation of the situation results in the opinion you hold -- then you'd be right. In fact, I know quite a number of arguments on "your side" that would do just that, while still being well grounded in actual reality. Instead, you choose to guess and be condescending to a situation you clearly have not a half a clue about, and even more clearly from your writing, that you don't care to check. I suggest you read my and John's posts again, and look up ACTUAL statistics and papers about abortions and the reasons for them. You're guessing, and while guessing might be fun, it's by far not an evidence. We're not in a guessing forum, we're in a science forum, which requires substantiation of claims. Even the politics and religion forums. I'm getting tired repeating myself. ~mooey

I just want to point out that "pro-life" assumes that the pre-developed pre-embryonic cyst is "life", which is not all that clear, scientifically and medically and (as we can see) socially. I get it that people use "pro life" or "pro choice", but for all intents and purposes, I am both. I'm pro choice, and very much pro the life that is already living.

Evidence? "They think" ... who? How many women thinks that? You ignore evidence that's given to you and then you use unsupported bunk-claims to state you're right. You're not in a preaching forum, chilled_fluorine, you're in a science forum, and we require you do not needlessly generalize and that you substantiate your claim *even in the politics forum*. Read our rules. And now try to do better, please. None of these claims above has even the most remote hold on what actually goes on with women who consider (and go through) having an abortion. There is research out there, there are statistics out there, there are tests out there. You can find them if you care to. Then again, that would require you give in to the SLIGHTEST most TINIEST possibility you MAY find out you MIGHT have something a LITTTTTTLE bit on the (shriek) wrong here. Not much to debate if you just decided what you want to decide and came over here to preach regardless of evidence, though. If tht's the case, I suggest we end the thread right here. Which is it?

Holy flying spaghetti monster. If you keep digging, chilld_fluorine, you'll reach the Earth's core and melt. Can we PLEASE stop with the condescending mysogynistic cr*p and continue ON TOPIC? It starts to look like you have nothing material to say about the topic. Do you? ~mooey

You skipped my questions. And then dismissed John's points without really relating to any single one of them.

Read up. The point about women merrily going around to get abortions is a strawman, and quite honestly it's a seriously offensive one. How many women do you think WANT to get an abortion? Do you seriously think this is part of a pregnancy prevention plan a woman sits and considers? Do you imagine women scheduling an abortion and then a meeting at a pub for drinks? The fact is, abortion is a humiliating painful procedure very very few women want (if at ALL). The question most of the time is whether the woman NEEDS an abortion, not whether she merrily wants one. And if that's your condition, then how about you go and ask the people who actually WORK around women who have abortions and see what the leading reasons are? Did you ever research this, or are you just spitting out what you were fed by other people in "authority" since any abortion is sinful? Most reasons for abortion are medical. Would you prevent a woman from having an abortion on a pregnancy that might be extremely dangerous for her health and/or the baby's? Really? But fine, let's move to other questions and considerations. If live begins at conception, what happens to twins? Do their soul splits (they don't start off at twins, they start off as 1 fetus and then split after a couple of weeks) -- are we lacking souls or does it miraculously manifest itself when the split happens? Would you sue women who have natural abortions for manslaughter? And if you're for using birth control, how does that fit with thinking life starts at conception? Pills or chemical birth control literally "kills" the eggs. Is that not murder?

You seem to now nitpick the points you want to answer and ignore specific points you don't, as well as make strawmen. This is getting pointless. Oh, and yes, I'm sure you're the gorgeousest man ever. I'm so lucky there's a monitor in between us or I don't know if I could have stopped myself from switching sides. Just in case I need to explain, this: -- is something we've already covered, and showed it is an irrelevant strawman claim. SHOW ME a woman who WANTS to have an abortion. No woman wants to (or, at least, very very marginally few, if at all). They might decide they NEED to, but no one goes happily and merrily to have an abortion after lunch. Yes? Goodie. Do you have any other claims against abortion? It's getting to the point where *I* can make better points to your side than you do, and where's the fun in that.

So... irrelevant? Great. Next claim. Spot the differences: "Some men use the gym to spot potential targets for rape. We should close all gyms!" "What is the percentage of 'some' men?" "Very small, yet existent." .... Ah. "Some people drive their car while intoxicated, and cause horrific accidents. We should ban driving!!!" "What is the percentage of 'some' people?" "Very small, yet existent." ... Ah. "Some people use guns to rob or kill people. We should immediately ban all guns!!!!!!!!" "What is the percentage of 'some' people?" "Very small, yet existent." ... hmm. Should I continue, or is the point clear?

I don't quite understand, what is legitimate rape and what is "not at all"? As far as I know, rape is anything non-consensual. "Legitimate" seems to be unfitting in any sort of definition here. Do clarify. We have different opinions on what women are, it seems, and how responsible they can be with their own bodies. But what do I know, I'm just a woman; what would we women do with ourselves if men wouldn't have had the responsibility and sense to tell us what we should do with our bodies! Why, we might have all gone off and gotten ourselves recklessly pregnant all the time, and then had the audacity to use this painful humiliating procedure as an afterthought birth control! You're just being responsible in trying to make sure we live properly. Thank you.

By saying that you don't want abortions to be used as birth control, you are suggesting they are used as birth control, which is a false statement (or at the very least requires substantiation), and you seem to do this for the sake of arguing against abortions, even though that is a false statement. That, by definition, is a strawman argument. And by saying that some women refuse to be responsible with their bodies, you again suggest this is the cause for abortions, which is not the case, and again create a strawman. Look, I am not for "happy happy abortion opportunities"; I think there should be a certain medical intervention overseeing whether or not the woman should proceed with an abortion while considering both psychological and medical reasons for it. And education should accompany this from a young age, so women (AND MEN) are aware of risks, and methods of prevention, and are therefore ABLE to be responsible. So, a woman tha already had an abortion might have higher risks in having a second, or a woman that doesn't care about her body at all might have psychological issues, etc etc. A doctor (medical and psychological) can help determine the status of UNIQUE situations like the ones you keep trying to raise as if they're the "norm". They're not the norm. Show me evidence that large percentage of women feel so callous about abortions that they use it as if it's normal form of birth control, and we might have a conversation here. Otherwise, please stop making silly claims just so you can have an easier time arguing your side. Finally, dear sir, the "responsibility" for becoming pregnant is JOINT between both man and woman, and accidents do happen; condoms rip, the pill sometimes doesn't work right (especially if accidentally taken while on other medicines) etc etc. Not every abortion is done out of being irresponsible, and not all women are irresponsible idiots when it comes to their own bodies. Unlike some people's apparent thinking, women usually do not require the supervision of men to live properly. ~mooey

Wow, dude, I think you broke the record on Godwin's law. CONGRATS! So, obviously you need to brush up on your fallacies. First, "People" don't say fetuses aren't human; scientific evidence has trouble separating the first stages of fetus development from a cyst. And since "people" don't consider cysts "human", the argument is a valid one. Much more so than that of the nazis, thankyouverymuch. I'm trying to decide whether or not I should just let you continue digging this misogynistic hole you're in, or if I point out the amazingly enormous chunk of irony in all of this and save you the trouble. Good of you, dear man, to allow the women who were legitimately raped not to suffer longer. Of course, if the woman was "just" raped, she should shut her mouth and bear the fruit of the wonderful event. It is her privilege.

You don't think abortion is a valid birth control..... so do women. If you really think women just go and pop into a clinic to have an intrusive procedure done by inserting sharp tools into their vaginas and scraping the inside walls of their uterus as a form of birth control, then this argument is not just a strawman (which it is) but you are also quite condescendingly uninformed of what is involved in this procedure, and how it affects the WOMEN. Funny that you start this with how you're supportive of women's rights, but seem to think women would prefer doing the occasional abortion instead of taking a pill or asking you lot of men to wear a condom. Smart lot, we are.

Unless I experience legitimate rape, you mean. That would make my body reject the pregnancy automagically anyways so I won't have the luxury of begatting said child.

This, in fact, is quite offensive to women, thank you. Can we move on from this sidebar distraction of what should and shouldn't "shock" someone into thinking a woman would or wouldn't act like, and go back on topic?

! Moderator Note chilled_fluorine , it's very confusing to read your replies if you answer inside the quote tags. If you want to reply to a specific quote, please make sure to close the quote tag, reply, and (if needed) open a quote tag again. Usage: --- Post text A reply Continued reply --- This will look like this: --- Post text A reply Continued reply --- I hope this helps.

Consensus and Peer reviewed articles. You *are* in a science forum. That is what evidence means. Try to read the actual articles I (and others) have quoted, you might notice they're far from wasting your time if you care at all about learning anything. You're welcome.

It seems it doesn't quite matter what we answer you; about the relationship between HIV and homosexuals or about anything else - since it's VERY clear that you're reading none of our replies. You're not here to debate,you're here to proselytize. Why should we waste any more time, considering what you have to say, if you don't even give us an ounce of respect and consider our points? Seeing as you agreed to them when you signed up, your choice is to either follow the rules or leave. Make it quick.

Actually, that's not accurate. Look at my post above, it seems this experiment (small scale) was done by accident when in some lab. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx

We gave you information, and you are ignoring it. The information doesn't have to conform to the specific way you see science for it to be actual science. I posted 2 articles in my initial post reply to your question. They give most of the answers to most of your questions, and you seem to have ignored it. You don't seem to be here to disucss the issue, are you? You seem to be here to convince everyone you're right regardless of what evidence tell us - which is why I asked for your motivation here. What is it do you think is happening? If HIV does not lead to AIDS, why, in your mind, is this such a prevalent "conspiracy" and by who? Please answer this, at least. Excuse me, but the people who have HIV and not AIDS are not perfectly healthy by definition; they have a virus in their blood stream. They also are usually required to live on a certain cocktail of drugs that prevents the disease from progressing to full-blown AIDS. Do you even care to have any of your facts right, or are you here on your own agenda? At the very least you should share this agenda with us. Now look. There are usually two main reasons people deny HIV in general: They're homophobes who seem to have an agenda that AIDS is some homosexual disease and has nothing to do with HIV, They have some religious agenda, and often think it's better to promote abstinence and religion to the people of Africa (where AIDS is most prevalent) instead of promoting sex education and prevention. There are other options, of course, but these two seem to be the most common agendas behind HIV denialism. Seeing as you insist on NOT reading anything we say and not following proper science despite the fact you came to OUR forum and not the other way around, I would ask that you -- at the very least -- tell us what *your* agenda is in this clearly agenda-filled discussion. I will remind you that what you are currently doing (ignoring facts, trolling answers, avoiding replies and attacking responses) is against our forum rules. We're being patient. Give us at least the least bit of respect back and tell us if HIV does not cause AIDS, then why in your view would anyone be behind a conspiracy to the opposite and push for treatment that show this? In other words: What is your agenda here? Do answer that. On top of the evidence we've shown you throughout this thread, this text below summarizes all your points and answers why they're false; dangerously so. I suggest you read this, absorb the material carefully, consider who and what you're risking by spewing dangerous pseudoscientific nonsense that can actually kill people, and then go practice (safe) sex with yourself. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism#HIV.2FAIDS_denialists.27_claims_and_scientific_evidence (Emphases mine) I'm still waiting to hear what you propose is the agenda. I'm curious under which conspiracy-group you find yourself under. Do answer that part, if you answer at all. ~mooey

MissScience, we really would love to have anyone and everyone interested in science (and it warms my heart to see more women join the team! welcome to the club ) but we don't usually allow for self-promoting posts. If you want, add your twitter link (or blog/whatever) to your signature, so it can be promoted as you participate in discussions. But please try not to spread the link in posts around the forum, it's against our rules. Welcome to scienceforums! ~mooey

! Moderator Note EMField, this is a mainstream thread that deals with a specific question. The rules of the forum clearly states that questions in mainstream threads are answered with mainstream science. Keep your pet theories to your own thread in the speculation forums, and do not post them as replies to mainstream questions. Please do not hijack threads with your own take on what science means. Do not make things worse by replying to this message.