Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
@ Jag

You made me smile and giggle.
Good, this is going well then.

That's good advice about Google.
Share it far and wide please. Google is not evil, but it can be problematic when looking for non-biased info.

  The reason I even mentioned it was because of this video I watched about crisis centers and how they are dishonest in their advertising.  Had a girl go in undercover.  You call them for a price and they say you have to come to their office for that then proceed to talk you out of having an abortion.  They will lie to you about how many weeks you are.  It's disgusting.
They often partner with religious organizations and are fronts for adoption agencies that place children in highly religious households. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. BUT, the laws are such that as I am registered as an ordained minister, all I need is a shady lawyer and suddenly, I can be making ridiculous sums of money for playing on people's desperation to be parents, with no governmental agency having ANY right to oversight of what I'm doing. THAT is really frightening to me. It's not about the well-being of the child, it's about profit[1].
<snip> now is I have coping skills.  I'm not a threat to myself anymore. 
I'm honestly really pleased to hear this.

If you don't want to answer me about the actual affect changing what you call the decision will have I don't know where else to go.  That is the topic.   It might not satisfy me but someone else reading may be satisfied by it.  I am honestly convinced it will further the polarization and that is not a good thing.  I am not as convinced that it could possibly affect the effort to focus on prevention if we get too casual about it. 
Ok, I'll give this a shot. I also want to address the last paragraph as well, but that will be a separate post.

I'm going to make your question a lot bigger in order to answer it. I'm not dodging it, I just can't address your specific question effectively without going into lecture mode. This is going to get long, so it may test how much you really wanted to know what I think  ;)  ;D

Remember that my interests and education are human communication, (specifically rhetoric and persuasion) and interpersonal conflict. I pay attention to messaging, themes, and narratives. I analyze the language used to talk about social justice topics I'm interested in almost instinctively now. And abortion happens to be one of those topics, for a lot of reasons.

In my opinion, the entire dialogue needs to change. Politically, the Right, while sketchy[2] with their use of facts, are FAR more effective at framing the dialogue than the Left. Dems want to share facts, figures, and analysis to lead people to make reasoned choices and decisions. But that's not how it works. Without getting to deep into this, there are (in a general sense) 2 paths to persuation - the Left is over-reliant on one, and the Right have done a fantastic job of exploiting the other - but not without consequences. (<That last is a different discussion, hopefully this is enough context for this one.)

The Right relies heavily on the "indirect" path to persuasion. They present information, but they use lots of emotional appeals - fear, outrage, indignation, disgust[3] and "trigger" words - brave, independent, proud, American, values, deserve, protect and so on. In many respects, they tell stories, literally and figuratively. Think about the average Muslim American as describe by the Right - that's a character whose attributes can be determined by the story teller depending on how the audience is intended to "see" him or her.[4]

The Left is overly dependent on the "direct" path. Again, it has a place, but it requires a lot from the receiver/audience to be effective. They need to be interested first, because this route requires thought, cognition, processing; all of these things take energy and if the interest isn't right there and easily accessible, most people don't do this. The Left isn't as good at telling a compelling story (a notable exception is Obama, but he has some weaknesses too in this respect). They try to be reasonable, rational, and expect everyone else to do so as well.

Abortion is a perfect example. The language most commonly used by everyone in the discussion is "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Set aside the context, and negate the "pro" on both sides. You're left with "life" and "choice".

Which word is more attention getting on it's own? Which word - on it's own -sounds more compelling?

This framing puts the pro-choice side at a disadvantage from the very beginning. No matter what the dictionary says, most people's not-thought-through - indirect - cognition process knee-jerks to "if this side is pro-life, the other side is Anti-life?". This leads to, more or less,  "Ew, how awful they must be" with no conscious thinking involved. I find that very unnerving.

The Right continues to frame the dialogue on any and all issues that touch on morality. Until the Left stops allowing it, little will change.

I hope I haven't bored you to tears already - I can get carried away talking about this, and I'm not done  ;)

The language most often used, or heard/read about abortion needs to change. For the Left to stop using the language of the Right, this is a perfectly reasonable place to start. It doesn't even have to be dumped all together - and in my somewhat expert opinion, it shouldn't be, not right at first. Just modify the existing message and phase out the phrase over time.

Modify the message? How about "For some women, abortion is a difficult decision. For others, it's the only decision." A small change, but one that reflects reality better than the first one, and it helps shift the dialogue just a little bit. And it stops reinforcing the message that choosing to abort is, by default, supposed to be difficult.

This isn't going to change the mind of a hard-core anti-abortion person. But it's going to stop privileging their frames like we do now by continuing to use them ourselves - this has the unintended side effect of subtlety weakening the argument enough that we need to quit doing it.

Abortion is one of several deeply connected (established by messaging) issues that have been programmed into the American culture as "hot-button" topics. Pause for a moment and think about the intersection of language regarding adoption and abortion. It's academically fascinating, in a horrifying kind of way.

Adoption is frequently held up as an alternative to abortion. But there's a big flaw staring us right in the face that we rarely notice, because it's not part of the standard narrative, the story we all tell and accept. Adoption is NOT an alternative to pregnancy, it's an alternative to parenting. This is the first of many, many rhetorical traps we fall into on this topic in the general, public discourse, if not necessarily when individually talking about it.

For some reason, when asking people who take this position if they have adopted a child themselves, it tends to get very, very quiet.

Worse, in the less public dialogue, adoption is still talked about far more negatively than not. This is based on both personal experience[5] and research. As a collective, the anti-abortion side verbalizes support for adoption, but individually, they do not act in accordance with that position.

The perception of adoption in our culture is highly skewed. It's fine for "other people" but fought against within one's own family. We talk about "giving away" or "giving up" a baby. We often treat adoptive parents as something akin to saints, and we pity their adopted offspring, behaving and speaking as though they were saved from some unidentified horrible fate, and should be grateful to have a family.

What do we say about the woman who gives birth to a child she chooses not to raise herself? I strongly suspect a high correlation between single mothers  and being raised in a household that expressed disapproval of women who choose adoption for their children.

This is deeply embedded in our culture. We're really not that far removed from an era in which young women who "got themselves in a family way" either had no choice but to marry, quickly, the father of their child to save the family from unbearable shame, or sent away to "stay with her aunt in <random far away place>", give birth in shame-inducing surroundings, and came home forbidden to ever mention it.

One way to look at this, a frame of my own devising, is this: a woman who gets pregnant when she does not wish to be pregnant - for whatever the reason - is caught in a three way bind. This young woman, we'll call her Penny, has several "identities" that are significant in her daily life. She's a family member (daughter and sister), a student, a church member, a friend, a neighbor, a citizen of her community. In all of these identities, she sees herself as a good person. Others do as well. She fits in with the culture of her various communities. She's also a teenager, head over heels in love for the first time. It's a small community, and there is no easily accessible Planned Parenthood, and the only pharmacist in town knows everyone because he's the only pharmacist in town - so Penny and her boyfriend Tony are too embarrassed to go buy condoms there. They're young and in love, and hormones are running rampant with no regard for anything but some goddamned relief! They're not dumb,they're not bad, they're human.

And Penny gets pregnant.

Three choices:
1. Sneak off and abort, knowing that she will have to keep this a secret from nearly everyone. She has been culturally conditioned to see abortion as an immoral, irresponsible choice. There will be guilt. She may or may not tell Tony what she is doing.

2. Continue the pregnancy and raise the child. This is going to change many, many things about her own life, her families lives, Tony's own and families lives. It's going to impact how she sees herself, and she is likely to be shamed by parts of her community. Tony may or may not remain actively involved. They're young, and the families may or may not agree about what is the best decision for all parties. But the baby will be raised in the family of origin, come what may.

3. Continue the pregnancy intending to become part of an adoptive triad. She may or may not choose to select the infant's adoptive parents. She may or may not choose to be involved to some degree with the child as it grows up. She will face her various communities with impossible to ignore evidence of her unintended, unwanted pregnancy, and will be subject to shaming from parts of it, perhaps most or even all. After her pregnancy is over and she returns to her communities with no baby, she continues to be subject to judgment and shaming from various parts of them, to varying degrees. This will continue as long as she tolerates it, or until she leaves it completely.

The above is just blending the stories of many women I've known. It's a story from the real world, the one we actually live in, not the one anti-abortion advocates seem to believe they can will into existence.

More! There is a really strong narrative tying womanhood to motherhood as though they coexist as a biological imperative for all women in eery circumstance. Women who choose to be childless are subject to all kinds of intrusiive, obnoxious judgments, and are frequently depicted as selfish. Umm...Selfish? What the f@ck? Why is half of the population of the US obligated to reproduce just to be seen as validly female?

I wrote a 32 pages paper about this ^ if you really want to know more. I'm sure I still have it somewhere  ;)

To avoid using a single phrase is not going to lead to significant social change. To reorganize the way we talk about a lot of things related to morals, being female, self-determination for both genders, and all kinds of other things is part of a bigger shift that needs to occur if "we" expect to make real headway.
 1. as usual, this is from researching for a school assignment
 2. I'm not willing to engage in a political argument about this topic with anyone in this thread
 3. these kind of strong emotions tend to bypass cognition and go straight to taking a position
 4. Ex: Asian immigrants are often depicted in the national narrative (the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country) as the Model Immigrant. There's a lot of research on this in cultural studies if you're interested.
 5. I'm an adult adoptee and have heard all kinds of jaw-dropping things said about adoption throughout my life, often by adults who really should have known better.
Chatter / Re: The Conflicts of Interest -
« Last post by The Gawd on January 15, 2017, 01:32:20 PM »
Here's Rachel Maddow, speaking about the FBI quietly getting info about Trump/Russia during summer 2016, while Comey was publicly giving out info on the infamous Hillary emails.

Sadly, I see nothing significant coming out of this thanks to the GOP and their thirst for unchecked power with no regard for the citizens of this country or our democracy. Now that Trump is in place, there will be no one left in the government, or any other agency that will have the power to do anything. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but I fear there is no reason to think I am wrong.
Yep, George, it's over...
Chatter / Re: The Conflicts of Interest -
« Last post by jetson on January 15, 2017, 01:15:46 PM »
Here's Rachel Maddow, speaking about the FBI quietly getting info about Trump/Russia during summer 2016, while Comey was publicly giving out info on the infamous Hillary emails.

Sadly, I see nothing significant coming out of this thanks to the GOP and their thirst for unchecked power with no regard for the citizens of this country or our democracy. Now that Trump is in place, there will be no one left in the government, or any other agency that will have the power to do anything. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but I fear there is no reason to think I am wrong.
All good points Jaime.  Will get back to you.  I need to take a computer break. 
General Religious Discussion / Re: God Magic
« Last post by wheels5894 on January 15, 2017, 11:43:56 AM »
I have made something of the same argument in the past on various websites. It seems perfectly clear to me that for god to perform any act in the universe would require him to manipulate material objects, whether stars or atoms, to achieve his desired effect. That much can hardly be argued with. Mind, I am pretty sure that claims of an unchanging god made by some (though the bible doesn't really support this all the way through!) rule out him ever having taken any action ever as such would change him!

So what we need to consider is how god might interfere with matter to do anything. This even applies to prayer where a theists thoughts would have to be transcribed into something a timeless, matter-less being could detect and then, if there is a reply, the same would have to happen in the other direction. So, could be possibly detect anything? After all, this might be  a very small effect yet we managed to detect gravitational waves and that is tiny. So...

For a theist to think he has received a message from a god, something and some matter has to change in their brain.  For that to happen there is going to have to be energy injected into the system and electro-magnetic radiation would be the first bet on what it might be. I would start by scanning people praying with every scanner we could find to make sure every possible part of the spectrum is scanned. Since I predict that that will fail, it would be up to the theists to propose a mechanism and  try to conducts tests to show it works.

I have only mentioned the idea of praying as it is the only possible thing I can think of where something might be detected. Miracles are claimed to happen but are so rare that they are not realistically testable and anyway none have been shown to actually have been miracles. At the same time, it would be an interesting study iof it were possible since a lot more energy is needed to go into a system to cure a cancer than merely pass on thoughts into a persons brain so there would be more to detect. Since there are so rare, though, it's not practical.

Of course, if all else fails it can't mean that there is no god but the hypothesis that there is one is ut in severe doubt.
So what is the real harm of counseling?  If counseling changes their mind then maybe abortion was not the right decision in the first place.  Nobody could have made me change my mind!  Nobody!
The problem is that the 'counseling' is biased and intentionally designed to pressure women into changing their minds.  Based on what I know about it, it presents bringing the pregnancy to term as having few or no downsides (which is false), as well as deliberately exaggerating the possible complications of abortion, in addition to forcing them to listen to alternatives which are often more expensive and/or costly.  In addition, it violates medical ethics, especially informed consent.

Maybe you wouldn't have been swayed if you had been forced to listen to deliberately misleading information about abortion, which seriously exaggerated the risks, and also been given equally misleading information about bringing the pregnancy to term.  But can you honestly say that it is even remotely close to fair to require women to listen to biased presentations such as those before they're allowed to have an abortion?

Quote from: junebug72
Is there a study that shows the outcomes for the women and the children of those women who were convinced to not have the abortion?   They are probably happy with their decision, IMO.
So it's okay to mislead people into not having an abortion as long as they end up happy about it?

Quote from: junebug72
I want to know exactly how many women were denied abortion because of calling it a difficult decision please.  Thanks.
This is completely missing the point.  The problem is that abortion is treated as a 'difficult' decision even though it is often anything but, and this results in laws which require doctors to lie to women in order to get them to 'choose' not to have an abortion.

Quote from: junebug72
I want to know on what grounds women are made to wait too please.  Thanks again.
Because anti-abortion lawmakers pass laws which require waiting periods before a woman can have an abortion.  These are the same lawmakers who pass laws requiring doctors to give biased presentations exaggerating the risks of abortion while presenting only the positive aspects of carrying the pregnancy to term.

Quote from: junebug72
If calling it a difficult decision even if for some it's not and that keeps this issue from further polarization is that something you can live with?  I can.  To me it's a smidgen of common ground.  Common ground is good.  It's where productive conversations happen.  If you take an all or nothing attitude on this subject you might end up with nothing.  That would be the real tragedy.
It isn't actually common ground, though.  Are you familiar with the saying "give an inch and they'll take a mile"?  That's what abortion advocates using the "difficult decision" formulation actually accomplishes, whether they realize it or not - it allows abortion opponents to dictate the terms of the debate.  When you let the other side control the terms of the debate, you're most of the way towards losing it.  I don't know about you, but I don't consider that to be productive in any way, shape, or form.

The real tragedy here is the fact that laws in close to half the states require doctors to mislead women - tens of millions of women as a conservative estimate - about abortions in order to try to push them into not having an abortion, while those same lawmakers who passed those laws mislead their constituents about the actual intent of the laws by pretending that it's about giving women an "informed choice", when in fact it's about manipulating women by controlling what information they have access to.
From the article concerning when an embryo can physically feel pain:

Let’s consider the physiological criterion first. In order for the embryo to be aware of a pain sensation, at least the following anatomical structures need to be in place: (i) sensory receptors capable of responding to a painful stimulus; (ii) nerves toconduct the impulses generated in these receptors to the spinalcord; (iii) nerve fibres within the spinal cord, which transmit these pain impulses to the brain. Behavioural evidence for these structures to be there is the presence of reflex responses as they require the nerves that emerge from the spinal cord to be intact and functional. The nerves responsible for carrying sensations from the skin to the spinal cord develop by the end of the seventh week of gestation (e.g. lip tactile responses have been observed after that time), and the thalamus, to which nerve fibres transmit pain impulses, is said to be functional from the eighth week of gestation. But as we saw before, the presence of reflex responses is not itself sufficient for pain perception. On some accounts of sentience in embryos, the formation of all the structures necessary for pain perception appears much later in the timetable of prenatal development,when synaptic connections within the brain are established. This would happen in the third trimester of pregnancy.
Chatter / Re: The Conflicts of Interest -
« Last post by jaimehlers on January 15, 2017, 10:52:34 AM »
You cannot convince me his tweets have not directly caused  stock market changes, including Toyota shares.
This reminds me of the saying that you can't reason someone out of a false belief that they didn't reason themselves into.

You haven't shown the slightest bit of real evidence to support the claims you're making about Trump.  Instead, you're committing the causation-correlation fallacy by pointing to Trump tweets followed by stocks rising or falling and assuming that the one caused the other.  Moreover, you're failing to understand that it isn't the responsibility of other people to argue you out of it; it's your responsibility to make sure your beliefs cohere with reality, and to argue yourself out of them if they don't.  That means you need to have actual evidence to support them, not base them on sketchy reasoning and worse logic.

That means you need to do more than just point to an increase or decrease that followed a Trump tweet, as that's no better than arguing that bird migrations cause seasons because seasons follow bird migration patterns.
General Religious Discussion / Re: God Magic
« Last post by Ron Jeremy on January 15, 2017, 10:47:55 AM »
That's precisely what I want the theists to address. They demand we show the science of everything; fine, I want the science of their god to be explained, because where it interacts with our world, that border can be tested and investigated. It becomes part of the physical world.

If theists cannot give us an idea of how this interaction takes place, then it is one more piece of evidence for their god being imaginary. And we should continue to refer to it as 'magic'.
Chatter / Re: The Conflicts of Interest -
« Last post by shnozzola on January 15, 2017, 08:44:53 AM »
Here's Rachel Maddow, speaking about the FBI quietly getting info about Trump/Russia during summer 2016, while Comey was publicly giving out info on the infamous Hillary emails.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10