|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:20 pm
 No; I never implied that the entire website was biased; I was talking about the video.
I just said that a lot of pro-choice or pro-life websites are propaganda-ish in nature. Not all, just some.
All pro-life websites are beautiful to me, and I love their message and their goal, but sometimes, the things they show/tell us are a little hard to believe.
But the same could be said for any website, whether it be pro-choice, pro-life, pro-whatever. We should be able to trust sources; I trust sources all the time in debates. I just think that The Silent Scream and its contents are debatable.
Whilst I think this, I do realize that there is the possibility that The Silent Scream is 100% true, and that everything shown on that screen is valid and truly shows the monstrosity behind abortion.
But . . . I don't know. I can't look at it as something that I would use in a debate against a choicer, or as something I would show another fellow pro-lifer, unless I was sure that it is a reliable source.
I'm not implying that it's an evil thing; I think it's quite powerful. The video brought tears to my eyes. I just think that it's highly debatable, over whether it's valid or not.
God, I hope that made sense.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:30 pm
I was being sarcastic sweety, sorry. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:07 pm
The Silent Scream has been proven to be inaccurate.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/abortion-access/anti-abortion-video-6136.htm
Yes, it's from planned parenthood, and ignoring the fact that they don't agree that a foetus is a child, they do poke holes in the video's argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:57 pm
Lets also ignore the fact that you are using a biased source (which also has been prooven to get quite a bit an information wrong) when you constently ask for unbiased ones. I really can't stand hypocracy Scribs. So please find an unbiased source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:39 am
Tiger of the Fire Lets also ignore the fact that you are using a biased source (which also has been prooven to get quite a bit an information wrong) when you constently ask for unbiased ones. I really can't stand hypocracy Scribs. So please find an unbiased source. It was a biased source with an unbiased piece of research. I figured it was just as valid as the biased pro-life research claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:46 am
Still though, the choicers use propaganda all the time to push their views. The video is legit from what i heard, but the reaction of the fetus isn't a 'scream' as the video would have you believe.
Again, it has it's place. It's good for a visual representation of the horror that is abortion, but the way it's delieverd was kinda crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:53 am
MiNdCaNdY Still though, the choicers use propaganda all the time to push their views. The video is legit from what i heard, but the reaction of the fetus isn't a 'scream' as the video would have you believe. Again, it has it's place. It's good for a visual representation of the horror that is abortion, but the way it's delieverd was kinda crap. And the 'facts' it presents are kinda crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:16 am
i swear you don't read what i'm typing.
I agree with you on that, just like i agreed with you on the 'human potential' thing. My point is the video of the abortion itself is good, it's all the stuff they tacked on to it that should be dropped. Just watch it with the sound off and it's far better then it would have been lumped with all the BS that's around it. That's my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:17 am
MiNdCaNdY i swear you don't read what i'm typing. I agree with you on that, just like i agreed with you on the 'human potential' thing. My point is the video of the abortion itself is good, it's all the stuff they tacked on to it that should be dropped. Just watch it with the sound off and it's far better then it would have been lumped with all the BS that's around it. That's my point. I swear you read in between a one-liner. I was just agreeing right back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:21 am
ah
just didn't sound that way is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:29 am
MiNdCaNdY ah just didn't sound that way is all. Should've made it clearer I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:38 am
Scribblemouse Tiger of the Fire Lets also ignore the fact that you are using a biased source (which also has been prooven to get quite a bit an information wrong) when you constently ask for unbiased ones. I really can't stand hypocracy Scribs. So please find an unbiased source. It was a biased source with an unbiased piece of research. I figured it was just as valid as the biased pro-life research claims. Thats not the point I'm macking though. If you are going to demand unbiased sources, despite the reaserch done in a biased source, you must do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:04 pm
Tiger of the Fire Scribblemouse Tiger of the Fire Lets also ignore the fact that you are using a biased source (which also has been prooven to get quite a bit an information wrong) when you constently ask for unbiased ones. I really can't stand hypocracy Scribs. So please find an unbiased source. It was a biased source with an unbiased piece of research. I figured it was just as valid as the biased pro-life research claims. Thats not the point I'm macking though. If you are going to demand unbiased sources, despite the reaserch done in a biased source, you must do the same. In response to the video's release, Planned Parenthood convened a panel of medical experts to review and critique the video. These physicians claim the video is inaccurate. So the way I see it, it's the medical experts who would have to be biased here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:30 pm
kinda like how most of the sources for the pro-life sites articles were taken from local newspapers, but you still rejected it because of the site.
or how lyme's sources took material from factuale studies and actuale documents and complaints and suits launched aginast PP, but you rejected it becuase of the site.
I'll ask again, either provide a source form an unbiased location or drop the argument. YOu can't call a source biased even though the material isn't and then turn around and try to do basicly the same thing. Its hypocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:37 am
Tiger of the Fire kinda like how most of the sources for the pro-life sites articles were taken from local newspapers, but you still rejected it because of the site. or how lyme's sources took material from factuale studies and actuale documents and complaints and suits launched aginast PP, but you rejected it becuase of the site. I'll ask again, either provide a source form an unbiased location or drop the argument. YOu can't call a source biased even though the material isn't and then turn around and try to do basicly the same thing. Its hypocracy. Nope, I rejected it because its numbers were taken from thin air. Numbers it presented as fact. But enough about the s**t-pile website. OK, I'll find another source to say that the commentary in 'The Silent Scream' is a load of pish, but it's going to say the exact same things. What's the point if it'll spout the same facts? EDIT: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists http://www.acog.org/Statement on Pain of the Fetus We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy. We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain. To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
