To agsf (was: Miscarriage) General nastiness ment.

(New thread started under new title, in hopes that thereby the OP in the
miscarriage thread, plus anyone else who doesn't want anything further
to do with this particular addition to life's nastiness, will be able to
avoid it.)



(agsf wrote)
It is my belief that some people shouldn't have children.

What is being criticised is not that belief, but the fact that you're
using it as an excuse to stomp on someone who is already suffering.

(Ilse Witch wrote)
And you're most definitely one of them.

(agsf wrote)
I have to disagree. I have the financial means to care for my children
while being married to a non-abusive drug free wife.

That's good. It is, however, a very long way from being all that's
involved in being a good parent. The concern being expressed here was
not related to your financial ability to bring up a child, but to your
ability to teach values such as compassion and basic consideration for
other people. You appear to believe that these things are optional
extras. However well off your children are financially, it's a shame to
think that they're likely to be raised to think that it's fine to set
out deliberately to hurt another human being just to get their own
kicks.

(agsf wrote)
To give everyone hugs and special breaks
because of their situation instead of holding them responsible for
their actions is a unwise thing to do.

And to use that as an excuse for gratuitous unpleasantness is just plain
nasty.

What you said to Catty wasn't about 'holding her responsible for her
actions'. It wasn't about trying to change her actions at all. Its
only effect, apart from the incidental one of making it clear that you
don't have a clue what 'pro-choice' means, was to hurt someone who was
already likely to be in considerable pain. Of course, it's possible
that you might genuinely be naive enough about what motivates human
beings to kid yourself that saying that was in some way constructive or
helpful. However, I suspect that that isn't the case, and that the only
reason you said what you did was because you got a kick out of it. You
set out to hurt another human being purely in order to boost your own
well-being and feelings of superiority.

(Ilse Witch wrote)
mommy to four tiny angels (Oct '03 - Oct '04)
(asgf wrote)
I see where your ignorance comes to play.

..............and then did so again, thereby removing any last vestige of
possiblity that you might simply have been clueless enough to think that
kicking people when they're down is the best way to motivate them to
improve things for themselves. Nope - you really are just someone who
gets his kicks out of hurting others.


Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

Sarah, I couldn't agree with you more, but I believe it's a lost cause in
this case. I've killfiled agsf, just like I do with other trolls.

--
--I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to four tiny angels (Oct '03 - Oct '04)
guardian of DH (age classified)
expecting twins (boy/girl) in August

The premise of your argument is flawed. I assure you that this is not
the case.

Regards...

Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Nope - you really are just someone who
gets his kicks out of hurting others.


Sarah

wrote:
Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Nope - you really are just someone who
gets his kicks out of hurting others.

The premise of your argument is flawed. I assure you that this is not
the case.

Really? So what is the flaw in my premise, and why _do_ you say these
things?


Sarah

wrote:
wrote:
Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Nope - you really are just someone who
gets his kicks out of hurting others.

The premise of your argument is flawed. I assure you that this is
not
the case.

Really? So what is the flaw in my premise, and why _do_ you say
these
things?


You are under the impression that I get my kicks by hurting others. You
cite examples to back your false impression. The truth is that I give
my honest opinion. I might agree with you in one post and will disagree
with you on another post. I do not do this because I feel like I have
special bond with you, but to express my views.

Everything you quoted is to support my view that Catty Lake should not
have children. I was relieved that she had a miscarriage.

In regards to:
"(Ilse Witch wrote)
mommy to four tiny angels (Oct '03 - Oct '04)
(asgf wrote)
I see where your ignorance comes to play."

I was stating that the poster had a bias that she was acting upon.

If I wanted to hurt others or be a troll, I would change my id every
few days and attack everyone's posts. She posted on a public forum her
situation. She should keep this stuff to herself or in a private medium
because anything posted here is fair game for comment and criticism. If
one doesn't like what I say, they are more than welcome to killfile me
or ignore my posts.

Sarah

By the way, did you feel left out on the whole pro-choice is
pro-abortion debate? Because if you think about it, God is pro-choice.


Regards...

For some reason I didn't see this post on Google when it first appeared
and have only just found it, which is why I'm answering it now. I think
by now it's not so much a dead horse as a rotted, maggot-ridden equine
carcass, and anyone who is less obsessive than me [1] would be well
advised to just kill this whole thread now, if you haven't already done
so. I'm happy to take it to e-mail if agsf's address is valid and read.


[1] Which would be everyone in the world except Todd, who probably won't
be interested as it doesn't involve birthing positions or cord clamping.
Though, come to think of it, it'll be interesting to see how he manages
to bring this round to a reply involving birth canals and 30%.


In message .com,
" writes

wrote:
wrote:
Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Nope - you really are just someone who
gets his kicks out of hurting others.

The premise of your argument is flawed. I assure you that this is
not
the case.

Really? So what is the flaw in my premise, and why _do_ you say
these
things?


You are under the impression that I get my kicks by hurting others. You
cite examples to back your false impression. The truth is that I give
my honest opinion.

I know it's your honest opinion. You seem to think that this somehow
excludes the possibility that you intend to hurt others.

The real question is - why did you give your opinion at all in this
case? The issue is not merely whether it's honest, but whether it's
_helpful_. In this case, it was both entirely unhelpful and exceedingly
hurtful. It was also utterly unnecessary. There was nothing at all to
stop you from simply keeping quiet and staying the hell out of the
thread. The only result your posting had was to cause further hurt to
someone who was already suffering considerably at the time.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean you posted with the _intention_
of doing so. I figured it was possible that you were clueless enough to
think that your posting was in some way helpful or constructive. But
the possibility that you were deliberately trying to hurt this woman
also existed. I reached the conclusion that the latter was the case
because you went on to make an offensive comment about Ilse's
miscarriages as well.

That, BTW, is also why I dropped out of the debate we were having about
child custody. I was too angry at the time to go on debating you, and I
felt that continuing to hold a civil discussion with you might give the
erroneous impression that I still regarded you as a human being rather
than as a lower form of pond scum.

In regards to:
"(Ilse Witch wrote)
mommy to four tiny angels (Oct '03 - Oct '04)
(asgf wrote)
I see where your ignorance comes to play."

I was stating that the poster had a bias that she was acting upon.

That may have been what you meant, but it wasn't what you were stating.
Still, I don't mind revising my opinion. You're not someone who gets
his kicks from hurting others. You're someone who is indifferent to
whether or not he hurts others, because doing what you want to do
(stating your honest opinion) is more important to you than compassion
for the feelings of others.

If I wanted to hurt others or be a troll, I would change my id every
few days and attack everyone's posts. She posted on a public forum her
situation. She should keep this stuff to herself or in a private medium
because anything posted here is fair game for comment and criticism.

It isn't fair game for outright nastiness.

If
one doesn't like what I say, they are more than welcome to killfile me
or ignore my posts.

If you're seriously trying to offer that as an equivalent for the way
you treated Catty and Ilse, then it's the equivalent of punching someone
in the nose and then telling them that if they don't like that they're
more than welcome to stay out of the same room as you in future.

By the way, did you feel left out on the whole pro-choice is
pro-abortion debate?

Not that I can recall.

Because if you think about it, God is pro-choice.


Judging from the context in which you last used that phrase, I still
don't think you understand what "pro-choice" means. Incidentally, I
don't think you know what "premise" means either.


Sarah

--
"To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem." _The
Restaurant At The End Of The Universe_, Douglas Adams

OBSESSING ABOUT **PREVENTION**

ATTENTION: Ms. Fidelma O'Mahony, Clinical Governance Office, Ward 59, North
Staffordshire Maternity Unit: Please see the end of this post.

British general practitioner Dr. Sarah Vaughan wrote:

anyone who is less obsessive than me [1] would be well
advised to just kill this whole thread now
snip
[1] Which would be everyone in the world except Todd, who probably won't
be interested as it doesn't involve birthing positions or cord clamping.
Though, come to think of it, it'll be interesting to see how he manages
to bring this round to a reply involving birth canals and 30%.


Sarah,

I did not follow the thread in question.

In the instant post, I did not see the logic behind your suggestion that you
- better than AGSF - know his intent, as in,

I know it's your honest opinion. You seem to think that this somehow
excludes the possibility that you intend to hurt others.


So I was glad to see you revised your opinion of him, as in,

You're not someone who gets
his kicks from hurting others. You're someone who is indifferent to
whether or not he hurts others, because doing what you want to do
(stating your honest opinion) is more important to you than compassion
for the feelings of others.

snip

Intent can be the slipperiest of things.

For example, I was POSITIVE that a certain poster was MALICIOUSLY calling me
a "psycho" and maliciously pretending that obstetricians aren't robbing
babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.

But it turned out that that certain poster was JOKINGLY calling me "psycho,"
etc.

When I finally got the joke - I kept repeating it - and that certain poster
protested that **I** was using HER (in my crusade)!!

I WAS using her in my crusade...a.nd simultaneously getting over feeling so
foolish

But why on earth was she allowed HER crusade/joke at my expense - over my
repeated protests?

And she only revealed she had been joking after **I** apologized to her -
for passive-aggression I engaged in before I found out she was joking!

AGSF was one of the few who said that I needn't have apologized to her - and
- once she said it had all been a joke - Larry McMahan indicated (to my
great relief) that it wasn't all that easy to see it was a joke.

I've stopped using her name as you can see - but I just don't get why she
got away with her long-term joke - but no one protested when I finally
started ROLLING with her joke - repeating it - repeating how I fell for it.

The thought has crossed my mind that she was NOT joking originally - but she
is the only one who can tell us her intent - and as I learned (again) the
hard way (so late in life!) - intent can be SO slippery.

The joke was on me! (And perhaps the joke was also on some babies born to
mothers who believed this poster's joke that obstetricians aren't routinely
robbing babies of up to 50% of blood volume.)

ONWARD...

You humorously indicated that I am as obsessive as you - or perhaps more
so....

anyone who is less obsessive than me...[w]hich would be everyone in the world
except Todd...


You added:

it'll be interesting to see how [Todd] manages
to bring this round to a reply involving birth canals and 30%.


OK, here goes...

You take AGSF to task for hurting FEELINGS.

In my "obsession" I take obstetricians to task for hurting BABIES.

Tiny babies are having spinal nerves ripped out of their spinal cords as
obstetricians pull with forceps with birth canals senselessly closed up to
30%.

I was SO pleased when you finally at least mentioned OB lies (and me) in
your birth story...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/25ac713641dcdb3c?

Yes, I obsess....

But the tiniest people are getting hurt - and not just their feelings...

Did you ever respond to my post below?

Please pay close attention to my discussion of your excuse that you can't do
anything because you are not an obstetrician.

Initially when addressing your excuse, I was not aware that pregnant women
book with general practitioners in England...

Women shouldn't have to ASK for the "extra" up to 30%.

Most women don't KNOW to ask - so I "obsess" about getting general
practitioners and other medical doctors to SPEAK OUT...

Again...the tiniest people are getting hurt - and not just their feelings...

PREVENTION: *WILL DR. SARAH EMAIL HER EMPLOYER (TENDRING PCT)?

Sarah, please copy me and misc.kids.pregnancy if you do...

British general practitioner Dr. Sarah Vaughan is ignoring the Four OB Lies.
(See PS1 below.) *OBs are lying and closing birth canals and keeping birth
canals closed when babies get stuck.

Women are having to ASK for the "extra" up to 30% - if they are lucky enough
to learn about it (as Sarah did on misc.kids.pregnancy).

Sarah is focusing instead on a grisly, mostly AMERICAN OB side issue, as in,

snip BTW, since you brought up the theme of dishonesty: *You've recently
quoted my words out of context in a way that made it seem as if I was
supporting a position (routine infant circumcision) that you knew, from
the rest of the post and the thread in question, I was actually
opposing. *snip

http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ baf350665...

Sarah,

You say you "vehemently" and "totally" oppose the en masse ripping and
slicing of infant penises.

I vehemently and totally disagree.

Yes, you have indicated you are opposed to routine infant circumcision - but
you failed to note the obvious lies of your fellow medical doctors here in
the colonies as you blithely offered part of their "potential medical
indications" scam. ("It's true," you blithely said of their penile cancer
scare tactic - as you left out KEY CONTEXT - thereby in effect discussing
their penile cancer scare tactic out of context.)

I'm assuming British medical doctor ethics are similar to the AMA Principles
of Medical Ethics quoted below.

You are failing to strive to expose the fraud and deception of your fellow
medical doctors.

You are failing to do the MINIMUM required of you ethically.

I urge you to change course and strive to expose the fraud and deception of
your fellow medical doctors.

The priority should be striving to expose the fraud and deception that has
OBs keeping birth canals closed up to 30% when babies get stuck.

See The Four OB Lies in PS1.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS1 *As I've pointed out before, en masse ripping and slicing of baby
penises - grisly as it is - is a SIDE issue...

You are still ignoring The Four OB Lies...

Here they are again...

THE FOUR OB LIES

OB LIE #1. After MASSIVE change in the AP pelvic outlet diameter was
clinically demonstrated in 1911 and radiographically demonstrated in 1957,
the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that pelvic
diamaters DON'T CHANGE at delivery.

OB LIE #2. After Ohlsen pointed out in 1973 that pelvic diameters DO
change - the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that
their most frequent delivery position - dorsal - widens the outlet.

OB LIE #3. After I pointed out in 1992 that dorsal CLOSES - and so does
semisitting - the authors of Williams Obstetrics - put the correct
biomechanics in their 1993 edition - but kept in their text (in the same
paragraph!) - the dorsal widens bald lie that first called my attention to
their text...

OB LIE #4. OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get
stuck - and claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open
maximally. (ACOG Shoulder Dystocia video - also forceps and vacuum births
are performed with the mother in lithotomy.)

See Make birth better: Dan Rather, before you leave CBS...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com /group/chiro-list/message/2983

I noted some of the OB lies in an Open Letter to the FTC years ago...
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/ part2ftc.html

ETHICAL VIOLATION

MDs are violating AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics, failing to strive to
expose the OB fraud and deception, as in,

"[AMA physician[s] shall...strive to expose those physicians...who engage in
fraud or deception."

"[AMA p]hysician[s] shall...seek changes in those requirements which are
contrary to the best interests of the patient."

"[AMA p]hysician[s] shall...make relevant information available to patients,
colleagues, and the public..."
http://www.psych.org/psych_pra ct/ethics/ethics_opinions53101 .cfm

Remember Sarah...

The silence of medical doctors like yourself is forcing a LOT of women to
have to ASK their
obstetricians for the "extra" up to 30% of room in the birth canal - if they
are lucky enough to LEARN of the "extra" up to 30% that OBs routinely deny.

Why should you (and your baby) have the benefit of knowing about OBs closing
birth canals while most women give birth without this information with their
birth canals senselessly closed the "extra" up to 30%?

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS2 *Your employer - Tendring Primary Care Trust/PCT says it "steers" the
work of GP practices and spends public money on PREVENTION, as in,

"The NHS spends public money - your money - on health care,
treatment and **prevention**...Tendring Primary Care Trust [PCT] aims to
deliver better and more
responsive health services to improve the health of people in
your area. The Trust holds the NHS budget for our local
population of 139,000 people. It steers the work of GP
practices..." (emphasis added)
http://www.essex.nhs.uk/docume nts/guides/tendring%20pct.pdf

I will again cc Tendring PCT...

Sarah, it would be good if you - a MEDICAL doctor - would write to them and
say: *"Dr. Gastaldo is right - OBs and midwives should not be closing birth
canals up to 30% - and OBs should not be keeping birth canals closed the
"extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck."

Copied to:

TENDRING PRIMARY CARE TRUST
David Rex Chairman
Paul Unsworth Chief Executive
Sarah Gallone Complaints and Education Manager
Jan Chittock Child Protection Administrative Assistant
via Catherine Morgan
Communications Manager
Tendring Primary Care Trust
Canarvon House
Canarvon Road
Clacton-on-Sea
Essex
CO15 6QD
tel: 01255 206067
catherine.mor...@tendring-pct. nhs.uk

Dear Tendring Primary Care Trust,

Dr. Sarah Vaughan has said she is not
sounding the alarm about OBs closing birth canals up to 30% because...

"...I don't work in obstetrics. *I'm a general practitioner."
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 73cb84f6a...

Sarah has also said:

"Most pregnant women probably aren't that interested in measurements and by
what percentage they change..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 936e9f433...

I would say most pregnant women ARE interested - not only in the massive
amount of pelvic outlet area being denied - but also in the obstetric
cover-up lies - and (in particular) how to allow their birth canals to OPEN
the "extra" up to 30%.

One woman in the UK whose baby was born paralyzed after a shoulder dystocia
has, in effect, expressed interest in OB Lie #4...
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ ed3268731...

Here again is OB LIE #4: *OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when
babies get
stuck - and claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open
maximally. (ACOG Shoulder Dystocia video - also forceps and vacuum births
are performed with the mother in lithotomy.)

Tendring PCT: *If British general practitioner Sarah persists in her
intellectual dishonesty - if she persists in her UNETHICAL FAILURE (to
strive to expose medical doctor fraud and deception)...

Well...the Four OB Lies are pretty obvious: *I hope that (as in the Tendring
quote above) you will "steer" her (and other GPs you employ) to take action
to at least stop OBs from keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30%
when babies get stuck.

You are spending money on prevention - and what I am offering is relatively
FREE prevention.

I have been given to understand that pregnant women in Britain book with
GPs.
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 22fdf97af...

If this is true, it just further points up the intellectual dishonesty of
Sarah's claim that she isn't sounding the alarm because (again quoting her
post): "...I don't work in obstetrics. *I'm a general practitioner."
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 73cb84f6a...

OBs are KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% and pulling and
sometimes paralyzing babies...

Women are having to ASK for the "extra" up to 30% - when they are lucky
enough to learn about it (as Sarah did here on misc.kids.pregnancy).

Sarah, focus if you must on the lesser SIDE issue of OBs ripping and slicing
of infant penises en masse here in the colonies (and some ripping and
slicing there in Jolly Ol') - but at least EMAIL your employer Tendring PCT
about OBs keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get
stuck.

This is a crucial matter of prevention - SIMPLE prevention - and an email
from one of Tendring PCT's medical doctor employees could help get the ball
rolling finally.

No guarantees I know...but one never knows until one tries.

Here is the email for Tendring PCT: *catherine.mor...@tendring-pct. nhs.uk

You could just forward this email and say: *"Dr. Gastaldo is right. *OBs
should not be keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies
get stuck." (I'm assuming Tendring PCT is still your employer.)

How hard can it be?

Do it for the babies.

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


Sorry to repeat myself but...

Tendring PCT: *If British general practitioner Sarah persists in her
intellectual dishonesty - if she persists in her UNETHICAL FAILURE (to
strive to expose medical doctor fraud and deception)...

Well...the Four OB Lies are pretty obvious: *I hope that (as in the Tendring
quote above) you will "steer" her (and other GPs you employ) to take action
to at least stop OBs from keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30%
when babies get stuck.

You are spending money on prevention - and what I am offering is relatively
FREE prevention.

This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "Prevention: Will Dr. Sarah email her
employer (Tendring PCT)?"

END post that British general practitioner Sarah Vaughan either missed or
ignored...



OBSESSING ABOUT **PREVENTION**

Sarah, I hope that you just missed the post above.

I hope that you will finally take action to make sure all GPs "steered" by
Tendring PCT are aware that obstetricians are keeping birth canals closed
the "extra" up to 30% as they pull with forceps...

I am going to cc this to Ms. Fidelma O'Mahony who is involved in teaching
emergency obstetrics.

About two months ago, in April 2005, I posted about an article Fidelma
co-authored in the May 2005 BJOG.

Coincidentally, Fidelma just responded to that April 2005 post - just a day
after my June 17 post about a shoulder dystocia article in the July 2005
issue of BJOG...

See McRoberts maneuver? (also: Babies vs. BJOG Editor Jim Thornton)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3662

Here is what Fidelma wrote...

on 6/18/05 3:55 AM, Fidelma O'Mahony at
wrote:

Many thanks for your comments, I will look into this option. Am currently
updating Cochrane review on instrumental delivery. Also involved in tecahing
emergency obstetrics...MOET (Managing Obstetric Emergencies and Trauma)

Regards
Fidelma

Sarah, I am not sure what Fidelma means by "option" - especially not in the
context of an obstetrician pulling on a baby's head with instruments - with
the birth canal senselessly closed up to 30%.

I hope Fidelma does not regard that as an option!

As noted above, women shouldn't have to ASK for the "extra" up to 30%.

Most women don't KNOW to ask - which is why educating medical doctors is of
prime importance.

I was thinking maybe you could contact Fidelma and she could help you
educate your fellow Tendring-PCT-"steered" general practitioners (and
perhaps also Tendring-PCT-"steered" obstetricians - I don't know much about
how the system is organized in the UK - are obstetricians employed by the
trusts?)...

If Fidelma can't help you teach, perhaps she knows someone who can....

BTW, here is my post in response to Fidelma's May 2005 BJOG article...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Gastaldo"
To: ; ;
; ;
; ;
;
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 11:11 PM
Subject: Cranial traumatic injury at birth


PREGNANT WOMEN: To allow your birth canal to open an "extra" up to 30% at
delivery...

See THE SOLUTION at the very end of this post.

CRANIAL TRAUMATIC INJURY AT BIRTH

"[C]ranial traumatic injury...was almost always associated with physical
difficulty at delivery and the use of instruments..."
Ms Fidelma O'Mahony et al.^^^BJOG. 2005 May;112(5):619-26. PubMed abstract

^^^O'Mahony F, Settatree R, Platt C, Johanson R.

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access at http://groups.google.com)

Ms. Fidelma O'Mahony
Clinical Governance Office
Ward 59
North Staffordshire Maternity Unit
Stoke on Trent, ST4 6QG
UK


Fidelma,

Some cranial traumatic injury may be caused by obstetricians closing birth
canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed (keeping women
semisitting
or dorsal) when babies get stuck as they pull with hands, forceps and
vacuums.

See the Four OB Lies in PS1 below.

See also: STIRRHS: Fetal vs. Maternal malposition
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3478

I hope you will work to stop obstetricians (and midwives) from closing
birth
canals the "extra" up to 30%.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA


snip the Four OB Lies etc. which appear above

Again, Sarah, sorry to obsess.

I think PREVENTION is something worthy of obsessing about.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA


This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.

Search http://groups.google.com for "Obsessing about PREVENTION"

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

[1] Which would be everyone in the world except Todd, who probably won't
be interested as it doesn't involve birthing positions or cord clamping.
Though, come to think of it, it'll be interesting to see how he manages
to bring this round to a reply involving birth canals and 30%.

I'm glad to see that Todd meet his challenge.


I know it's your honest opinion. You seem to think that this somehow
excludes the possibility that you intend to hurt others.

Again, I am not responsible for the emotions of other people.

The real question is - why did you give your opinion at all in this
case?

Because no one cared for the baby in question if it was able to be
born. No child should be born to an irresponsible woman whose shacked
up boyfriend abuses her and does drugs. Some miscarriages are for the
best and this situation was one of them.

The issue is not merely whether it's honest, but whether it's
_helpful_. In this case, it was both entirely unhelpful and exceedingly
hurtful. It was also utterly unnecessary. There was nothing at all to
stop you from simply keeping quiet and staying the hell out of the
thread.

Just as you had the opportunity to express your views on a public
forum, so did I.

The only result your posting had was to cause further hurt to
someone who was already suffering considerably at the time.

No, it was to bring up that realization that some people do not approve
of her actions. There are some people which shouldn't be pregnant and I
am not saddened or sympathetic to their "loss".

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean you posted with the _intention_
of doing so. I figured it was possible that you were clueless enough to
think that your posting was in some way helpful or constructive.

Those of us who encourage or sympathize with others instead of holding
them responsible to the consequences of their actions are the clueless
ones.

But
the possibility that you were deliberately trying to hurt this woman
also existed. I reached the conclusion that the latter was the case
because you went on to make an offensive comment about Ilse's
miscarriages as well.

And that was false as well. It was not my intention of being offensive.
She stated that I should not have children based on my response to
Catty Lake. Her emotional bias was interfering with her logic, which is
the point I was trying to make. In other words, her ignorance of me
being an irresponsible parent was based on my comments because she
equated her experience with her own miscarriages with the situation at
hand.

That, BTW, is also why I dropped out of the debate we were having about
child custody. I was too angry at the time to go on debating you, and I
felt that continuing to hold a civil discussion with you might give the
erroneous impression that I still regarded you as a human being rather
than as a lower form of pond scum.

Well, you lost that argument anyway. Men make better parents than women
in a divorce situation. Although each child custody case should be
looked into on it's own merits, the burden of proof should rest on the
mother based on the research I provided.

I was stating that the poster had a bias that she was acting upon.

That may have been what you meant, but it wasn't what you were stating.

What "I" was stating and how "you" interpreted it is beyond my control.
Hopefully I clarified this point and you will need to deal with it as
you see fit.

Still, I don't mind revising my opinion. You're not someone who gets
his kicks from hurting others. You're someone who is indifferent to
whether or not he hurts others, because doing what you want to do
(stating your honest opinion) is more important to you than compassion
for the feelings of others.

Exactly. Standing up for what I believe in and thinking of the children
is more important to me than giving hugs and kisses to people who
should be up against the wall instead.

If I wanted to hurt others or be a troll, I would change my id every
few days and attack everyone's posts. She posted on a public forum her
situation. She should keep this stuff to herself or in a private medium
because anything posted here is fair game for comment and criticism.

It isn't fair game for outright nastiness.

Outright nastiness as perceived by you, not I. And yes, that is fair
game as well. If you want to avoid any comment in which you deem to be
nasty, then you should confide in your friend(s) in a safe social
setting. Also, I hope my friends give me their real opinions instead of
cherry coating my situation.

If
one doesn't like what I say, they are more than welcome to killfile me
or ignore my posts.

If you're seriously trying to offer that as an equivalent for the way
you treated Catty and Ilse, then it's the equivalent of punching someone
in the nose and then telling them that if they don't like that they're
more than welcome to stay out of the same room as you in future.

Your logic is flawed. This is a virtual forum where topics are
discussed and debated. There are controls in place if you lack the
ability to ignore what you consider as being offensive.

To use your example, you walked into a house in which you might be
punched in any room at any given time. Hell, I was physically assaulted
by your lack of concern in the matter as well.

Because if you think about it, God is pro-choice.


Judging from the context in which you last used that phrase, I still
don't think you understand what "pro-choice" means.

Since you don't feel left out on the whole pro-choice debate, I won't
debate it with you. Do you mind giving your opinion on the subject as
to why you feel that God is not pro-choice?

Incidentally, I
don't think you know what "premise" means either.

According to www.dictionary.com:
"A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a
conclusion is drawn."

The conclusion of your argument was that I like to hurt others based on
your premise of quoted statements in which you stated that YOUR
interpretations was of MY statements in regards to intent are/were
facts. Because only I can state the intentions of my statements, and
based on the fact that you state that I am ignorant of the meaning
behind "premise", I will have to conclude that you have no idea to what
the word "argument" means.

Try to keep up dear, you're slacking.


Sarah

Regards...

In message .com,
" writes


Sarah Vaughan wrote:

[1] Which would be everyone in the world except Todd, who probably won't
be interested as it doesn't involve birthing positions or cord clamping.
Though, come to think of it, it'll be interesting to see how he manages
to bring this round to a reply involving birth canals and 30%.

I'm glad to see that Todd meet his challenge.

Sarah Vaughan wrote:
In message .com,
" writes


Sarah Vaughan wrote:

[1] Which would be everyone in the world except Todd, who probably won't
be interested as it doesn't involve birthing positions or cord clamping.
Though, come to think of it, it'll be interesting to see how he manages
to bring this round to a reply involving birth canals and 30%.

I'm glad to see that Todd meet his challenge.

????? I guess we agree on something.