Bells
Staff member
Sexist peanut gallery, perhaps you missed the part in what you quoted and once again misrepresent where I clearly state I had answered the question repeatedly..
But no, continue to misrepresent because that is what you do.
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Sexist peanut gallery, perhaps you missed the part in what you quoted and once again misrepresent where I clearly state I had answered the question repeatedly..
But no, continue to misrepresent because that is what you do.
On being "clueluss"
Oh, cut him a break. He is "clueluss", after all.
Indeed, that's the delicious irony, here. Or, at least, so says me. He calls himself "clueluss", behaves as if he is properly clueless, and look at what cause he's taken up.
Is it mere random coincidence?
Maybe a characteristic of the argument?
Or perhaps he is mocking people—in this case, Capracus—for being as clueless as he is?
Who knows? One of the benefits of being clueless is that nobody expects the clueless to be capable of making a coherent argument, which in turn seems to be a benefit he wallows in.
Bells said:
Oh, cut him a break. He is "clueluss", after all.
Indeed, that's the delicious irony, here. Or, at least, so says me. He calls himself "clueluss", behaves as if he is properly clueless, and look at what cause he's taken up.
Is it mere random coincidence?
Maybe a characteristic of the argument?
Or perhaps he is mocking people—in this case, Capracus—for being as clueless as he is?
Who knows? One of the benefits of being clueless is that nobody expects the clueless to be capable of making a coherent argument, which in turn seems to be a benefit he wallows in.
Again, maybe this is just my present bad attitude talking... But such escapist tactics really isn't something I would like to allow in this forum any longer... After all, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law... Why should we be any different?
Edit -
If I wasn't clear in the past, let me be clear now. Using partial quotes to willfully misrepresent what someone says will simply not be tolerated. Intellectual dishonesty IS against forum rules.
Edit -
If I wasn't clear in the past, let me be clear now. Using partial quotes to willfully misrepresent what someone says will simply not be tolerated. Intellectual dishonesty IS against forum rules.
Too bad, I was hoping your conceptual inadequacy wasn’t congenital.
According to your Dry Foot Policy, personhood is attained through the act of umbilical severance, by that logic it would be rescinded through umbilical reattachment. Go try your inalienable rights sermon on death row. Rights are granted through consensus, and can likewise be taken away.
(guffaw!)
So ... medical malpractice, assault and battery against a newborn, and potentially murdering that newborn is sufficient to rescind its personhood?
What country do you live in?
Even better. I mean, sure, it's no Turducken, but how, in your mind, is a newborn analogous to a convicted murderer?
What, exactly, has the newborn done that would empower society to declare its forfeiture of rights?
Capracus said:
So ... medical malpractice, assault and battery against a newborn, and potentially murdering that newborn is sufficient to rescind its personhood?
What country do you live in?
Even better. I mean, sure, it's no Turducken, but how, in your mind, is a newborn analogous to a convicted murderer?
What, exactly, has the newborn done that would empower society to declare its forfeiture of rights?
Bells
Staff member
And by logic, you just killed the mother and the baby.
And by your logic, you once again ignore the mother in your equation. Tell me, what other ways are you going to dream up to kill a woman and her baby? Or are we just lucky that you're only sticking to the one because you are incapable of the honesty required by the pro-life group to not misrepresent a woman's right to choose in such a way?
No, really, I am curious.
Of all the examples you could have given, you went with outright murder of a woman and her baby. And you actually think we should have taken you seriously? I've seen some pretty twisted shit from the pro-life brigade, even the arguments to using a corpse to grow a baby in, but you managed to even top that. It's astounding. What was even more astounding was your arbitrary time period and then your shock that you had supported a position that went against what you deemed was acceptable. Tell me, should the hospital have been allowed to keep growing that baby in her dead uterus because it was past 24 weeks? Or is your personal jury still out on that as well?
In your sudden zeal to turn pro-life in that debate, you fell right into the trap that pro-lifer's make all the time. They fail to factor in the woman in their argument. You are still incapable of asking or even noticing her or her rights over her body. What? You think a woman will ask that her baby be killed by stuffing it back inside her body and thus, killing her as well, because she's changed her mind and wants an abortion? Is this really a conceivable option for you to consider and demand we consider?
The inherent dangers of that cannot be lost on you. There were more than enough cases where women were literally forced into positions of having their lives threatened because their miscarriage still had a heartbeat. Those numerous cases were listed and detailed in that thread.
To answer your question, no, the dry foot policy would not have a baby stuffed back in and then aborted. Because as is blatantly obvious, you would kill the baby and the mother in the process. Do you need me to explain why this is a bad thing? To the other, as explained and supported with evidence in that thread, even abortion doctors won't abort full term 'babies'. So your ridiculous argument becomes even more ridiculous. And in your continued refusal and because you are incapable of considering the woman in your zeal of 'what about the baby', there are reasons and very valid ones why women may wait or end up having late term abortions. And I doubt few of them would find reasons to take your moronic question seriously.
And by your logic, you once again ignore the mother in your equation. Tell me, what other ways are you going to dream up to kill a woman and her baby? Or are we just lucky that you're only sticking to the one because you are incapable of the honesty required by the pro-life group to not misrepresent a woman's right to choose in such a way?
No, really, I am curious.
Of all the examples you could have given, you went with outright murder of a woman and her baby. And you actually think we should have taken you seriously? I've seen some pretty twisted shit from the pro-life brigade, even the arguments to using a corpse to grow a baby in, but you managed to even top that. It's astounding. What was even more astounding was your arbitrary time period and then your shock that you had supported a position that went against what you deemed was acceptable. Tell me, should the hospital have been allowed to keep growing that baby in her dead uterus because it was past 24 weeks? Or is your personal jury still out on that as well?
In your sudden zeal to turn pro-life in that debate, you fell right into the trap that pro-lifer's make all the time. They fail to factor in the woman in their argument. You are still incapable of asking or even noticing her or her rights over her body. What? You think a woman will ask that her baby be killed by stuffing it back inside her body and thus, killing her as well, because she's changed her mind and wants an abortion? Is this really a conceivable option for you to consider and demand we consider?
The inherent dangers of that cannot be lost on you. There were more than enough cases where women were literally forced into positions of having their lives threatened because their miscarriage still had a heartbeat. Those numerous cases were listed and detailed in that thread.
To answer your question, no, the dry foot policy would not have a baby stuffed back in and then aborted. Because as is blatantly obvious, you would kill the baby and the mother in the process. Do you need me to explain why this is a bad thing? To the other, as explained and supported with evidence in that thread, even abortion doctors won't abort full term 'babies'. So your ridiculous argument becomes even more ridiculous. And in your continued refusal and because you are incapable of considering the woman in your zeal of 'what about the baby', there are reasons and very valid ones why women may wait or end up having late term abortions. And I doubt few of them would find reasons to take your moronic question seriously.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Seems to me, by that logic it would be impossible to reattach the umbilical chord as if it were a gardenhose, for various irreversible medical reasons. Great harm to both mother and child would result.
I came late to this and read just a few posts, but from what I understand; you are male while Bells and Tiassa are female, and IMO, unless you are a physician, you have absolutely no standing in any discussion of female reproductive rights, similarly, women do not have the right to insist a male gets neutered as a conception prevention platform.
If an act of surgery gives you personhood, why not use an act of surgery to take it away. Delegation of rights by surgergical action was your idea, not mine.
Why Turdmenistan of course.
You misunderstand your own concept of personhood. Surgical reversal implies the newborn becomes the unborn, and just as the condemned inmate is eligible for execution, so is the re-incarcerated fetus.
Bells
Staff member
Josef, is that you?
Are you out of your mind?
You are actually making your original question and argument even worse and even more offensive..
Are you out of your mind?
You are actually making your original question and argument even worse and even more offensive..
Well, Phuck
And we might notice he still doesn't comprehend what he's dealing with.
After all, it's not a matter of "delegation of rights by surgery". As I've noted before, whatever bizarre fantasies people want to come up with about abortions during labor, or after the baby is born but before the cord is cut, there is simply no question whatsoever about personhood once it is.
This isn't a delegation of rights by surgery; it's an observable fact.
And you'll notice that our neighbor is, essentially, seeking any way to take any sort of bite out of a woman's right to govern her body and what takes place in it.
Then again, what can we expect of the rationality of, "Surgical reversal implies the newborn becomes the unborn"?
Maybe I should propose we run around, interrupting baptisms with knives and rifles, aborting the converts before they're (ahem!) "born again".
You know, the Turducken is pretty much the Line of the Year for Sciforums, but he's got good contenders for numbers two and three, as well:
If he keeps going, maybe he'll round out the top ten all on his own. Meanwhile, it does occur to me to wonder if he thinks that if he leaves the reattached, stuffed baby inside the woman long enough, it will regress to its original cellular structure of sperm and egg? And no, I don't really want to see what reverse ejaculation looks like.
I really wish the preceding sentence never occurred to me.
Bells said:
And we might notice he still doesn't comprehend what he's dealing with.
After all, it's not a matter of "delegation of rights by surgery". As I've noted before, whatever bizarre fantasies people want to come up with about abortions during labor, or after the baby is born but before the cord is cut, there is simply no question whatsoever about personhood once it is.
This isn't a delegation of rights by surgery; it's an observable fact.
And you'll notice that our neighbor is, essentially, seeking any way to take any sort of bite out of a woman's right to govern her body and what takes place in it.
Then again, what can we expect of the rationality of, "Surgical reversal implies the newborn becomes the unborn"?
Maybe I should propose we run around, interrupting baptisms with knives and rifles, aborting the converts before they're (ahem!) "born again".
You know, the Turducken is pretty much the Line of the Year for Sciforums, but he's got good contenders for numbers two and three, as well:
• "According to your Dry Foot Policy, personhood is attained through the act of umbilical severance, by that logic it would be rescinded through umbilical reattachment."
• "Surgical reversal implies the newborn becomes the unborn, and just as the condemned inmate is eligible for execution, so is the re-incarcerated fetus."
• "Surgical reversal implies the newborn becomes the unborn, and just as the condemned inmate is eligible for execution, so is the re-incarcerated fetus."
If he keeps going, maybe he'll round out the top ten all on his own. Meanwhile, it does occur to me to wonder if he thinks that if he leaves the reattached, stuffed baby inside the woman long enough, it will regress to its original cellular structure of sperm and egg? And no, I don't really want to see what reverse ejaculation looks like.
I really wish the preceding sentence never occurred to me.
Here Bells, let’s tidy up the metaphorical imagery for the sake of your sanity.
Dr. Jesus walks into the delivery room and divinely and cleanly reverses the delivery process so that mother and fetus are back to a full term, pristine prenatal condition. Dr. Jesus gets called to emergency to restore a patient’s unrecovered severed penis and has to leave maternity, in his absence Dr. Satan arrives to visit the expectant mother. Dr. Satan gives the mother the option of a clean, no risk termination of the non-person residing in her womb. If the mother agreed, would such a termination be morally justified?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What are they selling at the dispensaries in your neighborhood?
Methinks you misunderstand this mythical creature called Satan:
Why in the world would Dr. Satan do that?
Every once in a while, it is possible to astound Satan: "Mary Motherfucker! He did what? You get to give birth all over again! Fuck, I wish I'd thought of that!"
Besides, Dr. Satan performs Dr. God's will. Haven't you ever read the Book of Job?
No, really, man, it's okay. I mean, given the fact that Christians don't understand the book of Job, I understand how the terms of Dr. Satan's employment at Divinity General are a little fuzzy for some people.
Methinks you misunderstand this mythical creature called Satan:
Capracus said:
Why in the world would Dr. Satan do that?
Every once in a while, it is possible to astound Satan: "Mary Motherfucker! He did what? You get to give birth all over again! Fuck, I wish I'd thought of that!"
Besides, Dr. Satan performs Dr. God's will. Haven't you ever read the Book of Job?
No, really, man, it's okay. I mean, given the fact that Christians don't understand the book of Job, I understand how the terms of Dr. Satan's employment at Divinity General are a little fuzzy for some people.
Bells
Staff member
Capracus said:
Only if the third option is the one where she spreads her legs and fires the placenta at your head as though she's shooting it out of a rocket launcher...
There is not enough alcohol in my house to make me able to even want to converse with you at this point..
Because modern science and medicine have no clue as to the condition of a fetus prior to being observable at birth. It’s likely just a collection of Sea-Monkeys unobserved in the womb.
Oh, so you're posting while drunk, that helps explain the state of your comprehension. Try rehab, it seems to be working wonders for Rob Ford.
These two quotes are not consistent since the first quote shows lack of reality perception is rampart. If 71% were not even sure they were pregnant, that shows the signals from the female body to the female brain more often than not become cross wired to reality. Yet you say the choice to abort is 100% reliable. Why is life harder for a women to judge than is death? I would conclude it is not about the body and mind, but a conditioned mind via propaganda.
Women like to be lied to, if what is said is what they want to hear. The 100% reliable abortion choice is like saying they look thin in that new dress. The 71% who don't know they were pregnant is about others not looking thin, not them.
That aside, one way to settle the abortion time limit is how about using the science of pre-mature births as the litmus test. The earliest premature babies, who have survived and live outside the womb, could become the latest time one can have an abortion. Right now, the record is about four months early. This is possible due to the assistance of medical science.
Abortion also uses medical science to increase the rate of termination, beyond natural death. The accelerated rate of abortion is made possible by science, not by nature, which is the same as the induced viability of the 4 month premature baby. One solution is science and medicine can't be used for abortion, after the first 5 months of pregnancy, since other science shows this is where the unborn is viable. The science of early death could be regulated at the junction where it meets the science of early life.
You are taking his hypothetical argument and pretending that he is proposing this as an actuality. That is... I have few words.
Admittedly, I haven't been paying a huge amount of attention to this thread. I've been busy with a de novo impression of the centralised theory I've been working on; it's really quite fascinating.
But, if I read your "dry foot" stance on abortion correctly, it is quite possibly one of the most heinous and evil concepts I've ever heard. Could you verify the facts of your position, explicitly, without analogy or evasion?
Those things are not analogous.
I, truly, only have one response to this:
Seriously, your hypothetical situations are getting more and more absurd Capracus... why don't you stick to talking in FACTS... I mean, if we're going to deal in hypotheticals, then what if Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy descended from upon high and decided to pontificate with the constabulary... what would you do then?
No... actually modern science and medicine are rather clear on the condition... why you are even bringing this strawman into the argument, I can't fathom.
Bells
Staff member
Do you understand of the notion woman's choice and women's rights in regards to her body and her pregnancy? You know, pro-choice?
That's the so called dry foot policy. In other words, while it's in her uterus, she's in control and she gets to decide - which is the pro-choice argument.. Her body, her choice... Unless of course you think it is heinous for a woman to have control and decide over her own body? Yes? No?
Now Capracus took this to mean something so extreme, that at the time when he originally made the argument, we could only stare in wonder and frankly, it made no sense. Instead of looking at realistic hypothetical, he went for ones so extreme that really, it made no sense. His scenario would have had equal merit and consideration if he had asked what if the womb opened up and the baby walked out fully clothed. First came the questions about what if she's in labour and she decides to abort. Because you know, this happens often enough? This is common enough to use as an example? No, it is not. In fact, I even provided links to interviews with doctors who perform late term abortions (I think there's only 3 now after one was gunned down in his church one Sunday) and she was clear, they don't do full term. So that would pretty much answer the question, yes? Well apparently not. Because while reality clearly states that you can't get an abortion at full term, the question kept being asked. Then came the Turducken argument. Which really, defied all sense of logic. And this came after the using a dead body to grow a baby debacle which at first Capracus found just as heinous as the rest of us (except LG, Asguard and the other guy who thought it was perfectly fine).
So you can understand my disgust when the question was posed in the first place.
We had asserted, that pro-choice means she determines the fate of her body and she is control and she decides while it's still inside her - which one would assume having taken part in the thread, he'd have taken in the reality that doctors will not abort at full term and also the fact that we operate on a system whereby it is unrealistic to even ask what if she decides to abort while in labour.. What woman does this? Do you know any? Because of the hundreds of women I know and the many of those who had a child and others who had abortions, none waited until her feet were in the stirrups and she was pushing it out to decide that no, she's changed her mind and wants to abort... All I asked for was a discussion based on reality.. And his natural response to the pro-choice argument that the mother decides is to ask what if you reattach the umbilical cord and stuff the baby back inside the mother, can she abort it then?
What?
No, really, how the jesus, mary, joseph fuck can someone actually even think up such a question? It's like a morbid script that would be at home in the Human Centipede. But no, apparently this was the scenario he somehow dreamt up and he demanded we set the confines of the discussion to suit this fucked up scenario. When he was told that 'ermm it would kill the mother and the baby and how is turning the mother into a turducken helpful in this discussion?'.. To which wobbly's were thrown.
The very central basis of the dry foot policy that everyone is pitching a fit over is that it's pro-choice. THE MOTHER DECIDES. Now if people want to have an honest discussion about pro-choice vs pro-life, it might be good to acknowledge reality instead of dreaming up sick and twisted scenarios that not only can never happen in real life (since you know, stuffing the baby back in like's a stuffing for a bird is not realistic when it comes to human beings and would kill both mother and baby, which renders the point moot). Strange of me to suggest this, but really, a turducken argument? This is the best that pro-lifer's can come up with? You deemed it heinous without even knowing what it is.. Is this the best that you can do?
How about real life scenarios like 'what if she didn't know or realise the due date or didn't realise she was pregnant until much later?'.. Or how about 'she was pressured to keep the baby when she did not want to?'.. Or 'she continued to menstruate and had no signs of pregnancy until she as past 30 weeks?'.. Or 'she was denied the right to an abortion earlier due to lack of access and funds to travel to get one?'.. You know, what actual women go through. That would have made sense and it would have at the very least recognised the woman and mother's role in her pregnancy instead of giving her the equivalent stature in society that one would give a dead and plucked turkey.
- Status