I don't see why I should justify a statement that you imagine I said.
Please find the quote where I said that
Abortion from societies stand point
- Thread starter too-open-minded
- Start date
Please find the quote where I said that
Bells
Staff member
It was a statement of fact to someone who believes the unborn is a person with apparently equal rights to life as the mother.
Sure - that's what you imagine ... that's why I asked you to find the quote about totalitarian banning and police state menstrual checks and what not
:shrug:
Bells
Staff member
I was making a statement of what can happen. Can you tell the difference?
And since you seem to have no problems in forcing women, without their consent, to carrying a child to term and then facing the risk of birth, there really is no point in my discussing this with you.
As a woman, I value my rights over my own body and I don't appreciate complete strangers, such as yourself, believing that your personal beliefs over my body should trump my rights over it. Because that is what this debate comes down to.
Who has more rights over the woman's body? The woman or a possible entity who may or may not make it term and people like you? As an individual with personal and autonomous rights, I believe I should have more say over what I allow to grow in my body than you or anyone else.
And as for this ridiculous claim you are trying to push in this thread:
Find me one case where a woman had drugs inserted into her uterus as a drug mule.
There isn't one. Because for a woman to carry drugs in her uterus, it would have to be either surgically put there (ie think C-section type cut into the abdomen and then into her uterus to implant it in there and then get her well enough to get her on a plane or whatever in a short space of time before her uterus would start to contract to expell the bags of drugs in it) or dialate the cervix, insert the drugs into the uterus, then wait for her cervix to close sufficiently or enough to allow it to then be sewn shut so that her uterus does not then try to expell the drugs naturally.. What would happen then is that the uterus would start to contract around the drugs, breaking the balloons, killing her before she'd even get on whatever mode of transport she was trying to get on to get through customs..
So find me one.
There are many who have tried to get through with drugs in their vagina. But I have yet to hear of a single case of a woman hiding drugs in her uterus. So please, find me a single one.. Shouldn't be hard for you since you just declared the uterus as "a common body cavity used by drug mules"..
And as I said in an earlier (ignored) post, if less women had babies, the tax rate wouldnt need to be as high to support childrens education (and other taxpayer funded support).
Its never really about society, its always about other peoples morality...
pity your language of unconsciousness prohibits you from extending even a smidgen of these rights to others
more imagination on your behalf.
Just post a complete diagram of the female reproductive system and all will be revealed
Bells, why are you letting this tool troll you with these asinine irrelevancies and cagey baiting?
Bells
Staff member
I think the pity should go to the fact that you have so little respect for women and their rights over their own bodies because you respect the rights of "others" more than them. You are a misogynist.
Put up or shut up.
You have claimed that the uterus is used by drug mules and then claimed it is "common" for them to carry drugs in there. You even claimed there was lots of room in there for them to carry the drugs. You have yet to show even one instance of a woman carrying drugs in her uterus to bypass customs, yet you claim it is common. Sure, there is a lot of room in her uterus. Pity she can't get it in there or keep it in there. And even after I point this out to you, you go on to say "it is common"..
So, show me even one instance of a woman carrying heroin in her uterus to bypass customs. These were your words:
lightgigantic said:
So back it up.
playing the rights of one's body as sufficient to downplay the rights of another's to the point of killing them on a whim is representative of the lowest creed ... although to be fair, such protagonists are not so much malignant but naive to their own nature due to leaning heavily on the language of unconsciousness.
Along the same lines I'm pretty sure plantation owners drew sympathy from "decent folk" for being deprived of rights as black activism support spread too
:shrug:
I talked about the female reproductive system because it was you who brought it up.
You tried to downplay it by instead focusing exclusively on the uterus.
.... that's why I asked you more than twice already to post a complete diagram of the female reproductive system so I can explain exactly what I am talking about (although I am certain you already have a clear idea since you have been trying to skirt around it like crazy since it became apparent exactly what i was talking about)
:shrug:
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Plantation owners denied human beings their basic human rights. Just as you deny women their basic human rights over their own bodies. ":shrug:"
You don't think women should have rights over their own bodies and what grows in said bodies and you don't think women should have a choice about their own bodies. You are a misogynist. You do not value women as being equal to you. You do not value them as being equal to whatever embryo or foetus they may be carrying. You view women solely as incubators and you feel that the "other" they are carrying should have more rights over the woman's body than the woman herself. So you are like the plantation owner denying women basic human rights - and that is ownership over one's own body. You appear to be the type of guy who feels that women should have no say over their own bodies once they are pregnant - which leads me to believe that you are probably the type of guy who feels it is acceptable to force women to carry to term. Are you?
The very fact that you think the "other" has more rights, or that its rights trumps that of the mother's over the mother's body makes you a misogynist.
Don't try and weasle out of it.
I said the contents of a woman's uterus, ie, the natural contents such as a fertilised egg, were her business and no one else's. You attempted to be a smart arse, and badly at that, by saying:
lightgigantic said:
Next thing you know, a page goes by and you are claiming:
lightgigantic said:
Even after I had tried to correct you that it isn't the uterus that is used, but the actual vagina that is used by drug mules, you refused to acknowledge it and kept carrying on about the law and society having a say over the contents of a woman's uterus.
In case you weren't aware LG, women carry their babies to term in the uterus. Which is why I said that the contents of said uterus is her business, whereupon you then decided to rant about a fallacy that drug mules carry drugs in there (ie the uterus).. They cannot. They do not. The uterus does not work that way and if they tried to insert it past the cervix, it would cause the uterus and the cervix to contract.. I explained this to you in the thread.
I posted a link about the female reproductive system. Women try to smuggle drugs in their vagina, yes. But I wasn't talking about the vagina. I was very specific in my post, which you first responded to by trolling about putting 200 grams of heroin up there.. I said the word "uterus" very clearly.
In the course of this discussion, you then claimed it was common. So please, since you seem a tad obsessed with the contents of women's uterus and since you seem to be under the belief that it is common for drug mules to use said reproductive organs (ie uterus) for drug trafficking, please provide me with one instance where a woman was found to be carrying drugs in her uterus... You claim it's common, so you should have no difficulty in finding it.
Bells, I'm disappointed. Were you not aware of the infamous Guatemalan heroin smuggling ring in which poor peasant girls mule the loads across borders in their uteri? Never mind the trifling matter of just how the eff the got it in there or out, just trust in LG's assertion that the uterus is the transportation mode of choice among all self-respecting drug dealers.
The basic ontological stance necessary for misogyny (or racism, or nationalism) is that the value of a person is defined by their body; a misogynist (or a racist or a nationalist) believes that all that there is to a person, is the body, that the body is the alpha and omega of a person's existence.
As far as I know, LG quite decidedly maintains that a person is not their body, but merely inhabits one. So already on principle, LG cannot be a misogynist, as he doesn't hold that the value of a person is determined by the body they inhabit.
Where in the world do you get that idea? Racism is mandated by religion, which most certainly does not contend that people are not simply sacks of meat and bone. Misogyny and racism and other forms of bigotry merely contend that there are classes of people, and in many cases classes determined by a deity.
More nonsense, trying to equate atheism to every ill in society.
None of that is accurate. Why did you think you could get away with baldly asserting this with zero substantiation? Did you think people would be cowed because you used the word "ontological" or something?
The basic ontological stance of sexism/racism/nationalism is that the value of a person is determined by their gender/race/nationality. That is obvious, by definition. Next, note that all of those categories are social constructs, and not biological properties. From that, it's easy to see that the value is assigned to the social construct, and the body signifiers associated with that are considered to be expressions of the interior properties stemming from the social construct in question.
Take a look at pretty much any instance of sexism, racism or nationalism: it won't be a discussion of body properties. It will be a discussion about interior characteristics: this race is "lazy," this gender is "passive," that nationality is "warlike," etc.
And frankly, it's really inane that you'd invoke nationality in this context. With race and gender there is at least a fairly strong physical signifier corresponding to the social construct. But with nationality? You can change your nationality without even stopping to think about your body.
Mysogyny is defined by the belief that a person's worth is determined by their gender. Gender is a social construct. None of your specious distinctions about bodies determining value are required for someone to be a misogynist, so this assertion does not exempt lightgigantic from anything.
I've heard you express before some preference not to be regarded as a determined apologist for conservative religion. If so, you should refrain from doing things like cooking up inanities like the above to defend the likes of execrable religion trolls like lightgigantic.
The woman's right to abortion reflects necessity due to irrational impulse and poor planning. If there was better planning and more control over irrational impulse, the need for abortion is less. In that respect, the need for abortion reflect a degeneration away from reason and willpower, into something closer to the animal standard. Abortion is a mop.
It is hard for me to buy the athesits claim of atheism being rational, when much of what is supported reflects departure from reason and will power, in favor of irrationality and impulse. It appears to be based on the propaganda tool of repeating something until assumed true.
For example, married people live longer than all other options. From the POV of science, the married arrangement should be called optimized in terms of inducing longevity. This is based on data.
But since atheism is a mirror religion and science embrances its philosophy, atheism claimed the opposite of marriage has to be true. Science does a song and dance to prove the athest illusion, which justifies all the paths of lowered life expectancy.
It is hard for me to buy the athesits claim of atheism being rational, when much of what is supported reflects departure from reason and will power, in favor of irrationality and impulse. It appears to be based on the propaganda tool of repeating something until assumed true.
For example, married people live longer than all other options. From the POV of science, the married arrangement should be called optimized in terms of inducing longevity. This is based on data.
But since atheism is a mirror religion and science embrances its philosophy, atheism claimed the opposite of marriage has to be true. Science does a song and dance to prove the athest illusion, which justifies all the paths of lowered life expectancy.
That is often false.wellwisher said:
When it is false, it is slander - a form of false witness very common among the theistic.
Married men live much longer than single men. But rich men live longer than poor men, and rich men are more likely to marry; likewise sick men, civilian men, men of somewhat but not excessively greater than average height, men with long-lived (i.e. married) parents; etc; so the matter is complicated.wellwisher said:
The difference is not nearly as significant for women in the US - most of it seems to be simply that poor, sickly, low-status (racial minority, etc), and genetically damaged women are both shorter lived and less likely to marry.
Married women get abortions frequently, btw. Always have.
From the point of view of a math tutor, your argument there is invalid.wellwisher said:
Bells
Staff member
Me thinks you need to utilise your dictionary a bit more...
... actually the example is closer to you denying unborn children their rights since, since, just like the plantation owners, you use a language of unconsciousness to designate the victims a status that excludes them from your normal standards or morality. You call them "others" (Games of Thrones anyone?) - even the word "abortion" tends to be offensive to the senses so it often relies on such phrases as "tissue removal", "pregnancy termination"
:shrug:
You can't even come to terms with the very simple biology that there is another person involved therefore you are in turn a victim of your own language of unconsciousness
On the contrary, you don't even value unborn children being remotely anything like you (although apparently you express some distaste at the prospect of children acquiring birth defects in the womb due to the wanton activity of the mother ... although not to the point of publicly expressing an opinion about the relative goodness/badness of such a parent's action .... dunno, maybe its just the ghost of some sort of proper intelligence filtered through the myopic aperture of your language of unconsciousness ... )
wtf?
on the contrary, I'm not sure how having the right to kill someone somehow magically renders both individuals of comparable equal value ....
Oh, you mean the other individual?
the problem is that killing another is never a basic human right, but clearly a transgression of one
On the contrary I have hinted at a variegated response to the situation - you, on the otherhand, have downplayed absolutely any issue of rights to the unborn child or obligation of the parent
Once again, still unclear how living grants one more rights over one inclined on kill another ....
Now I guess the next question is why you had the intelligence to discern the precise nature of the statement in your very next post ... yet subsequently lost it as the thread continued ....
Me : Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Just try and pass through airport customs with 200 grams of heroin in there if you think its legally a no-go area.
You : You are comparing a woman's right to her pregnancy or an abortion with inserting heroin up one's vagina?
:shrug:
Last edited:
And gender/race/nationality are matters seen as pertaining to the body.
Millions of illegal immigrants and rejected asylum seekers beg to disagree.
It's a social construct the basis of which is the understanding that the body is all there is to a person.
Oh. I am doing what you say that I am doing? My own intentions are irrelevant, the only thing that should matter to me is what you say that my intentions are? Riiight.
What a price to pay for love.
Talk about misogyny.