Abortion

[Bells]

Bells:
I did not read that long post you just addressed to me. I got as far as "Actually I have" and said 'screw this.'
HAD You read it and understood it without inventing what you THINK I said-- You would never have given me the responses you had. You have clearly projected your personal thoughts of what you think I said onto me in spite of several times where I made it clear what I think and where you were completely off the track.

I am TIRED of repeatedly telling you over and over and over again what my stance is. I have fullfilled that obligation too much.
It's now on YOU to go back up and RE-READ what's been provided. Without all your bias.
I will NOT address those points any longer until you can tell ME what my stance is.

blah blah..

You have no real stance on this. You appear uncomfortable at being a pro-lifer, but you also demand that women think of the life they are destroying when they opt for an abortion. I'm sorry, but there's a stance in there somewhere? All I see is a lot of confused hand wringing on your part.

Yeah, ok. THe father has parental rights to contest an abortion only the child is born. Got it.

You did not read it properly. It states, quite clearly, that a father can only contest is parental rights if he is proven to be the father via a DNA test. He does not have the right to contest a woman's right to an abortion if he is a "possible" father. In other words, he can only claim his parental rights after a DNA test confirms that he is the father. It then goes on to say that he, as the potential father has no right to contest or deny a woman the right to end a pregnancy via an abortion.

In other words- You assumed.
That is Not the only method of DNA testing and YES--children within the womb can be DNA tested.

You assumed incorrectly and your claim was wrong.

If the mother agrees to have the needle jammed into her stomach after the 15th week. The courts will not deny a woman the right to an abortion because a potential father has contested it.

Note the quotation "POSSIBLE." That is because without the paternity test, he cannot make a claim to rights as parent.

Yes.. and?

Read it again:

"The U.S. Supreme court ruled it was unconstitutional and a violation of a woman's civil rights for an abortion to be refused on the grounds that the "possible" father objected."​

 

[Neverfly]

blah blah..

You have no real stance on this.

I have made it clear again and again. In Plain Simple Words.
You repeatedly accuse me of things I never claimed

You attribute arguments I NEVER made and EVEN claim I say things that I refuted and say the OPPOSITE about.
Bells, you are flat our wrong- DEAL WITH IT instead of continuing to blame me for your obvious error.

All I see is a lot of confused hand wringing on your part.

All I see from you is you putting a whole lotta crap in my mouth no matter how often I say the opposite.

Your bias and emotional difficulty with the issue is not my problem so get off my back about it.

You did not read it properly. It states, quite clearly, that a father can only contest is parental rights if he is proven to be the father via a DNA test. He does not have the right to contest a woman's right to an abortion if he is a "possible" father.

That is EXACTLY what I said it said.
Apparently You cannot read even the short and simple things I say.

In other words, he can only claim his parental rights after a DNA test confirms that he is the father. It then goes on to say that he, as the potential father has no right to contest or deny a woman the right to end a pregnancy via an abortion.

no Duh!
Tell me something I don't know.
I NOTICE that you failed to admit to your blatant error and instead, try to make it APPEAR as though I had something incorrect. The posts stand clear and show that I did no such thing and that you are clearly incorrect.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Neverfly what about post # 300? :shrug:

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly what about post # 300? :shrug:

Sorry, I did not see it.

Frankly, I think she would have to be pretty far along anyway before a father would really contest it.
But yes, if that is the case, then I may be wrong. I have been informed that inutero paternity tests were common and safe (In fact, Maury Povich used to host a lot of them on his show... Not that I watched. My grandmother did.)

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Do thank it woud be mor moral to force a woman to cary the baby to term.??? ”

Originally Posted by Omega133
Well they knew it could happen, so if it does why should they be allowed to not face the consequence?

"Unfortunately they are given the right to choose. And meanwhile the baby gets no say."

oK... so women who get abortons shud go to jale... woud you also want the mornin after pill to be illeagle... an the use of it to lead to jale time.???

You and Bells are putting words into my mouth.

oK i apologize... you didnt say anthang about jale.!!!

Do thank it woud be mor moral to force a woman to cary the baby to term than allow her to abort the baby.???

I am merely saying they knew it could happen so they should take responsibility for the child. They Should Not go to jail. Unfortunately abortion is legal, and I believe strongly in justice.

oK... if not jale... what justice do you suggest.???

I don't have much of an opinion on the morning after pill, I could go either way with it.

What is it about a fertalized egge that you coud be oK wit it bein killed.???

 

[Bells]

I have made it clear again and again. In Plain Simple Words.
You repeatedly accuse me of things I never claimed

You attribute arguments I NEVER made and EVEN claim I say things that I refuted and say the OPPOSITE about.
Bells, you are flat our wrong- DEAL WITH IT instead of continuing to blame me for your obvious error.

No Neverfly.

What I do see is cluelesshusband and others having to ask you again and again what your stance is. And you trying to fob them off.

All I see from you is you putting a whole lotta crap in my mouth no matter how often I say the opposite.

Your bias and emotional difficulty with the issue is not my problem so get off my back about it.

I am not getting emotional and then writing in upper case constantly because this issue angers me or upsets me so much. You, on the other hand, are and continue to do so.

I have no emotional difficulty with the issue. You have admitted to having one, several times in this thread. Your manner of posting supports your own claims. I have not put words into your mouth, but directly quoted you.

You have yet to say the opposite to what you have actually said, which is what I have been questioning you on.

That is EXACTLY what I said it said.
Apparently You cannot read even the short and simple things I say.

Actually no. Here is what you said:

Yeah, ok. THe father has parental rights to contest an abortion only the child is born. Got it.

Clearly, the Father.
Your quote states that he DOES have rights, they simply require a paternity test to show that he is the father.

Hence why I said you did not read it properly. A father can contest his parental rights but he cannot contest her rights to an abortion. You twisted it into god knows what.:shrug:

no Duh!
Tell me something I don't know.
I NOTICE that you failed to admit to your blatant error and instead, try to make it APPEAR as though I had something incorrect. The posts stand clear and show that I did no such thing and that you are clearly incorrect.

You did have something incorrect. Refer to above.

 

[Neverfly]

No Neverfly.

What I do see is cluelesshusband and others having to ask you again and again what your stance is. And you trying to fob them off.

If you had read my posts you would see where I ANSWER DIRECTLY if I think a woman should be FORCED.

You would Know I had said I am Pro-Choice.

You would know that I do not agree with a lot of the things you accused me of advocating.

Where you are getting confused is that I advocate conscientious and careful examination of the WHOLE picture-- this confuses you causing you to Clump Me In With Pro-lifers who try to use similar claims.

That is on YOU for failing to misunderstand. I have made wayyy too much effort to clarify it to you.

I am not getting emotional and then writing in upper case constantly because this issue angers me or upsets me so much. You, on the other hand, are and continue to do so.

I am accentuating words in upper case to get your attention to them since you fail to read my posts.

Get someone Else who is unbiased to read over My complete participation in the thread and all of your totally inaccurate accusations and see if your preconceptions are getting in your way or not.

I DO get angry- at YOU for completely misrepresenting me which each accusation you make.

I have not put words into your mouth,

but directly quoted you.

No you have not always.
ANd when you have, such as that third to last between us, you claimed I was advocating endangering a mothers life to save the fetus. I Have Stated THe Opposite REPEATEDLY.
I have NEVER claimed that which you siad I had. At All.

You claimed I said that the fetus and mother have Equal Rights. I had made quite a LONG post in which I carefully described that and I NEVER said they have equal rights.

Your projections are coming from YOU, not me.


Actually no. Here is what you said:

Hence why I said you did not read it properly. A father can contest his parental rights but he cannot contest her rights to an abortion. You twisted it into god knows what.:shrug:

I did not Twist anything. You are continuing to project in spite of the clarity of my posts.

You have NOT commented on inutero testing- Lucysnow did... YOU only claimed it could not be done at all. You have not corrected your error.
I was shown by Lucysnow that I may be in error- I admitted that and I'll look into it.

 

[Neverfly]

Bells, let me make something very clear here:

If a person is repeatedly insisting that you are not understanding them, there is a HIGH probability that you are not understanding them.

Instead of making character judgments and accusations-- Step back and examine it all first in case you actually ARE not understanding them.

I don't think you realize what a slap in the face it is to have someone sit there and accusingly tell you you said things you had not and had, in fact, said the complete opposite.

 

[Bells]

If you had read my posts you would see where I ANSWER DIRECTLY if I think a woman should be FORCED.

You would Know I had said I am Pro-Choice.

You would know that I do not agree with a lot of the things you accused me of advocating.

Where you are getting confused is that I advocate conscientious and careful examination of the WHOLE picture-- this confuses you causing you to Clump Me In With Pro-lifers who try to use similar claims.

That is on YOU for failing to misunderstand. I have made wayyy too much effort to clarify it to you.

I see..

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2509486&postcount=192

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2509495&postcount=194

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2513324&postcount=228

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2513335&postcount=230

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2513574&postcount=237

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2513726&postcount=243 <--------- When you really became inconsistent. One could say fence sitting, but you keep contradicting yourself in all your posts.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2513738&postcount=245 <---------------- Completely disregarding that the morning afterpill can be and is often treated as an abortion pill.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2514119&postcount=252 <------- All over the place here to be honest.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2514473&postcount=259 <------------ I'm sorry, but what? You're pro-life but you're not pro-life.. eh?

And so on.

I'm sorry, but you've gone from one end of the spectrum to another in the space of a few pages.

You value an embryo as a life? So be it. Don't have an abortion. Your own personal views however does not give you the right to call others selfish for having abortions for their own personal reasons that have nothing to do with you. We've been debating this for several pages now and you still cannot grasp the obvious. Your opinions are your personal opinions. Reading through your posts on this issue have been like a nightmarish rollercoaster. Seriously, what the hell?

You're a single dad? Great! I have more respect than I can say for parents who step up and do what is right for their kids. But being a single dad does not give you the right to call others selfish because they would want to have an abortion. Your ex decided to not have an abortion? You are happy with her decision. But that is in your particular relationship. You do not have the right to make any demands on people you don't even know. If someone wants to have an abortion for what you deem selfish reasons, then they are free to do so. Your opinion means nothing because you mean nothing in that particular event in that person's life.

How can I put this politely? Mind your own business. You have judged others in this thread in such a way and insulted others because their views are not your own personal views. You like children? Then have them. But do not assume that you are in a position to demand the same from others. Not everyone thinks or believes as you do. You cannot be pro-choice and then tell a woman that she's selfish for having an abortion or wanting to have an abortion. It doesn't work that way. Pro-choice is about respecting the woman's right to choose for herself. And that is the crux of this issue and it's not quite sinking in with you.

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually Bells was doing the same "Clump me in with Pro-Lifers" stint.

Its as if she has formed this 3D animation of a pro-lifer (complete with placard and bible) that she superimposes over any one who disagrees with her (complete with audio sound track)

So the statement :

Even though I don't support abortion, I don't think the social structure can accommodate an immediate criminalization of it

becomes:

You along with all those murdering bitches will get the hangman's noose if I get elected

 

[Neverfly]

How can I put this politely? Mind your own business.

No. It's a DISCUSSION THREAD <Expletive deleted\>

Actually Bells was doing the same "Clump me in with Pro-Lifers" stint.

Its as if she has formed this 3D animation of a pro-lifer (complete with placard and bible) that she superimposes over any one who disagrees with her (complete with audio sound track)

So the statement :

Even though I don't support abortion, I don't think the social structure can accommodate an immediate criminalization of it

becomes:

You along with all those murdering bitches will get the hangman's noose if I get elected

I'm noticing that and no matter what- she will blame it all on the other guy and never admit her own fault. It's disgusting.

Bells: I no longer will respond to your posts at all in this thread. You are utterly incapable of separating someones differing opinions, for which you hypocritically judge, insult and condemn them for, from your own fantastic delusions.

Get Stuffed.

 

[Bells]

Actually Bells was doing the same "Clump me in with Pro-Lifers" stint.

Its as if she has formed this 3D animation of a pro-lifer (complete with placard and bible) that she superimposes over any one who disagrees with her (complete with audio sound track)

So the statement :

Even though I don't support abortion, I don't think the social structure can accommodate an immediate criminalization of it

becomes:

You along with all those murdering bitches will get the hangman's noose if I get elected

I'm sorry, but weren't you the one who was claiming that women who have abortions can be compared to men who commit mass murder against their families? Aren't you the individual who likened a woman who gets an abortion as being the same type of person who would push another down the stairs? You compared abortion to murder..

You're telling me you are pro-choice?

I see. You don't support abortion, by your own admission. You refer to it as murder. But you balk at being referred to as a pro-lifer? Interesting.

So you're pro-choice but against a woman's right to choose if her choice is abortion?

 

[Bells]

No. It's a DISCUSSION THREAD <Expletive deleted\>

Way for not being emotional there!

Next you're going to again deny that you have insulted anyone in this thread.

I'm noticing that and no matter what- she will blame it all on the other guy and never admit her own fault. It's disgusting.

What am I blaming you with? I am simply discussing your own words in this thread with you. As you said, it is a discussion thread. Yet you are offended when you are challenged or your points of view are challenged?

What was it you said? Oh yes.. "Deal with it"..

Bells: I no longer will respond to your posts at all in this thread. You are utterly incapable of separating someones differing opinions, for which you hypocritically judge, insult and condemn them for, from your own fantastic delusions.

I'm sorry, but I have insulted you? You have thus far abused me for daring to challenge your beliefs and for telling you that a woman's reproductive rights is none of your business, which in reality, it really is none of your business. And you find that insulting? You have called me a liar and accused my husband of being apathetic because he isn't emotional about it all as you are. You've called me a moron and a few other choice terms. And you have continually denied being all over the place, when your own posts have shown you to be all over the place. Your opinions don't just differ. They are ranging from one end of the spectrum to another. It's like your opinion on this issue has multiple personalities.

Get Stuffed.

Very adult of you.

 

[Neverfly]

Way for not being emotional there! Yet you are offended when you are challenged or your points of view are challenged?

No. When points of view that are NOT MINE are used against me and when you challenge me with accusations of claims I NEVER MADE ---I get pissed.

Yeah- I said it. Pissed.
I never denied getting angry at you- I admitted it bluntly. I amditted to being emotionally influenced. Many times. In several posts. AND in a different thread. Yet you act like I claimed I don't get emotions involved.

Typical Twisting and distortion from you.

Didn't I tell you to get stuffed? Do not talk to me anymore.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm sorry, but weren't you the one who was claiming that women who have abortions can be compared to men who commit mass murder against their families? Aren't you the individual who likened a woman who gets an abortion as being the same type of person who would push another down the stairs? You compared abortion to murder..

I'm also the one who claimed that I don't support the criminalization of it too ... since society as whole can't really cut the J curve right now.
(but I understand how omitting that point can help bolster your argument at this point in time)

You're telling me you are pro-choice?

no
are you telling me that there are only two diametrically opposed camps (with their concomitant political views) to view this problem from?

I see. You don't support abortion, by your own admission. You refer to it as murder. But you balk at being referred to as a pro-lifer? Interesting.

In discussions of the subject with you I balk at being identified as a pro-lifer ... but that's simply because the admission would mean I support abortion clinic bombings and the like
:shrug:

So you're pro-choice but against a woman's right to choose if her choice is abortion?

I'm against abortion but I recognize that its impractical to outright criminalize it at this point in time (as outright criminalization of other acts yielded similar failures - eg Prohibition).

 

[Bells]

No. When points of view that are NOT MINE are used against me and when you challenge me with accusations of claims I NEVER MADE ---I get pissed.

Yeah- I said it. Pissed.
I never denied getting angry at you- I admitted it bluntly. Many times. In several posts. Yet you act like I claimed I don't get emotions involved.

Typical Twisting and distortion from you.

Didn't I tell you to get stuffed? Do not talk to me anymore.

And as I keep having to remind you. I have quoted you directly. I have provided links of where you have been all over the place.

You have claimed and gotten angry at me for telling you that you are too emotional about this.. When the reality is that you are too emotional about this. You say you get emotional and then get pissy and tell me to not call you emotional about this..

So yeah.. You're all over the place with this.:shrug:

I can choose not to talk to you. But I choose to respond to you politely and in a rational manner.

 

[Neverfly]

Hey lightgigantic- Let's compare our statements to Bells accusations and see how far off she is:
Bells claimed I gave the fetus equal rights to the mother.

Bells claimed that I'm Pro-life and against any and all abortion

Bells claimed that I think if a womans life is in danger, she must sacrifice her life for the child--- ALL THIS is just for STARTERS...
Now let's look at just ONE POST and see if ALL of those few accusations are coverd in One
Simple
Post...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2514119&highlight=native+american#post2514119

She is oblivious to her angry projecting and only blames others for her own hypocritical behavior. Yeah- I'm pretty ticked at her callous and frankly, RIDICULOUS attacks on anyone that doesn't agree with her EXACTLY while trying to condemn me as doing that to her for not agreeing with her views.

 

[Neverfly]

I can choose not to talk to you. But I choose to respond to you politely and in a rational manner.

yeah- ONLY in this ONE post. Not all the rest of them. I'm not like you- I don't forget all your previous posts.

 

[Bells]

I'm also the one who claimed that I don't support the criminalization of it too ... since society as whole can't really cut the J curve right now.
(but I understand how omitting that point can help bolster your argument at this point in time)

Hmmmm...

no
are you telling me that there are only two diametrically opposed camps (with their concomitant political views) to view this problem from?

So you are pro-choice but consider the act itself to be akin to murder and the woman who has an abortion to be akin to a murderer?

Okay..

In discussions of the subject with you I balk at being identified as a pro-lifer ... but that's simply because the admission would mean I support abortion clinic bombings and the like

I wonder why.. when you consider abortion to be murder and the like. The majority of pro-lifer's do not support bombing abortion clinics, but they somehow understand the reason behind it.. I personally cannot understand why one would be pro-life but then murder innocent people when bombing family planning clinics. But that's just me.

I'm against abortion but I recognize that its impractical to outright criminalize it at this point in time (as outright criminalization of other acts yielded similar failures - eg Prohibition).

But you live in hope..

 

[lightgigantic]

Hmmmm...


So you are pro-choice but consider the act itself to be akin to murder and the woman who has an abortion to be akin to a murderer?

The act , yes. The perpetrator (on the whole), no.

Much like I consider the acts of America during its slavery era as racist, but the perpetrators of it simply acting under the dictates of the prevalent values of the era . (So I can say that racism is evil, but the persons of that era, not necessarily so)

I wonder why..

Its political ...

But you live in hope..

sure
Much like certain people during the slavery era lived in hope