Abortion

[mordea]

You cannot be pro-choice and then tell a woman that she's selfish for having an abortion or wanting to have an abortion.

I'm just curious, but do you read the stuff you post?

Allowing someone to make a choice, and expressing a negative opinion regarding a particular option, are not mutually exclusive.

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

Is that the position you take regarding child abuse? "It's not your child, you aren't a parent, mind your own business."

 

[Neverfly]

People simply are not going to agree on ALL aspects of an issue. But they discuss their various points of view- as in such places as a discussion forum.

Telling them they have no right to an opinion; Telling them they need to mind their own F'ing business; telling them claims they not only never made, but clearly said the opposite; harshly insulting anyone that does not agree and applying claims they never made; claiming they are insulting people who don't agree with them (Ask V.I. If I insulted her. I told her how twisted her post was. Sheesh. SHE had the maturity to discuss it like an adult...); accusing others of deception; complete and total inability to be personally accountable for misunderstanding, fault or error...

Yeah. Real Rational, that...

 

[Neverfly]

I'm just curious, but do you read the stuff you post?

Don't worry. She doesn't read what other people post, either.

 

[mordea]

Don't worry. She doesn't read what other people post, either.

That's typical of pro-choicers. They respond to what they would like the pro-lifer to say (ie. simple stupid arguments that are easily refuted) rather than what they actually say. Then when they are corrected, they simply repeat the same misrepresentations again.

S.A.M was banned for such 'intellectual dishonesty' (at least that's what the admin calls it). I wonder why the same does not occur for the pro-choicers who use the same tactics?

 

[Bells]

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.

I asked you the questions. You accused me of accusing you of it. I take it the (?) at the end of my sentences was difficult for you to understand?

Do I appear angry to you?

I am actually not angry with you at all. Just mildly amused to be honest at the mental pic of a guy who's frothing at the mouth. Yes, I went visual.

But lets look at what you have posted:

Morning after and such... You know what-- No matter how clear I try to make myself, someone need only twist my words or claim I was not clear. I really don't care.
My OPINION (Ok? Not a scientific statement) is that a person preventing pregnancy is entirely different from a person deliberately removing a life that has begun.
Yes-- I think that a few cells should be respected but in all honesty -- It would be for what they represent- not what they are at that moment.

So having respect for a zygote means that a person understands what it is- a transitional shade of gray, a process of development. Not a "nothing" but not a person.
Australopithecus afarensis is transitional between ape and human. I can respect Australopithecus afarensis but not as much as I would a Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

An expectant mother carrying a child that decides to abort a FETUS is what upsets me.
Taking that line of reasoning a Wee Bit Further means that it's Not That Difficult to avoid pregnancy.

To casually dismiss or destroy a developing life does not strike me as a healthy mindset.

So having respect for a zygote means that a person understands what it is- a transitional shade of gray, a process of development. Not a "nothing" but not a person.
Australopithecus afarensis is transitional between ape and human. I can respect Australopithecus afarensis but not as much as I would a Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

An expectant mother carrying a child that decides to abort a FETUS is what upsets me.
Taking that line of reasoning a Wee Bit Further means that it's Not That Difficult to avoid pregnancy.

To casually dismiss or destroy a developing life does not strike me as a healthy mindset.

So yeah.. What is your stance exactly? Don't get shitty when you make such comments and you are challenged as a result and deny saying what you have said.

 

[Neverfly]

That's typical of pro-choicers.

Hey, I qualify as pro choice.

They respond to what they would like the pro-lifer to say (ie. simple stupid arguments that are easily refuted) rather than what they actually say. Then when they are corrected, they simply repeat the same misrepresentations again.

Sounds like a Moon Hoax Believer and various other Conspiracy Theorist tactics to me...

If that isolated case is why you started your thread- I can see why you were influenced to make it.
I don't easily lose my temper but MAN...

That's about as Manipulative as a person can get, right there.

Don't get me wrong Mordea-- I disagree with a great deal that I've seen you post- so far.

But agreement/disagreement doesn't mean one should blatantly distort, lie, manipulate and play it like THAT, either.

I'm so far up on the defensive this point I'm about to don body armor in this stupid thread.

 

[Neverfly]

Bells, I will not be discussing abortion with you any longer. You cannot handle it, you're dirty about it.

You can sit back and watch me talk to OTHER people about it. Rational people.

 

[mordea]

So yeah.. What is your stance exactly?

You can't tell from those two very clear posts?

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

That's a really clear post.
(did she respond to/challenge it, point for point)
(don't answer)

However usually I have found that brevity is better on this site (not that I'm always capable of it) since miscomprehension seems to occur at some ratio to post length.


For me its Bells constant endeavor to slide the discussion behind the eightball of "But if abortion is illegal what about all the problems we will face in adjusting overnight?"

Most succinct example here

“
Bells: In other words, why should you have a say over a woman's reproductive rights?
”
Me: actually I was asking you a completely different question (if you want an answer to this , you might be better off asking it in the other thread since it primarily deals with the pro-life POV) ... It was more about your constant calling upon about how if pro-lifer's get their way, it will be legislated and then all these problems will arise. My question was whether you think in the course of something getting legislated that there is an element of social adjustment. IOW do you think that legislative politics only functions on the platform of sending in the tanks overnight or that it gradually solidifies as social adjustment comes to bear?

Needless to say, I haven't got a direct response for this.
:shrug:

 

[Neverfly]

That's a really clear post.
(did anyone respond to/challenge it, point for point)

However usually I have found that brevity is better on this site (not that I'm always capable of it) since miscomprehension seems to occur at some ratio to post length.

I thought I was quite clear.

I knew the post was long and I Warned her that it was long. I politely asked her to go back and read my actual claims-- I was mistakenly thinking I was discussing it with a rational person.

Notice what she quoted above has no actual bearing on her claims and only reinforces what I have been clear about. As if I had contradicted myself. Riiiiight.... Manipulation at work.

Needless to say, I haven't got a direct response for this.
:shrug:

In my opinion, the only response she can be given on this topic is silence.

 

[Tiassa]

... and no pro-rating

A Proposition: Demonstrating the full humanity of a fetus

I would propose an experiment to demonstrate the full humanity of a fetus. We will require two donors from the Sciforums community. One to provide viable sperm cells, another to provide a viable ovum and womb.

We will fertilize the ovum with the sperm and cause a pregnancy. At a predetermined point, perhaps twenty weeks, we will surgically sever the umbilical cord and observe the results.

If the thing crawls to the tit, it's human. If it dies, it's not. If it stays inside and finds a way to survive, it pays rent.

Easy enough?

 

[Bells]

I'm just curious, but do you read the stuff you post?

Allowing someone to make a choice, and expressing a negative opinion regarding a particular option, are not mutually exclusive.

Allowing someone to make a choice about their own womb? My my..

The thing is that I don't think he even knows what he is expressing.

You can be as against abortion as you like. But do not assume that you have the right to foist that upon others. I understand how that is difficult for some to understand, but really, how much plainer must one put it?

Is that the position you take regarding child abuse? "It's not your child, you aren't a parent, mind your own business."

Different matter. Child abuse is against the law. Thus, it is illegal to abuse your child. Therefore, if you are caught abusing your child, you can end up going to jail as a result.

It is not illegal for a woman to have a say over what she does with her body. Therefore, she can elect to have an abortion if she so chooses and not be breaking the law. Can you see the difference between the two?

Do you need some time to figure it out?

That's typical of pro-choicers. They respond to what they would like the pro-lifer to say (ie. simple stupid arguments that are easily refuted) rather than what they actually say. Then when they are corrected, they simply repeat the same misrepresentations again.

Best be careful. He chucked a narni when I referred to him as pro-life before. Apparently he's not.

S.A.M was banned for such 'intellectual dishonesty' (at least that's what the admin calls it). I wonder why the same does not occur for the pro-choicers who use the same tactics?

What tactics have I used? He made claims in the thread and I asked him about his claims. He became quite emotional and denied making them. Even after I linked what he said. So what tactics exactly?

It is not my fault if he cannot cope with being asked questions about his all over the place beliefs. Even clueless has had issues with getting him to address the issues in this thread.

Telling them they have no right to an opinion; Telling them they need to mind their own F'ing business; telling them claims they not only never made, but clearly said the opposite; harshly insulting anyone that does not agree and applying claims they never made; claiming they are insulting people who don't agree with them (Ask V.I. If I insulted her. I told her how twisted her post was. Sheesh. SHE had the maturity to discuss it like an adult...); accusing others of deception; complete and total inability to be personally accountable for misunderstanding, fault or error...

Okay. Let me say this slowly. You have every right to whatever opinion you have. What you do not have a right to do is foist your opinions upon others. Now, I have repeated this several times to you in this thread. Yet you still cannot quite understand.

You don't like abortions? Fine, don't have one. But you do not have the right to call others selfish and demand that others give right to a bunch of cells that may or may not turn into a human being one day. You cannot make such a demand. Your opinions and views on abortion are your personal opinions. You cannot expect others to hold your opinions. Therefore, when someone tells you that they would have an abortion because of their figure, for example, you really have no say in the matter. It is none of your business why a woman has an abortion.

 

[Bells]

Needless to say, I haven't got a direct response for this.
:shrug:

I actually did respond to "this".

But I will respond again.

My question was whether you think in the course of something getting legislated that there is an element of social adjustment. IOW do you think that legislative politics only functions on the platform of sending in the tanks overnight or that it gradually solidifies as social adjustment comes to bear?

As I stated previously, it depends very much on luck. We have seen wars started when there was no reason to start a war and when a large majority of the population was against said war, the effects and its continuance we see today. Legislative politics can and does work both ways, ie sending in the tanks or gradually.

Do I think abortion can one day be made illegal? Yes, as anything can be made illegal given the right political party at any given time. Others have tried and failed in the past and they will continue to try in the present and the future.

 

[lightgigantic]

A Proposition: Demonstrating the full humanity of a fetus

I would propose an experiment to demonstrate the full humanity of a fetus. We will require two donors from the Sciforums community. One to provide viable sperm cells, another to provide a viable ovum and womb.

We will fertilize the ovum with the sperm and cause a pregnancy. At a predetermined point, perhaps twenty weeks, we will surgically sever the umbilical cord and observe the results.

If the thing crawls to the tit, it's human. If it dies, it's not. If it stays inside and finds a way to survive, it pays rent.

Easy enough?

No need for the study - the research already exists

One in 30 babies aborted for medical reasons is born alive, a study has found.

They lived for an average of 80 minutes - although in some cases foetuses survived for over six hours.

Most of the babies were born between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy, but some had been in the womb for as little as 17 weeks.

quote

I'm pretty sure that Gianna Jessen would have paid rent at some time ...

Gianna Jessen: Born after a failed abortion

.... even if she was receiving some sort of financial compensation as a consequence of acquiring cerebral palsy as a consequence of the surgical intrusion.

 

[Neverfly]

Bells, you are continuing to project and paint your images. I will not be discussing your misconceptions with you any longer.

 

[lightgigantic]

I actually did respond to "this".

But I will respond again.


As I stated previously, it depends very much on luck. We have seen wars started when there was no reason to start a war and when a large majority of the population was against said war, the effects and its continuance we see today. Legislative politics can and does work both ways, ie sending in the tanks or gradually.

Do I think abortion can one day be made illegal? Yes, as anything can be made illegal given the right political party at any given time. Others have tried and failed in the past and they will continue to try in the present and the future.

I said it was the most succinct example ... not the most recent

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

If the thing crawls to the tit, it's human. If it dies, it's not. If it stays inside and finds a way to survive, it pays rent.

Easy enough?

After reading that I don't know if I should laugh or cry

 

[mordea]

Allowing someone to make a choice about their own womb? My my..

A choice which directly impacts on the survival of another human. It also has implications for the father and health workers.

The thing is that I don't think he even knows what he is expressing.

He knows. The two posts of his that you quoted were *crystal clear* as to his position on the issue.

Different matter. Child abuse is against the law. Thus, it is illegal to abuse your child. Therefore, if you are caught abusing your child, you can end up going to jail as a result.

Why doesn't society simply mind its own business regarding this matter? Why does it intrude on the business of others by constructing laws to regulate behaviour?

It is not illegal for a woman to have a say over what she does with her body.

That's not true. Abortion is prohibited in certain circumstances. Furthermore, the legality is irrelevant. We are arguing about what *ought* to be, not what is. It's pretty lame for you to cower behind the law to shield your opinion from criticism.

What tactics have I used?

The same tactic you commonly use against viewpoints which you are emotionally opposed against. You oversimply, exaggerate or completely misrepresent what the opponent has said, and then rebutt that distortion. You then ignore any attempts made to correct you.

He made claims in the thread and I asked him about his claims. He became quite emotional and denied making them.

People can get quite frustrated when they are continuously misrepresented, even after having gone to the effort to explain themselves.

Even clueless has had issues with getting him to address the issues in this thread.

Wait. You're using clueless as evidence that Neverfly hasn't explained himself clearly? If I were you, I wouldn't try to dispel claims of purposive obtuseness on your behalf by referencing another obtuse individual.

Okay. Let me say this slowly. You have every right to whatever opinion you have. What you do not have a right to do is foist your opinions upon others.

Ahh, so we are entitled to our opinion. However, if it disagrees with that of a pregnant woman, we can't openly express them. It must be wonderful to be immune from criticism.

 

[mordea]

A Proposition: Demonstrating the full humanity of a fetus

I would propose an experiment to demonstrate the full humanity of a fetus. We will require two donors from the Sciforums community. One to provide viable sperm cells, another to provide a viable ovum and womb.

We will fertilize the ovum with the sperm and cause a pregnancy. At a predetermined point, perhaps twenty weeks, we will surgically sever the umbilical cord and observe the results.

If the thing crawls to the tit, it's human. If it dies, it's not. If it stays inside and finds a way to survive, it pays rent.

Easy enough?

I don't agree that viability outside the womb is a measure of humanity.

 

[Neverfly]

Yes, that was neither scientific nor accurate. It was just a line he invented off the top of his head.

Why should posters bother with such non serious arguments?