Abortion

[mordea]

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

Note to self: Keep liberals away from my hospital bed if I ever require enteral feeding, dialysis, or life support.

 

[Bells]

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

Ugh.. In Neverfly's rantings, I missed your response. Sorry.

and then what?
Let fly with Prohibition?
Send tanks into central park?
Get real .....

Are you saying it is not possible? The laws can change. But whether people uphold it is another thing altogether and in that you are right. But to say that the laws can't be changed is another thing altogether.

I think we all share a pretty similar sense on these things. I mean most people in most societies don't view killing another as normal or an act on par with experiencing a stomach ache or something. Of course what greatly contributes to a society normalizing such acts is relegating the victim to something less than human (so its not killing, its "termination" ,,, its not a living entity, its "tissue", etc etc).

And the question remains. Is a 6 or 12 week old foetus "a human"?

try smuggling cocaine in there and get back to us with the results when you announce it to a customs official

Different issue, don't you think?

so whats the general principle you are applying here?

That if another exists in a completely contingent relationship with another on biological grounds, they have no rights and that whom they are dependent on has no duty of care?
Interesting .....

It actually has no rights. The mother is merely the incubator. If she chooses not to be, then she is free not to be.

It really is as simple as that.

so if the law did agree with me, you would concede my point?

(\gets on the radio to send in the tanks and pass prohibition)

Nope. Because as you pointed out yourself, women would find other ways to get around it.

In that regardless of whether it is legal or not, women would still find ways to do it. Now, the laws allow women to safely abort. In the past, there was no such right and the laws changed. Laws can change again and women would take up the options of back yard abortions again if need be. Or look at other methods to abort (take up to 1-2 months of the "pill" and bring on a period).

sure
but if one is factoring in the mother's probability to experience difficulty (as in the difficulty that living in this world accommodates) as sufficient for getting rid of the child, the moral scales are out of whack .... which may warrant a further investigation of the social structure that normalizes such an act (as opposed to sending in the tanks)

And that is because women are individuals with individual beliefs and/or mindsets.

But at the end of the day, it is still her body.

so you think that all that is required for any legislation to be upheld is to pass it through the relevant channels?
How do you explain the failure of Prohibition?

Again, refer to above.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Truth is that no one here is having an unemotional discussion on abortion. And frankly it does look to me as if its the guys who are losing it entirely which astounds me since its not their time of month and they don't have to carry a few pounds in their belly for months at a time. I understand that you all have your opinions based on a variety of reasons but Bells isn't really goading, there may be some misunderstanding, that is probably the case but jeez she's probably one of the most reasonable of members.

I mean she doesn't even slag you guys off the way I would:shrug:

Now its like you all are now trying to gang bang her or something

 

[Neverfly]

Truth is that no one here is having an unemotional discussion on abortion. And frankly it does look to me as if its the guys who are losing it entirely which astounds me since its not their time of month and they don't have to carry a few pounds in their belly for months at a time. I understand that you all have your opinions based on a variety of reasons but Bells isn't really goading, there may be some misunderstanding, that is probably the case but jeez she's probably one of the most reasonable of members.

I mean she doesn't even slag you guys off the way I would:shrug:

YES she IS, Lucysnow. She absolutely is. Without a doubt.

READ the last few pages. It is all there clear as a bell.

She manipulated each post trying to make it appear as though I had said things I hadn't. She didn't have question marks half the time.
And why would she NEED question marks asking me about a stance she continues to apply to me over and over and over and over and over again no matter how much I clarify why and how I see the issue.

I've referred that thread to several other people and they ALL, not one dissenting, agreed that she was practicing blantant intellectual dishonesty, manipulating and twisting and distorting.
I can ask them to join and post what they thought after reading all the crap if you do not believe me.

She is absolutely goading. She's been trying to draw me back into it- claiming I caused her to miss a post with her rantings and whatnot.

She repeatedly took the bare minimum in my posts to CLAIM I made claims I opposed. Over and over and over again.
Not matter how much I refuted her, she continued to do it.

If you cannot see that- You are not really Looking.

 

[Bells]

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

I laughed.

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

Oh, now it has implications upon health workers as well? Of course if we are to take individual who bomb or shoot health workers who perform abortions, then you may very well have a point.

Do you consider a 12 week old foetus to be a human in every sense of the word and should thus be given equal rights to what you have, for example?

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

Oh? Oh yes, the "gray areas". He's a fence sitter. He is not comfortable with being called a pro-lifer but he does not like the notion that a woman can be free to terminate a pregnancy, and thus, terminate a life.

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?

Ah geeze, I don't know. I mean you want to be given the freedom to beat your child to death or have sex with it? Right? How dare society impose laws that tells you it is illegal to beat your child to death or beat it at all or to have sex with it. How dare they!

Let me give you a little hint mordea, if you are going to take this stance, you're going to end up looking like a twat who should not be left alone with children. Just sayin' dude.

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.

I'm sorry. Should I be beating my chest and typing with UPPER CAPS with an argument akin to "think of the children"?

I have quoted him in full. I have provided links where he has been all over the place.

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

He hasn't been misrepresented, nor has he explained himself.

Read through the thread again.

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.

He was quite clear in his questions. Neverfly, on the other hand, has not been quite clear with his answers.

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.

The word "foist" was missed?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

YES she IS, Lucysnow. She absolutely is. Without a doubt.

READ the last few pages. It is all there clear as a bell.

She is absolutely goading. She's been trying to draw me back into it- claiming I caused her to miss a post with her rantings and whatnot.

She repeatedly took the bare minimum in my posts to CLAIM I made claims I opposed. Over and over and over again.
Not matter how much I refuted her, she continued to do it.

If you cannot see that- You are not really Looking.

Well to tell you the truth I haven't gone through this whole thread. I was into it in the beginning and then was busy with the other abortion thread arguing with LG.

Hey she hasn't really insulted you only misunderstood you from what you seem to be saying. From what I do gather you are pro choice but would like for people to consider abortion more carefully which frankly I think many women actually do. She's pro choice and thinks that the deciding factor should be whatever the woman decides.

In short you two actually agree with each other on that point.

 

[Neverfly]

To be simple: If a man in the thread does not agree with Bells that a fetus is a blob of goo and NOTHING more; if he doesn't agree with her that noone else should express an opinion; he doesn't agree with her on each and every bit of her opinion--- She will repetitively accuse him of opinions he's NOT claiming and ignore all his answers while claiming he never answered.
She will do everything she can to make it APPEAR as though he's not answering, not making sense and in error, even when he was clear, made sense and was not making an error.

It's flat out dirty and cheap dishonest tactics.

 

[Neverfly]

From what I do gather you are pro choice but would like for people to consider abortion more carefully which frankly I think many women actually do.

SEE?! YOU GET IT.

Yet she keeps telling me that I think the fetus has equal rights as the mother, that I think that a mother should die to birth the fetus, telling me to "mind my own fucking business" and that I "Have no right to express my opinion" on the subject.

Is that the behavior of a rational and reasonable person?
No, it is not.

 

[Bells]

YES she IS, Lucysnow. She absolutely is. Without a doubt.

READ the last few pages. It is all there clear as a bell.

She manipulated each post trying to make it appear as though I had said things I hadn't. She didn't have question marks half the time. But whose going to go scrolling back to check. That was a flat out lie for most of it.
And why would she NEED question marks asking me about a stance she continues to apply to me over and over and over and over and over again no matter how much I clarify why and how I see the issue.

Oh, so now I have manipulated you?

It's the internet and you are a grown man. How can I, a person on the other side of the world on the internet, manipulate you?

I asked you questions because you have not been clear. I mean, that's how it's usually done. Your notion of clarifying is to state that you're not emotional about it and then claim you are emotional. So which is it? This isn't an emotional issue for you? You weren't ranting?

I've referred that thread to several other people and they ALL, not one dissenting, agreed that she was practicing blantant intellectual dishonesty, manipulating and twisting and distorting.
I can ask them to join and post what they thought after reading all the crap if you do not believe me.

Okay, this has amused the hell out of me.

Please do ask them to join.

You won't mind of course if I request the moderators check the IP addresses, will you?

She is absolutely goading. She's been trying to draw me back into it- claiming I caused her to miss a post with her rantings and whatnot.

Well, you did.

She repeatedly took the bare minimum in my posts to CLAIM I made claims I opposed. Over and over and over again.
Not matter how much I refuted her, she continued to do it.

Actually no. I asked you questions which you appear to have been unable to answer. I then asked you questions directly about what you had said. Which you then denied ever saying. I referred to your emotional state in this issue, when you then claimed you weren't emotional, while admitting to being emotional about this.

I mean I can either attempt to clarify what it is you are saying or think you are insane or high and treat you as such. Which would you prefer?

If you cannot see that- You are not really Looking.

I am reminded of my 3 year old when he says "Look.. LOOOOOOOK"..

I have posted links. You can deny it all you want. You are free to do so if that is your choice.

 

[Neverfly]

Okay, this has amused the hell out of me.

Please do ask them to join.

You won't mind of course if I request the moderators check the IP addresses, will you?

I can only ask the one that is Still awake at this crazy hour. You'll have to wait on the others.

I do not appreciate your clear and facetious implication that I am devious and intend to use sock puppets to make false claims.

The mods can check identity til they are blue In the face.

Should she choose to register will be up to her- I'll ask.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Science is slow. What they really should be doing is figuring out how men can carry a child to term then contraceptives and abortions and the raising the children and all the rest of it will be their problem entirely.

Then Bells and I can just spend the rest of our time at the mall

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

SEE?! YOU GET IT.

Yet she keeps telling me that I think the fetus has equal rights as the mother, that I think that a mother should die to birth the fetus, telling me to "mind my own fucking business" and that I "Have no right to express my opinion" on the subject.

Is that the behavior of a rational and reasonable person?
No, it is not.

Well I don't know about Bells but I lost my reason one thread ago

You have the right to express an opinion. Where did she tell you to mind your own business? I ask because maybe you were asking about her personal life or something.

 

[Bells]

SEE?! YOU GET IT.

Yet she keeps telling me that I think the fetus has equal rights as the mother, that I think that a mother should die to birth the fetus, telling me to "mind my own fucking business" and that I "Have no right to express my opinion" on the subject.

Is that the behavior of a rational and reasonable person?
No, it is not.

Lets see..

I cannot see selfishness or self serving interest as Valid Enough to destroy it. To forget. To pretend it is Nothing.

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

Why is it changed into "against her will?"
Can her will be Flexible? Can she be talked to in order to see other perspectives of her situation?
If it's about how she wears her make up, we can all readily agree that she can do what she wants. It's her body.
But in reproduction- another Life Is At Stake.

Why is it so easy to dismiss that?
Or to forget that and only focus on the one life while pretending the other life involved is nothing at all?
Seriously-- does that REALLY seem right? It's pretty clear why it becomes a hot issue.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2515386&postcount=285

And I reiterate my point.. again..

Here is how I see it. You can be anti-abortion all you like. If that is the case, then you should not have an abortion. But what you deem to be right or not should not then be imposed upon other people. If you believe life begins at conception, then so be it. Again, don't have an abortion and don't take the morning after pill. But do not ever think that you then have the right to impose your personal beliefs upon others.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2515424&postcount=287

 

[Bells]

Well I don't know about Bells but I lost my reason one thread ago

You have the right to express an opinion. Where did she tell you to mind your own business? I ask because maybe you were asking about her personal life or something.

I told him that what a woman decides is really not any of his business. I told him that if a woman decides to have an abortion for her figure, for example, it is none of his business. I believe he took offense to that.:shrug:

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I told him that what a woman decides is really not any of his business. I told him that if a woman decides to have an abortion for her figure, for example, it is none of his business. I believe he took offense to that.:shrug:

I don't know if he's still posting but what reason does he think is valid and not a selfish reason for having an abortion?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I told him that what a woman decides is really not any of his business. I told him that if a woman decides to have an abortion for her figure, for example, it is none of his business. I believe he took offense to that.:shrug:

Actually he wasn't too offended! Don't know if you got my pm but I was basically called a two faced whore who was basically causing global chaos because I believe a woman has a right to abortion!

I feel pretty proud of myself actually, I mean the cool headed males were losing it right and left. All Neverfly did was try and explain himself with caps and a show of being affronted. You guys are still on a civilized page

 

[Tiassa]

Notes Around

To recall Justice Blackmun:

When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.​

Thirty-seven years later, anti-abortion fanatics still seem unable to reconcile this particular point. If any of them would like to settle the question, they're welcome to try.

• • •​

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

Laugh. I would suggest we weep that it has come to this, but still, it's better to just laugh if we can manage.

• • •​

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

And that's your right. Myself, I have a dryfoot policy. You make it to the world, welcome to the world. But as long as you live in someone else's body, you're on their turf.

However, as an equal protection issue, should I not also be entitled to an umbilical cord to feed me and remove my waste? It would save a lot of time.
____________________

Notes:

Blackmun, J. Harry. "Opinion of the Court". Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court of the United States. January 22, 1973. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. April 7, 2010. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

 

[Bells]

I don't know if he's still posting but what reason does he think is valid and not a selfish reason for having an abortion?

Apparently if it is for her health. But aside from that.. Who the hell knows.:shrug:

 

[Neverfly]

I told him that what a woman decides is really not any of his business. I told him that if a woman decides to have an abortion for her figure, for example, it is none of his business. I believe he took offense to that.:shrug:

No.
Be HONEST.
Let's take a look at YOURS now, shall we?

Previous to her responses, I said This:

Bells:

You have assigned things to me you shouldn't, put a lot of words in my mouth and continue to disregard valid arguments.
It's tiresome and annoying.

Please READ everything I say in this long post. Yes, it's long. But at least READ my stance instead of throwing so many assumptions at me. I shouldn't have to keep refuting your misconceptions over and over.

Some of my responses are frankly, curt and even angry at points. Sarcastic too. I'm tired of having to repeatedly clarify myself to someone who argues with ears (eyes)closed.
If you're going to supply a rebuttal-- At least ensure you have an accurate idea of what I'm saying as clearly as I can.

ALL Of these accusations and questions were made AFTER Several posts of mine that said clearly that I disagreed with such positions. I link this one because I'm tediously sorting through a lot of posts and this one is easiest to find. And the clearest.:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2514119&postcount=252


However, I REPEATEDLY was CLEAR that I do NOT agree with placing the childs fate over the mother etc.
After my requst that she realize she's applying claims to me repeatedly that I repeatedly corrected and often was clear on to other members too- She said this:

I have read everything that you have said.

Which SHOULD include this:

Yes.

I'm not saying it should never happen. But that it should be a carefully weighed decision as Bells had claimed above. The problem is that statistically, there ARE quite a few women that use it as an easy way out.

Do those few cells carry more value than the mother? ABSOLUTELY NOT. If a mothers life is in danger (For some odd reason) and the choice comes up to sacrifice those cells or thte mom- them cells gotsta go.

I have read everything that you have said.

After saying this, she then immediately asks:
(These quotes all follow my clarifying posts.)

Is an embryo an "anyone" though? Do you give equal rights to an embryo over the mother?

Gee... I dunno. Maybe what I JUST SAID?! Several times across several posts? One of which went into long detail and I linked here that was made Prior to her repeated questioning on htis?

The father has the right to give his opinion. And only he. Men thousands of miles away do not have that right.

I have no right to express my opinion.

You are demanding that I give equal rights to an embryo if one existed in my uterus, even though my uterus has nothing to do with you. You are placing demands and giving opinions about the wombs of women you don't even know. You have no right to do that.

This is after this post, too.

What meant more to you when you found out you may be a father? The child or the woman carrying him?

That you would put the child's life over that of your partner's says more about you than you may wish to let on.

I never claimed I would. I was clear as I quoted myself above- complete with typoes intact, that I said them cells gotsta go. I said ABSOLUTELY NOT to the Idea that the childs life weighs more than the mother. Her commentary here is a complete work of her imagination.

You, if your responses are anything to go by, cared more for your potential offspring than the poor girl you got pregnant. And that is your right. But do not accuse others of apathy because he didn't behave as you did.

Behave as I did? That's pure assumption. Behaved as I did when? Ive never faced abortion.

Is her right. You have fuck all say in it.

What is annoying is that some individual from another country deems it necessary to have an opionion over what women around the world do with their reprodcutive rights. I'm sorry, but you do not have that right.

Claims clearly that I have no right to an opinion.

She can respect yours as far as she chooses to. Just as you can respect her opinion as far as you choose to. But you cannot force her to do what you want. At the end of the day, for all your emotional ranting, is the crux of the issue. She can do what she bloody well likes and you'd have no say in the matter. So do you respect her enough to do what is right? Or do you have to hound her or force her to do what you think is right?

Inaccurate and totally uncalled for.

Quite the contrary. No one has the right to impose upon others, be it in regards of murder, rape or abortion.

WOW!

Bells will most likely not admit fault. Instead, she will claim I am confused on the issue and she felt the need to repeatedly dog me over and over because of her description that I'm confused.

Hey, I admitted that I am not always clear. You can even read it in that ONE simple post I linked to.
I do try, though, and to get repeatedly dogged post after post no matter how hard I try is absurd.
It DEFINETLY makes it appear to be deliberate on her part.

Bells makes too many assumptions simply because I think stem cells are not normal cells.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Neverfly

You see this:

My OPINION 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.
It is not a person, though it will become one. And does not carry the respect granted to a person.)


Okay so what is the difference between a person preventing a pregnancy and a person aborting save that the person preventing a pregnancy doesn't need to abort?

Then you say this:

"If a mothers life is in danger (For some odd reason) and the choice comes up to sacrifice those cells or thte mom- them cells gotsta go."

Is it that you think a woman for example shouldn't have an abortion if say she cannot afford a child or is emotionally unprepared or simply doesn't want one? Because I believe that Bells would agree that a woman should be able to have an abortion for whatever reason she feels makes it necessary and that that is what is called pro choice.

And I would think that this would be what created the confusion on what you really believe:

"An expectant mother carrying a child that decides to abort a FETUS is what upsets me."

And then this:

"If a woman learns she's 2 weeks pregnant and after careful consideration, decides she must abort- I cannot hold that against her."

Contradict each other.

In other words you are saying that you think a woman should be able to have an abortion but then you say it upsets you that an expectant mother would decide to abort. This is what makes it difficult to know if you are actually pro choice or not and perhaps the source of the misunderstanding. I mean its supposed to not be difficult to avoid pregnancy and the stats show most women have never had an abortion yet mistakes are made, life can throw a variety of issues and problems that would make one necessary.