The "what now?" what now
You keep claiming that your position is the correct one without any evidence to back up your claims and based solely on your say so.
Tiassa tells us above that arguing the legal frames of a decision not even taken, let alone made law, is "flaccid". Now, I think that was a little insulting to your position, but he does have a certain reasonability in the point he makes: how exactly shall I provide evidence of a proposition that is not law yet, nor may ever be?
And who are
you?
Because regardless of your say so, what you claim is not representative of what is actually happening in the real world.
What in the hell is that supposed to mean? To what are you referring? What is it you're now claiming I'm claiming?
As a supposed scientist, you should be fully aware that you need to have some sort of evidence to back you up. You have provided none, you have ignored what is actually happening to women and instead, you just keep telling us how you think it is, despite a mountain of evidence that you are absolutely wrong.
Aw, those personal slurs make you seem so mature, Bells. I'm sure your ex-co-workers don't look down on you because of them as they read this forum.
There is so much wrong with that paragraph that I'm actually going to have to fisk
it, itself, to try and illustrate to you what you're doing here. I get that you're all rage-y and all that, but it's not an excuse.
As a supposed scientist, you should be fully aware that you need to have some sort of evidence to back you up.
As a supposed lawyer, you should probably understand the difficulties in providing counter-evidence against a proposition (a biologically-derived ethical limit to abortion rights) that is
not actually in practice anywhere, let alone being proposed. I have to ask at this point: do you know what you've been arguing against? What is it you wish me to provide evidence
of, exactly? The correct implementation of a law that does not currently
exist? Does that seem even
slightly insane to you, as a demand?
See above.
you have ignored what is actually happening to women
What exactly am I meant to have ignored here? Riffle through your comments and tell me what it is I've ignored, and in context of this discussion.
instead, you just keep telling us how you think it is, despite a mountain of evidence that you are absolutely wrong.
I'm afraid I'll have to double-dog dare you to illustrate how this mountain of evidence proves me 'wrong'. You don't even seem to know what it is that I'm arguing
for, although I've explained it innumerable times. Let me ask this another way: in what way can my proposition, which has not yet been tested anywhere, be proven either right or wrong? Above, you demand evidence that it be 'proven right'. How can there be evidence of the correct and ethical application of a law that does not exist? Here you insist that I am 'absolutely wrong', as if you knew what those words meant. How can an untested and even unproposed legal proposition be "proven" wrong by any evidence? Are you slowly coming round to what I'm asking here? Are you beginning to get why this new line of yours makes no sense whatsoever?
Perhaps because your magical deadline does not exist?
That response made absolutely no sense in light of my comment; current abortion deadlines exist. Define how you mean this: do you mean it as a proposition, or extant in the courts, or
what, exactly? None of what you're writing makes any sense. It's as though I said "Imagine a brick of the following dimensions..." and you leaped in to scream "That brick doesn't exist!" Of
course it doesn't exist in fact; it's a proposition. Are you feeling quite all right?
So you have no issues with women's rights being abrogated?
Which ones, when and under what circumstances, Binary Bells? Don't spout off again, just be honest and specify which ones.
Ermm...
Have you failed to notice the many, MANY personhood measures trying to be implemented by States around the US?
You do realise that the OP is actually discussing reality, yes?
Ermm.... you remember that the 4th post is tying my position to personhood and PAF, yes? And that I haven't argued any of the above? So why are you trying to dun me with this?
In other words, you are making unsupported claims of what you think it is without proof and you have nothing to support your side of the argument except for 'because GeoffP says so'..
There is a plethora of studies out there regarding the issue. Put in some effort. Find something that supports your argument.
I could certainly propose a reasonable biological deadline, and I tentatively suggested 27 weeks earlier on because of the viability issue. Now, if this is what you're requesting, then I have to infer that your mounds of 'evidence' must be dismissed, because they would have nothing to do with such a question. Before you flip out: what exactly are they evidence
of? The violations of existing law? Okay... so what do they have to do with my proposition, which is not law, nor even a bill? Explain yourself.
No, placing the decision of what happens inside the mother's body with the mother kind of makes sense instead of referring to men who are wholly unrelated to her to determine her reproductive and medical decisions for her.
So male opinions are invited if they're her relatives? Her father, brothers, uncles, husband? Anyway, people make all kinds of social decisions without being related to those directly or indirectly affected.
No, your opinion is invalid because you are gormless
Now you're trying to cover blatant sexism with insults. Good plan!
My position is that it is up to the woman to decide. That is my so called "bright line". Clear enough for you?
Op - we're getting somewhere now. Up to what point is it the woman's right to decide? I'll have your opinion out in plain text, if I must chase it 'round the Horn, and 'round the Norway maelstrom, and 'round Perdition's flames before I give it up!
Oh, believe me, my threat is not an abuse of power.
Oh, but it is.
I think anyone would agree that 16 pages worth of requests that you stop trolling and stop trying to change the subject and leave the thread if you are incapable of discussing the subject of the thread is too much leeway for you.
You have certainly
not filled 16 pages with your demands for me to accept your false dilemma and just "go from there", sorry. That is a nonsense. If you want to condition the argument in that way, you need to demonstrate the following and in the following order:
1) Why is personhood necessary to establish abortion limits? What jurisdictions currently use this term in their definitions? What ones do not?
2) Why, if personhood were granted to an individual at my bright line of individual competence (viability, neural rigour, etc), would that extend to PAF, as you insist it does?
If you have a problem with that, then you can complain to Tiassa.
Ah - I see you have abandoned your stance about fair play here. I should complain to the other moderator on this thread who is opposing my view? He might judge fairly, but I think he has an agenda here also, and so I've done a little differently.
Around 400 women in prison, several dead and the women being tied down to operating tables because their doctors imposed personhood on their fetus, forcing vaginal ultrasounds on women (even rape victims) so they can look "at their baby", admitting privileges, denying women treatment for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy and risking their lives because the hospital believe in personhood... would disagree with you.
Would disagree with me
how? Here's my post:
Maybe you should check the post directly above yours, and what it entails. If you want to be taken seriously on this subject state your interpretation of "DF" unambiguously and without redirection. I've asked for this many, many times already.
Edit
Oh, and this:
...
Current laws embrace neither absolute choice on the part of the woman, nor absolute restriction.
In short: such laws [Ed note: restrictions on abortion] exist, absolutely. This is simple fact, and it is striking that you seem to be claiming you're not aware of it. If you want to debate whether they're better, that is a different question and should be framed as such, again unambiguously.
How could anything you just posted
disagree with that? It's like you're trying to tell me that a fish disagrees with a bicycle.