Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]

[iceaura]

Of course. That's inherent in the physical situation. Must it is.
Balance is better. More socialistic.

You want the impression of an actual argument or relevant stance, but you can't maintain that impression if you post clearly and directly in response - so we get that to read. Another example of the OP issue - the continual dodge.

You made a false statement - that one could grant personhood to someone living inside someone else, without creating a variety of conflicts between the rights of the two people involved. That there was no "must", no necessity, involved.

So the failure to deal with the issue has direct bearing. The people who are trying to define a fertilized egg as a separate person due complete personal protection by the State are not dealing with the issue - they are pretending it does not exist, and thereby agreeing to abrogate the basic rights of the woman involved.
How fortunate it is that I am not they then. I agree with that premise, you see.

So? Where's the good fortune?

But you are not opposing the State pressuring them?
I'm lost as to why you would conclude such a thing, unless you conceive the entire situation as binary. Is this your stance? The above suggests this.

My stance is that such language is vague and manipulable of necessity - that confrontation with the issues raised in the OP has to be avoided by those who wish to override the rights of the pregnant woman. You are not going to be clear about your posting's implication of pressure from the State, because it would be indefensible.

I'm counting at least three for four. An interesting, say revealing?, miscount on your part - the basis for the problem with this discussion, perhaps.
And where did you learn to count?

So which two, then, are you claiming? You only argued against one of the four - and it's the other three that are at issue here.

And being unable to beat your children because it is illegal does not make you a non-person - even if you want to do it, and even if you once had that right. Likewise, being unable to obtain an abortion in the case that abortion became illegal would not make you a non-person - even if you want to do it, and even if you once had that right.

That such parallels are drawn in such complete lack of awareness supports one potential aspect of the OP - that the entire issue is founded in disrespect for women and a denial of their identity as full human beings.

It would be inaccurate to claim that there are Constitutional "life and liberty" protections for an unborn fetus, for example, just because many people consider it a person - just as it would be inaccurate to claim that there were Constitutional "life and liberty" protections for a brain dead accident victim.

But we are not talking about what "many people consider" - we are talking about what the law states, what the police can enforce. Many people's considerations were not what granted or revoked enforceable legal protections for the brain dead - specific law did that.

And when specific legislation grants Constitutional protections to human embryos. the considerations of many people will be overridden whenever they conflict.

 

[Capracus]

Not a Bright Enough Line

It's not a matter of choosing; when it comes to choosing, the end result is self-evident. The problem is that FAP creates a whole new class of person that results in far more juristic questions than just banning abortion.

The central conflict of this question ends at birth; hence, dry-foot is a bright line in this context.

Dry foot is too restrictive regarding a mothers rights. Personhood should be extended past the point of customary delivery and umbilical severance to the point of placental expulsion. The placenta and fetus are naturally intended to be delivered as a unit, so delivery is not actually complete until up to 15-30 minutes after the fetus emerges. This extra stage of visibility would allow for a more thorough examination of the condition of the fetus, giving the mother maximal choice as to whether to terminate or not. Women could take full control of their right to choose by terminating an unwanted fetus themselves as long as the placenta was still inside them. It also would eliminate the needless criminalization of women like Lindsey Lowe.

 

[GeoffP]

Its not meant to prove anything. Its simply meant to gage your thoughts on the subject.

You say you want limitations on LTA but its already restricted. Anymore restrictions and there would be no LTA's since fetus viability is always considered in LTA's. These precepts are left up to the woman's doctor. That I say is fair.

Then our conflict is concluded. :shrug:

Exeunt.

 

[GeoffP]

What was the illusion we were discussing, again?

Again, you miss the point by such a degree that it seems deliberate

Do tell! I love a good fairy tale.

It's not a matter of choosing; when it comes to choosing, the end result is self-evident. The problem is that FAP creates a whole new class of person that results in far more juristic questions than just banning abortion.

Well, why do you keep dragging me into your FAPping fantasies? I'm not arguing anything of the kind. You miss this point by such a degree... well, let's be honest: it is deliberate. You keep struggling on this slippery slope.

The central conflict of this question ends at birth; hence, dry-foot is a bright line in this context.

Again: only to the astoundingly imperceptive or willfully blind. I've been down this road with you so many times that I should call it a tort at this point.

Unless, of course—

—one resorts to some undescribed magick or an abstract, subjective moral authority.

Sigh. Golden Rule, common sense? No? None of these seems reasonable to you? Is this connected to the theism imperative from earlier - "you can't have a niceness factor, you ain't got no god fer which t' call on"?

Any legal personhood assigned in utero begs question, but the fappers have put it front and center.

Good not-god, I think you've got it! There was a detectable separation of FAPping from me there. Well done!

Now let's get on to the next delusion: why do you think is this an all-or-nothing commitment of belief based on the timepoints you and the other extremists in the , so that the choices are FAP and DF? Do you believe that this is the working situation at present? If some other deadline is currently in use (hint), what explains the delusion of so many?

Understand: I don't particularly care about FAPping. Their concept is as clearly wrong as yours, and as wrong as the false dilemma you present to make the blind line of DF more palatable.

If the plan is to move the piano by having you push it off the veranda and Balerion catch it six stories below, would you really ask me why I'm complicating things by wondering about gravity?

Well, I have little experience with moving large musical instruments. I would recommend a mover who understands something about the innate nature of pianos. Maybe instead of creating some kind of unrealistic plan about shoving pianos out of windows and letting them fall, maybe he'd have an idea where the process could be controlled, based on what we know about pianos and gravity.

Perhaps it is simply an inadequate comprehension of the legal concepts in play

Oh, it's back to legal again, is it? "Choose my way because the FAPpers are coming." Ah, no. Question: which Western legal system currently employs what one might call a split design where the suggestion of personhood arises partway through gestation? This is a variant of one of the questions I asked earlier. Answer: all of them. It seems that better minds than yours or mine have such a comprehension of the legal concepts that they work with the understood implication. I think it's you that doesn't understand legal process: law is nothing more than the veneer of power over the operation of humanity using generally- or partially-agreed-on definitions to render acts permissible and impermissible. That's all. I get your interest in law as an entity unto its own, and on a sunny day the legally minded might feel strongly about the legal implications of some bloody law or other. You already operate under a system with a split imperative on personhood. The barn doors are open, the cows have walked away. Calling 'personhood' at an actually later stage of development by all appearances based on the biological data is not going to lead to FAP, and it is a pile of fap that you are creating about it.

It's interesting how many people will advocate these laws by working proactively to quell discussion of the implications.

I'm sure many extremists would find that "interesting". Am I talking to Tiassa the legal connoisseur, or Tiassa the psikeyhackr?

This is actually a question going on in American society, but, you know, whatever. We all recognize that your fantasies of vengeance and triumph are definitive, and reality can simply go screw. Because, you know, that's the rational thing to do, right?

That does sound a very dramatic tale, but don't you think it would be even more rational to lever up a morally vacuous concept using a blatantly false dilemma? It would be even betterer if it was something a child could see through. No?

 

[GeoffP]

Whut was we saying again?

You want the impression of an actual argument or relevant stance, but you can't maintain that impression if you post clearly and directly in response - so we get that to read. Another example of the OP issue - the continual dodge.

That would be an impressive argument, if only it was based in anything or had some kind of connection to... anything. Are you not the reading kind? Would you like me to guide you through my argument, or would you be satisfied standing on the side with your sandwichboard? Tempus fugit, ice.

You made a false statement - that one could grant personhood to someone living inside someone else, without creating a variety of conflicts between the rights of the two people involved. That there was no "must", no necessity, involved.

That's your problem? I'm not even sure what the text I bolded above is getting at. Look, I like interesting language as much as the next Tiassa. But there has to be some kind of noticeable connection there. Let's start over: what do you want?

So? Where's the good fortune?

... in that I do not support FAPping? :shrug:

My stance is that such language is vague and manipulable of necessity - that confrontation with the issues raised in the OP has to be avoided by those who wish to override the rights of the pregnant woman. You are not going to be clear about your posting's implication of pressure from the State, because it would be indefensible.

My comments had not a thing to do with that. Look, here, I'll just explain the thread for you:

Tiassa started off the thread to discuss FAP. Now, that's great and actually socially responsible. Yes, that's a serious comment. FAPping is wrongful and absurd. It can't work, and it abrogates reproductive rights for women. Oh, you didn't think that was my position? Let's move on.

Now, in the second post, Tiassa tries to tack my position about generating a biologically relevant threshold for the permissibility of abortion based on neurobiology and viability: in essence, my position is that the nature of 'choice' based on the mother's 'body imperative' ends at viability because the fetus can be removed and experience independent life. If the mother is asserting that a viable fetus still must be terminated, it starts to resemble tort law, or a case of trespass. In neither instance are you allowed to just start killing people, so far as I know. (Funnily, this is actually a more interesting legal argument than blind lines about DF.) This would actually mean a later limiting date and thus a more liberal field than any present law in the Western world that I am aware of. I'd just about do a backflip if any of you were honest enough to recognise just that, let alone try to tack my positions as equivalent to personhood at fertilisation. It can't be slippery slope, since it's actually a retrogressive step, time-wise. Why are fundamental failures in basic math so integral to your half of this discussion? What does that say about it?

And so what you two seem to be saying is something to the effect of: don't have an opinion about this, because no opinions are being sought other than DF-vs-FAP, and we want DF. (Which no one allows now anyway.) That's a false dilemma; and particularly heinous since the one is as bad as the other. In fact, you rights absolutists should experience a really nasty jolt about that, since either choice in the false dilemma means that someone's rights are being infringed on in an absolute manner, which is a little ironic. By all means, try to shred a point out of this to complain about; I notice that the responses to my comments get parsed down to smaller and smaller elements of the initial discussion and that, gentlemen, is really 'telling'.

So which two, then, are you claiming? You only argued against one of the four - and it's the other three that are at issue here.

I'm struggling to continue caring about your micro-dissection of this subject. Give me something to work with.

 

[GeoffP]

Dry foot is too restrictive regarding a mothers rights. Personhood should be extended past the point of customary delivery and umbilical severance to the point of placental expulsion. The placenta and fetus are naturally intended to be delivered as a unit, so delivery is not actually complete until up to 15-30 minutes after the fetus emerges. This extra stage of visibility would allow for a more thorough examination of the condition of the fetus, giving the mother maximal choice as to whether to terminate or not. Women could take full control of their right to choose by terminating an unwanted fetus themselves as long as the placenta was still inside them. It also would eliminate the needless criminalization of women like Lindsey Lowe.

Hmm, interesting thought here! And this would certainly avoid all the magical biological issues that Tiassa is so scared about. I mean, what if one of the infant's feet is even a little bit wet? That bright line has to be protected, otherwise it's a straight backslide to the personhood of sperm, just like last year.

 

[Bells]

Dry foot is too restrictive regarding a mothers rights. Personhood should be extended past the point of customary delivery and umbilical severance to the point of placental expulsion. The placenta and fetus are naturally intended to be delivered as a unit, so delivery is not actually complete until up to 15-30 minutes after the fetus emerges. This extra stage of visibility would allow for a more thorough examination of the condition of the fetus, giving the mother maximal choice as to whether to terminate or not. Women could take full control of their right to choose by terminating an unwanted fetus themselves as long as the placenta was still inside them. It also would eliminate the needless criminalization of women like Lindsey Lowe.

I need to ask you something..

Is this character you play here connected to anything to do with you, in real life?

The reason I ask is that if you have connected this website with anything to do with you, then you do realise that what you say here could one day come back and bite you on your backside if you ever change jobs, etc? You do realise this, yes?

Because advocating the actual murder of children, after your stuffing it back in question. I hate to imagine the look on your face if one day, someone is able to track and connect those comments to you.

Wording it as you have, you are actively advocating the murder of children.

While this is clearly an extreme measure you are stating here, because you seem compelled to make us believe that you are possibly one of those who should have been swallowed, I'd suggest taking a step back in the advocating of murdering children (and women as per your 'what if we stuffed the baby back into the mother) routine you consistently have going for you. See, two can play at the extreme language game. And I have had a particularly bad and horrific 28 hours. So you could say I am calling you out on your bullshit because I am past and over the bullshit.. Because you see, we've had some batshit crazy shit on this site..

From one guy suggesting ways in which one could rape a small baby to another blaming a victim of child abuse because she apparently had a role and was responsible for being raped by an adult at the age of 3. You are the only one I have seen actively pursuing an argument that queries how one could kill a woman and/or a child. So you're up there.. Just so you are aware.. And it is not a good place to be. Ever. These are the words, sentences and paragraphs that will haunt you across the net. Arguments like what you just said, they will haunt you forever. No one will give a shit about the context.. Because there is none in this instance. Why? In a thread asking a simple question, your response is to go completely off topic to suggest the ways in which one could murder a child. And you have done it twice now. Your comments are grossly off topic.

In all of your sick and twisted zeal in suggesting different ways to kill women and children, you are still incapable of answering the question. Believe me, the irony is not lost on me. Your pitiful display and experiment has failed. The question still remains to be answered. I get it, you are desperately trying to make a point by using such extreme and murderous suggestions. But in doing so, you have missed the point entirely. Why? Because you still haven't addressed the question in the OP.

So let me ask you the question again..

What happens to the woman when personhood is declared for the foetus inside of her?

What happens to her personhood and rights?

Or are you going to be like Billvon and simply not understand what personhood actually is and entails? Or just keep dancing down the merry road of 'what new ways can I come up with to kill women and children today?' that you seem to have going for you? Or are you channeling Syne and LG from the other thread? It's not a hard question to answer, is it?

Which is it to be? I am curious.

 

[billvon]

But we are not talking about what "many people consider" - we are talking about what the law states, what the police can enforce. Many people's considerations were not what granted or revoked enforceable legal protections for the brain dead - specific law did that.

Agreed, And if a specific law was passed outlawing abortions, there would be a similar legal revoking of rights. All of those people - the brain dead, the insane, pregnant women - lose rights under the law, but none have become non-persons as a result. Likewise, if a law was passed defining a legal person as including a viable fetus, then they would gain those rights under the law. This would also not make women non-persons.

And when specific legislation grants Constitutional protections to human embryos. the considerations of many people will be overridden whenever they conflict.

Agreed. The laws against fetal murder are already being tested with respect to this. There is now a law in Tennessee that criminalizes drug use while pregnant. (Which I disagree with BTW.)

That such parallels are drawn in such complete lack of awareness supports one potential aspect of the OP - that the entire issue is founded in disrespect for women and a denial of their identity as full human beings.

You've kind of blown your wad too early here with the jumping right to the "you don't respect women" angle. I mean, how do you escalate the personal attacks after that? I imagine you could go with the tried-and-true Hitler analogy, but that would look pretty silly.

 

[billvon]

Hmm, interesting thought here! And this would certainly avoid all the magical biological issues that Tiassa is so scared about. I mean, what if one of the infant's feet is even a little bit wet? That bright line has to be protected, otherwise it's a straight backslide to the personhood of sperm, just like last year.

Yep. Those pro-lifers will start their "life begins at lust" thing again. They'll be throwing cops in jail for breaking up campus parties.

 

[Bells]

Agreed, And if a specific law was passed outlawing abortions, there would be a similar legal revoking of rights. All of those people - the brain dead, the insane, pregnant women - lose rights under the law, but none have become non-persons as a result. Likewise, if a law was passed defining a legal person as including a viable fetus, then they would gain those rights under the law. This would also not make women non-persons.

*Sigh*

I do not know if you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you genuinely do not understand what is meant by "person" and "personhood", especially within the context of this discussion.

In 2007, a Bill was proposed in Virginia:

A BILL to extend the constitutionally guaranteed right to enjoyment of life to preborn human beings from the moment of fertilization.

---

1. § 1. That life begins at the moment of fertilization and the right to enjoyment of life guaranteed by Article 1, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia is vested in each born and preborn human being from the moment of fertilization.

​

In effect, it attempted to create a new class of "person" by providing Constitutional rights and protections, such as the constitutionally guaranteed right to enjoyment of life that you enjoy, to a fertilised egg. Not even a foetus, but a fertilised egg, so literally from the moment of conception.

Now you have attempted to argue that personhood does not guarantee full protections, and you used the argument that children are not person's and their rights are limited. Compare your argument to the reality of a personhood Bill and you might see the difference. If you cannot, here is the reality of a personhood bill and what it means for women:

Not only would the amendment have banned abortion, as the sponsors clearly intended, it also provided an opening to prohibit common methods of birth control, including the pill and intrauterine devices.

---

The practical effects of “personhood” measures, including the one in Virginia to which Mr. Cuccinelli affixed his name, would easily include banning the most popular forms of contraception. This is because the pill, as well as other forms of birth control, work partly by preventing the implantation of eggs in the uterus wall after they have been fertilized. If the “preborn” are protected “from the moment of fertilization,” as the 2007 bill demanded, then contraception — which defeats a fertilized egg’s chances of becoming a living being — could be prohibited. In fact, the legislation seems to demand it.

As the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists pointed out, “Some of the most effective and reliable forms of contraception — oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and other forms of FDA-approved contraceptives — would be banned” by “personhood” measures.
​

Now do you understand what is meant by competing interests when it comes to "personhood"?

Mississippi also had the exact same issues when personhood measures were introduced a few years ago by way of a Bill:

Many doctors and women’s health advocates say the proposals would cause a dangerous intrusion of criminal law into medical care, jeopardizing women’s rights and even their lives.

The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar some birth control methods, including IUDs and “morning-after pills,” which prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories.


​

What will happen to the mother's rights and her personhood when she is in direct competition with the "person" now residing inside her wombs? Because personhood or declaring it to be a "person" means that she literally cannot do anything that could harm or kill it.

Agreed. The laws against fetal murder are already being tested with respect to this. There is now a case in Tennessee that criminalizes drug use while pregnant. (Which I disagree with BTW.)

Well there are some here who believe that they should be forced into taking contraception or even keeping them in jail until they abort. Meanwhile drinking certain herbal teas or eating certain foods could result in a miscarriage. Wonder if they are going to criminalise certain foods and beverages and herbs and herbal remedies as well now...

You've kind of blown your wad too early here with the jumping right to the "you don't respect women" angle. I mean, how do you escalate the personal attacks after that? I imagine you could go with the tried-and-true Hitler analogy, but that would look pretty silly.

Well, what do you call a political movement that is designed to target solely women and criminalises their wombs?

 

[GeoffP]

Missed conceptions

I need to ask you something..

Is this character you play here connected to anything to do with you, in real life?

At first, I wrote an outraged screed about this new tack by Bells. I was upset for Capracus' sake - so much for that heartless atheist theme - and I couldn't believe the nonsense she was writing. It was too much. It was beyond belief, Bells pretending to take Capracus' comments at face value. BTW - I backed his sarcasm completely. I thought it was highly amusing and topical to this idiotic DF policy. Funny, topical. Excellent sarcasm.

But let me ask you something, Bells, in a much calmer manner: are you off your cracker?

It is abundantly clear that his comments were sarcastic. It is clear enough that my 12-year old got it. This leaves two possible explanations: i) your grasp of English is insufficient to the subject, or, more likely, ii) you are pretending not to understand him. In the case of the former, these deficiencies have progressed to the point at which you may be a danger to the forum members. If the latter, your ethical failings have progressed to a point where they are unacceptable. Do not try to excuse them on basis of adversarial debate: there is an enormous difference between a 'political twist of the knife' and what you are now doing. It was sarcasm.

There! Much calmer. Original post available at request.

Yep. Those pro-lifers will start their "life begins at lust" thing again. They'll be throwing cops in jail for breaking up campus parties.

Fertilisation begins with the glint in the milkman's eye.

 

[Tiassa]

A Boost for Flaccid Reality

As Long as He's Medically Certified

​

Well, why do you keep dragging me into your FAPping fantasies? I'm not arguing anything of the kind.

Well, think of it this way: You've been pitching a hissy cow for days now because some rhetorical point upsets you, and the only way for that to stop is that you need to stop setting yourself up to pitch hissy cows in lieu of an actual, rational argument.

Stop frustrating yourself.

Now let's get on to the next delusion: why do you think is this an all-or-nothing commitment of belief based on the timepoints you and the other extremists in the , so that the choices are FAP and DF? Do you believe that this is the working situation at present? If some other deadline is currently in use (hint), what explains the delusion of so many?

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but these laws are under consideration. I mean, I understand that reality can be exceptionally slippery for some people, even after they've been reminded of it repeatedly.

The current, roving deadlines in effect are an arbitrary effect of law being interpreted according to aesthetics instead of fact; as I have noted before, rather than the ontological shaping the legal, FAP is a case of the legal asserting the ontological, instead of being derived therefrom.

As it is, all you're accomplishing is reminding everyone how inappropriate you think it is to discuss reality when you would rather everyone else discuss you. People have no real obligation to continue to entertain your distractions. Your fake moral outrage constructed around a calculated straw man is only problematic if people decide to take you seriously.

(1) We have a proposition: LACP/FAP.

(2) That proposition creates a specific result that is now in question, the conflict of equal protection when one "person" asserts rights inside and over another person's body.

(3) We have a definitive marker when that conflict ceases to exist: dry-foot.​

And then we have you, determined to refuse the issue at hand in order to throw a proper juvenile tantrum.

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and more. Even Congress. Welcome to the issue. You might wish to take some time exploring it.
____________________

Notes:

Huber, Adam. "What's Up, Doc?" Bug Martini. May 1, 2014. BugMartini.com. May 16, 2014. http://www.bugmartini.com/comic/whats-up-doc/

 

[billvon]

I do not know if you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you genuinely do not understand what is meant by "person" and "personhood"

Ah, we will add the good old false dilemma to your list of classic fallacies.

In effect, it attempted to create a new class of "person" by providing Constitutional rights and protections, such as the constitutionally guaranteed right to enjoyment of life that you enjoy, to a fertilised egg. Not even a foetus, but a fertilised egg, so literally from the moment of conception.

Yes, it did try to do that. Stupid law.

Now you have attempted to argue that personhood does not guarantee full protections, and you used the argument that children are not person's and their rights are limited.

Next classic fallacy - strawman. I have never argued that children are not persons. They are.

Now do you understand what is meant by competing interests when it comes to "personhood"?

I do! And believe it or not, I understood it even before you started in with your usual personal attacks.

What will happen to the mother's rights and her personhood when she is in direct competition with the "person" now residing inside her wombs? Because personhood or declaring it to be a "person" means that she literally cannot do anything that could harm or kill it.

Her rights would be limited, just as all our rights are now limited by the many laws society has erected and requires us to follow.

Well there are some here who believe that they should be forced into taking contraception or even keeping them in jail until they abort.

Name one.

Well, what do you call a political movement that is designed to target solely women and criminalises their wombs?

A strawman - same way I'd describe the political movement that wants to kill hundreds of thousands of unborn women.

 

[billvon]

Because advocating the actual murder of children, after your stuffing it back in question. I hate to imagine the look on your face if one day, someone is able to track and connect those comments to you.

You think that's bad? Johnathan Swift once advocated EATING CHILDREN in a published work! Good thing his career never went anywhere.

 

[GeoffP]

The personal impersonal case

Well, think of it this way: You've been pitching a hissy cow for days now because some rhetorical point upsets you, and the only way for that to stop is that you need to stop setting yourself up to pitch hissy cows in lieu of an actual, rational argument.

Stop frustrating yourself.

:yawn: Are you done boring me? God, just develop some kind of a thought or an idea other than trying to attack me. Is the sum of your work on SF going to be based on this weird obsession? Chill out, dude.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but these laws are under consideration. I mean, I understand that reality can be exceptionally slippery for some people, even after they've been reminded of it repeatedly.

Well, don't give up on it yet, Tiassa. Even Sisyphus got a break at some point.

But for me, vaving this discussion with you is a little like having an argument with someone having severe dementia:

"You know, these laws are happening! You have to choose DF!"

"Yes, I know these laws are happening, and I don't support them. Nor do I think DF is a reasonable answer. I think about twenty seconds might be required to find a better solution."

"...You know, these laws are happening! You have to choose DF!"​

And so on, and so on.

The current, roving deadlines in effect are an arbitrary effect of law being interpreted according to aesthetics instead of fact; as I have noted before, rather than the ontological shaping the legal, FAP is a case of the legal asserting the ontological, instead of being derived therefrom.

To wit: and I'm not arguing that. I might even say that the current "roving" ("roving"? really? for God's sake, pick up a mathematics textbook, will you?) deadlines are partially aesthetic.

Unfortunately for you, my deadline isn't. Understand? You have yet to connect it in any way to FAP and you can't make such a connection because you think science and medicine are essentially magical processes. My considered deadline is ontological. FAP is the case you assert about the legal asserting ontological. You really don't get this difference? I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Let's try "faux Caveman": me say to choose meaningful indices of neu-ral ac-tiv-i-ty and pain re-cep-tion instead of pointless line about cross vagina doorstep. Latter positional only.

You can prattle on for a hundred posts, or make up a dozen new threads to throw a fit on, and it won't make any difference. Your argument really is about your ego, and your fear, and your juvenile process. You're terrified of a biological basis for abortion limitation, because you have the 'dim line' of birth in mind; only complete abortion rights to birth are acceptable in your view, and never mind that that exists nowhere now without at least an attempt at justification of the procedure. I'm not sure if your terror of an informed decision is more pathetic than your ignorance of extant procedure. Which one do you think is worse?

I mean, you can keep playing this game as long as you want, and I can keep embarrassing you as long as you want, I guess. I don't care. It wasn't me that dragged your comments into this thread, was it? How about an apology? And do you want to keep playing Polly Pretty Extremist, or stop and actually think about the subject? Still, it would be wrong to say you're accomplishing nothing: you're shattering my faith in the polity.

You think that's bad? Johnathan Swift once advocated EATING CHILDREN in a published work! Good thing his career never went anywhere.

Yeah, what a douche. Bells, what do you think about that freak Swift, huh? Maybe he should be up on charges.

 

[GeoffP]

A modest dismissal

Bells, I think you have me on ignore but I just wanted you to know that I think I might have tracked that Swift character down. Look, I found this work of his on the inter-tubes:

A Modest Proposal

For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

Now, that seems like a good thing, right? Who wouldn't want the children of a country to be beneficial to the public? So, so far it sounds like a social commentary meant to help children, and society, and children. No one thinks of the children. But listen to this next part:

y thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. It is true, a child just dropped from its dam may be supported by her milk for a solar year, with little other nourishment; at most not above the value of 2s., which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.

What.. what's he talking about there, eh? What's he mean, "not above the value of 2s", eh? How are they going to help feed and clothe people? Is it some kind of juvenile work scheme? What's it all about?

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

Oh! It's some kind of support scheme for women with unwanted children. Okay... still sounds a bit "anti" though, if you know what I mean, eh? Eh?

It was only when I read on further that I realised the horrible, horrible thing that dirty Mr. Swift was suggesting:

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

Oh my god, he wants them to be eaten! That filthy scoundrel! I could scarcely read the rest; rest assured it only gets worse, with projections and justifications and (shudder) recipes. This man is clearly advocating the actual murder of children, maybe with stuffing or as a roast. I hate to imagine the look on his face if one day, someone were able to track and connect those comments to him actively advocating the murder of children.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

---

Ah well, enough of that. I have to go rinse my forebrain out now. Seems to be caked with all the crap I've had to go over today. You know, no matter how hard you stomp on the accelerator, with roadkill some of it simply is going to get on you.

Say, Tiassa: Bells is your ally in this debate, right? Sometimes, I guess you know how Moe felt.

 

[iceaura]

So which two, then, are you claiming? You only argued against one of the four - and it's the other three that are at issue here.
I'm struggling to continue caring about your micro-dissection of this subject. Give me something to work with.

The question was: which two of the four are you claiming, Geoff? You claimed two of four, but only argued against one (for good reason, methinks). I saw three unarguable,

and the context is a thread about the avoidance of such implications by people engaged in inherently abusive attempts to restrict abortion. So if you desist with this avoidance behavior, openly specify what the other one was, and attempt to argue it, the difficulties you will encounter are likely to be at the core of the thread matters.

It was your "micro-dissection", not mine. I've had no trouble working with it.

My guess is you are flinching from your denial of the woman's right to make decisions about the inside of her own body. That's what I think the third one is, of the four - that the woman is the decision maker. Am I wrong?

What will happen to the mother's rights and her personhood when she is in direct competition with the "person" now residing inside her wombs? Because personhood or declaring it to be a "person" means that she literally cannot do anything that could harm or kill it.
Her rights would be limited, just as all our rights are now limited by the many laws society has erected and requires us to follow.

"Just as"?! You've got to be kidding.

All of the basic principles used to justify State limitations and curbs just got thrown out - starting with "your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins". You've invited in a tyranny and abrogation of personhood the entire US Government was founded on excluding.

Once again: the repeated and bizarre drawing of equivalency between State protections granted to people walking around in separate bodies, and State protections granted to people living inside other people without their consent in the first place, is proof - if any were needed - of the truth of the OP observation: these people are in denial of physical reality.

Well, what do you call a political movement that is designed to target solely women and criminalises their wombs?
A strawman - same way I'd describe the political movement that wants to kill hundreds of thousands of unborn women.

Except the one exists, and the other doesn't.
Voting members of State governments with large scale Party support behind them and specific legislation proposed are not made of straw.

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah? Well there you are then

The question was: which two of the four are you claiming, Geoff? You claimed two of four, but only argued against one (for good reason, methinks). I saw three unarguable

:sleep:

and the context is a thread about the avoidance of such implications by people engaged in inherently abusive attempts to restrict abortion.

Oh good. I'm not one of them. Is this the right line then?

So if you desist with this avoidance behavior, openly specify what the other one was, and attempt to argue it, the difficulties you will encounter are likely to be at the core of the thread matters.

I refer you to any of the several dozen descriptions of my concept in the thread, above, vis-a-vis Tiassa's concept. They're probably all reasonably equivalent. I've written it out literally dozens of times only to have Tiassa and Bells just replace it with their own narrative and it'll be a cold day in hell before I go through all that shit again.

Now, I say 'my' concept but, really, there's little doubt somebody thought of it before me. Just to clarify.

It was your "micro-dissection", not mine. I've had no trouble working with it.

Great.

My guess is you are flinching from your denial of the woman's right to make decisions about the inside of her own body.

Uh.

That's what I think the third one is, of the four - that the woman is the decision maker. Am I wrong?

Yeah, probably.

I say 'probably' because I have no idea what the complete array of four were at this point, and because I don't know their order offhand, and because usually the 'dry-foot'ers on here (which means abortion at any point up to birth) usually just put their own worst interpretation on whatever points I make or just ignore them outright and substitute their own narrative au complet in place of reading or thinking. So, yeah, you're s probably wrong, or it's the wrong one, or you've got me confused with the wrong person, or whatever.

General guideline for the research you're going to have to do to follow this topic, and which I had to do without anyone providing their definitions up front except me: I'm arguing "meaningful biological breakpoint for latest abortion without doctor's note, probably later than 27 weeks" and Tiassa is rooting for "abortion anytime up until birth", which he calls "dry-foot" (DF) and describes as a 'bright line' and equivocates with FAP and Republicans and not-Jesus-Jesus and doesn't think any of that sounds like something a maniac might think. Hope that's all clear.

Aw hell, I just described my position again after I said I wouldn't. Oh well. Look, here's some links:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...rsonhood-FAP&p=3189725&viewfull=1#post3189725
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...rsonhood-FAP&p=3189781&viewfull=1#post3189781

My comments are the ones Tiassa didn't cite using my name, in the indents and italicized, fourth post or whatever the hell it was.

 

[billvon]

"Just as"?! You've got to be kidding. All of the basic principles used to justify State limitations and curbs just got thrown out - starting with "your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins". You've invited in a tyranny and abrogation of personhood the entire US Government was founded on excluding.

Nope. I do not invite any of that.

Except the one exists, and the other doesn't.

Thank you for a most excellent demonstration of my point.

 

[iceaura]

and the context is a thread about the avoidance of such implications by people engaged in inherently abusive attempts to restrict abortion.
Oh good. I'm not one of them. - - -

So? Or: so you say. Your avoidance behavior parallels the OP observations.

So if you desist with this avoidance behavior, openly specify what the other one was, and attempt to argue it, the difficulties you will encounter are likely to be at the core of the thread matters.
I refer you to any of the several dozen descriptions of my concept in the thread, above, vis-a-vis Tiassa's concept.

They are irrelevancies, not responses, to the post you quoted. This continues the avoidance behavior of the personhood advocates.

That's what I think the third one is, of the four - that the woman is the decision maker. Am I wrong?
Yeah, probably.

I say 'probably' because I have no idea what the complete array of four were at this point, and because I don't know their order offhand,

This is getting shameless, this avoidance bs.

The order is irrelevant - as has been perfectly clear from the beginning. The "third" has always been the third one that I pointed out should join the other two you claimed - pending your arguing otherwise - whichever they were. No such argument, or even specification, has appeared.

As far as the "complete array" of four you claim to have forgotten - you could have simply answered the question the first time, with the list right in front of you quoted and also in your post immediately above. Avoidance behavior does put some demands on one's memory. But allow me:

"Its mother. Its carrier. Its life force. The person who decides."
You're good on two for four there.

As anyone can verify, she was good on three at least - not two. Pending argument, of course. The one granted is "life force" - you argued that was internal to the embryo and fetus, and no one objected. So of the other three, which one do you claim "no good" on,

and why?

"Just as"?! You've got to be kidding. All of the basic principles used to justify State limitations and curbs just got thrown out - starting with "your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins". You've invited in a tyranny and abrogation of personhood the entire US Government was founded on excluding."

Nope. I do not invite any of that.

You most certainly invite it all. You are granting State-protected personhood, rights, to a person who is inside someone else - that's a long way past where their nose begins. That the State, to protect fetal persons, must set aside its fundamental and standard and Constitutional protections of pregnant women as persons, is a matter of physical fact.

And this denial of the implications of granting personhood thusly is the OP issue. FAPpers invite abrogation of a woman's rights, then just say they didn't - and change the subject, often.