You are incorrect. Your assumptions have made a fool of you.
Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Well, FAP me
Gasp! They have a-found me out.
I'm feeling much more rested, so let's dissect that, shall we?
Whoa, whoa, whoaa. Full stop, right there, old chum.
While those laws probably are intended to end abortion rights in the United States and might well mean all the rest besides, I'm not advocating such laws. In fact, I reject them. I don't consider a fertilized ovum a person. This leaves me in a bit of a limbo here, WRT:
Uh, well, we can't know that, because of the following condition of Tiassa's:
What happens next? Err... we rephrase the argument? How exactly can I comment on that as written? No, really, iceaura. Really. Rights to life, as far as I'm concerned, don't vest in a person at the moment of fertilization. So what now? Would you like to have a stab at reformulating the question as something other than an elaborate false dilemma?
Oh. Who are they, again? And how does it 'continue' their avoidance behaviour? Anyway, if my posts were irrelevancies to the post I quoted, then I can presume we're on the same side about a reasonable limits to the exercise of abortion based on the maternal body rights imperative.
Well, the ideas Lucy presented and the order she presented them in aren't too irrelevant if you actually forget what Lucy wrote, which I did. I also forgot what I wrote.
Naw, it's dead easy, someone always finds the stuff for you.
Op! Pretend I didn't write that.
The minuta of contention is, of course, the last one: a mother is a carrier and a mother, yes: but the mother only has power of decision under certain conditions. This stuff was interesting:
Where does the fetus' nose begin? The way you've written this, it sounds like you think billvon is extending his expression past the woman's nose. But he's not; it's the fetus who enjoys those rights. It's like a metaphor for the baby being bill's fist. Do you think billvon is clubbing women with a baby?
Well you should confront those people. They don't sound very ethical.
"Thusly"?
Gasp! They have a-found me out.
I'm feeling much more rested, so let's dissect that, shall we?
Tiassa' said:
Whoa, whoa, whoaa. Full stop, right there, old chum.
While those laws probably are intended to end abortion rights in the United States and might well mean all the rest besides, I'm not advocating such laws. In fact, I reject them. I don't consider a fertilized ovum a person. This leaves me in a bit of a limbo here, WRT:
Uh, well, we can't know that, because of the following condition of Tiassa's:
What happens next? Err... we rephrase the argument? How exactly can I comment on that as written? No, really, iceaura. Really. Rights to life, as far as I'm concerned, don't vest in a person at the moment of fertilization. So what now? Would you like to have a stab at reformulating the question as something other than an elaborate false dilemma? Oh. Who are they, again? And how does it 'continue' their avoidance behaviour? Anyway, if my posts were irrelevancies to the post I quoted, then I can presume we're on the same side about a reasonable limits to the exercise of abortion based on the maternal body rights imperative.
Well, the ideas Lucy presented and the order she presented them in aren't too irrelevant if you actually forget what Lucy wrote, which I did. I also forgot what I wrote.
Naw, it's dead easy, someone always finds the stuff for you.
Op! Pretend I didn't write that.
The minuta of contention is, of course, the last one: a mother is a carrier and a mother, yes: but the mother only has power of decision under certain conditions. This stuff was interesting:
Where does the fetus' nose begin? The way you've written this, it sounds like you think billvon is extending his expression past the woman's nose. But he's not; it's the fetus who enjoys those rights. It's like a metaphor for the baby being bill's fist. Do you think billvon is clubbing women with a baby?
Well you should confront those people. They don't sound very ethical.
"Thusly"?
Bells
Staff member
Well that is all you do on this site. Be outraged. All you do is complain. All.. the.. time..
Well of course. You weren't getting enough attention, so you picked to be upset for someone else. It wasn't about you anymore. Attention whores often become offended on behalf of others to gain more attention. That is what you do.
As I said, if someone manages to connect his character here with his real person, they won't care about context. They would read that post at face value.
Remember Geoff.P, everything you put on the internet remains there. If someone manages to connect your name to your posts on here, these are the things that can come back to haunt you. If you use the same name or have ever linked or provided this site or any other site you use on whatever social media outlets you happen to use, like facebook, your blogs, etc, then potential employers do search these things. And if they find something connected to you, they won't look at the context of the thread. They will and do take each post on their own merit. Which is why I would suggest going to extremes and commenting repeatedly about ways in which one could kill a child or a woman, because you know, god forbid you discuss the actual subject, just bring out the specter of murdering women and children instead for that highly emotive and misrepresented effect, then people who go to such extremes need to make sure it can never ever be traced back to your real persons.
To help job seekers better understand the role of social media in their job search, CareerBuilder.com conducted a survey last year that asked 2,303 hiring managers and human resource professionals if, how, and why they incorporate social media into their hiring process.
First they found that 37% of employers use social networks to screen potential job candidates. That means about two in five companies browse your social media profiles to evaluate your character and personality–and some even base their hiring decision on what they find.
“Social media is a primary vehicle of communication today, and because much of that communication is public, it’s no surprise some recruiters and hiring managers are tuning in,” says Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder.
CareerBuilder also asked employers why they use social networks to research candidates, and 65% said they do it to see if the job seeker presents himself or herself professionally. About half (51%) want to know if the candidate is a good fit for the company culture, and another 45% want to learn more about his or her qualifications. Some cited “to see if the candidate is well-rounded” and “to look for reasons not to hire the candidate,” as their motives.
So, if you’re among the 89% of job seekers that use social networking sites (daily, sometimes, or rarely), you’ll want to be careful.
A third (34%) of employers who scan social media profiles said they have found content that has caused them not to hire the candidate. About half of those employers said they didn’t offer a job candidate the position because of provocative or inappropriate photos and information posted on his or her profile; while 45% said they chose not to hire someone because of evidence of drinking and/or drug use on his or her social profiles. Other reasons they decided not to offer the job: the candidate’s profile displayed poor communication skills, he or she bad mouthed previous employers, made discriminatory comments related to race, gender, or religion, or lied about qualifications.
First they found that 37% of employers use social networks to screen potential job candidates. That means about two in five companies browse your social media profiles to evaluate your character and personality–and some even base their hiring decision on what they find.
“Social media is a primary vehicle of communication today, and because much of that communication is public, it’s no surprise some recruiters and hiring managers are tuning in,” says Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder.
CareerBuilder also asked employers why they use social networks to research candidates, and 65% said they do it to see if the job seeker presents himself or herself professionally. About half (51%) want to know if the candidate is a good fit for the company culture, and another 45% want to learn more about his or her qualifications. Some cited “to see if the candidate is well-rounded” and “to look for reasons not to hire the candidate,” as their motives.
So, if you’re among the 89% of job seekers that use social networking sites (daily, sometimes, or rarely), you’ll want to be careful.
A third (34%) of employers who scan social media profiles said they have found content that has caused them not to hire the candidate. About half of those employers said they didn’t offer a job candidate the position because of provocative or inappropriate photos and information posted on his or her profile; while 45% said they chose not to hire someone because of evidence of drinking and/or drug use on his or her social profiles. Other reasons they decided not to offer the job: the candidate’s profile displayed poor communication skills, he or she bad mouthed previous employers, made discriminatory comments related to race, gender, or religion, or lied about qualifications.
Hence, watch and be careful about making such extreme comments.
No. Are you?
Posting Guidelines
12. Be aware that your posts may remain on sciforums for many years. Future readers may include employers, friends, family, journalists and others.
In the context of this thread, sure. However taken on its own, and having seen him make similar arguments in the past, those posts taken on their own do not always read as 'sarcastic'. As such, if someone quote sources in a search about what he is putting on the internet, they won't care about context.
*Raises eyebrows*
You show your 12 year old posts about ways in which one could kill a woman and/or her child? Do you think that is appropriate?
Oh I fully understand him, because I have been reading this thread and understand the sarcastic context in which he is placing it. However not all would bother reading the thread to take the context. Hence my advice that he really should lay off with ways in which one could kill women and children. Sarcasm or not, it is hardly something I'd want connected to me at all. Hence why I suggested he made sure his character on here can never be linked to his real person. Because it struck me last night after something that happened to me the afternoon before, that people do search and yes, it can come back and haunt you.
Well who am I asking.. You apparently showed it to your 12 year old.
I never realised you were capable. You are such an emotional fellow all the time.. Good job finding 'calmness'.
You mean people request your angry whiny posts?
Explain that to your 12 year old as well?
No, I'd reached my whine quota for the week. See, I have two children who often whine about how they want this or that and how this is unfair because I removed computer privileges for 2 days, etc.. In short, I have 2 children because that was how many I wanted. If I wanted a third, then I'd not ignore you.
Okay?
Parents of young boys who think farting and burping is beneficial to society.
See, lack of context and internet quote sniping. Would you hire him? Let him teach your 12 year old about the value of children in society perhaps?
You just proved my point.
Only if you are that guy who swerves to hit roadkill so he can have something to be outraged about.
So, are you going to answer the question yet? Or are you still avoiding it by pretending outrage?
Wait.. Did you just say that right to life do not vest in a person from the moment of fertilisation?
Well!
Thank you so much for clearing that up!
No, really, you have cleared it all up.
Better go and tell all the States who are trying to enact laws and trying by way of ballow initiatives that would grant personhood from the moment of conception then, because, well, they obviously have it all wrong by your say so!
It was a genuine question.Billvon said:
While others change the subject to the point of suggesting murdering women and children, you dodge it like a cat on a hot tin roof.
They are still trying.
We also have doctors performing forced c-sections on women now, without their consent.. So what happens to the personhood of women when she is pregnant?
Just limited.
What personal attacks?
None of those laws restrict your personhood because you have a "person" residing inside your womb.
Granting full legal protection to an unborn potential 'person' will result in stripping the mother of her own protections she gains under the Constitution of your country.
So no, it would not be "just as". You and I can decide what medical care we wish or require, we are free to make decisions. Pregnant women carrying a "person" are denied any and all of these decisions. In short, in declaring the unborn a "person", the State effectively takes over the control of the woman's womb. She gets zero say.
It's in the first two pages of this thread..
One poster decided that the state imprisoning a pregnant woman because paint fumes could have harmed her foetus, so much so that the woman was left to decide that the only way she could get out of prison was to have an abortion, that the State had apparently done a great service to her in putting her in a position that she was literally left with no choice but to make that decision. Then bemoaned that another pregnant woman imprisoned on suspicions of doing drugs and that it could harm her foetus, was not given the same "out". And if that was not enough, he also suggested that court sanctioned contraceptives might be a good idea for people who apparently should not be having children.
Because claiming that the state attempting to control women's bodies by enacting laws is not a political movement? That's about as funny as the one who claimed that a woman's right to access abortion was not a women's rights issue.
Bells
Staff member
It's only a "baby" worth saving when it's inside the woman.
Once it is out, it is a burden to society and the State [insert whines about Obamacare here]..
Shirley, you cannot be serious
Oh, of course.
Is that more character assassination? Heavens, no: I'm full, thanks.
So now you understood the fact that Capracus was using satire. Earlier you didn't seem to think he was. Okay.
I think I should remind you of the same, Bells. In your case specifically, you should be far more concerned, because I recall you telling me that your co-workers also read this forum. That means that people you actually work or worked with - colleagues, others in the field, references - are privy to the kind of social behaviour you exhibit on-line. It's a serious thing.
*Raises eyebrows*
Are you now attempting to imply that this is a kind of "murder thread", or that Capracus posted a "murder post"? Do you think present employers would consider this indicative of an honest deportment? You mentioned some trouble about that.
In fact, I did show it to my kid. It's a necessity in modern society to understand the meaning of rhetoric and satire; what I've found is that many people simply have not the faintest conception of it. Some people take rhetorical devices using satire as actual, literal statements; I suspect these are the same kind of people that, in other settings, might take up religious text as being literal also. It's a dangerous mindset. It's important - no, critical - that middle-late education incorporate an appreciation of this subject; no school will teach it now, because they're having enough trouble with mathematics. It's the best I can do to include classical elements of an education. It was, for us, a learning moment.
Firstly, you didn't understand him. Secondly, you now seem to be trying to shut down the discussion with dire warnings using your previous interpretation. Is there any point to continuing this discussion?
... you do realise that I was linking to one of the works of Jonathon Swift in a rhetorical point suggested by billvon?
"Would you hire him", you ask. "Would hire" Jonathon Swift, 17th-century writer and early satirist, famous for "A Modest Proposal", and "Gulliver's Travels" among numerous other works? That Jonathon Swift? Would I hire him. Would I hire Jonathon Swift, a satirist dead almost four centuries.
...Well, heck, I don't know. I mean, I don't think he's much good now to teach anyone about anything, really, because that whole dead thing is definitely putting him off the last four hundred years of his productivity scale. Or would that be unfair, in your informed opinion? Would my refusing to hire a dead man to teach ethics to a 12-year-old seem grossly prejudicial? Should I at least put him on for a six-month trial position, see how he turns out?
Maybe he'd be great. I mean, I guess he could do no worse than Tiassa at that job, anyway.
Good re-direct but here's the important part here: the facts of my stance are dawning on you, and you're still trying to force a false dilemma. I give up. I thought I could help, but clearly that's impossible.
Oh, of course.
Is that more character assassination? Heavens, no: I'm full, thanks.
So now you understood the fact that Capracus was using satire. Earlier you didn't seem to think he was. Okay.
I think I should remind you of the same, Bells. In your case specifically, you should be far more concerned, because I recall you telling me that your co-workers also read this forum. That means that people you actually work or worked with - colleagues, others in the field, references - are privy to the kind of social behaviour you exhibit on-line. It's a serious thing.
*Raises eyebrows*
Are you now attempting to imply that this is a kind of "murder thread", or that Capracus posted a "murder post"? Do you think present employers would consider this indicative of an honest deportment? You mentioned some trouble about that.
In fact, I did show it to my kid. It's a necessity in modern society to understand the meaning of rhetoric and satire; what I've found is that many people simply have not the faintest conception of it. Some people take rhetorical devices using satire as actual, literal statements; I suspect these are the same kind of people that, in other settings, might take up religious text as being literal also. It's a dangerous mindset. It's important - no, critical - that middle-late education incorporate an appreciation of this subject; no school will teach it now, because they're having enough trouble with mathematics. It's the best I can do to include classical elements of an education. It was, for us, a learning moment.
Firstly, you didn't understand him. Secondly, you now seem to be trying to shut down the discussion with dire warnings using your previous interpretation. Is there any point to continuing this discussion?
... you do realise that I was linking to one of the works of Jonathon Swift in a rhetorical point suggested by billvon?
"Would you hire him", you ask. "Would hire" Jonathon Swift, 17th-century writer and early satirist, famous for "A Modest Proposal", and "Gulliver's Travels" among numerous other works? That Jonathon Swift? Would I hire him. Would I hire Jonathon Swift, a satirist dead almost four centuries.
...Well, heck, I don't know. I mean, I don't think he's much good now to teach anyone about anything, really, because that whole dead thing is definitely putting him off the last four hundred years of his productivity scale. Or would that be unfair, in your informed opinion? Would my refusing to hire a dead man to teach ethics to a 12-year-old seem grossly prejudicial? Should I at least put him on for a six-month trial position, see how he turns out?
Maybe he'd be great. I mean, I guess he could do no worse than Tiassa at that job, anyway.
Good re-direct but here's the important part here: the facts of my stance are dawning on you, and you're still trying to force a false dilemma. I give up. I thought I could help, but clearly that's impossible.
This is a pretty boldface misrepresentation. One wonders what you think you're playing at. Is mere libel enough for you, do you think?
I would ask how either of those things followed - the first, generally; the second in reference to my politics - but I already can imagine the kind of discussion it would all decompose into.
Bells
Staff member
Glad you agree.
You're jumping up and down demanding attention. I respond to someone else, you respond and get offended on their behalf because, you know, it has to be about you. The term for such behaviour is attention whore. Those who do it in the media are called media whores.
That actually was not my point.
You seem to have a lot of issues keeping up with what is actually being said, aren't you?
My former employers read this forum. And many still do. I don't advocate or suggest new ways to kill people, nor do I discuss ways one could commit crimes, soooo, why should I be worried?
Interesting. I would never allow my children to read such threads, simply because 1) they are too young to understand what is being discussed and 2) I would not want to discuss something like abortion with my children when they are so young. Some people seem perfectly alright with teaching their children such things at such a young age and applying it within the context of 'women kill babies' as his post directly implied. It plants the seed of women = evil if they do not believe or do as we do. It's why so many pro-lifer's involve their children in their protests. But that's just me.
He can keep making those comments as much as he likes. But there comes a point where we need to be responsible and remind him that if anyone is able to connect his character on this or any other site to his person in real life, then he does need to be careful. Don't worry, I also advised a guy who tried to suggest ways to rape a baby and children the same thing.
Yes.
I forget, connecting dots and analogies don't always work well for you unless you are given clear instructions.. How well did you score on that spectrum test again?
.. Anywho, If he existed today.. would you hire him? If you do a search on a potential employee and you see a comment like Capracus posted, out of context, but showed up on a search, would you hire them? I wouldn't. Your stance to date has been dancing and dodging. Which you are still doing.
Teaching your 12 year old on how to avoid answering questions as well?
Bells
Staff member
It was "sarcasm".
You understand that, don't you?
I mean I got it, why and how did you not?
Sleasing is believing
That was sarcasm. You know sarcasm, don't you?
So... you think I'm in the media? I see.
I notice you going back and forth on definitions and interpretations. Which did you want me to believe?
Bells: seriously, you should. This is not a good representation of you. Do your former employers really read this forum? If so... I have no idea what to do at this point. I'm being absolutely serious here; you have to break this off or change something or other. This isn't good.
I thought you said you understood that it was satire? How is that then a 'direct' implication?
Err... no.
Then why exactly did you suggest I shouldn't hire Jonathon Swift, dead writer, or let him teach ethics to my kid? You can't say that was satire, because it doesn't work.
And... now you're bringing in stuff about my person to attack me, using what you perceive is a disability.
Well. I mean, it's a new low, I guess. It's not something I thought someone with a developed social comprehension should have done. Should I respond by dragging your divorce into the discussion? Maybe I could imply that you were dumped on basis of bad personality issues. No? Then why do you do it?
So... now you're asking if I really would hire Jonathon Swift, presumably for a writing position. Seeing, at the same time, that this search has returned a piece that is clearly rhetorical, impassioned and cleverly satirical. Gee. This discussion has gone from bad to unbelievably bad.
And again you drag my person and family into it. Impressive! I've never seen two in a single post like that before.
Ah, if it was sarcasm - and as it's in quotes, it wasn't - then Tiassa should steer clear of using it. He doesn't seem to have the aptitude.
Then again, it wasn't that, and, well, there you are. Summarizes the thread well, really.
That was sarcasm. You know sarcasm, don't you?
So... you think I'm in the media? I see.
I notice you going back and forth on definitions and interpretations. Which did you want me to believe?
Bells: seriously, you should. This is not a good representation of you. Do your former employers really read this forum? If so... I have no idea what to do at this point. I'm being absolutely serious here; you have to break this off or change something or other. This isn't good.
I thought you said you understood that it was satire? How is that then a 'direct' implication?
Err... no.
Then why exactly did you suggest I shouldn't hire Jonathon Swift, dead writer, or let him teach ethics to my kid? You can't say that was satire, because it doesn't work.
And... now you're bringing in stuff about my person to attack me, using what you perceive is a disability.
Well. I mean, it's a new low, I guess. It's not something I thought someone with a developed social comprehension should have done. Should I respond by dragging your divorce into the discussion? Maybe I could imply that you were dumped on basis of bad personality issues. No? Then why do you do it?
So... now you're asking if I really would hire Jonathon Swift, presumably for a writing position. Seeing, at the same time, that this search has returned a piece that is clearly rhetorical, impassioned and cleverly satirical. Gee. This discussion has gone from bad to unbelievably bad. And again you drag my person and family into it. Impressive! I've never seen two in a single post like that before.
Ah, if it was sarcasm - and as it's in quotes, it wasn't - then Tiassa should steer clear of using it. He doesn't seem to have the aptitude.
Then again, it wasn't that, and, well, there you are. Summarizes the thread well, really.
Funny. If Geoff (or anyone, for that matter) called Bells an attention whore, he'd be called a misogynist and given a ban for sexual harassment.
Edit: Having read the entire post, my first response is "wow." What a disgustingly crude, personal attack. You should be ashamed of yourself, Bells, and removed from your position immediately.
Edit: Having read the entire post, my first response is "wow." What a disgustingly crude, personal attack. You should be ashamed of yourself, Bells, and removed from your position immediately.
Bells
Staff member
Well if he called me one without the other, then I suspect some eyebrows would be raised.
But attention whore is gender neutral. You... ermm.. did get that, didn't you?
I take it you aren't ready to tackle the question in the OP either? Or is your role here simply to complain... again?
Ya.GeoffP said:
One question though, do you? Since you know, you missed the big one that slapped you in your face just then.
Before you miss that one as well in your quest for straw grabbing, that was an analogy.
Oh, I am so sorry. I forget that you can't deal with examples.
No GeoffP. It was an example of gender neutral terms that are often used to describe certain behaviour.
In fairies and garden gnomes.
But seriously, all of this wafting about trying to change the subject, you still haven't answered the question in the OP.
My former employers would accuse me of losing my touch if I did.
Of becoming soft.. Nice.. Pleasant..
See, the difference is that I don't advocate committing crimes.
What you clearly missed in my comments to Capracus was that he is free to carry on. But it was advice that he needs to make sure whatever or whoever he is on here can never be tracked to his real person. That he hasn't linked this site on facebook or any other social media sites he may use in connection to his name with it. It was why Tiassa left his name out of the quote he provided of one of his bizarre how to kill a woman and baby comment. If you are going to make such arguments, then you need to make sure that it can never come back to haunt you. Taken on its own, a stranger would not always recognise that it is sarcasm.
I hope that clears things up for you?
Amazingly enough, I actually enjoy his posts when it is not connected to abortion. He is reasonable, pleasant, intelligent and provides exceptional insights into threads. However, abortion is a very emotional issue. Capracus started on this.. whatever it is, when he misunderstood the 'dry foot' comments made.. So he went and accepted it as an extreme measure. That was his choice. But now he has delved into posts about how to kill people, sarcastic as they may be, my suggestion to him is that if he is going to continue with arguments like that, sarcastic paragraphs trying to prove his point and his dismay at the dry foot comments, then he really does need to make sure that no one can ever connect it to his person.
Let me explain.. I saw first hand on Thursday afternoon, just how quickly people can gather information on someone if they are truly looking. I had actually forgotten the speed at which things can be found and connected. Hence why I suggested to Capracus that if he wants to make such comments.. even through sarcasm.. then not only does it need to be in context, but that he should make sure it cannot ever be traced back to him because potential employers do go through their potential employees social media sites with a fine tooth comb and if he has linked this site and his comments or quoted them on there and connected his name on here to his name in real life, comments like he has been making could prove problematic. It was advice to him to make sure he removes anything that could connect his real life name to his character on this site.
I had assumed you would understand the analogy.
You did not.
That's okay.
Disability?
No.
Anal tendencies for things to be just so, yes. I don't consider that to be a disability. Just annoying.
If you must know.. I left and then divorced my husband because he cheated on me with another woman while I was undergoing chemo and radiation therapy for cancer in my lower abdomen. When you undergo chemo down there, for women, it involves a lot of rehabilitation. So because I was a) too physically sick to consider, let alone, have sex and b) actually physically incapable of having sex because of what chemotherapy and radiation (not to mention recovering from abdominal surgery) does to women when it's 'down there', he decided to go and relieve gonads in another woman. If being sick is a personality issue, then I guess you could try to make that argument.. I hope that clears things up for you? Is there anything else you would like to know about it?
Yeah, remind me to avoid analogies like the plague when discussing anything with you because it's just another way for you to avoid answering the OP..
Umm you dragged your son into it and explained how you let him read it..
GeoffP said:
After you advised that your kid got it..
But I do apologise for responding to your comments about your kid. That was absolutely unforgivable of me.
Why should he avoid it?
He nailed it.
As for what summarises this thread.. The avoidance techniques of certain people to actually address the OP.
I haven’t suggested any ways to kill women or children, those notions have only arisen from your own twisted interpretation of the hypotheticals I proposed. What I have done is to demonstrate how moving the personhood goalpost defines baby from fetus and mother from criminal. Whether at conception or placental expulsion, when the conceived acquires its conditional rights, mother, father, doctor and society in general will have to accordingly make adjustments to the exercise of their own rights to accommodate those of the newly endowed. As for my posts being off topic, it’s your nonsensical dissection that renders them as such.
I have no problem owning the content and associated meaning of my posts. That some will mischaracterize it out of ignorance or dishonesty is to be expected in such venues. There’s more than enough explanatory content to keep the intended meaning clear to those willing to give it an honest read.
I find it ironic that you and Tissa keep trying to frame my message as vile and murderous when that’s exactly what the vast majority of people in the US and Australia think about advocating unrestricted abortion, which happens to be a cornerstone of the dry foot policy that you’ve devoted countless pages of support to. What about that conceivably repulsive cybertrail you’re in the process of blazing? While neither of our pro-abortion stances have majority support, yours is clearly more despised.
Bells
Staff member
So you have taken the goal posts and taken it to such an extreme that in the end, it makes the dry foot policy you are so concerned about seem reasonable.
There is always going to be a problem if and when someone reacts to something so extremely and so irrationally.
In effect, you have made the dry foot policy look tame in comparison to your bizarre arguments.
My stance has always been that it is the woman's right to choose while it is inside her body. It is her life that is being affected by what is happening to her and if she does not want it there, I do not believe she should be forced to keep it there. As for whatever trail I am leaving in arguing that point.. I spent a large portion of my adult life dealing with women being abused and controlled in ways you do not wish to consider. How can it be surprising that I respect a woman's bodily rights so that she chooses what is best and right for her?
As for your placental expulsion goal post, do you need me to explain to you how and why that is murder?
Abortion is already very restricted. You are carrying on as if women actually abort as it is coming out. So instead of dealing with reality, you delve into the realms of extreme and murderous fantasy in your bid to move the goal post. It makes no sense. It might to you, but frankly, moving the goal post so that it becomes murder is not something I ever really dwell in or on for that matter. Because not only would it be murder, but also exists only in fantasy and not reality. So what do you gain from muddying the waters with such unreal extremes? Nothing.
Your position is so bizarre, I know you are pro-choice, but you took something and exploded without thinking about reality. You immediately went to something unrealistic and that frankly, cannot and does not happen in reality and then based your objections on this fantasy. It bordered on irrationality. You are a bright individual Capracus, it is a shame that you have decided to act and become irrational based on something that literally cannot happen in real life.
It is emotive language like that that still fails to answer the very basic question in the OP. In the meantime, you end up looking a bit silly. And frankly, my advice to you stands. If you are going to make such arguments that are steeped in illegality, then make sure it isn't connected to your real person or real identity.
Any exercise of ones rights has associated socially prescribed expectations, why would you expect prenatal motherhood to be an exception? Three, six, or nine months of compromise in utero vs. 18 years entanglement outside, they’re both impositions on a whole range of rights. The limitations associated with pregnancy would seem to be the lesser burden of the two.
Regardless of what you or any other man or woman thinks, it’s not just a matter of a single body’s rights, but of two coexisting bodies. This ignorance of that fact is a perceived ugliness that many see in your trail.
It’s murder depending on where society is willing to draw that bright line of Tissa’s. Historically that line extended years into a child’s future. Between womb, DF and PE we’re talking a matter of minutes that establishes a line that has more to do with the location of the fetus than it’s existential qualities.
We’ve been down this path in the other thread, and we both know that extremely late term terminations have, and likely still take place. It’s not so much that fetuses are or would be terminated just prior to delivery, but that you would define a policy that would accommodate such a contingency.
Good of you to acknowledge that one who supports the right of abortion in 99% of the cases is pro-choice. My identity as a godless socialist doesn’t lend much credence to the conservative religious fundie label either.
You really think that most rational people taking the time to examine a modest sample of my posts regarding this subject would conclude that I was a disciple of Josef Mengele bent on butchering expectant women and extending the limits of fetal termination? The fact that you’re obsessing about the legality of such hypothetical examples is an indication of your inability or unwillingness to deal with the core issues it’s meant to address.
When you post things like that, are you just trolling, or are you really that mind-numbingly clueless?
Correct. Many people's personhoods are limited by law.
Most recent -
"you seem compelled to make us believe that you are possibly one of those who should have been swallowed"
Correct, but some abortion laws do, primarily outside the US. And abortion laws do not restrict your personhood just because you are under 18. But other laws do. This is an example of how laws restrict your "personhood" both for pregnant women and non-pregnant people.
(Intentional misunderstanding warning - the above is an example, made since the original statement was concerning the loss of rights that children experience. It was not an equality.)
It would indeed strip her of some protections, which is one reason I do not advocate that.
A child cannot. A mentally deficient person cannot. A prisoner cannot. Many people have such rights restricted by law.
Ah, OK. So I guess they oppose the political movement that wants to kill hundreds of thousands of unborn women.
If it waddles like a Turducken, and gobbledoodlequacks like a Turducken ....
For all the moral outrage, I notice the outrageous lack of anything objective.
This personhood argument is really taking place in the real world, and what is rather distressing about it is the blithe disregard for what some people are about to do if they get their way. The people who advocate these policies? Well, I can understand why they don't want to discuss the implications; what is puzzling is why people who would claim to not support FAP are going out of their way to distract discussion from these issues.
You know, it's interesting how a bunch of allegedly rational people not so much disagree with the conflict proposed but, rather, are apparently unable to see it. When people have to compare a woman's uterus to death row in order to get around the personhood argument, as if negligent homicide is on par with the questions of whether spanking is proper or children should be allowed to vote, it's pretty clear there is something else driving their shock and horror and moral outrage toward an observable, objective fact.
So what is it? Are you, personally, still pissed about being raked over the coals for buying into one of the dumbest forms of Devil's advocate in history? Well, what did you expect? The dryfoot question becomes a necessary question in the discourse under any PIU standard. If there is an objective resolution to the conflict of two people's equally protected rights conflicting when one person occurs inside and is dependent upon another person, I would suggest finding that argument would be a bit more useful an endeavor than making up insane fantasies to justify your confusion and horror.
When people get down arguing that something already happening won't be happening, and that the rational thing to do is simply ignore the supreme law of the land—the law that governs all laws in this country—it's pretty clear there is something else driving their shock and horror and moral outrage toward an observable, objective fact.
When an atheist must fall back to a vague, unspecified, subjective moral authority in order to invoke an abstract moral duty to limit abortion access, it is pretty clear there is something else driving their shock and horror and moral outrage toward an observable, objective fact.
When the way around the question is to claim that the observable, objective fact magically changes, without explaining how that change occurs, it is pretty clear there is something else driving the shock and horror and moral outrage toward an observable, objective fact.
There's a real issue here, and look at all these egocentric distractions.
What you find ironic? Consider that while even our neighbor Geoff is shocked and appalled by the implications of dipping his toe into such vile, misogynistic, polluted waters, you dove right the hell in—and set the gold standard.
No, really, the previous champion was, really, the one about the woman who decides to abort her baby mid-delivery in order to take revenge against the father, who she believes cheated on her.
I mean, really. People want anyone to take that excrement seriously? What, it's unreasonable to foresee trouble in constitutional duty under a legislated ontological and existential standard? And especially to provide evidence that these negative outcomes are occurring even without the standard in place? And to point out that these negative outcomes are mandatory under such a constitutional standard? Oh, hell, that's all irrational, so let us instead dwell on Turducken fantasies.
'Bout right?
What I wonder right now is whether you even give a damn about the issue, or are just using the occasion to pursue some personal fancy.
And since women don't seem to matter enough to you to deal with reality, perhaps doctors do. The insane degree of morbid presumption required—that such doctors as would do such things abound—to take these morbid fantasies remotely serious is in itself disqualifying.
Nor do the constant attempts to rearrange the issue in order to duck the question make that question actually go away.
Capracus said:
For all the moral outrage, I notice the outrageous lack of anything objective.
This personhood argument is really taking place in the real world, and what is rather distressing about it is the blithe disregard for what some people are about to do if they get their way. The people who advocate these policies? Well, I can understand why they don't want to discuss the implications; what is puzzling is why people who would claim to not support FAP are going out of their way to distract discussion from these issues.
You know, it's interesting how a bunch of allegedly rational people not so much disagree with the conflict proposed but, rather, are apparently unable to see it. When people have to compare a woman's uterus to death row in order to get around the personhood argument, as if negligent homicide is on par with the questions of whether spanking is proper or children should be allowed to vote, it's pretty clear there is something else driving their shock and horror and moral outrage toward an observable, objective fact.
So what is it? Are you, personally, still pissed about being raked over the coals for buying into one of the dumbest forms of Devil's advocate in history? Well, what did you expect? The dryfoot question becomes a necessary question in the discourse under any PIU standard. If there is an objective resolution to the conflict of two people's equally protected rights conflicting when one person occurs inside and is dependent upon another person, I would suggest finding that argument would be a bit more useful an endeavor than making up insane fantasies to justify your confusion and horror.
When people get down arguing that something already happening won't be happening, and that the rational thing to do is simply ignore the supreme law of the land—the law that governs all laws in this country—it's pretty clear there is something else driving their shock and horror and moral outrage toward an observable, objective fact.
When an atheist must fall back to a vague, unspecified, subjective moral authority in order to invoke an abstract moral duty to limit abortion access, it is pretty clear there is something else driving their shock and horror and moral outrage toward an observable, objective fact.
When the way around the question is to claim that the observable, objective fact magically changes, without explaining how that change occurs, it is pretty clear there is something else driving the shock and horror and moral outrage toward an observable, objective fact.
There's a real issue here, and look at all these egocentric distractions.
What you find ironic? Consider that while even our neighbor Geoff is shocked and appalled by the implications of dipping his toe into such vile, misogynistic, polluted waters, you dove right the hell in—and set the gold standard.
No, really, the previous champion was, really, the one about the woman who decides to abort her baby mid-delivery in order to take revenge against the father, who she believes cheated on her.
I mean, really. People want anyone to take that excrement seriously? What, it's unreasonable to foresee trouble in constitutional duty under a legislated ontological and existential standard? And especially to provide evidence that these negative outcomes are occurring even without the standard in place? And to point out that these negative outcomes are mandatory under such a constitutional standard? Oh, hell, that's all irrational, so let us instead dwell on Turducken fantasies.
'Bout right?
What I wonder right now is whether you even give a damn about the issue, or are just using the occasion to pursue some personal fancy.
And since women don't seem to matter enough to you to deal with reality, perhaps doctors do. The insane degree of morbid presumption required—that such doctors as would do such things abound—to take these morbid fantasies remotely serious is in itself disqualifying.
Nor do the constant attempts to rearrange the issue in order to duck the question make that question actually go away.
Moderators Unhinged
Pro-lifers falsely accuse pro-choicers of wanting abortions on demand up until the day before birth. Not one pro-choice organization calls for that, not one.
So, sit down and shut up. Both of you are more of a hindrance than a help.
Pro-lifers falsely accuse pro-choicers of wanting abortions on demand up until the day before birth. Not one pro-choice organization calls for that, not one.
So, sit down and shut up. Both of you are more of a hindrance than a help.