Yet another obsessed individual who follows me from thread to thread to shoot off one-line quips. Are you really that attached to your pathetic political ideology that you make a mission of seeking out those who ridicule it?
Is Abortion Murder?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Yet another obsessed individual who follows me from thread to thread to shoot off one-line quips. Are you really that attached to your pathetic political ideology that you make a mission of seeking out those who ridicule it?
tali89:
Rather than passing off points you don't understand at first, you'd do better to spend a little time coming to grips with them, before going off half cocked.
Hehe. You do make me laugh at times, tali89.
Which thread are you referring to? Ah, this one:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sexual-harassment.152471/
What happened there was you slunk away with your tail between your legs when I exposed your hypocrisy in a manner that made you especially uncomfortable. Remember? It wasn't that long ago. I invite readers to verify this for themselves.
You'd like to keep that thread at the top of the "new posts" list, I'm sure. Let's make it happen, tali89.
Recall that you're the one with the obsession about political affiliation, not me. You can barely hold yourself back from making disparaging comments about "liberals" in every post.
I'm right there on page 2 of this thread, posting on the topic. When was your first post to this thread, exactly? So, how could it be that I followed you to the thread. It seems more likely that you followed me, given the evidence.
[Edited to add: I actually went back and checked. You entered this thread a full week after I did, by which time I had already replied at least 4 times to other posters. So who followed who? We could also investigate who entered the thread with the aim of browbeating, but I fear that wouldn't make you look any better.]
And don't worry about hurting my little old feelings, tali89. Better people than you have tried to have a go at me, believe me. Occasionally I get criticism from somebody I respect and whose opinion I actually value. I care about that. About you? Not so much.
I carefully explained to you a distinction between informing, advising and urging, in this post.
Rather than passing off points you don't understand at first, you'd do better to spend a little time coming to grips with them, before going off half cocked.
No, we don't agree on that. I was quite clear in what I wrote. Go back and find where your error of interpretation is.
I take it you are refusing to either support your claim that "liberal parents tend to raise degenerates" with appropriate evidence or else to retract it. I have referred that post to the moderator group for appropriate action in line with our site rules.
Hehe. You do make me laugh at times, tali89.
Which thread are you referring to? Ah, this one:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sexual-harassment.152471/
What happened there was you slunk away with your tail between your legs when I exposed your hypocrisy in a manner that made you especially uncomfortable. Remember? It wasn't that long ago. I invite readers to verify this for themselves.
You'd like to keep that thread at the top of the "new posts" list, I'm sure. Let's make it happen, tali89.
Are you referring to when you invited me to discuss the role that your ego played in that thread? Again, I invite every reader to review the record and make up his or her own mind about whether I was stereotyping "right-wingers" there.
Recall that you're the one with the obsession about political affiliation, not me. You can barely hold yourself back from making disparaging comments about "liberals" in every post.
Your paranoia is showing, tali89, and once again I have to laugh at your desperate lies.
I'm right there on page 2 of this thread, posting on the topic. When was your first post to this thread, exactly? So, how could it be that I followed you to the thread. It seems more likely that you followed me, given the evidence.
[Edited to add: I actually went back and checked. You entered this thread a full week after I did, by which time I had already replied at least 4 times to other posters. So who followed who? We could also investigate who entered the thread with the aim of browbeating, but I fear that wouldn't make you look any better.]
I think you overrate your own importance and your ability to attract obsessive followers, tali89. I enjoy exposing some of your sillier arguments by pulling them to pieces from time to time, and I have the odd laugh at your desperate need to feel important and be validated, but that's about the extent of my interest in you.
I don't think you have much of a clue about my political ideology. Probably it hasn't even occurred to you that you have an ideology of your own; you probably think of it as "common sense" or something like that.
And don't worry about hurting my little old feelings, tali89. Better people than you have tried to have a go at me, believe me. Occasionally I get criticism from somebody I respect and whose opinion I actually value. I care about that. About you? Not so much.
That's ironic. No doubt you've actually been on tenterhooks waiting for me to come back. And you? I take it you have been spending all your time memorising conservapedia.com or something. Maybe you should get out more.
Last edited:
You explained what you believed was the distinction between informing, advising and urging, which was about as relevant as the price of tea in China. You did not demonstrate how urging someone to do something equated to coercing them to do something. One of your biggest flaws is arguing against points of view your opponent does not hold. I suggest you go back over my previous posts and review them, or brush up on your literacy. Given your tendency to make spelling errors, I'd suggest the latter.
You agreed that arguing in favor of a particular course of action did not involve duress or coercion. It therefore logically follows that urging a person to do something does not constitute coercion. It would behoove you to think your arguments through to their logical conclusion before spouting off.
Your inability to handle any criticism of your political ideology, while liberally (heh) belittling others is quite damning. But never mind, you go run off to your little liberal mates and get me in trouble. I guess you need to accommodate for your failings somehow.
And you're *still* trying to rattle my chain, even after I graciously let you have the final say in that thread. What's with your burning desire to continually obsess over old history? Was your ego that wounded by the sound spanking I administered to you in that thread that you have to have the third, fourth, and fifth 'last word'? It's quite telling that you live in a cloistered, sanitized environment when you can't even get over being exposed as a charlatan by some stranger on the internet.
And yet you seek me out whenever I express right-wing views, being sure to insert a jab about my personal life or right-wingers. What a big alpha male you are, getting your kicks from sassing off strangers on the internet and then scuttling off to your moderator buddies when you're exposed as a hypocrite. Oooh, I'm trembling. Your mother must be real proud.
That's ironic, coming from an individual who sent me a number of PM's snidely accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Oh, what's wrong, is the big bad administrator scared of a poster whose IP can't be traced? Aww, poor baby.
Oh, not at all. That you have some sort of vendetta against me is reflective of your own insecure personality. After all, I'm not the first person you've targeted for harassment, am I? Common denominator and all that.
tali89:
Are we having fun yet?
I'm having a quiet chuckle to myself, complete with ironic smirk, about your "literacy" comment now.
Where did you learn to spell, by the way? It wasn't at some kind of Institution for Liberal Arts, I hope.
You keep talking about my political ideology like you know something about it. Why is that?
You can't save yourself by bluffing and blustering about that thread, tali89. The link is just up above for anybody who wants to read it. You can stop digging now if you like. Your best bet is to hope the thread rapidly sinks down the thread list, never to be seen again (except when I rib you about it the next time you go off on one of your silly rants about men's rights).
The history isn't very old, though I'm sure you're doing your best to forget it. Your last post to that thread was less than 2 days ago.
Your claim that you aren't a sock puppet is as believable as your claim that you are a woman - i.e. zero credibility.
Are we having fun yet?
Here's a life tip for you. Take time to reflect on things that are new to you. There might be something worthwhile to learn from them.
Yes I did. Probably you just skimmed the post and didn't understand the point I was making. It's only a few posts above this one.
Is that how you see all discussions - as arguments between "opponents"? You have overlooked the fact that my initial post on this particular matter of debate was not addressed to you and did not mention you by name. I merely gave my opinion on the general trend of a discussion that had been going on mainly between Bells and Capracus. You were peripheral until you decided to stick your head up and demand to be noticed.
Read your posts again? Are you kidding? Once is bad enough!
I'm having a quiet chuckle to myself, complete with ironic smirk, about your "literacy" comment now.
Where did you learn to spell, by the way? It wasn't at some kind of Institution for Liberal Arts, I hope.
Walk me through your logic.
Behoove is a good word. I like it.
Another life tip: you need to take responsibility for your own actions rather than blaming other people for the outcomes.
You keep talking about my political ideology like you know something about it. Why is that?
Hehe.
You can't save yourself by bluffing and blustering about that thread, tali89. The link is just up above for anybody who wants to read it. You can stop digging now if you like. Your best bet is to hope the thread rapidly sinks down the thread list, never to be seen again (except when I rib you about it the next time you go off on one of your silly rants about men's rights).
The history isn't very old, though I'm sure you're doing your best to forget it. Your last post to that thread was less than 2 days ago.
It sounds like you're a bit upset underneath all the tough bravado, tali89. You're not going to cry are you?
There was nothing snide about it. I straight out asked you if you were a sock puppet. You denied everything. And yet, you know and I know that you were here under another name before tali89. Oh, and do you think your IP addresses are untraceable? Do you think they anonymise you?
Your claim that you aren't a sock puppet is as believable as your claim that you are a woman - i.e. zero credibility.
Last edited:
Oh, I'm all for learning new things. However, I'm also for focusing on what is being discussed. Inserting irrelevancies into a discussion only muddies the waters. I used to think that you did so on purpose in order to obfuscate the issue, but now I'm starting to think I gave you too much credit. Perhaps you are just incapable of staying on topic.
No. But when a participant in the discussion attempts to ambush me with petty nitpicks, personal attacks, red herrings and strawman arguments, I'm not exactly endeared to them. If you worked on your bad attitude and narcissism, and stopped behaving so defensively when your world beliefs are questioned, then you might get a better reception.
Ahh, so I 'demanded to be noticed' (by you of all people) by observing that Capracus had said nothing outrageous. Is an innocent comment by a stranger on a web forum all it takes for you to lay into somebody? One wonders how you survive in the real world when you are this thin-skinned on a discussion forum.
I know! Confining yourself to that left-wing echo chamber is nice and comfy, isn't it? Sort of like an unborn baby in the womb, which squalls when it's forced out of its comfort zone into harsh reality.
I learnt English in primary school. I guess you must have slept through those classes. I guess it's a good thing that literacy isn't a requirement in... whatever it is you do.
You'd need to hobble, from what I've seen.
I picked that up in 5th grade. No liberal arts indoctrination required.
It's truly comforting to know that my crying face is in your mind. No, you're not obsessed at all.
Along with a number of flip rejoinders. Or should I post a screenshot of that PM, so that we can dispel yet another of your lies?
Ahh yes, I remember when you requested evidence of my gender on another thread. Who's paranoid, again? For someone who claims to hold me in so little regard, I appear to be living in your head rent-free.
tali89:
I have no problem with you making an innocent error. It was corrected, so now you can move on. It's ok.
Speaking of laying into somebody, you still haven't addressed how I managed to stalk you and follow you into this thread and still arrive a full week before you made your first post here. In fact, I'd like you to apologise to me for making that accusation. Will you do that?
Come on, tali89. Let's see some honesty and personal integrity from you. It would be a refreshing change. Instead of ignoring these inconvenient points that keep catching you out, own up to your errors and take control of your feelings, as you urge all men to do. Show us all that you understand what is fair and honest and decent - if you have it in you.
The problem you have, tali89, is that I see through your bluff and bluster. You can't fool me with your evasions and your attempts to hide from points that tell against your position. I will catch you out every time, bad English or no.
Are you familiar with normal human emotions, tali89, or only the extremes like hate and obsession?
If you have ongoing issues about something that came up in a private exchange between us (and I think we've probably only had the one brief one when you first returned here after your previous permanent ban, apart from possible communications to do with official warnings you may have received from time to time) then you can take up the matter privately with me and we can see if we can work through your issues.
Whether or not I made any "flip rejoinders" in an ancient private message to you is certainly irrelevant to the topic of this thread, apart from anything else.
I will thank you not to accuse me of telling lies in the public forums unless you can back up your accusations with posts of mine from the public forums. In fact, I would like an apology from you for making such an unfounded accusation. Will you apologise to me? That makes two apologies you owe me. Can you bring yourself to make either one?
The discussion was about the appropriateness or otherwise of "urging" a woman to have an abortion. When I commented on the distinction between giving information, advising and urging (something I picked up during my appallingly bad literacy training, hehe) I was commenting directly on what was being discussed. I'm not sure what kind of planet you're on.
And here you are - On-topic Man of the Year - discussing in post after post ... what? Yourself? Me? Evil liberals? In a thread about "Is Abortion Murder?" People in glass houses and all that.
Did you learn what irony is in primary school, too?
You were wrong that Capracus said nothing outrageous. This point has been patiently explained to you by at least two people, several times.
I have no problem with you making an innocent error. It was corrected, so now you can move on. It's ok.
Speaking of laying into somebody, you still haven't addressed how I managed to stalk you and follow you into this thread and still arrive a full week before you made your first post here. In fact, I'd like you to apologise to me for making that accusation. Will you do that?
Come on, tali89. Let's see some honesty and personal integrity from you. It would be a refreshing change. Instead of ignoring these inconvenient points that keep catching you out, own up to your errors and take control of your feelings, as you urge all men to do. Show us all that you understand what is fair and honest and decent - if you have it in you.
What makes you think that?
What makes you think that?
You know, this was the one substantive on-topic point that you responded to with your last post. And what was your response? To dismiss out of hand my request that you support the claim that you made.tali89 said:
The problem you have, tali89, is that I see through your bluff and bluster. You can't fool me with your evasions and your attempts to hide from points that tell against your position. I will catch you out every time, bad English or no.
Good for you! Pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
It is called compassion, tali89, not obsession. When a normal human being sees another human being in distress, they often feel some empathy. I was worried that my nasty words cut too close to the bone, so I expressed a normal human concern for your welfare.
Are you familiar with normal human emotions, tali89, or only the extremes like hate and obsession?
Let me be clear: you do not have my permission to publically post any private communications that I sent to you.
If you have ongoing issues about something that came up in a private exchange between us (and I think we've probably only had the one brief one when you first returned here after your previous permanent ban, apart from possible communications to do with official warnings you may have received from time to time) then you can take up the matter privately with me and we can see if we can work through your issues.
Whether or not I made any "flip rejoinders" in an ancient private message to you is certainly irrelevant to the topic of this thread, apart from anything else.
I will thank you not to accuse me of telling lies in the public forums unless you can back up your accusations with posts of mine from the public forums. In fact, I would like an apology from you for making such an unfounded accusation. Will you apologise to me? That makes two apologies you owe me. Can you bring yourself to make either one?
I don't. It probably didn't happen.
I don't think you know what "paranoid" means. Maybe they didn't teach that to you in grade 5.
i think you have delusions of grandeur no one is obsessed with you. just because your rants and raves happen to take place on threads that interest the same people doesn't mean people are following you. I know you like the thought of that to stroke your insecure ego but quite frankly i'm pretty sure most of us would be happy if you disappear. you add nothing but rants against liberals and personal attacks.
I invented nothing. From the Tiassa Dry Foot Policy:
An organism existing inside the body of a person is that person’s jurisdiction.
To assert that what takes place in a woman’s body is her own business.
When a fertilized egg grows into a functioning human being that can exist without umbilical attachment.
Distinguish the fetus in the womb from the person in the world.
Distinguish a fetus in the womb form a person outside of it.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/redux-rape-abortion-and-personhood.124255/page-48#post-3157656
How is my above interpretation in conflict with the points contained in the Tiassa Dry Foot Policy?Capracus said:
If what takes place inside the body of a woman during pregnancy is her jurisdiction, how can the state sanction her and abortion providers if they attempt to unjustifiably harm a fetus during the latter stages of pregnancy? The same court ruling that granted limited rights to woman regarding abortion, also gave limited rights to the fetus.
Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html
The Tiassa Dry Foot Policy is incompatible with this reality.
But as I demonstrated above, we know in reality that a woman does not have complete rights over her body or the fetus she carries throughout pregnancy. And it’s these statutory realities that help prevent the perverted nightmares that would be legitimized by the Tiassa Dry Foot Policy.
I believe my state’s limit of 24 weeks is in line with my conception of a qualified fetus. Although potentially viable at 21 weeks, I would consider a threshold of around 24 weeks more suitable in regards to neurologic development. And considering my daughter’s stated desire to forgo pregnancy, I would urge her to proceed.
My criteria for advising a woman on any matter are based on my knowledge of their personal circumstance and preference. And for you to assert this unfounded assumption that I would advise a woman to seek an abortion without such due consideration is thoughtless and irresponsible.
Show me where the Tiassa Dry Foot Policy contradicts itself by denying the mother the right to unconditionally terminate the life of a late term fetus? Because if it did, it would nullify its core premise that a woman has sole control over her body and the fetus contained therein.
I never suggested in my fantasy illustration that a fetus be stuffed into a vagina, that version was added by you for your own twisted enjoyment.
I’ve clearly stated that my illustration was to make a point about reality, not be a representation of it. The Tiassa Dry Foot Policy is intended to become reality, even though reality refuses to accommodate it.
Except that the bounds of reality do not afford a woman sole jurisdiction over the fetus while it remains in her body, or solely rely on trusting a woman to provide for the protection of a late term fetus. And because the Tiassa Dry Foot Policy is not a reality, women are not free to unconditionally abort late term.
That fact that you do not acknowledge my obligation as her father and trusted adviser to assess her situation and advise her accordingly is disturbing.
Are you so inept as a confidant that your children cannot trust your counsel?
My daughter’s feelings on the issue, one way or another, would always be taken into consideration, and to automatically assume otherwise is just grossly inconsiderate on your part.
Unbiased opinion? Are you suggesting that doctors opinions aren’t driven by personal or professional bias? My daughter’s GP was originally reluctant to prescribe an IUD until I armed my daughter with an article documenting its current efficacy. Why would you assume that the advice of an informed parent would have no value? Ultimately the final choice in the matter would be hers, but you don’t reach the point of choice without first considering trusted advice. I’m amazed that this needs to be explained to you.
In the future, please spare me your useless prescriptions.
And after laying out the choices for you daughter, she says:
Mom, considering all that you have just told me, what would you do in my situation?
Bells: Dear, I’m not allowed to offer you the benefit of any wisdom or experience I may have on the subject, but here, take this Ouija board, I’ve found it very useful in times of confusion.
What if she wanted to continue the pregnancy and she was physically or psychologically unfit to be a mother? Could you live with the potential downsides of that?
Son: Mom, I want to have sex with my brother.
Bells: Here’s a box of condoms and some lube.
Son: Mom, I want to gun down all my classmates.
Bells: Here, take my AR-15 and this drum magazine.
Son: Mom, I want to get my girlfriend pregnant and ritually sacrifice the baby.
Bells: We‘ll be sure to have an alter ready in the backyard by the time the baby arrives.
Couldn’t ask for a better parenting strategy.
logical fallacy. that makes no sense.
being urged to make a decision by someone (for whatever reason) is a far cry from being informed about the choices of a decision. even twins do not share the exact same life as the other twin, so even in that case, it is still a matter of trying to shove an opinion onto another
So you don't believe in giving another person freedom of choice...
the point is: you are making those judgements based upon your interpretations of what is going on in their life - and your influence can be the tipping point because of the parental authority figure status. that makes you someone who is judgmental and opinionated and considers their own opinion and critical thinking skills, judgement and experience to be superior to anyone else's, doesn't it? basically you are saying: your daughter is an idiot and can't think for herself and make good decisions?
what?
why? why not simply "educate" him and allow him to make his own decisions?
why? why not simply "educate" him and allow him to make his own decisions?
why? why not simply "educate" him and allow them to make their own decisions?
so... no one you know is capable of making educated choices?
my point about that still stands... you say
but this is based solely upon your own personal life choices and your own experiences. you do not have the exact same experiences that everyone else has, nor do you have the ability to make moral choices for another, even a twin, because not everyone has the same thought process
my questions about all this would be: Why must you now run other lives? is it to make up for the poor decisions you made? Why do you think you are a better judge of a situation than anyone else? why do you think that his[her] beliefs and lifestyle need to be changed [daughter/son]?
Why do you think your spouse is such a poor judge of a situation, especially their own body?
what it appears to some people is this: you are trying to shove your opinion onto others and, even though you claim the decision is ultimately theirs, you are making sure that your perspective is well heard and noticed - why? Why is that so important to you? is it something to do with your need to be noticed? why do you think that your morality actually matters in the choices someone else has to make? do you think that they are not responsible enough to live with the decision? even given that they aren't responsible enough, why do you think that this makes you responsible?
get that point yet?
1- i am not a left wing anything
2- i am not appalled that some idiot would try to run someone elses life and pontificate about morality and judgement making the assumption that said daughter is incapable of making a good decision about their life
3- just because you are politically or religious motivated, doesn't mean others are. also note, about that: you apparently scorn other opinions as well as consider anyone who questions your judgement morally bankrupt, apparently.
My point is : what makes you a better judge to make decisions about anothers life when you did not live and experience the exact same things? (and let me assure you- you do
4- liberalism is not a pathological cancer. Change is inevitable, and Liberalism is simply another perspective on life. Tell me: why do you fear change and the different perspectives from people who experience things you cannot imagine? that is essentially what you are saying when you call "liberalism" a cancer...
IMHO- what you are saying is:
that the right to live an independent life free of forced decisions is not good for anyone, and everyone should be grateful for the structure and organization and mental superiority that you bring and believe in, and that people should mimic one another and not allow change or alterations from the status quo.
you seem to support allowing a select few to make decisions because of their moral superiority. No one has the right to make a decision that does not comply with, support or fit into your personal world view, and you know best how to run other people's lives, regardless of their experience, because you have an ability to make better decisions than others.
wait... so, if anyone raises a kid to be responsible and make their own decisions, and makes them take responsibility for those decisions, they are raising degenerates?
why?
how is it "raising a degenerate" when i don't force my opinions onto a fragile youth because i want them to make their own life choices? how is it "raising a degenerate" when my children are responsible for their own choices and make decisions based upon logic, research, and as much information as they can get?
so... because i choose to educate with facts and not promote my analogous life story, which, by the way, is subjective and based upon a set of circumstances that may or may not be similar to their own circumstances, then i am "raising a degenerate"????
WTF?
really?
so... any life choices or lifestyle that doesn't comply with your perspective is not worth living and degenerate? would you call Einstein degenerate? how about R. Feynman?
Ghandi? Dalai Lama?
better yet: how about the biblical jesus? (because i can guarantee that, even if you are a supposed devout xtian, you do not follow biblical teachings or law)
Considering this quote you gave James R...
you should also take this to heart... you are spewing political rhetoric like a true believer, and being condescending to boot
goose/gander : take it or leave it
how, exactly, does one make the leap from the following
and get to
so, what you are saying is that no child can make a logical deduction or decision based upon the evidence????
one of the key reasons of making a child/teen (or even underling) make a decision is to teach responsibility.
perhaps it is telling more about your character than you think that you would make such a delusional leap into extremist stupidity and assume there is a logical connection?
IMHO - it is flat out trolling and baiting
i guess, taking the same tactic, you can say that Capracus believes in the magical endowment of logic, reason and responsibility upon the age of adulthood, right?
i guess (s)he believes you can't learn anything by being given the opportunity to make decisions (or mistakes) and anyone who gets said opportunity is going to be a mass-murdering sociopathic serial killer with sexual deviant lifestyles!!!!
what logic! what reasoning skills! i must let the researchers know about this one! perhaps there is a Nobel in it for Capracus!
[intentional satirical hyperbole]
[highlights specifically to point out your WTF leap]
and get to
so, what you are saying is that no child can make a logical deduction or decision based upon the evidence????
one of the key reasons of making a child/teen (or even underling) make a decision is to teach responsibility.
perhaps it is telling more about your character than you think that you would make such a delusional leap into extremist stupidity and assume there is a logical connection?
IMHO - it is flat out trolling and baiting
i guess, taking the same tactic, you can say that Capracus believes in the magical endowment of logic, reason and responsibility upon the age of adulthood, right?
i guess (s)he believes you can't learn anything by being given the opportunity to make decisions (or mistakes) and anyone who gets said opportunity is going to be a mass-murdering sociopathic serial killer with sexual deviant lifestyles!!!!
what logic! what reasoning skills! i must let the researchers know about this one! perhaps there is a Nobel in it for Capracus!
[intentional satirical hyperbole]
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Yes. In some relationships, some have a lot more power and say over the other, especially in a parent/child relationship and that may put pressure on the child to do as the parent suggests, even if it goes against what they personally believe or in this instance, his daughter might want to keep going with the pregnancy, but may feel pressured to abort to please her parent(s). In that sense, the daughter is not aborting because she wants to, but really because he parents want her to or feel that she should.
Not at all.
And you are still failing to answer the question.
In what circumstance would you "urge" your daughter to not abort?
And urging someone that they should abort, means that the individual may want to keep it, and have to be urged otherwise, which falls smack bang into being pro-abortion.
Because she may feel pressured to do as he wants to her to do, because he is her father and depending on the closeness of their relationship, she might be doing it for him than for her.
While he might not be strapping down on the abortion table, if she is feeling pressured, then he may as well strap her down to the table, because she isn't making a free choice, she is feeling pressured and "urged" to make a choice that will please him as her parent.
That depends, again, on their relationships and if he puts any conditions when "urging" her to abort. Such as refusing to help her or support her if she does not do as he says she should. Or telling her that she will be on her own if she has it, for example. Or express great disappointment if she says she wants to have the baby. He isn't a complete stranger, sitting next to her on the bus giving his opinion. He is her father and obviously has a lot of influence over her life and her choices.
Frankly, I do not understand why someone would argue with a pregnant woman to have an abortion in the first place. That is entirely her choice and her decision and she should make it without outside influence trying to sway her either way.
Abortion has its place for women who need it or desire to have one.
What should not enter the fray are people who then go out of their way to urge people to have them if they do not want them.
You have difficulty in allowing women to have a free choice about what happens inside their body and you feel that men should have a say over it. We get it.
The fact that you are likening it to putting on a condom says enough.
Bells
Staff member
You do realise that none of this supports your contention, right?
QUOTE="Capracus, post: 3324786, member: 268088"]How is my above interpretation in conflict with the points contained in the Tiassa Dry Foot Policy?
If what takes place inside the body of a woman during pregnancy is her jurisdiction, how can the state sanction her and abortion providers if they attempt to unjustifiably harm a fetus during the latter stages of pregnancy? The same court ruling that granted limited rights to woman regarding abortion, also gave limited rights to the fetus.
Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html
The Tiassa Dry Foot Policy is incompatible with this reality.[/QUOTE]
Now, apply this in a real world context and what women do and what doctors do and when they start refusing to perform abortions in the third trimester. And then, ooooh, I don't know, read what he actually says. For example:
Now, explain to me why you are still carrying on with a misrepresentation of his "dry foot" policy that apparently, in your opinion, would allow women to shove their baby back up their vaginas so they could abort it.
Well, you demonstrated that you feel you should have rights over your daughter's body and choices by declaring you would "urge" her to abort.
The point of the dry foot policy, which you clearly do not understand and now we know why you are incapable of understanding it, is that while the woman is pregnant, her decisions and her choices are her business.
Whatever decision she makes should be between her and her doctor and the State should butt out, as should her father.
I don't quite know how to make this any simpler.
Or you could butt out and mind your own business and let her decide what is right for her.
What your conception of a qualified foetus is is really beside the point. That would be her choice and you have no right to apply your personal standards or beliefs on abortion on other people.
Yep. And if she finds herself pregnant and wants to keep it, in short, she changes her mind from what her free spirited views are now, what then? You would urge her to abort because she had previously said she didn't want to have children?
Or would you ask her what she wanted to do, and if she said she wanted to keep it, tell her you'd be there no matter what?
Because for all of your talk of how you would urge her to abort, you are yet to say what you would do if she said she was pregnant and wanted to keep it. Is that when you would urge her to abort? Or would you respect her decision and mind your own business and simply be there for her to help her regardless?
He didn't contradict himself. He just contradicted your sick fantasies.
How about here, where he clearly states when late term abortions happen - a) medically necessary or b) when the doctor is unscrupulous and who should not be practicising medicine..
You know, real world scenarios.
Because women do not wait until they are 35 weeks to change their minds.
And look, more real life applications of the dry foot policy, arguing from a realistic standpoint instead of a hyped up horror story you keep dreaming up:
Let's see what you said when you first introduced your turducken argument:
I'm sorry, your analogy was to "stuff [it] back into the womb".. After reattaching the umbilical cord.
Apparently we can simply bypass the vagina in the process..
But then you went further.. Well, explained what you meant, because apparently this was more acceptable....
At what point were you making a "point about reality"?
Bells
Staff member
The point is women should be the ones to decide and that decision should be made after consulting her doctor. It is no one else's business.
My obligation as a parent is to support my children in what they decide to do. And no, I would never urge them or urge anyone to have an abortion. Ever. I would offer them my support regardless of what they choose to do. I wouldn't even give them my opinion about what I feel they should do in such a case. My role, in something like that, is to be there for them no matter what, without judgement and without offering my opinion either way.
Perhaps, where you are from, this is bad parenting and you feel that makes me "inept" as a parent and so be it. That is your opinion.
Some can be and some are not.
I think if someone is feeling pressured to do something they are unsure of, they should always seek the opinion of another health professional.
My role as a parent is to provide them with all the information there is, both pros and cons so that they can decide for themselves. If I had a daughter who told me she was pregnant, my first point of call would be to ask her how she is and how she is with it and what she wants to do. If she says she does not know and asks me what I would do, I would tell her that I would do what is right for me and that she needs to do what is right for her, then I would suggest she speaks to her doctor and firstly, make sure she is okay and that it isn't an ectopic pregnancy. And I would reassure her that no matter what, I would support her. My opinion on what she does is mine and mine alone. I would never try to influence a woman or urge her to abort or not abort. Not even my own daughter. In fact, especially not my daughter. I would be her sounding board, I would listen and take it all in. I would sit with her and make a pros and cons list for whatever she chooses, if that is what she wants. But I would never ever try to influence her either way. Because pregnancy is one of the most personal experiences for a woman and whether she keeps it or not should be her decision and hers alone, without feeling pressured from any quarter.
I would suggest you also spare us the IUD issues your daughter has. I am sure she doesn't need or want complete strangers knowing all her intimate decisions online.
Sorry dude. I'd be a parent and not a dick trying to sway her either way.
Yes.
Because it would still be her decision. I would be with her to help her every step of the way. You know, I'd be a parent.
And speaking of being a dick:
I can say with absolute certainty.. You are sick and perverted and exceptionally offensive.
And after that little spiel there, you are just proving my point as to why you are ultimately the last person who should be urging anyone to abort.
They are illegal in the U.S. From what I've read, it has an advantage of causing less risk to the mother. However, the information I found on the procedure was a bit sketchy (not very clear).
The ... (ahem!) "Cycle"
Click for something less depressing: See note below.
One of the interesting things I've noticed about this aspect of the discussion, and chief among them is the question of how much people need a point spelled out for them individually compared to whether or not they pay any attention to what they are criticizing. To wit, from a thread Caparcus participated in, but a post he never responded to, though perhaps because it specifically addressed someone else↗:
From the Turducken thread↗:
That point was reiterated a couple days later↗, and again some days later↗.
Capracus might have seen these posts, but we don't know because they addressed to other people. And it's worth noting that by the time the point was repeated to him specifically↗, it came in a condensed form:
And those statements are found without searching for the words dryfoot or dry-foot; indeed, given the number of times we run through this cycle over the years―remember when the proposition was a last-second revenge abortion because she thought the boyfriend cheated?―one really does start to wonder whether insistent, inaccurate critiques like Capracus offers are a matter of dishonesty ill-conceived and poorly-calculated, or the sort of ignorance that results from trying to criticize something one is unfamiliar with.
There is a lot about dryfoot posted over the years, and every time this comes up the question is whether to try anew or simply reiterate the record.
I suppose the bottom line is that every time it comes up, the anti-abortion activists act as if there is no record on these points. It's a weird phenomenon. To the other, how much effort should I put into a survey of the actual term at Sciforums? At what point in all of this would it become apparent that Capracus' current iteration of this question has nothing to do with the actual facts on record; the only question is whether this is chosen behavior or our neighbor is unable to help himself. To wit, I don't see that he ever addressed the matter of law post directly, but he did manage to come back to the Kermit Gosnell point the same day↗.
In the end, our neighbor is cornering himself such that there really is no good route out. As it is, he either somehow has no clue what he's on about, or actually does and is wilfully calculating this self-denigrating performance.
____________________
Notes:
A Note on the image: "Actually, I'm already a woman" ― Suou receives advice on womanhood from Lebanon, a transvestite (left), lets Mao in on the secret as they walk with July (center), and receives a backhand from Hei for a work-related failure (right). A breathtaking sequence, Suou realizes she is not actually ill but, rather, menarchal, in a touchingly absurd scene in which she receives advice on womanhood from a gruff-voiced, poorly-shaven transvestite. Walking with Mao and July, she explains to the momonga that she is, in fact, "already a woman", and then is struck in the face, knocked back onto a heart-shaped bed in a defunct, romantic-themed love hotel. The timing is exquisite, the metaphor blatant, and effect nearly shocking. That is to say, everything is hilariously "cute", and then comes the smack in the face. For writers, director, and animators, the only problem with celebrating this sequence is the subject matter of the metaphor itself. (Composite details of frames from Darker Than Black: Gemini of the Meteor, episode 4, "The Ark Adrift on the Lake".)
Click for something less depressing: See note below.
Bells said:
One of the interesting things I've noticed about this aspect of the discussion, and chief among them is the question of how much people need a point spelled out for them individually compared to whether or not they pay any attention to what they are criticizing. To wit, from a thread Caparcus participated in, but a post he never responded to, though perhaps because it specifically addressed someone else↗:
There are two people involved in elective abortions that I necessarily trust.
The first is a pregnant woman. While it is true that women are human, and humans imperfect, legislatures and voters often presume that having two X chromosomes means one is inherently stupid. Listen to those who defend state-mandated ultrasounds; they're trying to help women make responsible decisions? Hey, women are doing okay on their own; they haven't wrecked the species, yet, and in truth I don't think they've done nearly as much damage as men. So, you know, let us not imitate those among our Republican and Christian neighbors presuming women inherently incompetent to make decisions about what takes place in her body.
The second is a doctor. While it is true that people like Kermit Gosnell exist, that will be true regardless of what laws we pass. But the question of, say, if an "infant's feet is even a little bit wet" (then again, "Who has made such an argument"?) is a delusional fantasy. As Bells has noted, everything gets even more complicated around thirty-three weeks; if a woman requests a nonmedically indicated abortion that late in gestation, any responsible doctor is going to explain the problems with that. You can probably find a doctor who will do it, and do it well, but the vast majority of doctors who perform abortions would hedge, regardless of abortion politics, on the question of whether it is ethical to do that to a pregnant female patient. We're talking about a major procedure that is pointless compared to the obvious alternative.
The actuarial considerations alone suggest that even in the coldest context, doctors have more reasons to not perform elective abortions in the latest stages of gestations, and those are based on considering the health of the pregnant female patient. Hospitals have every reason to want doctors to follow their ethical noses on this one, and insurance companies have every incentive to demand such outcomes.
Dry-foot, to me, is an abstract rhetorical proposition resulting from the fact that it's not my rights being bargained away in restricting abortion.
The first is a pregnant woman. While it is true that women are human, and humans imperfect, legislatures and voters often presume that having two X chromosomes means one is inherently stupid. Listen to those who defend state-mandated ultrasounds; they're trying to help women make responsible decisions? Hey, women are doing okay on their own; they haven't wrecked the species, yet, and in truth I don't think they've done nearly as much damage as men. So, you know, let us not imitate those among our Republican and Christian neighbors presuming women inherently incompetent to make decisions about what takes place in her body.
The second is a doctor. While it is true that people like Kermit Gosnell exist, that will be true regardless of what laws we pass. But the question of, say, if an "infant's feet is even a little bit wet" (then again, "Who has made such an argument"?) is a delusional fantasy. As Bells has noted, everything gets even more complicated around thirty-three weeks; if a woman requests a nonmedically indicated abortion that late in gestation, any responsible doctor is going to explain the problems with that. You can probably find a doctor who will do it, and do it well, but the vast majority of doctors who perform abortions would hedge, regardless of abortion politics, on the question of whether it is ethical to do that to a pregnant female patient. We're talking about a major procedure that is pointless compared to the obvious alternative.
The actuarial considerations alone suggest that even in the coldest context, doctors have more reasons to not perform elective abortions in the latest stages of gestations, and those are based on considering the health of the pregnant female patient. Hospitals have every reason to want doctors to follow their ethical noses on this one, and insurance companies have every incentive to demand such outcomes.
Dry-foot, to me, is an abstract rhetorical proposition resulting from the fact that it's not my rights being bargained away in restricting abortion.
From the Turducken thread↗:
It's kind of like the rape fantasies spun by infinite protection advocates, or gay sex fantasies devised by paranoid homophobes. The seem to have a much sexier—albeit dirtier—idea of what sex is like among their neighbors than those of us who really don't give a damn how the neighbors fuck.
If you revisit the annals of anti-abortion advocacy, you'll find all sorts of twisted inquiries. You know, what if a woman decides to have an abortion after the baby leaves her body but before the umbilical cord is cut in order to take revenge against a boyfriend she thinks cheated on her? That sort of thing. And it really does occur to one to wonder how another might come to that question. I mean, really, what kind of doctor would actually do that? Well, we have an idea, because it seems Kermit Gosnell was perfectly willing to kill children after they emerged from the womb.
They get one every few years. Indeed, if we held "Christianity" to the same standard, what would we say of the steady, low-key barrage of arson and terrorism that occasionally peaks in a murder? We can no more imagine that deviant bloodlust to be representative of Christianity than a Kermit Gosnell would represent doctors who perform abortions. Certainly, such terrorism is becoming more prominently recognized as part of the anti-abortion movement specifically, but that transference to Christianity in general would be inappropriate.
If you revisit the annals of anti-abortion advocacy, you'll find all sorts of twisted inquiries. You know, what if a woman decides to have an abortion after the baby leaves her body but before the umbilical cord is cut in order to take revenge against a boyfriend she thinks cheated on her? That sort of thing. And it really does occur to one to wonder how another might come to that question. I mean, really, what kind of doctor would actually do that? Well, we have an idea, because it seems Kermit Gosnell was perfectly willing to kill children after they emerged from the womb.
They get one every few years. Indeed, if we held "Christianity" to the same standard, what would we say of the steady, low-key barrage of arson and terrorism that occasionally peaks in a murder? We can no more imagine that deviant bloodlust to be representative of Christianity than a Kermit Gosnell would represent doctors who perform abortions. Certainly, such terrorism is becoming more prominently recognized as part of the anti-abortion movement specifically, but that transference to Christianity in general would be inappropriate.
That point was reiterated a couple days later↗, and again some days later↗.
Capracus might have seen these posts, but we don't know because they addressed to other people. And it's worth noting that by the time the point was repeated to him specifically↗, it came in a condensed form:
Capracus said:
As a matter of law, yes. I'm not sure what your point is. Even in the days of coathangers and back-alley potions, women weren't waiting until week thirty-five to have their underground abortions unless some specific circumstance compelled it.
I mean, to the one, sure, it would be just as illegal. To the other, that's almost a straw man, as Kermit Gosnell demonstrated; as much as some would have society believe his practice is par for the course, he is an extreme deviation.
I mean, to the one, sure, it would be just as illegal. To the other, that's almost a straw man, as Kermit Gosnell demonstrated; as much as some would have society believe his practice is par for the course, he is an extreme deviation.
And those statements are found without searching for the words dryfoot or dry-foot; indeed, given the number of times we run through this cycle over the years―remember when the proposition was a last-second revenge abortion because she thought the boyfriend cheated?―one really does start to wonder whether insistent, inaccurate critiques like Capracus offers are a matter of dishonesty ill-conceived and poorly-calculated, or the sort of ignorance that results from trying to criticize something one is unfamiliar with.
There is a lot about dryfoot posted over the years, and every time this comes up the question is whether to try anew or simply reiterate the record.
I suppose the bottom line is that every time it comes up, the anti-abortion activists act as if there is no record on these points. It's a weird phenomenon. To the other, how much effort should I put into a survey of the actual term at Sciforums? At what point in all of this would it become apparent that Capracus' current iteration of this question has nothing to do with the actual facts on record; the only question is whether this is chosen behavior or our neighbor is unable to help himself. To wit, I don't see that he ever addressed the matter of law post directly, but he did manage to come back to the Kermit Gosnell point the same day↗.
In the end, our neighbor is cornering himself such that there really is no good route out. As it is, he either somehow has no clue what he's on about, or actually does and is wilfully calculating this self-denigrating performance.
____________________
Notes:
A Note on the image: "Actually, I'm already a woman" ― Suou receives advice on womanhood from Lebanon, a transvestite (left), lets Mao in on the secret as they walk with July (center), and receives a backhand from Hei for a work-related failure (right). A breathtaking sequence, Suou realizes she is not actually ill but, rather, menarchal, in a touchingly absurd scene in which she receives advice on womanhood from a gruff-voiced, poorly-shaven transvestite. Walking with Mao and July, she explains to the momonga that she is, in fact, "already a woman", and then is struck in the face, knocked back onto a heart-shaped bed in a defunct, romantic-themed love hotel. The timing is exquisite, the metaphor blatant, and effect nearly shocking. That is to say, everything is hilariously "cute", and then comes the smack in the face. For writers, director, and animators, the only problem with celebrating this sequence is the subject matter of the metaphor itself. (Composite details of frames from Darker Than Black: Gemini of the Meteor, episode 4, "The Ark Adrift on the Lake".)