'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

[Asguard]

Bells, just because you dissagree doesn't nessaraly mean that the whole State is weird. SA has a tradition of being ahead of the curve with regard to rights. First to give women the vote and always gave aboriginals the right to vote. Now sure you think its wrong that partners should have ansay over your partners body but you do even now. If your partner divorces you, you have a claim on the fruits of his body, his super (and he has a claim on yours) further more if he dies its you and not him who decides if he should be an organ doner and what should happen to his body. Its hardly a massive leap to suggest that there are other areas where partners would have an interest in the others body. We arnt talking about one night stands here but rather married and defacto couples who already have claim on the the property of the other partner

 

[Big Chiller]

no baby is being killed. its only a baby after it is born.

I agree it was because I quoted it from silentli89 but a fetus is a human in the process while it's in the uterus.

 

[Tiassa]

Wow ....

She could easily give birth via C-section or even a natural birth at 12.

I need to nominate that as one of the strangest arguments we're going to hear all year.

C-section recovery time is longer. A twelve year-old suffering postpartum depression is a terrifying thought. Natural childbirth can result in permanent bodily damage even in adult women, including damage to the perineum; sometimes the perineum is deliberately cut in order to ease the birth. Stitches in one's vagina and rectum just doesn't sound fun; I know of no adult women who are anxious to repeat an episiotomy, and here you are suggesting easy childbirth by a child.

The proposition that a twelve year-old could "easily give birth" is exceptionally dubious. And the next time you have a chance, ask a surgeon about what a C-section would do to a twelve year-old.

 

[Asguard]

thats ridiculas, even with a c-section the mortality rate would be huge, and in order to avoid this the child would be delivered massivily premmie which would have significant implications for the child. Personally id rather be aborted

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You did provide a link earlier about funding didn't you?

gawd we have been through this before

If you have state legislated abortion clinics it is technically impossible to argue that persons receiving the services independent from the state


Living in a separate country, not really.

But even if I were, again this vox populi argument of yours is pretty weird.

I mean how does a majority (or for that matter, even a minority) support for an idea make the act more ethically sound?


Regardless you find yourself as dependent so you might as well quit pretending you are independent as some qualifier to tread on the rights of those who are dependent on you




Err - the analogy isn't a suggestion at the inherent racism against black running rife within the pro-abortion camp.

Its a suggestion that just as a black slave was framed in a language of unconsciousness that made them victim to a host of injustices, so are children in the womb

Once again if dependence plays a role in determining whether you have rights or not, practically no one has rights since practically everyone lives in a state of dependence ... which no doubt includes mothers dependent on the services of state legislated abortion clinics


A woman can also survive a back street abortion too, so what the hell are you complaining about, eh?



Can you say it for Gianna Jessen?

Why mention later term abortions at all?
Why should they be a problem in your books?


Whatever figures you dream up, they can only be a subset of the figures estimating the numbers of abortion (unless you can substantiate the double fatalities occurring at a rate greater than 50%)
If it was 10 000 a day, it would still be less than the numbers of aborted children

So far the only reason you have given for a woman being the sole concern in the problem is that she is independent of the child (you have also stated that the child is dependent, but that's not a valid distinction since everyone exists in a state of dependence). The degree that it is necessary or not is the degree that one understands justice issues are primarily about regulating the acts of those one is dependent on .. IOW it depends whether one thinks it is necessary to compound power in those who already have it or whether justice is meant specifically for protecting the weak.



you mean teenagers with FMLTWIA on their mobile?
Or do you mean a particular rabid pro-abortion contributor on sci (but who could have just as easily been referred to as a "crazy bitch" or a "stuck up cow" on account of her bipolar bouts) designated as one in a half-hearted manner amidst a liturgy of her name calling and insults?


Well that was a bad argument for vox populi (complete with an ad hom) being the final last word being final last word in the ethical soundness of an idea, but I asked specifically for a good one.

Does that mean you have given up on this one and want to move on to another?

A link funding what exactly? Legalized abortions take places in clinics that are not subsidized. We have discussed this before as you say and I have shown you the links stating that the majority of abortions conducted are done in PRIVATE CLINICS and not subsidized by the US government. So you're either a liar or remain willfully ignorant. Planned Parenthood for example only receives about $270 million annually from government funded grants. 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester for the individual cost of around $350 which is paid out of pocket. So your notion that women are somehow dependent on your tax payer dollars is nonsense. If you had read post#312 you should have read this:

Only 14% of all abortions are paid for by the state.
And I am so impressed that you show concern for the truth of the issue. You'll find this also relevant:

Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-fre...nding-abortion

LG: I mean how does a majority (or for that matter, even a minority) support for an idea make the act more ethically sound?

You are the one who says its ethically unsound, there are many people who do not think its ethically unsound. You've been arguing with a bunch of people in this thread who obviously do not believe its ethically unsound but a matter of individual choice and circumstances. You are free of course to think it ethically unsound and believe me you'll have our best wishes when you choose to keep your unwanted baby (LOL!)

LG: Regardless you find yourself as dependent so you might as well quit pretending you are independent as some qualifier to tread on the rights of those who are dependent on you

Dependent on whom how? I don't have any children so there is no one dependent on me. Children are a responsibility one chooses to fulfill when and if one chooses to have children. Just ask Sam she has no children and it doesn't seem as if she ever expects to. Same for VI. Bells chose to have children and I may do the same one day. Just because you yelp about dependency doesn't make it true in terms of abortion or childbearing.

Gianna Jessen? If I understand it she is not a zygote.

LG: Why mention later term abortions at all?
Why should they be a problem in your books?

I mentioned later abortions because you were going on about it with Bells and I wanted to inform you that these abortions are rare at best. Only 7% of doctors are even trained to perform late abortion, that's how rare it is.

LG: Whatever figures you dream up, they can only be a subset of the figures estimating the numbers of abortion (unless you can substantiate the double fatalities occurring at a rate greater than 50%)
If it was 10 000 a day, it would still be less than the numbers of aborted children

Unlike yourself I don't have to cook-up reality for it suit my reality there are government and independent agencies keeping stats. But its interesting to me that you don't seem to worry nor do you care about the deaths of women and their unborn fetuses. Really interesting since you seem to pretend you have some extra concern for life. Why don't you have any concern for the number of women who die from illegal unsafe abortions? Why do you treat the living only a side note to the unborn?

Oh yeah I forgot. Their just women. Ha!

LG: So far the only reason you have given for a woman being the sole concern in the problem is that she is independent of the child (you have also stated that the child is dependent, but that's not a valid distinction since everyone exists in a state of dependence). The degree that it is necessary or not is the degree that one understands justice issues are primarily about regulating the acts of those one is dependent on .. IOW it depends whether one thinks it is necessary to compound power in those who already have it or whether justice is meant specifically for protecting the weak.

I never said that. I have always maintained that the fetus is a part of the woman as long as its in utero. The fetus is dependent on the host yes, everyone has existed in that kind of dependence mostly because the host accepted the fetus (either because it did not miscarry or was not aborted). The unborn are neither weak nor strong they are dependent on the weakness and strength of the host. They are dependent on the desires of the host. It has nothing to do with 'justice'.

LG: you mean teenagers with FMLTWIA on their mobile? Or do you mean a particular rabid pro-abortion contributor on sci (but who could have just as easily been referred to as a "crazy bitch" or a "stuck up cow" on account of her bipolar bouts) designated as one in a half-hearted manner amidst a liturgy of her name calling and insults?


What the hell is that? If you have some issue with Bells take it up with her. If she's stuck up LG its because she's married not because she really really believes you're a loser and even if she did I'm sure there are some lobotomized internet women who would find you worthy of…well…hmmm….something I guess.:shrug:

Hey I know! You can always try this:

"The bizarre event was the culmination of five months of cyber-dating, during which time Kirsten and Steve’s avatars met in Second Life, struck up a virtual rapport, had virtual sex and moved in together, virtually."


http://www.datingsitesreviews.com/article.php?story=Second-Life-Weddings-Dating

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

banning abortion is not about saving lives. its about pushing their beliefs on others

I agree only its deeper than that. Its about controlling women in general, their possibilities ie future, bodies and sexuality.

 

[lightgigantic]

You have accused me of condemning children to death. Care to point out which child in particular?

I could repeat myself again.

Instead I will ask you to find where I said that

Do you even know the stages of development in the womb? Do you know what a zygote is?

If you think its a blood clot I could ask you the same q ....

As opposed to the emotional 'they're killing babies' example from you?

huh?
you were explaining how a miscarriage is natural
I was explaining a few of the techniques used to engineer abortion

Hence one is natural and the other plainly isn't

I am just puzzled by what sophistry you are playing to bridge the two.

Not at all. It is the appeal to emotion and your callous disregard for what happens when abortion is banned and women die as a result of being denied basic medical treatment because they are pregnant and the treatment could be detrimental to the fetus. Apparently in your ideal world, when a woman is pregnant, she forfeits any of her rights to life and should forget about receiving even basic medical care, even if her life is in danger.

actually the example was highlighting the political language your argument requires.

If a woman kills it, its an abortion.
If someone else kills her and the baby, its a double homicide.

IOW you are using political language to make a distinction when there is none

The majority of standard abortions involve consenting mothers with valid reasons.

Valid reasons, eh?
Does this mean you have moved from the position of arguing that its completely taboo to investigate the reasons a women has for pursuing an abortion?

A murder victim, on the other hand, does not consent to having some random individual walk up and shoot them in the head for example.

yes
a scenario that bears a stark similarity to a child killed in the womb

yes, if we apply the principle that its permitable to engineer what can potentially happen naturally we end up with some absurd scenarios, don't we?

Do you have any idea that the majority of abortion clinics are actually family planning centres where pregnant women go for day to day check-up's to ensure the pregnancy is going as planned?

So the safety factor of a fetus in such a clinic is actually quite high, since the majority of pregnant women who go there do not get abortions but are striving to maintain a healthy pregnancy.

and this reduces the danger a child in the womb faces when undergoing an abortion in exactly what way?

It is parasitic in nature.

It leeches everything from the mother and the mother is forced to consume vast amounts of vitamins and minerals to keep herself healthy during the pregnancy and for the long term.

Fall pregnant and you might get a clue.

A parasite can't be the same species as the host

Your argument is political bullshit in nature.

Kind of like saying black people are monkey like in nature as a means of overlooking the fact that they are human like in nature .. which is of course an effective tool to render them subservient to whatever political agenda one has.

You are not making sense.

The majority of pregnancies actually do result in a miscarriage, usually within the first few weeks, before the woman is even aware she was pregnant.

I can't see the sense of what you are trying to say.

That because a lot of pregnancies result in a miscarriage, aborting a child that wouldn't otherwise be miscarried is of no consequence?

Kind of like because a lot of people who play lotto lose, stealing the prize from someone who wins is of no consequence?

No. I am overly realistic. You on the other hand are carrying on as if a fertilised egg should have priority of life over that of the mother and all else and then having the gall to compare it to a live human being (eg slaves).

Easily, with the right equipment.

The determination driving your ignorance is astounding

If the abortionist showed up three hours early, what do you think would have happened?

I do not consider you to be a decent person.

do you know what an antonym is?

I know many prostitutes who are decent people, most of them are. But the use of "whore" is derogatory and intended to demean a woman, just like "nigger" when used by whites was known to be used solely to demean a coloured person.

Please explain how FMLTWIA is a derogatory term intended to demean all women.

I'm dopey due to the sheer amount of drugs I am using.

But you used it for a reason and you do view women that way. I think that says more about you than it does about the word itself.

You are dopey because you think I view women that way.

Lucy said I referred to all women as whores.
As far as I can determine, the only person I called a whore was lucy...

Even if we want to ride with the problem your brain has placing the word "whore" in a context other than a person who receives money for sexual favours (and even if we want to overlook the question why lucy is more than willing to issue a thousand insults yet cry foul when a single one is played back at her) , how do you extrapolate an insult to lucy to incorporate an insult to all women?

No. You just view women as whores and think they have no rights over their own bodies and wish to force your beliefs about their wombs onto them, regardless of what they think of it.

what drugs are you on exactly?

Yes. But your use of the word is to demean and insult.

Fancy that huh?

Someone insults lucy, after she spends the good part of half a dozen posts goading ....

Do you know if Lucy has sex for money? No. You did not. So your calling her a whore was based on what exactly?

based on her goading.

Kind of like if someone presses your buttons enough, you start calling them fucking retards

As I said, you'll have to excuse me if I don't read up on the latest trend on how it is further possible to demean a woman. You, on the other hand, seem to.

If you think FMLTWIA is a term meant to demean women, you really should catch up on some extra reading

And as I also pointed out, whore is not something I would ever attribute to my own daughter, no matter what she was doing.. in other words, I could never envisage myself referring to my daughter as a whore. Would you do so with your own daughter?

You idiot.
FMLTWIA is a self referential phrase.

Retard can also entail being mentally deficient. I think you are.

yet you go to great pains to distinguish that you don't mean this

which makes the great pains you go to when discussing the word "whore" as if it only has one context all the more laughable

It's not something I sit there and delve on.

As I said, whore is not something in my day to day language use.

I guess we know it's not the same for you.

You really should get out more often

You attempted to say that had the doctor been there, she would have been killed after she was born. We both know that would not have been the case.

Needless to say, if abortionists were in the habit of rushing the child to an emergency ward if it was still clinging to life after being removed from its mother's uterus, there would certainly be more cases like Gianna Jessen's. Of course it was the absence of the abortionist which made Gianna's case unique

It tells me that you know little. Nurses often perform surgical and medical proceedures.. Such as being the only one there when a woman gives birth (midwife), for example.

If you can find me a link about nurses performing an abortion in an accredited clinic, I can guarantee that its controversial.

I don't consider a zygote to be a "baby".

Do you consider a baby that still has its head in its mother's uterus a baby?

If not why?

(no brownie points for political bs terms either)

And yours is meant to be honest when it comes from a religious pro-life site?

Still waiting for you to provide a link to back up your claim.

Oh I am. But you see, I was educated at a university and not from religious anti-abortion and pro-life sites on the internet.

Since you just make things up and pretend that you know, my guess is that you studied humanities

A zygote is not a child. A 12 week old fetus is not a "child".

why not?
(once again no brownie points for political bullshit terms)

And why does the fetus have more right to life than the mother?

Why what does it do?
Jump out and strangle her?

Why do her rights no longer matter LG?

Her right to what?
Kill it?

What do you think of the countries who have banned abortion entirely and women die because they are denied basic medical care and treatment because it could harm the fetus?

What makes you think I have given an opinion about abortion in the case where the mother's life is at stake?

Do you think it is fair to condemn a woman to death simply because to give her basic medical aid would endanger her fetus?

Do you think its fair that I answer these loaded questions?

Is that fair to you? What do you think of a ban and law that has women with ectopic pregnancies bleeding to death internally and in agoinising pain because to treat her would mean aborting a doomed fetus anyway, since a fetus cannot continue outside of the womb?

Is it fair to me that you ask me to justify views that I haven't expressed?

What do you think of forcing a woman to remain pregnant with a non-viable fetus (one that would die before birth due to severe complications) until she is made to deliver it after it is dead inside her?

What makes you think I have expressed this view?

Do you understand that this is what you are advocating in this thread?

I understand that you don't read my posts very carefully.

Do you have any idea of just how repugnant that is? You are advocating and pushing for the life of the fetus at the expense of the mother.

At the expense of the mother's what?
Life?
Patience?
Time?
Convenience?
Concerns her child will be a dwarf?

It is obvious you view women as being secondary and I think this thread has proven that without a doubt.

On the contrary, its obvious that the success of your argument relies totally on the premise there is absolutely nothing else to factor in the question of abortion other than the pregnant woman's convenience

You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge what a ban on abortion entails, can you?

You can't even bring yourself to discuss ethics outside the schisms of it being either legalized or illegalized.

As a practical example, a discussion on the ethics of pregnant mums chain smoking might bring a host of measures to the fore (like education, professional advise from medical professionals etc). If someone came along and attempted to disband all such discussion by citing how impractical it is to illegalize it ("What are you going to do? set up ultrasounds at all the places that sell cigarettes?"), what would you think?
eh?

You keep harping on about Jessen while happily ignoring that a ban on abortion is to condemn women to certain death in many instances. Why is Jessen more important than women who bleed to death because of an ectopic pregnancy because of a law that prevents her treatment because she is pregnant?

Jessen's experience simply highlights the weakness of the political terms you rely on heavily to relegate the discussion purely to the question of a pregnant woman's convenience.

Where is the integrity of condemning women to death because they are pregnant?

How does being pregnant condemn one to death?
It certainly doesn't appear to be as straight forward as answering how carrying out an abortion condemns a child in the womb to death.

The fact that you wish to deny women who are victims of rape and incest the right to access an abortion tells me of just how little you value those women as people and how you only view women as being incubators.

So if Gianna Jessen was the product of rape or incest, her experience would be less poignant?

How does that work .... ?

 

[lightgigantic]

A link funding what exactly? Legalized abortions take places in clinics that are not subsidized. We have discussed this before as you say and I have shown you the links stating that the majority of abortions conducted are done in PRIVATE CLINICS and not subsidized by the US government. So you're either a liar or remain willfully ignorant. Planned Parenthood for example only receives about $270 million annually from government funded grants. 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester for the individual cost of around $350 which is paid out of pocket. So your notion that women are somehow dependent on your tax payer dollars is nonsense. If you had read post#312 you should have read this:

Only 14% of all abortions are paid for by the state.
And I am so impressed that you show concern for the truth of the issue. You'll find this also relevant:

Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-fre...nding-abortion

as mentioned earlier, the only abortion clinics I can think of that are independent of state accreditation, administration, training, regulation and standards testing are back street ones ... and it appears that you have problems with those.
So what is it exactly you are talking about?

LG: I mean how does a majority (or for that matter, even a minority) support for an idea make the act more ethically sound?

You are the one who says its ethically unsound, there are many people who do not think its ethically unsound. You've been arguing with a bunch of people in this thread who obviously do not believe its ethically unsound but a matter of individual choice and circumstances. You are free of course to think it ethically unsound and believe me you'll have our best wishes when you choose to keep your unwanted baby (LOL!)

I still don't follow the connection you are trying to make between something being popular and something being ethical

LG: Regardless you find yourself as dependent so you might as well quit pretending you are independent as some qualifier to tread on the rights of those who are dependent on you

Dependent on whom how? I don't have any children so there is no one dependent on me. Children are a responsibility one chooses to fulfill when and if one chooses to have children. Just ask Sam she has no children and it doesn't seem as if she ever expects to. Same for VI. Bells chose to have children and I may do the same one day. Just because you yelp about dependency doesn't make it true in terms of abortion or childbearing.

workmates, other people in traffic, siblings and even parents when they cross a certain threshold of age ... just a few off the top of my head

Gianna Jessen? If I understand it she is not a zygote.

so you are at least willing to concede that late term abortion is unethical?

LG: Whatever figures you dream up, they can only be a subset of the figures estimating the numbers of abortion (unless you can substantiate the double fatalities occurring at a rate greater than 50%)
If it was 10 000 a day, it would still be less than the numbers of aborted children

Unlike yourself I don't have to cook-up reality for it suit my reality there are government and independent agencies keeping stats.

You think 14 000 a day is inflated?

But its interesting to me that you don't seem to worry nor do you care about the deaths of women and their unborn fetuses. Really interesting since you seem to pretend you have some extra concern for life. Why don't you have any concern for the number of women who die from illegal unsafe abortions? Why do you treat the living only a side note to the unborn?

actually I am just comparing the volume to question why you not only turn a blind eye to the greater loss of life, but also why you insist that in all circumstances abortions are valid and justified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Incidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion#Incidence_by_continent

Oh yeah I forgot. Their just women. Ha!

Pity you can't forget the political language you require to maintain that the issue is solely about women

LG: So far the only reason you have given for a woman being the sole concern in the problem is that she is independent of the child (you have also stated that the child is dependent, but that's not a valid distinction since everyone exists in a state of dependence). The degree that it is necessary or not is the degree that one understands justice issues are primarily about regulating the acts of those one is dependent on .. IOW it depends whether one thinks it is necessary to compound power in those who already have it or whether justice is meant specifically for protecting the weak.

I never said that. I have always maintained that the fetus is a part of the woman as long as its in utero.The fetus is dependent on the host yes, everyone has existed in that kind of dependence mostly because the host accepted the fetus (either because it did not miscarry or was not aborted). The unborn are neither weak nor strong they are dependent on the weakness and strength of the host. They are dependent on the desires of the host. It has nothing to do with 'justice'.

I don't follow?
Please explain to me again how being in a state of dependence places one outside of issues of justice.

LG: you mean teenagers with FMLTWIA on their mobile? Or do you mean a particular rabid pro-abortion contributor on sci (but who could have just as easily been referred to as a "crazy bitch" or a "stuck up cow" on account of her bipolar bouts) designated as one in a half-hearted manner amidst a liturgy of her name calling and insults?


What the hell is that?

Trying to work out who it is I called a whore of course ... or did you forget that you never did find a reference where I called all women whores?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

as mentioned earlier, the only abortion clinics I can think of that are independent of state accreditation, administration, training, regulation and standards testing are back street ones ... and it appears that you have problems with those.
So what is it exactly you are talking about?


I still don't follow the connection you are trying to make between something being popular and something being ethical


workmates, other people in traffic, siblings and even parents when they cross a certain threshold of age ... just a few off the top of my head


so you are at least willing to concede that late term abortion is unethical?



You think 14 000 a day is inflated?

actually I am just comparing the volume to question why you not only turn a blind eye to the greater loss of life, but also why you insist that in all circumstances abortions are valid and justified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Incidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion#Incidence_by_continent


Pity you can't forget the political language you require to maintain that the issue is solely about women


I don't follow?
Please explain to me again how being in a state of dependence places one outside of issues of justice.

Trying to work out who it is I called a whore of course ... or did you forget that you never did find a reference where I called all women whores?

LG: as mentioned earlier, the only abortion clinics I can think of that are independent of state accreditation, administration, training, regulation and standards testing are back street ones ... and it appears that you have problems with those. So what is it exactly you are talking about?

What are you talking about? Abortion clinics are regulated because ITS LEGAL. Back street clinics were not regulated because they were not regulated and that's what made them unsafe and put women's lives at risk. You apparently have no problems with unregulated clinics putting women's lives at risk.

LG: I still don't follow the connection you are trying to make between something being popular and something being ethical

The laws sets a standard based on what the society considers to be ethical practical or both it doesn't decide ones personal or individual ethics but either way there is no universal standard of what is either ethical or legal. You can decide homosexuality is an unethical practice but it can be protected by the law or there can be a situation where it is considered unethical by society and rendered illegal by law. But no matter how you look at it whether one determines homosexuality or abortion unethical will be based on a personal point of view, there is no universal standard of ethics that decide any one of these things as being ethical or unethical.

LG: workmates, other people in traffic, siblings and even parents when they cross a certain threshold of age ... just a few off the top of my head

Red herring examples having nothing to do with a woman's uterus which exists independent of anyone but the woman in question.

LG: so you are at least willing to concede that late term abortion is unethical?

No. I believe it represents the least desirable option for when a woman should abort. Earlier abortions are safer and easier.

LG: You think 14 000 a day is inflated? actually I am just comparing the volume to question why you not only turn a blind eye to the greater loss of life, but also why you insist that in all circumstances abortions are valid and justified

Do you think the unnecessary deaths of living, breathing, conscious women acceptable? Ever wonder why a woman who died from a botched abortion was never registered as a death of two people but one? Since you believe that it amounts to the death of two people wouldn't that place the numbers of women dying of botched abortions as double what was registered and if this is so don't you find that a greater loss of life than would happen if the abortions were safe? Or is it that you simply don't care if women die?

LG: Pity you can't forget the political language you require to maintain that the issue is solely about women

How is it not solely an issue of women?

LG: I don't follow? Please explain to me again how being in a state of dependence places one outside of issues of justice.

The unborn are outside of issues of justice and everything else for that matter.

LG: Trying to work out who it is I called a whore of course ... or did you forget that you never did find a reference where I called all women whores?

I'm a woman. You didn't call me one because of any other reason than the fact that I'm a woman and you could hurl it as an insult unlike retard which can be hurled at anyone regardless of gender.

 

[Bells]

I could repeat myself again.

Instead I will ask you to find where I said that

You forgot where you accused me of denying a child "womb rights"?

huh?
you were explaining how a miscarriage is natural
I was explaining a few of the techniques used to engineer abortion

Hence one is natural and the other plainly isn't

I am just puzzled by what sophistry you are playing to bridge the two.

And I am puzzled about why you care so much about unnatural miscarriages and ignore natural miscarriages.. I am even more curious about how and why you don't seem to care about the fact that actual children are beaten, tortured and killed every single day, in wars and in homes, schools, on the street, every single day. What about those who die to preventable diseases? Not a single word from you about that. I mean lets look at Brazil for example..

According to UNICEF, without an effective immunisation programme 320 000 children under the age of five die every year from preventable causes, that is:

877 per day … 36 per hour … 3 every five minutes

(Source)
​

Where is your outrage at the deaths of so many live children?

Backed by citizen groups and commercial establishments, death squads have become more and more violent in their goal to "clean-up" the streets and "guarantee public safety". It is estimated by child care agencies that up to 5 or 6 children a day are assassinated on Rio's streets, even
conservative figures put the number at 2 killings every day.

Children have been executed and some mutilated almost beyond recognition. 4,611 Street Children were murdered between 1988-1990. In 1993, eight children and adolescents were killed in a shooting near the Candeleria church in Rio. Between 1993-96 juvenile court statistics showed over 3 000 11 to 17 year olds met with violent deaths in Rio. The majority believed to have been murdered by death squads, the police or other types of gangs. In Sao Paulo, for example, 20% of homicides committed by the police were against minors in the first months of 1999.

(Source)
​

Where is your moral outrage LG?

Nowhere..

But bring up abortion and you're over it like a rash and you bring out Jessen, every single time.

If a woman kills it, its an abortion.
If someone else kills her and the baby, its a double homicide.

IOW you are using political language to make a distinction when there is none

Not at all. If a woman wants to keep her baby and someone kills her and thus the 'baby', then yes, it is a double homicide.

Would you prefer she be charged as well? What about if she finds herself diagnosed with cancer and has to undergo chemo? And she has an abortion to ensure her own survival? Should she be charged with murder then?

Valid reasons, eh?
Does this mean you have moved from the position of arguing that its completely taboo to investigate the reasons a women has for pursuing an abortion?

I don't know of any woman who has had an abortion and who was not asked 'why', do you? In fact, most women are counseled and spoken to about why.

No woman has an abortion for fun LG. It is not a pleasant thing to go through. 'Why' is always asked and women and girls are encouraged to speak about the 'why'.

yes
a scenario that bears a stark similarity to a child killed in the womb

Not at all.

yes, if we apply the principle that its permitable to engineer what can potentially happen naturally we end up with some absurd scenarios, don't we?

Coming from you, that is funny.

and this reduces the danger a child in the womb faces when undergoing an abortion in exactly what way?

Some do survive. My cousin's daughter being one of them when her father tried to abort her by stomping on her mother's stomach until she (her mother) bled.

A parasite can't be the same species as the host

Your argument is political bullshit in nature.

Kind of like saying black people are monkey like in nature as a means of overlooking the fact that they are human like in nature .. which is of course an effective tool to render them subservient to whatever political agenda one has.

About as political as your Jessen stories which you always drag out of the closet each time you involve yourself in an abortion thread.

Tell me, what do you call a foreign entity sucking everything out of you for 9 months?

I can't see the sense of what you are trying to say.

That because a lot of pregnancies result in a miscarriage, aborting a child that wouldn't otherwise be miscarried is of no consequence?

Kind of like because a lot of people who play lotto lose, stealing the prize from someone who wins is of no consequence?

Charming analogy.

I am saying that the majority of pregnancies actually do result in abortions.. natural abortions. Should those women be questioned and their vagina's checked to make sure they didn't 'kill the baby' on purpose?

The determination driving your ignorance is astounding

If the abortionist showed up three hours early, what do you think would have happened?

And you still cannot answer a simple question.

Should a fertilised egg have priority of life over that of the mother, even if the mother's life is in danger or if she is a child herself or a victim of rape/incest?

Delving into 'what if', ignoring the simple fact that the abortionist is a doctor and if a woman gives birth to a live baby, he/she has a legal obligation to provide medical care escapes you.

Please explain how FMLTWIA is a derogatory term intended to demean all women.

And please explain to me how this excuses you from calling women whores?

You are dopey because you think I view women that way.

You are saying you do not?

You are sitting here arguing about controlling a woman's uterus and life to the point that you wish to dictate that she has no right over her own uterus and you are saying you do not view women that way? After you called a woman a 'self hating whore'?

Are you serious?

And then you questioned me about how I would react if I saw FMLTWIA on my non-existent daughter's mobile...

And I asked you how and why you seem to be going around looking up on further ways to demean women..

But apparently, viewing women who "give oral sex" as a whore is you not viewing women "that way"..

Lucy said I referred to all women as whores.
As far as I can determine, the only person I called a whore was lucy...

The fail in you is strong LG.

Even if we want to ride with the problem your brain has placing the word "whore" in a context other than a person who receives money for sexual favours (and even if we want to overlook the question why lucy is more than willing to issue a thousand insults yet cry foul when a single one is played back at her) , how do you extrapolate an insult to lucy to incorporate an insult to all women?

You admit to calling Lucy a whore. You sneakily tried to claim that I was worse than a whore. Then you carried on and on about trying to control women's wombs.. And then, to top it off, you tried to remove yourself by explaining that whores are, by definition, women who have sex for money.. You know nothing of Lucy. And yet, knowing nothing of her or her sex life, you call her a whore..

Knowing nothing of me or my sex life, you inferred that I was worse than a whore.

There is a pattern there..

what drugs are you on exactly?

Pain relief drugs, drugs from chemo, anti-nausea drugs, drugs to combat fatigue, for swelling (post surgical), among a few.. along with iron tablets, vitamin B shots.. I could go on..

But tell me LG, do you think a 12 year old girl, pregnant after being raped should be allowed or granted an abortion if she requests it? Do you think it is moral for her to have one? What about if a woman is diagnosed with cancer half way through her pregnancy and she wants an abortion so she can commence her treatment?

Fancy that huh?

Someone insults lucy, after she spends the good part of half a dozen posts goading ....

And you called her a whore..

Kind of like if someone presses your buttons enough, you start calling them fucking retards

You know, this past year has taught me something very important. Enough of being polite and it is better to tell people what you really think of them.

If you think FMLTWIA is a term meant to demean women, you really should catch up on some extra reading

Again, you'll have to excuse me if I don't catch up on ways that one can demean women..

You idiot.
FMLTWIA is a self referential phrase.

Are you saying that one cannot demean one self?

Should it be encouraged?

yet you go to great pains to distinguish that you don't mean this

That child has strangely beautiful and mesmerising eyes.

What would you say to her if she grew up and was raped and fell pregnant and wanted to have an abortion?

You really should get out more often

I get out and have seen more things than you would want to imagine.

Needless to say, if abortionists were in the habit of rushing the child to an emergency ward if it was still clinging to life after being removed from its mother's uterus, there would certainly be more cases like Gianna Jessen's. Of course it was the absence of the abortionist which made Gianna's case unique

Considering that doctors who perform abortions are also the same doctors who women go to for treatment during their pregnancies or to help fall pregnant..

What do you think?

If you can find me a link about nurses performing an abortion in an accredited clinic, I can guarantee that its controversial.

It's legal in some parts of the world.

Maybe you should get out more.

Do you consider a baby that still has its head in its mother's uterus a baby?

If not why?

Your question does not make sense..

Do you think a zygote is a "baby"?

Personally speaking from my experience when I had my children, I didn't give them identities or turn them into "baby" until they actually came out. We did the whole 'pick a name' thing and knew the sex of both, but they weren't 'baby'.. It was an "it".. Complete and utter strangers who terrified the crap out of me. And then they were born.

Still waiting for you to provide a link to back up your claim.

What claim? That stopping women from having access to abortions lead to the sheer horror like in countries in South America for example?

I am still waiting for you to show which child I denied womb rights to, not to mention your claims that I am "pro-abortion"..

You just make things up and pretend that you know

Prove it.

why not?

Why isn't a zygote a child?

Ermm because a zygote is a basically at conception and a child is usually a term applied to a late state fetus (ie just before it is born) to a child that is born..

Why what does it do?
Jump out and strangle her?

Answer the question.

Why does a fetus have more right to life than the mother?

Her right to what?
Kill it?

Ah, there we go..

So her rights in general, her individual rights.. why is she denied it?

What makes you think I have given an opinion about abortion in the case where the mother's life is at stake?

Which is why I am asking.

What is your opinion of abortion where the mother's life is at stake?

Do you think its fair that I answer these loaded questions?

How is it unfair for you to answer these questions?

Do you think it is acceptable that a woman is denied basic medical care that could save her life because she is pregnant and such treatment could endanger the fetus?

Is it fair to me that you ask me to justify views that I haven't expressed?

Which is why I am asking you about your views.

Hence why they were termed as questions.

What do you think of laws that deny women suffering from an ectopic pregnancy any treatment because to treat her would mean aborting the "child"?

What makes you think I have expressed this view?

Again, hence why I am asking you what you think of such laws?

I understand that you don't read my posts very carefully.

Quite the contrary. I read your posts on abortion very carefully and I notice that you are dodging these questions like they are the plague.

Why is that LG?

You have stated that abortion is morally wrong and you consider it to be an act of 'killing a child'. You have been very clear about that in all abortion threads you have participated in on these forums.

The manner in which you express yourself strongly suggests you support such laws that ban abortion entirely. Hence why I am asking you. You had indicated in the past that you did not believe in abortion even in cases of rape or incest, correct? So when is an abortion acceptable in your opinion? Is it acceptable if the mother's life is in danger? Is it acceptable in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? Is it acceptable if she is severely depressed and suicidal as a result of the pregnancy? Is it acceptable if it is a child who is the mother and the child is a victim of rape or incest?

Since you claim you are so well read, they really should not be difficult for you to answer.

At the expense of the mother's what?
Life?
Patience?
Time?
Convenience?

How about her life?

Why do you disregard that?

You cannot even bring yourself to address it.

On the contrary, its obvious that the success of your argument relies totally on the premise there is absolutely nothing else to factor in the question of abortion other than the pregnant woman's convenience

And so what if it is for her convenience?

Nice dodge.. Answer the question.

You can't even bring yourself to discuss ethics outside the schisms of it being either legalized or illegalized.

As a practical example, a discussion on the ethics of pregnant mums chain smoking might bring a host of measures to the fore (like education, professional advise from medical professionals etc). If someone came along and attempted to disband all such discussion by citing how impractical it is to illegalize it ("What are you going to do? set up ultrasounds at all the places that sell cigarettes?"), what would you think?
eh?

The point, LG, is that even with proof of the dangers of abortion bans, you dodge it entirely and cannot even address it.

Jessen's experience simply highlights the weakness of the political terms you rely on heavily to relegate the discussion purely to the question of a pregnant woman's convenience.

Again, you dodge..

So tell me, do you consider an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy to be a matter of "convenience"? What about if the mother is an 11 year old child victim of being raped by her father? Convenience?

You have just demeaned the reality of women's fate in some countries and called their desire to live as being "the question of a pregnant woman's convenience"..

Astounding really..

How does being pregnant condemn one to death?
It certainly doesn't appear to be as straight forward as answering how carrying out an abortion condemns a child in the womb to death.

In many instances, being pregnant can and does become a death sentence. Women around the world are dying because they are denied the right to an abortion to save their lives. But hey, you dismiss it entirely. They're just women, aren't they? Whores..

So if Gianna Jessen was the product of rape or incest, her experience would be less poignant?

How does that work .... ?

And how does it work to deny a woman suffering from an ectopic pregnancy the right to treatment? Is that acecptable to you? How does that work?

 

[wynn]

LG: Pity you can't forget the political language you require to maintain that the issue is solely about women

How is it not solely an issue of women?

The history of human thought shows that in all cultures there exists an interest in ethical issues.
There is a philosophical discourse in which these ethical issues are discussed.
When an ethical issue pertains to a specific demographics (such as the education of children, caring for the elderly, pregnant women, criminals, ...), the discussion of this issue is not limited to this demographics, as if it would be this demographics alone who would be in the position to discuss it. Instead, these issues are part of the philosophical discourse of ethics and this discourse is not reserved for only a particular demographics at the exlusion of all others.

Ie. issues of pedagogy are not left to children to be discussed and dealt with.
Issues of caring for sick people are not left to sick people to be discussed and dealt with.
Issues of caring for the elderly are not left to the elderly to be discussed and dealt with.
Issues of dealing with criminals are not left to the criminals to be discussed and dealt with.
And so similarly, issues of pregnant women are not left to the pregnant women to be discussed and dealt with.

This is how society works.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The history of human thought shows that in all cultures there exists an interest in ethical issues.
There is a philosophical discourse in which these ethical issues are discussed.
When an ethical issue pertains to a specific demographics (such as the education of children, caring for the elderly, pregnant women, criminals, ...), the discussion of this issue is not limited to this demographics, as if it would be this demographics alone who would be in the position to discuss it. Instead, these issues are part of the philosophical discourse of ethics and this discourse is not reserved for only a particular demographics at the exlusion of all others.

Ie. issues of pedagogy are not left to children to be discussed and dealt with.
Issues of caring for sick people are not left to sick people to be discussed and dealt with.
Issues of caring for the elderly are not left to the elderly to be discussed and dealt with.
Issues of dealing with criminals are not left to the criminals to be discussed and dealt with.
And so similarly, issues of pregnant women are not left to the pregnant women to be discussed and dealt with.

This is how society works.

Agreed. So the discussion would be based on what affect abortion would have on the woman's life and how this would affect society. So again it will get back to the life of women which affects issues such as health, poverty, child rearing, control of one body, women's rights, overall cost to the health care system etc.

In actuality abortion doesn't affect other people unless they are the male who impregnated the woman. Everyone else who has an opinion on the matter are simply stating their personal ethical viewpoint, in effect it doesn't affect them unless they are in a position to opt for an abortion.

 

[wynn]

LG: Trying to work out who it is I called a whore of course ... or did you forget that you never did find a reference where I called all women whores?

I'm a woman. You didn't call me one because of any other reason than the fact that I'm a woman and you could hurl it as an insult unlike retard which can be hurled at anyone regardless of gender.

Oh no, anyone can be a whore.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whore

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Oh no, anyone can be a whore.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whore

Definition of a whore: prostitute: a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money


Do you use the term whore to describe anyone? When was the last time you ever called a man a whore?

You're so disingenuous you even ignore the definition in the link you posted which is,

Whore:
A woman that sleeps with everyone but YOU!!!!!
SEE: SLUT - A woman that sleeps with everyone.
That whore wouldn't sleep with me.

 

[wynn]

Agreed. So the discussion would be based on what affect abortion would have on the woman's life and how this would affect society. So again it will get back to the life of women which affects issues such as health, poverty, child rearing, control of one body, women's rights, overall cost to the health care system etc.

In actuality abortion doesn't affect other people unless they are the male who impregnated the woman. Everyone else who has an opinion on the matter are simply stating their personal ethical viewpoint, in effect it doesn't affect them unless they are in a position to opt for an abortion.

This is where one of the main disagreements is.

There are many other issues related to abortion, there is more to abortion than just the mere act of it.
When does human life begin? Is abortion murder or not?
What is normal sexuality?
Is it ethical to kill people who are somehow an inconvenience?
When should one person's life be sacrificed at the expense of another's? When not?
And many more.
These issues involve other people than just the pregnant women, and they involve the greater scope of the discourse of ethics in a society.

 

[wynn]

Do you use the term whore to describe anyone? When was the last time you ever called a man a whore?

I was just thinking what post whores some people are!
I also know a Facebook whore (he's male).

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I was just thinking what post whores some people are!
I also know a Facebook whore (he's male).

Oh stop being an ass. What the hell does that have to do with this bloody topic? LG didn't accuse anyone of being a 'post whore'

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

This is where one of the main disagreements is.

There are many other issues related to abortion, there is more to abortion than just the mere act of it.
When does human life begin? Is abortion murder or not?
What is normal sexuality?
Is it ethical to kill people who are somehow an inconvenience?
When should one person's life be sacrificed at the expense of another's? When not?
And many more.
These issues involve other people than just the pregnant women, and they involve the greater scope of the discourse of ethics in a society.

These questions abound and the answer always gets down to personal opinion which do not involve other people.

 

[IceLight020]

I'm going to be completely open on this subject. I was born from a rape. My father was a person who raped around five women or more and he was in consequence deported to Ecuador after he was caught. The issue comes in however that I was born from this rape. (Well a lot of people see it as a big deal, but I could seriously care less.) The thing is that if I wasn't born, there is one person or quite a few people who wouldn't be alive anymore. I saved this girl from drowning when I was young and saved numerous people from committing suicide. From the 6th to the 12th grade my IQ increased from 98 to 107. I enjoyed that. Now let's look at abortion according to rape. One could argue that killing me in turn would have caused these people to die as well from suicide and drowning. One death over maybe around fifteen or more? People do not realize how much of an affect one life makes for another. Then again, sometimes parents don't have the money to provide shelter, but then again with every problem there is a solution right? I rather give the child to some random person on the street who I think I could trust, and even those who I cannot trust. Why? Because he/she will still be alive and he/she can make the choice later on to work hard to get out of the situation and in turn live a very happy life. As has been proven, just because you are born on the streets doesn't mean you are always going to be on the streets. I was given to a couple who only knew my birth mother for three weeks. I turned out quite fine considering I am now in college.

 

[IceLight020]

These questions abound and the answer always gets down to personal opinion which do not involve other people.

When does someone not have a personal opinion of someone else supporting their personal opinion though? You could easily disregard anything using this method of problem solving. Research is opinions of someone else you use to back up yours. It's his personal opinion, but what if it is a good personal opinion? It isn't about it being a personal opinion, it all comes down to that if it is a good one. All opinions, in this case at least, involve others. His opinion is now out there to the public. Even if it is a lie, it still doesn't defeat the fact that it exists as a lie, thus it wouldn't hurt to take it into account even if it was a lie. If it was a lie, does it really matter if you take it in? You won't see it as a truth if it is a lie so there is no harm in taking his opinion into consideration. Otherwise you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about him being wrong, never giving a chance for him to prove himself right. If you know your right, this "lie" will not hurt to take into your database of knowledge. I'm not trying to make any arguments here, I am just trying to keep the peace.