You forgot where you accused me of denying a child "womb rights"?
So in your mind, what's the connection between your denying children womb rights and your personal instances of condemning particular children to death?
And I am puzzled about why you care so much about unnatural miscarriages and ignore natural miscarriages..
I am puzzled why you suggest there is no need for alarm whether a miscarriage is natural or unnatural. It bears a stark semblance to a sociopathic mental disease.
I mean usually the phrase "death by natural causes" is conspicuous by its absence in homicide cases.
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?
Where is your moral outrage LG?
Nowhere..
Well this a thread primarily about abortion, no?
I mean its not like you had a whole lot to say about Kids in brazil or car accident fatalities either so far .....
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.
So if a case can be proven that she didn't want it, it is not a double homicide?
You're not making things up again, are you?
Would you prefer she be charged as well?
At the moment I am just pointing out the holes in the political language that your argument requires
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.
You said a majority of abortions are performed for valid reasons - what is an example of abortion (of the assumed minority) being performed for an
invalid reason?
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.
An isolated incident in the life story of a refined gentleman do doubt ... now ask your cousin's daughter if she would have preferred to have met with the finesse and professionalism of an abortion clinic
About as political as your Jessen stories which you always drag out of the closet each time you involve yourself in an abortion thread.
Far from requiring
special terms to discuss her case, discussing her case highlights important questions behind the
special terms your argument requires
Tell me, what do you call a foreign entity sucking everything out of you for 9 months?
Let me point out the key problems with your use of the word
Your thinking goes along these lines ....
P1 - a parasite is something that sucks everything out of you
P2 - a parasite is something we can kill on account of it sucking everything out of you
P3 - A child in the womb sucks everything out of you
Conclusion - Therefore killing a child in the womb is just like killing a parasite
Its a
fallacy of defective induction
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?
I think it makes more sense to question those seeking to kill their baby and those providing the service ... closing the ethical discussion on the implications of doing it unnaturally on grounds that it is already happening naturally is sociopathic.
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?
Difficult to answer since I am not sure how being a product of incest or rape grants one a different status in terms of justice or rights
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.
Do you have a link for that or is that another thing you made up?
And please explain to me how this excuses you from calling women whores?
If you can't find the quote where I called all women whores, do you think you are capable of making an apology, or does your pride forbid you?
You are saying you do not?
You are saying that I am .. so far it seems you're making things up again since you haven't provided a quote
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?
Even if we want to turn a blind eye to the numerous political terms you require to maintain that pregnancy is purely an issue of women's health, I still don't see how you go from this to the idea that that all women are whores.
After you called a woman a 'self hating whore'?
Are you ever going to find quotes where I say these things or do I have to spend my time defending everything you imagine and make up?
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..
Still asking you why you think FMLTWIA uses whore in the demeaning sense.
So far the only reason you appear to be giving is because it contains the word "whore" ... which means i guess that you have equal gripes with terms like "facebook whore " and so on
But apparently, viewing women who "give oral sex" as a whore is you not viewing women "that way"..
Once again, please find the quote where I say these things. Defending myself against things you make up and imagine I say is getting tiring.
The fail in you is strong LG.
Your failure to pay attention is mammoth
You admit to calling Lucy a whore.
You admit to not having particular problems with the word
Them - No. I had a small list that I felt could be used as a starting point; here it is again:
moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.)...
Fraggle Rocker felt that 'pea brain' constituted a legitimate attack and Tiassa felt that 'prick' used as an insult should qualify; I concur on both counts.
”
Bells - So you are saying we should ban those words outright?
I say it would depend on how they are used. Or more to the point, the context in which they are used.
You sneakily tried to claim that I was worse than a whore.
Even in your books you view killing as being worse than mere confounding of sexual etiquette
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..
sure
its called putting up with your nonsense with patience
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..
Have you go the type of cancer that people get better from or the other type?
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?
I think that in discerning the validity of the decision, one should factor in that what one is dealing with is another life. IOW if all thinking on the matter boils down to "its my life and I can do what i want with it" its ethically unsound.
Again, you'll have to excuse me if I don't catch up on ways that one can demean women..
You sound like the type of person who uses two fingers when texting
Are you saying that one cannot demean one self?
I am saying you got the context wrong if you think its self demeaning
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?
I am more interested in why you are capable of playing several contexts to the word "retard" and can only apply one to "whore" (despite acknowledging that whore is a word subject to context in a previous post).
I get out and have seen more things than you would want to imagine.
then its as I expected
You are simply being a troll
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?
that you are pretending to know stuff and making things up.
Please provide a link for your claim that doctor's are legally bound or even commonly in the habit of providing emergency medical care for a fetus that survives an abortion
Nothing in those links to suggest that nurses in california during 1977 (you know, the place where Gianna survived her abortion) were legally permitted to carry out third trimester abortions ... although if it took till 1994 for a PA to be legally permitted to perform first trimester abortion, I think we can effectively rule out the possibility of a nurse performing it in 1977?
What now?
Do you wan to make some more stuff up?
Your question does not make sense..
Do you think a zygote is a "baby"?
Do you think an abortion carried out in the third trimester is done on zygotes?
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.
So if one postpones this "identity bestowing" ritual, one can given one's self a bit more time to decide whether to kill them or not?
What claim? That stopping women from having access to abortions lead to the sheer horror like in countries in South America for example?
this claim
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.
I am still waiting for you to show which child I denied womb rights
Approximately 14 000 of them a day.
take your pick
to, not to mention your claims that I am "pro-abortion"..
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pro-abortion.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/proabortion-group-fined-20101223-196kz.html
Now are you going to find links for your stuff or are going to continue to make up stuff to prove that you don't make stuff up?
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..
So you are willing to concede that later term abortion kills children?
Answer the question.
Why does a fetus have more right to life than the mother?
Why do you ask me to answer to views I didn't make?
why do you make this stuff up?
I have talked extensively about how pregnancy deals with another life other than the mother, and how this weighs on the ethical considerations of abortion.
Nowhere have i said that a child in the womb has more rights than the mother.
If you disagree, find the quote where I said it.
Ah, there we go..
So her rights in general, her individual rights.. why is she denied it?
denied what?
the right to kill it?
The answer isn't obvious?
Which is why I am asking.
What is your opinion of abortion where the mother's life is at stake?
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?
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"?
Again, hence why I am asking you what you think of such laws?
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?
I beg to differ
this what you posted
Why do her rights no longer matter LG? 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? Do you think it is fair to condemn a woman to death simply because to give her basic medical aid would endanger her fetus? 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? 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?
Do you understand that this is what you are advocating in this thread?
No I don't understand that is what I am advocating in this thread, since nowhere have I said anything like what you are going on about.
If you disagree, find a quote.
You are just making stuff up (again)
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.
and?
The manner in which you express yourself strongly suggests you support such laws that ban abortion entirely.
then I guess you haven't been paying attention ....
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?
... but then again, maybe you were, since you edited it out of your reply ... go figure
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?
its ethically sound when you factor in what you are dealing with is another life
its not ethically sound when you insist all one has to factor in is the mother's consent
And so what if it is for her convenience?
then, for a start, bringing in extreme cases of pregnant women's lives being in danger is a disingenuous maneuver on your behalf
The point, LG, is that even with proof of the dangers of abortion bans, you dodge it entirely and cannot even address it.
Your inability to discuss ethics outside of the dialectics of legislation is charming .
usually the way it works is that ethical discussion frames social attitudes which in turn trickle down to decisions about legislating (or even not legislating) changes.
For instance its perfectly legal to smoke 5 packs a day while pregnant.
Suggesting that any sort of ethical discussion about it is null and void because its impractical to install ultrasounds at all the places that sell cigarettes (or whatever other solution one imagine legislation requires in order to criminalize and pursue the culprits) is simply stupid. In fact its the sort of crap one would expect to hear from cigarette companies (ie persons who have a view shrouded in personal gain, etc)
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?
I've already answered these q's ... several times in fact
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..
the reality of abortion is that not even a majority of cases have life threatening conditions (eg ectopic pregnancy) or even under age rape (even if we want to assume that being born as a consequence of rape to an under age mother is a just cause for being discriminated against) as a contributing factor.
In many instances, being pregnant can and does become a death sentence.
You are making things up again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death#Maternal_Mortality_Ratio_.28MMR.29
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?
I don't see how questioning the validity of an abortion denies a woman the right to have it ... particularly if its considered valid to have an abortion if the life is in threat.
I also don't see how disbanding any sort of inquiry or discussion into the validity of abortion (on the basis that in certain circumstances it is valid) saves more lives ... unless of course one leans heavily on political language to relegate the topic purely to the lives of pregnant mothers
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?
How does it work asking persons to defend claims that you can't quote them as saying?
Is that acceptable to you?
