I did not....you asserted a position in one at odds with an affirmative answer to the other.
I did not....you asserted a position in one at odds with an affirmative answer to the other.
I did not.
I voted the same way, for the same reason.
I did dither for a while, because even though it could be legal to allow an abortion for no reason other than the woman's choice 1 day before birth, that would not necessarily mean it would be possible to arrange such an abortion for that reason at that time in practice.
It's a matter of interpreting the question the pollsters actually asked. Bear in mind that most people don't know the ins and outs of late term abortion practices. They don't get an informative lecture about abortion practices before they are polled.
Who said anything about exceptions to a woman's autonomy over her own body?
I did consider taking the "easy" route on this and just selecting the "all" option, despite my reservations about that word. I anticipated that my response would very likely be misinterpreted by people such as yourself. I could easily have opted for the quiet life. So, I "dithered" on it. In the end, I decided to answer honestly, rather than in the way that would make things easier for me in this thread.
It's not ridiculous to consider what could happen, in legal terms, if a woman complained that she was denied her unfettered right to an abortion by a medical professional, if indeed the law conveyed such a right.
Now, imagine there is a law on the books that says "Removal of bodily organs is legal in all circumstances". In those circumstances, doctors could still refuse to remove my healthy kidney at my request, because legal does not mean obligatory.
No.Yes, you did
It was not.Apparently, it was make-believe
The "someone" you refer to was Bells. Can't you say her name?Someone other than me did address that point↗, but you chose to duck it
You are deliberately misrepresenting my position. It is no way the same as refusing recognition of the right to choose an abortion. Call that a "woman's human right" if you like. I have been very clear that I support a woman's right to choose.That "most people don't know the ins and outs of late term abortion practices" does not justify your parsing, especially when you want recognition of a woman's human rights to be "essentially" the same as refusing that recognition.
The title of the thread is "Most Americans say abortion should be legal". This started off as a discussion about whether and to what extent abortion should be legally permitted.It's like when you said— "Who said anything about exceptions to a woman's autonomy over her own body?" —and nobody is supposed to notice that you spent multiple posts justifying exceptions according to pretenses of ignorance and confusion.
I replied to that, too. I wrote:And you should probably take the advice you were given: "When faced with said false narrative, don't 'dither' based on the 'practicalities'. Actually address the false narrative that is being used to force women to remain pregnant."
I never dithered for the sake of a false narrative. The only relevant false narrative here is yours.Because, no, you're not being heroic when you "dither" for the sake of a false narrative.
There's nothing nebulous about it. I specifically addressed by comments to Bells at the time and referred to her as the sort of person I worried might take offence.Is it always somebody else's fault, the dangers of some nebulous other? "I anticipated that my response would very likely be misinterpreted by people such as yourself,"
I did not at any time accuse.... you told Bells, and thus accused that Bells would misinterpret you, endangering or upsetting "the quiet life", if you answered correctly. That is to say, ten paragraphs you spent justifying yourself by accusing a woman.)
No. I was correct. It is not ridiculous, your lies notwithstanding.By the time you get to -
"It's not ridiculous to consider what could happen, in legal terms, if a woman complained that she was denied her unfettered right to an abortion by a medical professional, if indeed the law conveyed such a right."
—you are explicitly fretting against the human rights of a woman.
There is nothing fallacious about that example. Everything I wrote is correct and your attempts to allege some mistake without actually identifying what the error is simple confirm that you are trolling. You demand answers from me, but you never commit to anything yourself.And, in going on to argue a fallacious example—
Either you don't understand what I was talking about, or else you do understand and you're trolling. I'd bet my house on the latter.—you only reinforced the prospect that you simply don't understand what you're talking about.
Here's the question I asked cluelusshusbund:It's also worth noting that when you come around to "one-size-fits-all"↗, the point you try to make in #36↑ above doesn't work ...
No. It says nothing about a woman's human rights. In fact, I'm coming around to the view that perhaps you don't actually understand what human rights are, now.... your response to Cluelusshusbund, is an attempt to evade a simple and straightforward acknowledgment of her human rights...
Right now, in places where abortion is readily available and fully legal, there are already practical restrictions on "what she is allowed".... , resulting in a formulation that you still describe what she is allowed.
No. There is always the question of what those rights are and how far they should or do extend.If you presume her human rights, you don't need to explain what you would allow because that question goes away.
Your point about "human beings" was a silly distraction from the start. Woman are human beings. That is a biological fact that I have never come within a mile of denying. So, it's an irrelevant distraction.So, yes, James, not only did you assert a position at odds with an affirmative acknowledgment of the humanity and human rights of women, you insisted ... in order to protect your politics and pride.
Note: if your answer to the last question here is "no", then you can't honestly select the "legal in all circumstances" option in the poll. You will need to be inconsistent and tell a lie.
It is, in fact, legal in some places to provide a woman with an abortion for no reason other than her choice 1 day before birth. However, that does not mean that such an abortion would actually be provided by the medical professionals who usually carry out the procedure.
I was, and remain, factually correct.
The "someone" you refer to was Bells. Can't you say her name?
I did not "duck it". That is another lie.
I replied directly. My reply is in post #16 of this thread.
You are deliberately misrepresenting my position. It is no way the same as refusing recognition of the right to choose an abortion. Call that a "woman's human right" if you like. I have been very clear that I support a woman's right to choose.
At no time have I refused to recognise that right.
The title of the thread is "Most Americans say abortion should be legal". This started off as a discussion about whether and to what extent abortion should be legally permitted.
Here's what I said about that, again:
I replied to that, too. I wrote:
I'm very happy to address false narratives, of course, if it becomes relevant. I was just explaining why I chose one option over another. My choice in no way depended on believing a false narrative.
I am very confident that you and I share all the same concerns about false narratives and women being denied bodily autonomy, and all of that. I'm very happy to discuss those things if you like.
I never dithered for the sake of a false narrative. The only relevant false narrative here is yours.
There's nothing nebulous about it. I specifically addressed by comments to Bells at the time and referred to her as the sort of person I worried might take offence.
I did not at any time accuse.
No. I was correct. It is not ridiculous, your lies notwithstanding.
If you had any personal integrity, you would consider the matter yourself. Perhaps, in fact, you have considered it, but you can't bring yourself to admit that I'm obviously correct.
There is nothing fallacious about that example. Everything I wrote is correct and your attempts to allege some mistake without actually identifying what the error is simple confirm that you are trolling. You demand answers from me, but you never commit to anything yourself.
Either you don't understand what I was talking about, or else you do understand and you're trolling. I'd bet my house on the latter.
Tell us whether this is what you want, Tiassa. Answer the question.
Don't try to dodge by merely asserting, like a troll, that the question itself "doesn't work". And don't ignore it like a troll.
No. It says nothing about a woman's human rights. In fact, I'm coming around to the view that perhaps you don't actually understand what human rights are, now.
In fact, I'm coming around to the view that perhaps you don't actually understand what human rights are, now.
No. There is always the question of what those rights are and how far they should or do extend.
Rights never involve a single individual in isolation from other people. Rights are something that societies grant to other people. Nobody's rights are absolute.
Your point about "human beings" was a silly distraction from the start. Woman are human beings. That is a biological fact that I have never come within a mile of denying. So, it's an irrelevant distraction.
Now you are trying to shift the goal posts to refer instead to the "humanity" of woman. I assume you want to try to sneak in something about rights under the rug, without actually committing yourself to anythings specific. You want to equivocate so that you can tell more lies later.
My position on abortion is not at odds with human rights. I am pro-choice. I support the right of women to choose to have an abortion. I have been very clear. I support the right of women to choose an abortion, if you want to put it in those terms.
Do I think abortion should be legal? Yes, I do, in most circumstances. In the American context, I think the best thing to do is probably to make it legal in all circumstances. That will not lead to the best outcomes in all circumstance, of course, but given the history of this debate in the United States and how fraught it all is over there, I think it would be best if the legal situation is as simple and clear as possible.
I look forward to hearing your opinions on these matters. Try talking about what you think for a change, instead of trying to take me down. And no more lies!
The entirety of your most recent replies is a stupid mess of word games. That's hardly an extraordinary occurrence when it comes to your posts, though.That word game is an extraordinarily stupid mess.
How interesting to learn that you've suddenly remembered half of our joint 20+ history of reading each other's posts on this forum. Now, with half the job done, perhaps you can dredge your memory for the other half.James, I'm the same as I've been on these issues for years. You look forward to hearing my opinions? Apparently you've been missing them over the course of years.
How interesting to learn that you've suddenly remembered half of our joint 20+ history of reading each other's posts on this forum. Now, with half the job done, perhaps you can dredge your memory for the other half.
Except that your extreme example does not actually exist in reality.You (and Bells) don't like the extreme examples that I and others have come up with. Your implication is that I think those situations are common (which is not the case) and that if one doesn't pick the absolution choice that it means that one doesn't respect a woman's rights and their humanity (not the case either).
Except that your extreme example does not actually exist in reality.
You literally queried one option of the poll, because of the 'what if she decides to abort' just before birth or during birth. This doesn't actually happen. And you accuse me of being silly for pointing out that your argument for limitations was based on a fallacy, one that is pushed by the right?
The turducken joke is one based on such a fallacy - to the point of being absolutely ridiculous - 'what if she decides to push the baby back in during childbirth?'.
This is the kind of rubbish we've been privy to for years on this site when it comes to abortion.
We do not need "extreme examples" about abortion, particularly about abortion debates, Seattle. Because those "extreme examples" are being used to deny women their fundamental human rights. On the one hand, what you and others did in that thread was pure trolling. But on the other hand, there is something to be said for a bunch of men having to resort to "extreme examples" to determine how to limit a woman's rights to her own body. It's pathetic.
One of the reasons abortion debates always become complete shit-shows on this site and in the general public forum that is the world, in politics and every single other platform, is because there's always people who feel the need to delve into the obscene and the ridiculous to try to justify denying rights to women. It's akin to a flat earther trolling people in the Earth Sciences forum. It wouldn't be allowed. But when it comes to this particular debate and discussion, you all get a pass.
It always follows a particular pattern. Make the ridiculous assertion or "extreme examples", be called out on it, usually by women who are unfortunate enough to have to witness men such as yourself debate our rights, and then have a bunch more men rock up complaining about being called out. Then we get the gaslighting, of how you support a woman's right to choose - ignoring how you have openly resorted to "extreme examples" that cannot and do not exist in reality, to attempt to impose limits on those rights. Each and every single time.
So, let me reiterate. We don't need "extreme examples" for you to determine whether we should have rights over our own bodies or not. It shouldn't even be part of the discussion. If you cannot discuss the issue of human rights of women without resorting to "extreme examples", then that's on you and your inability to debate the issue like an adult.
I have often wondered about why this always happens. I guess there are a few reasons why. One is stupidity. Second is simply to troll. Third could be that people who pull this shit are so insecure that they need to remind women that yes, we have rights, but you are all in the absolute position to limit those rights as you see fit and if it means inventing scenarios to do it, then so be it. In other words, our human rights relies upon your good graces and whatever mood you're all in.
The woman always has a right to bodily autonomy. And children always have a right to life. When a fetus is nonviable, the right to abortion is protected to ensure the rights of the women. (Well, it used to be, at least.) After the child is born it has all the rights to live its life as any other human.If somebody believes that the mother's right to bodily autonomy should always supercede any right an unborn child might have - or if they believe that unborn children are not persons and so ought to have no recognised rights at all - then obviously they will insist that women's rights to an abortion should be completely unrestricted. If that's your position, so be it. I am personally inclined to disagree with you.
Add the doctor in there and I'd say whatever THEY want, goes. The doctor is not carrying the baby - but doctors play a critical role in this process because they are a reality check for the mother. They allow an informed decision.However, if unborn children have any rights at all, it can't just be "whatever the mother wants goes".
I agree that they help with providing an informed decision, but I'm not sure it is correct to word it as being their (woman and doctor) decision. The doctor can inform, of course, but if they disagree with the woman's course of action strongly enough to withhold their care/support/expertise etc, then they have the ability to do just that.Add the doctor in there and I'd say whatever THEY want, goes. The doctor is not carrying the baby - but doctors play a critical role in this process because they are a reality check for the mother. They allow an informed decision.
Exactly. The doctor has to agree. They are the last line of defense against a woman who really is acting against both her own and the fetus's self interest. In reality this is almost never a barrier.I agree that they help with providing an informed decision, but I'm not sure it is correct to word it as being their (woman and doctor) decision. The doctor can inform, of course, but if they disagree with the woman's course of action strongly enough to withhold their care/support/expertise etc, then they have the ability to do just that.
I'm the sole woman debating a bunch of men who are trying to determine what rights I, as a woman, should have over my own body. And you wonder why I might have a 'chip on my shoulder'? Think about it, Seattle. Think hard. It's not really that hard to imagine why women end up with chips on our shoulders when we discuss this issue. Because each and every single time abortion is brought up, it follows the exact same pattern. A bunch of men discussing how to limit our fundamental human rights to our own bodies.This reads as if you have a big chip on your shoulder. I didn't "debate" anything. I responded to a poll started by James. If you don't like the use of "extreme" exceptions" read in any reasonable exception that might apply.
Neither I, nor anyone else here, was arguing against a woman's right to choose.
Why alienate those who voted for a woman's right to choose by implying that they are stupid, trolling, gaslighting, insecure or some other such nonsense? Your unhinged rant comes off more as trolling than as any kind of reasoned response. When someone else on here responded to you I believe you said that they were just accusing you of being an angry black woman. Sure, lets bring in race for no reason as well.
If this is how you deal with those who agree with you, I'd hate to see how you deal with those who disagree with you. Let's bring in white supremacism while we're at it, white privilege, systemic racism, micro-aggression, maybe we can work in something about non-binary, fluid gender and something about being a victim?
What is the criteria for being a moderator on here?