Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[seagypsy]

I suppose the outcome depends on the specifics of the case.

Is there a precedent? I mean, aside from a Shel Silverstein poem, I've never heard of such a case.

Well, unless you want to count The X-Files episode "Humbug", which involves a conjoined twin who can detach himself at will for short periods in order to kill people. But, no, I don't think that one counts.

Is there a precedent to start with? Or would you prefer that I simply account for all the potential permutations of such a case, so that you can do the hard lifting of complaining that none of the answers are sufficient, and I can do the easy work of providing more and more answers?

There may be no precedent. I think that is why he asks. It is certainly why I ask. What precedent do you feel should be set? Sure we are talking hypotheticals here but what IF a pair of conjoined twins, where one is parasitic turns 18 and the host twin decides she wants a normal sex life and can't have one. She feels her right to her own body is being violated. Perhaps her parasitic twin is in love with a guy who the host twin hates. The parasitic twin and the guy get married. In order for her husband to be able to be intimate with his wife, even if he is respectful to only touch the parts that belong to his own wife, the host twin still will be forced to participate in certain acts even if it is only by being present. What if they share a vagina? Sex with the husband would put the non married twin in a state of rape. What does one do? It's my guess that most twins simply compromise, but how? And what if they can't? How can a court take a side in the case without inflicting a terrible injustice on the one that lost?

This is the point that I believe he is trying to make. What precedent would you set? And what legal justifications would you give for said precedent? Keeping in mind that whatever legal declarations you make in this case can and most certainly will be taken out of context by a fanatical lawyer and interpreted in anyway she possibly can in order to make her case and possibly push a political agenda in doing so.

 

[PhysBang]

Read my post right above yours.
Then, come back and tell me- explain to me, make it clear to me how you can make that make sense, please.

It is clear that you do not feel that the concern of women for their own bodily integrity is a real right that they are entitled to.

 

[seagypsy]

You seem to be advocating the rape of women at least in the sense that you advocate for the use of their reproductive organs despite their wishes.

Let's not call it rape, though.

right. Let's not because that is not what it is. And unless the woman was actually raped, the presence of the fetus is the result of her own actions.

You advocate for the assault of women at least in the sense that you advocate for the use of their reproductive organs despite their wishes.

Again, unless she was ACTUALLY raped, it was her own actions that led to the presence of life in her womb. So it is not assault to accept consequences of ones own actions. If I shove a turkey baster full of fresh sperm up into my vagina because it feels good to me, who's fault is it if I get pregnant in the process? Mine. I can hardly say that there is an assault against me because I am held responsible for the existence of the fetus in my womb. I chose to shove sperm up there knowing I have eggs and that when sperm meets egg often the conception of a human fetus takes place. Just like a person should not be allowed to sue McDonalds because they got fat scarfing down 20 big macs a day while laying around on their ass.

We women,simply do not get to throw around accusations at people because we don't want to be responsible for how a fetus that we are at least half responsible for creating.

Let's not call it assault, though. You advocate for the divorcing of women from their rights at least in the sense that you advocate for the use of their reproductive organs despite their wishes.

Right lets call it what it is, except in cases of rape, he advocates a woman taking responsibility for the fetus she has at least 50% responsibility in creating.

Oh wait, I'm wrong again, because he doesn't even demand she take responsibility for it unless she waits til it is past a certain stage of fetal development to make up her mind.

So yeah, stop twisting what people advocate to suit your ego. It's tacky and dishonest. And since you seem insistant in proceeding this way, I have no problem with putting you on ignore. I have no attachment to any contribution you may make outside of this thread. There are no unique opinions so any reasonable post you make in any other thread will undoubtedly be mirrored by someone else's. I consider all online existences to be expendable.

 

[seagypsy]

So you want us to make your posts make sense?

A post where you applied a false and misleading and absurd hypothetical (such as a woman apparently getting an abortion one minute before the baby comes out because she has changed her mind about having a child at that point) because you cannot discuss the topic but instead prefer to keep relying on this absurd hypothetical as though it is fact and attempting to divert the debate and discussion away from the actual topic...

And now to the post that you decided to hide:


The irony of this, of course, is that you confirmed that you actually are not kidding.

Secondly, you respond to someone pointing out that men are trying to subjugate women's reproductive organs against the woman's wishes and you respond with that...?

And you complain that we see you as misogynistic?

So would it be fair then to call you a misandrist for your own remarks?

To both you and Neverfly: please lets not get back to what we were yesterday. Mudslinging, ad homs and the like need to stop.

 

[PhysBang]

Right lets call it what it is, except in cases of rape, he advocates a woman taking responsibility for the fetus she has at least 50% responsibility in creating.

It's not responsibility if you are forcing her to do something. Women either have the right to bodily integrity or they do not. If they do, then you cannot interfere with an abortion. If they don't, then just admit it.

 

[Neverfly]

edit - content superfluous Tiassa feel free to delete this... ( I didn't expect you to delete yours)

 

[seagypsy]

Tiassa, you attributed the quote to the wrong person. Neverfly did not say that. I did.

I have submitted a response to your remarks deleted post however in a separate post but they went into the mod queue.

ETA: assuming my response to the deleted post will also be deleted from the mod queue without publication, I assume this post will also be deleted since ... oh fuck i don't suppose some official remark is needed from me. I need an aspirin.

 

[Neverfly]

I suppose the outcome depends on the specifics of the case.

Is there a precedent?

Does there need to be? I'm not asking you to tell me what others think, I'm asking your opinion. What do you think should be done in the case I described?

Well, unless you want to count The X-Files episode "Humbug", which involves a conjoined twin who can detach himself at will for short periods in order to kill people. But, no, I don't think that one counts.

<chuckle> no, can't count that one...

Or would you prefer that I simply account for all the potential permutations of such a case, so that you can do the hard lifting of complaining that none of the answers are sufficient, and I can do the easy work of providing more and more answers?

This sounds like a dodge to me. If you cannot answer based on the premise I gave - say you do not know. If you believe that the primary twin body has more rights than the secondary and should have the right to choose the others death, say so. If you think that the secondary has the right to choose to live, even if that means he's using the primary twins organs, say so. If you don't know- can't decide, say so.
This mucking about is just that- mucking about.

 

[seagypsy]

At the outset, I would ask you to stop for a minute and think about the absurdity you're describing. Indeed, as an American, I can imagine laughter ringing from sea to shining sea until people got it out of their systems and were capable of taking the proposition seriously. After all, finding humor in extreme morbidity is a common ego defense complex.

First I said that, not Neverfly. Second, I never said it wasn't absurd. but an absurd possibility is still a possiblity. I'm sure at one point in time the idea that a woman would kill her children by driving them into a lake and then tell the police and press that a black guy car jacked her seemed absurd... until it actually happened. I am only considering All possibilities. I'm sure when lawmakers made laws to protect pregnant women from assault, the idea that the law would be turned around to prosecute innocent miscarriages was absurd to them as well, but the absurdity of it didn't stop it from happening.

But once people got over it and took the issue seriously, I think the first thing to do would be to get a psych evaluation. Not counseling to reconcile the twins, but a psych evaluation to establish competency.

That's an interesting concept. I can't disagree with it. But again, if that is the precedent, I can imagine an absurd fanatical attorney declaring that any abortion should require a psych evaluation. Actually, I think that argument has already been presented back in the 80's. I seem to remember, even as a little kid, hearing that a woman would not be allowed to get an abortion at any time for any reason without a psych eval and extensive counseling, which ultimately took the form of a pro life advocate wearing a lab coat inflicting guilt on the expectant mother for wanting to "hack her infant to bits with an ax". My mom contemplated aborting my little brother when I was a kid and I unfortunately watched the videos the doctors sent her home with.

Beyond that, though, I've got nothing for you, since you already dismissed these considerations as jumping through hoops to avoid giving a valid response.

it may make sense for you to bring this up if Neverfly had made the statements you quoted above, but he didn't. I did.

In that sense, I find your morbidly hilarious hypothetical offensive insofar as you are now asking me to consider what you've already rejected as evasive.

Good one, that.

I will disregard this since you clearly have a situation of mistake identity and assume that the same person made all the statements you are referring to. Clearly you are mistaken and perhaps the fact that I am an independent reality from Neverfly, would help MY statements to make more sense, rather than assuming what I say and think somehow is dependent on what Neverfly says.

 

[Neverfly]

Edit: Due to Mod Queue the posting numbers changed. I reiterated what the post says by quoting myself in the next post below.

So you want us to make your posts make sense?

That is not what I said and I know that you know it. I said, can you make the question I asked in post number 209 make sense? It was specific, not general across all posts as you implied. As Tiassa was doing, you're avoiding it. You're dodging it. Can you provide an answer to the question in post 209 that makes sense?

And now to the post that you decided to hide:

They're called Easter Eggs.
The rest of your post misrepresents the "initiative" as men and women are involved in that stance. The claim that "men are trying to subjugate" was inaccurate and absurd. Physbangs posts are extremely derogatory and sexist and if you support them, calling me a misogynist for what I said in post 209 is equally absurd.

 

[Neverfly]

It is clear that you do not feel that the concern of women for their own bodily integrity is a real right that they are entitled to.

That is not what the dilemma in post 209 relays at all. You either did not read the post or you did not understand it or you are flatly refusing to do so.

I will repeat it:

But we are talking about a societal belief or opinion that killing other people is... bad. That's at stake here. To put this into perspective, if my next door neighbor holds the opinion that he has the right to kill his wife rather than let her leech off of him and never get a job while he goes to work and pays the bills, what he considers to be a parasite sucking off of his Life Force or what have you we do force our opinion or beliefs on him that killing is not the proper course of action.
I cannot see the difference between killing a baby 1 minute after it is born and 1 minute before it is born. That is that arbitrary line, again. It is nonsense, illogical. It makes no damned sense. So the way I see it, it's not my opinion here, it's the standard of society.
I ask you again, can you explain that? Can you make that make sense? See below-

It's not about how absurd you may think 1 minute before birth is- it's that the line drawn at birth is very arbitrary, that it allows the right to kill a brain at that point. It permits it. In the meantime, many of you advocating extreme Pro-Choice would be directly opposed to a law that allows or permits women murdering her husband if she does not want him.

And I hope that I have, as well. If she's permitted to abort early on, then making it legal to kill late term is too nonsensical, too close to the line or murder. You're granting the right to kill at that point, not the right to govern one's own. They had plenty of time to make that choice by then and they are obligated to see that choice through once past the third trimester- if they haven't aborted by that point then they have chosen to see it through. (This does not apply to a case where mothers life is in danger- that is the right to self defense.) IF they do not abort before third trimester, they lose that option when it has a brain. What is so terrible about that? Where is that depriving someone of their rights? They HAVE those rights! Not executing the action means they did choose.

Am I really failing to show the clarity of this?! If I choose to kill my neighbor, then I am choosing to go to prison. It really is that simple. I lose the right to ... whatever... when I take a life.

Those that believe the right to choose should extend all the way to 1 minute before birth, while there IS a human brain involved, can you make it make sense? Can you give a sound clear reason as to why? Don't just dismiss it slight of hand- this argument is valid.

Physbang, notice that at no time, in the above, were rights stripped away from anyone accept for when they chose to kill another person. Not for ridding themselves of a cluster of cells.

 

[Bells]

That is not what I said and I know that you know it. I said, can you make the question I asked in post number 209 make sense? As Tiassa was doing, you're avoiding it. You're dodging it. Can you provide an answer to the question in post 209 that makes it make sense?

I am not dodging it. Your proposition and question is absurd and, frankly, idiotic. You keep attempting to take the discussion away from the actual topic and trying to force people to answer or have to respond to a ridiculous proposition and then you have the cheek to say to us "can you make the question I asked in post number 209 make sense?"...

Your question makes no sense because what you are asking makes no sense. If you ask a question, you can't expect others to make the question you are posing make sense. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that no woman would get to 1 minute before the baby comes out and suddenly change her mind about wanting to have a child and ask for an abortion. Not only is she actively pushing the child out at that point, you are asking me to say whether she should be given the right to an abortion at that point in time. How can one abort a child as it's coming down the vaginal passage? You are asking that in such a situation, she what? Stops pushing and waits for an abortion? Really?

Perhaps cross her legs and hope it doesn't come out so that they can abort it? Try and suck it back in so she can abort it?

They're called Easter Eggs.

Right...

The rest of your post misrepresents the "initiative" as men and women are involved in that stance. The claim that "men are trying to subjugate" was inaccurate and absurd. Physbangs posts are extremely derogatory and sexist and if you support them, calling me a misogynist for what I said in post 209 is equally absurd.

Physbang's posts represent the argument you are making here and he is rubbing your face into it.

You believe that once it reaches a certain point, no woman should be granted the right to an abortion.

In short, you are demanding that women be forced to endure a pregnancy against her wish and be forced to give birth, either naturally or force her to have major surgery against her will.

You do not think that is subjugating women at all? You do not think that forcing your will on a woman's wombs based on your personal beliefs or politicians forcing their will on the wombs of women against the woman's will is not a manner of subjugation?

Think about it for a moment Neverfly. You believe that once there is a functioning brain, that the woman should have no right or say over her body. Absolutely none. And you believe that once that point is reached, and if she wants a termination, than she should be forced, against her will to remain pregnant and then be forced against her will to go through childbirth.

I can understand now why you keep asking about the 1 minute before birth questions. Because you want to take attention away from what you want or think is right for women. And that is that after a certain point in a pregnancy, she should be forced to remain pregnant against her will and be forced to give birth against her will.

 

[Neverfly]

I am not dodging it.

Yes, you are. Because you cannot make it make sense and you know it would undermine your position if you admit you cannot.
The premise is:
A woman may have an abortion up until the third trimester. She has that right.
Once the third trimester is reached, it's established there is another human brain involved and while she had the right to abort for two trimesters- nothing has been taken away that she didn't have, by choosing not to abort she chose to carry to term. She does not have the "right" nor does any of us have the "right" to kill another human brain frivolously. Just as if I sleep in and fail to go to work, I am choosing to lose my job. A choice by omission is still a choice.
Those that allow for that choice up until it's killing a human brain are avoiding answering this "Killing Problem." The killing problem being that the mother did have the right to choose but no one has the right to choose when killing another human brain. Since she could abort at any time for two full trimesters, the continued right to choose after the brain is established is what is idiotic, absurd and utterly contrary to societal demands- that we are disallowed from killing eachother frivolously.
If the mothers life is not in danger, (Self defense laws) she does not have the right to kill a human brain anymore than anyone else does (Accepting self defense laws).

Physbang's posts represent the argument you are making here and he is rubbing your face into it.

Inaccurate. Physbang seems to be under the impression that I've advocated something I've not. I have addressed the "killing problem" repeatedly and putting blinders on will not alter that real problem.
The extreme pro-choice stance seems to be unaware their stance can easily backfire in the eyes of the Law, just as prosecuting a woman for a miscarriage can backfire. It's just as slippery a slope.

You believe that once it reaches a certain point, no woman should be granted the right to an abortion.

She was granted the right to an abortion. Once it reaches a certain stage where the human brain is established, she lacks the right already to kill another human brain. None of us have that "right." The only time any of us have that right is if it's self defensive and I support that, even in this. It's like you want to have your cake and eat it too, you want more "rights' than anyone is ever granted.

In short, you are demanding that women be forced to endure a pregnancy against her wish and be forced to give birth, either naturally or force her to have major surgery against her will.

Wrong. Since she has the right to abort, nothing I have said endorses what you just claimed. The rest of your post was just reiteration of the same absurdity.
Again, she has the right to abort. You ignoring that changes nothing.

 

[seagypsy]

You believe that once it reaches a certain point, no woman should be granted the right to an abortion.

First we really need to stop stating what other people believe. Neverfly has said on many occasions that if the mother's life is in danger he does not feel she should be forced to continue the pregnancy.

In short, you are demanding that women be forced to endure a pregnancy against her wish and be forced to give birth, either naturally or force her to have major surgery against her will.

Clearly all our posts speak for themselves. We do not need to tell readers how to interpret the words of another. Every reader is fully capable of reading what is said and deciphering for themselves what they believe the poster intended. If they have any doubts or confusion they can simply ask for clarification. The presumption that any one of us knows better what a poster intends than the poster themselves is a major source of contention and major cause of Hiroshima type explosions which create an environment where all involved lose site of objective rational discourse.

Neverfly has said on many occasions that if the mother's life is in danger he does not feel she should be forced to continue the pregnancy. And he has never specifically stated a change in that position. If you have interpreted an implication on his part that is between you and your own conscience. But there is no rule that states, because one CAN interpret a string of words to mean something, that it automatically means that interpretation is correct.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

What a pack of hypocrites. FR shouldn't you be shut up in a courner not speaking as per your wife's instructions . . . .

No. If you read carefully, you'll notice that I have not expressed an opinion about abortion. I'm simply moderating this discussion from the perspective of language.

. . . . in fact I'm yet to hear you tell Tiassa to shut up because he has a dick.

As you noted, I told everyone that I wish men would not participate in these discussions. There's no need to address each of them individually. This is not a SciForums rule, merely a good idea. It's not enforceable.

Fraggle Rocker declared that he would ban any member that doesn't use terms he agrees with, citing a linguistic reason.

No I didn't. I'm beginning to see that you have great difficulty with language, which is consistent with your style of posting. I seldom ban people, less than one per year, not counting spammers who these days are mostly bots rather than people anyway.

What I said is that I would ban you. My reason is not that you don't use terms I agree with. My reason is that you misuse words. In a place of science and scholarship that is inexcusable. But it is particularly inexcusable in this case because your misuse of words is a subversive tactic you use to beg your own question. The point in argument is whether a fetus should be granted personhood. Yet you immediately pounced in and started using the terms "fetus" and "person" (as well as "baby" and "child") interchangeably, before the question has been settled.

These words have specific meanings, especially in a scientific context. There's no dispute.

• When a sperm and an egg unite, they become a zygote.
• When that cell (the zygote) divides into multiple cells, it becomes a fetus, also called an "unborn child" in prior eras but the term is still acceptable and unambiguous.
• When the fetus exits the mother's uterus (by conventional birth or caesarean section) and continues to live, it becomes a baby, and also a child or person.
• If it does not continue to live it is a stillborn baby. However, this is a horribly sad event, and unlike abortion it generates no controversy, so no one gets fussy about terminology when the parents refer to it tearfully as "our baby."

In other words, your rhetoric implies that the question has already been answered, and (what a surprise) the answer is that you are right! I.e., a fetus is indeed a person.

This is intellectual dishonesty. When intellectual dishonesty completely derails a thread by garbling key terminology, it becomes a textbook case of trolling: stalling or diverting the forward motion of a discussion. Trolling is a violation of the forum rules. While in practice we have to tolerate a considerable amount of it because this is not an academy and the members come to play as well as to teach and learn, we have an obligation to moderate serious threads so they don't lose their point.

If you're going to start a thread, please be honest about it. When you ask whether a fetus is a person, you cannot then turn around and act as though the question has already been settled.

This threat is clearly a fallacy and uncalled for. It undermines rational debate and is a ham fisted approach to ruling through fear.

Nope. If you continue to conflate "fetus" with "baby," "child," or "person," thereby tangling up this discussion in its own terminology so there's no way out of it, you will be banned.

 

[seagypsy]

deleted by author -This (same post follows) was a duplicate that went to mod queue.

 

[seagypsy]

This post is in response to Fraggle Rockers excuses and attempts to rationalize what we all clearly saw take place. It is not on topic with the OP and so I put in spoilers so that readers reasonably frustrated with the off topic flaming and posturing can easily skip pass this post on to more relevant discourse.

Spoiler

No. If you read carefully, you'll notice that I have not expressed an opinion about abortion. I'm simply moderating this discussion from the perspective of language.

No you haven't directly voiced an opinion about abortion itself but you have expressed your opinion of those who voice theirs. Maybe not the samething. But indirectly you have stated that men have no right to say anything about abortion. So yes you have expressed an opinion in the matter of abortion. You have stated who you think has a right to call the shots in abortion.

What gives you the right over the wombs of women that you feel you should have a say over what they do with said womb and its contents?

His penis. That has always granted men the right to do anything we want to women. Some of us can't bear the thought of losing that right, just as millions of us still can't bear the thought of losing the right to do anything we want to Afro-Americans. [ I,seagypsy, removed off topic rant from the quote so that I would not feel compelled to respond to how I interpreted the validity of it]

As you noted, I told everyone that I wish men would not participate in these discussions. There's no need to address each of them individually. This is not a SciForums rule, merely a good idea. It's not enforceable.

I didn't see anything directly stating that you merely felt men should not participate in discussion. You stated the opinion that men hold opinions on account of their penis. And you expressed the opinion that men hold their opinions because they believe the existence of their penis gives them to right to do so. If you believe men should remain quiet in these issues then why did you feel compelled to chime in on anything other then misuse of proper terms?

No I didn't. I'm beginning to see that you have great difficulty with language, which is consistent with your style of posting. I seldom ban people, less than one per year, not counting spammers who these days are mostly bots rather than people anyway.

What I said is that I would ban you.

My reason is not that you don't use terms I agree with. My reason is that you misuse words. In a place of science and scholarship that is inexcusable. But it is particularly inexcusable in this case because your misuse of words is a subversive tactic you use to beg your own question. The point in argument is whether a fetus should be granted personhood. Yet you immediately pounced in and started using the terms "fetus" and "person" (as well as "baby" and "child") interchangeably, before the question has been settled.

So you are declaring one set of rules for Neverfly and a different one for the rest of us? Because I, several times referred to the fetus as a baby and a child. But at least you are admitting that you do not fairly enforce rules. You will enforce rules against those you, perhaps don't like, but ignore those you have more respect for. Or maybe it is a gender based decision. Neverfly cannot misuse words because he has a penis, but I can misuse them all I want because I am the more deserving gender of female.

If you're going to start a thread, please be honest about it. When you ask whether a fetus is a person, you cannot then turn around and act as though the question has already been settled.

If you are going to start a thread? Neverfly did not start this thread. Your statement makes no sense. You are just throwing out a baseless accusation.

Nope. If you continue to conflate "fetus" with "baby," "child," or "person," thereby tangling up this discussion in its own terminology so there's no way out of it, you will be banned.

But I won't because I have in my possession a glorious vagina!

 

[Neverfly]

As you noted, I told everyone that I wish men would not participate in these discussions.

How is this relevant to the "killing problem" described above?

These words have specific meanings, especially in a scientific context. There's no dispute.

• When a sperm and an egg unite, they become a zygote.
• When that cell (the zygote) divides into multiple cells, it becomes a fetus, also called an "unborn child" in prior eras but the term is still acceptable and unambiguous.
• When the fetus exits the mother's uterus (by conventional birth or caesarean section) and continues to live, it becomes a baby, and also a child or person.
• If it does not continue to live it is a stillborn baby. However, this is a horribly sad event, and unlike abortion it generates no controversy, so no one gets fussy about terminology when the parents refer to it tearfully as "our baby."

In other words, your rhetoric implies that the question has already been answered, and (what a surprise) the answer is that you are right! I.e., a fetus is indeed a person.

I believe that reasonable wording should be understood, not misunderstood. I will try to be clear as I can with my wording, so that one cannot claim that I intentionally misled them by defining terms.
A human brain cannot be denied for a political agenda.

When you ask whether a fetus is a person, you cannot then turn around and act as though the question has already been settled.

Fair enough.

 

[Tiassa]

This, That, and the Other

Sure we are talking hypotheticals here but what IF a pair of conjoined twins, where one is parasitic turns 18 and the host twin decides she wants a normal sex life and can't have one. She feels her right to her own body is being violated. Perhaps her parasitic twin is in love with a guy who the host twin hates. The parasitic twin and the guy get married. In order for her husband to be able to be intimate with his wife, even if he is respectful to only touch the parts that belong to his own wife, the host twin still will be forced to participate in certain acts even if it is only by being present. What if they share a vagina? Sex with the husband would put the non married twin in a state of rape. What does one do? It's my guess that most twins simply compromise, but how? And what if they can't? How can a court take a side in the case without inflicting a terrible injustice on the one that lost?

At the outset, I would ask you to stop for a minute and think about the absurdity you're describing. Indeed, as an American, I can imagine laughter ringing from sea to shining sea until people got it out of their systems and were capable of taking the proposition seriously. After all, finding humor in extreme morbidity is a common ego defense complex.

But once people got over it and took the issue seriously, I think the first thing to do would be to get a psych evaluation. Not counseling to reconcile the twins, but a psych evaluation to establish competency.

Beyond that, though, I've got nothing new for you; I've already considered these issues in a prior post.

• • •​

Does there need to be? I'm not asking you to tell me what others think, I'm asking your opinion. What do you think should be done in the case I described?

As I noted in my erroneously-attributed response now deleted (but largely reproduced in the prior section above), you're now asking me to rehash what you've already dismissed as jumping through hoops.

• • •​

Note to Neverfly and Seagypsy

My apologies for the earlier attribution error.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wow, you're fast. I mean, you read the post, figured your response, typed it out, and put it up in three minutes.



Is there something about the statement that, "Had I been a High Court judge on that case, yes, I probably would have ordered separation", that is hard for you to comprehend?



Well, since the statement that, "Had I been a High Court judge on that case, yes, I probably would have ordered separation", is insufficient for you, perhaps you might explain why? Or, at least, formulate a more specific question?

I agree

Tiassa is fudging.


After going to great lengths to place similarities between having influenza or even cancer and being pregnant, he sure picked a bad time to start explaining how there are too many irrevocable differences between conjoined twins and the relationship between a pregnant mother and her unborn child ....