Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Neverfly]

In the end, one thing I can say is that as a posting member, I am not in the least surprised at the effort some people have put into keeping the discussion focused on anything but the actual thread topic. In and of itself, that makes any number of points better than anything I could possibly say about it.

This was why I'd suggested the spoiler tags to keep the off topic flaming wrapped in those rather than being in full view.
Granted, I forgot to use them myself on the last two posts...
Even so, I highly doubt any member in this thread (any history notwithstanding) is deliberately keeping things off topic solely to prevent discussion of the topic.

Getting caught up in arguments is too easy to do. Making your point is an impetus. To claim that anyone is deliberately keeping it off topic is frankly, paranoid.

 

[Neverfly]

As for your studies. You misrepresented them and lied about them. That is dishonest on your behalf.

This claim is utterly false. It's been shown, several times that none of that occurred.
She posted the relevant material that Trippy provided.

Granted, we all took it at face value at first and we all should have examined it closer at first.

According to the study Trippy then cited, Seagypsy showed it was conducted in a hospital in Paris, France and showed that it started at 12 weeks. You claimed it's an American study done in France. That makes no sense. I looked at that study too and I don't see how you reached the conclusion that it's American statistics done in a hospital in France- but if that is the case, please provide how you reached your conclusion. It was no ones intention to mislead and I doubt Trippy had that intention, either. None of this addresses the ridicule given over the 16 week study that Trippy followed up with a 12 week study on. I do not think Trippy "did it on purpose" but the both of you running with it and blaming S.G. for Trippy's choice of support is totally insane.

At no time did she misrepresent the data or lie about the data. Instead of just making this claim, perhaps you should support it by showing the accurate data and exposing the lies.

You seem unaware that you're actually calling Trippy a liar and a fraud here...
Not in a spoiler because it's on topic.

 

[seagypsy]

Time of death 10:16pm CST

Seagypsy

It should be worth noting that the only person carrying on about my supposed "victimhood" here is you. I have told you that I am not, that I do not suffer from hardship nor have I suffered from hardship in my mind and I have asked you repeatedly now to stop commenting on my personal life and on my marriage and relationship. Repeatedly.

And you just do not stop.

I will stop commenting on or mentioning your personal life as soon as you stop commenting on or mentioning YOUR own personal life or that of others. If you are not willing to do what you request me to do, then I feel no obligation to obey your requests.

I discussed what happened in the birth of my children as examples to particular points of discussion. That does not mean that you have the right to comment on my personal life in the manner that you have, especially after I have advised you numerous times now that not only is it none of your business, but also because I do not want you to talk about my life or carry on about it as you have and declare that I am using it to get away with whatever in this thread. Not once has that occurred. Not once. So your dishonesty in that regard is again duly noted.

And Asquard mentioned his life experience as it applied to the discussion. What right did that give you to judge him?

No you are not using it as an excuse to get away with your behavior. If you interpreted my remarks to be such a claim then I am sorry for not being clear. So for clarity, again, I do not believe YOU are using it as an excuse to be abusive. Tiassa made the excuse for you publicly and affords it to you (and others have made these excuses for you while admitting that your behavior is inappropriate at times in PM to me), whether you asked for it or not. My grievance is with the other mods for making allowances for you that they do not make for the rest of us. You are only being you, something you are incapable of doing anything about. Same as for the rest of us.

So, I will ask you again to cease and desist in attacking my personal life and your false, slanderous and misleading assumptions about me and my personal life.

I have made no attacks. Quote me where I have called you any names or declared you to be abusive on account of your personal life. Quote me or stop accusing me of attacking your personal life.

As for your studies. You misrepresented them and lied about them. That is dishonest on your behalf.

Where did I lie or misrepresent. YOU acknowledged that I didn't leave out that they were for 16 wks and beyond, so where is the misrepresentation or lie?

Perhaps your attacking my personal life is your attempt to hide your dishonest misrepresentation of studies in this thread, who knows and who cares... What I do know is that I have asked you to stop commenting on my personal and marital life. It is none of your business but you just keep going on about it in the most vulgar manner possible.

actually you are the one that keeps bringing up. Stop. I couldn't care less about your personal life, it certainly isn't representative of the majority of women in the world.

And I also pointed out how and why the studies you linked do not apply and I also pointed out that you misrepresented them, because you tried to pass them off as applying for third trimester figures when the reality is that the studies were from 16 weeks,

Will point out again, THEY WERE THE STATISTICS THAT TRIPPY ORIGINALLY POSTED. If I was being dishonest, so was he.

...The excessive Irony may be bad for your dental health.

A 1987 study found that three out of every four late term abortions were actually caused by ingorance or ass hattery on the part of thirdparties lack of access to facilities, or lack of education.

If you want to avoid the majority of late term abortions, the solution is simple.
Educate your sons on the mothers right to choose, and teach them to support their partners rather than condem them.
Support your daughters decision, don't condem it.
Educate your children about the importance of safe sex and contraception.
Educate your daughters on the importance of making a decision early, and what choices are available to her in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.

75 to 80 percent of late term abortions (post 16 weeks) are caused by familial pressure not to abort, partners pressure not to abort, difficulty in getting an earlier abortion, or simply not understanding the importance of timing or that abortion is an option. Dealing with these societal problems will remove the need for a great many late term abortions.

bolding mine- and notice he gave no source for his information, perhaps hoping no one would bother to verify his claims

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension?

Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
Link at end.
Reasons given for Late term abortions
71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion [Bells said this never happens... Almost 1/4 of late term abortions is done for the exact reason that Bells gave an argument of incredulity.]
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_te...n_of_pregnancy

Might not have looked that up if you hadn't posted such a wildly high figure- thanks Trippy.

Let's see what I said:

Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
75 to 80 percent of late term abortions (post 16 weeks) are caused by familial pressure not to abort, partners pressure not to abort, difficulty in getting an earlier abortion, or simply not understanding the importance of timing or that abortion is an option. Dealing with these societal problems will remove the need for a great many late term abortions.

Let's look again at those figures, and relate them to what I said shall we?

48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
...difficulty in getting an earlier abortion...
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
...familial pressure not to abort, partners pressure not to abort...
Okay, so here it might have been more accurate to say "Familial pressure" but seriously, if she's not under some kind of pressure, what has she got to be afraid of?

6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
...or simply not understanding the importance of timing or that abortion is an option...
48+33+8+6+5= 97% (I said 75 to 80 percent).

Also, while you were there, did you notice this?


It shows that abortions after twenty weeks are exceedingly rare and that abortions after 12 weeks 15/155 per 1000 people are unusual.

notice he makes no objection to the fact that the statistics are from 16wks he only claims his math proves his numbers correct. and he does not make any claim that we did not cite the same source that he did. In fact he confirmed his source was from wiki just as ours was.

which would greatly skew any results of why women get abortions in the third trimester,

agreed the statistics didn't properly apply, so why was it ok for Trippy to post the same exact ones? oh that's right because HE was twisting them to support YOUR side of the debate. That makes it all okay right?

which was what I had been discussing with Neverfly. In short, you lied and got caught and the result of that is that you try to divert attention from your own lies and attack my personal life in the most vulgar way imaginable even after you were asked to stop.

I will ignore any more of your whining about your personal life.

You also misunderstood and you are being dishonest about what Tiassa said. Tiassa pretty much told you that the conflict between Asguard and myself is something that goes way back on this site and is none of your business. At no time did Tiassa mention that my personal life excuses the disagreement that I have with Asguard. But I can see that you are attempting to misrepresent that as well.

"Dishonest" implies intent. If I misunderstood then there would be no intent and it would simply be a mistake. not dishonesty.

If it is none of our business, why air it for us all to see. I would be perfectly happy not having witnessed any of it or hear about your marital problems. But YOU brought them out in stunning detail. Asgaurd didn't even put it in detail. YOU did that. And if he crossed a line, you simply could have asked Tiassa to put his mod hat on and give Asguard a warning about rehashing old threads here, like the official mod request you gave me recently. I don't deny that going to these lengths is dirty but it certainly is not a practice you are above engaging in yourself. You do it and you do it at will as often as it suits your purpose to do so. My take on this is, what goes around comes around. If you don't want to be seen in the light that you are presented, then don't present yourself in such a light.

Pointing out the truth as one sees it is not attacking by the way. If a person is ugly are they attacked every time they pass in front of a mirror?
If pointing out the truth as one sees it is attacking then you should never be observed telling a theist their faith in a creator is illogical. Else you can rightfully be accused of attacking them.

The saddest thing i see here, is in all the lies you tell, I think you actually believe them to be true. It must be a lot of work maintaining the fantasy world in which you live.

At this point, the dishonesty and twisting of data to suit the unrelenting ego of those who cannot bear the idea of being wrong is nausiating and I have come to the conclusion that a reasonable debate with fair logic and rational behavior being displayed on both sides is simply impossible. When participants refuse to acknowledge simple possiblities simply because they can't imagine or relate to those possibilities and refuse to accept them AS possibilities until they are reported in some literature. There is no possiblity to honest discussion. When people ignore errors posted by those on their side of a debate while pointing out the same errors on the opposing side. There is no possibility of honest discussion. When people refuse to answer simple questions and give illogical reasons why they shouldn't answer said questions or they dodge anything that puts them in a position to admit to their errors, there is no possibility of honest discussion.

If Tiassa refuses to do his job as moderator because he doesn't like what he admits is the right thing to do (whatever he believes that is) then there is no hope for even handed honest discussion.

This thread is useless at this point. I think any honest reasonable debate to be found here will require immense patience on the part of the reader to the likely affect that the reader will simply become nauseated by all the personal vendettas displayed and will lose interest in anything good that may be buried within the mess.

So Bells, be my guest, you can have your little pet thread as your podium and platform for insisting men hate women and that any man who wants to be a father to his unborn child is a misogynist and that any person honest enough to admit they have conditions on their love for their spouse is somehow an abusive monster who seeks to control and subjugate their partner into compliance.

If all those who are disgusted by the digression of this thread will simply stop participating or reading, the ones left behind will have only their own buddies patting them on the back and they can be allowed their reprehensible demand for validation in spite of clear logic satisfied. This type of psychosis is not one that can be reasoned with without sufficient medication, something we can't issue in an online forum.

I regret my participation in this ridiculous parody of a debate and hope that those who are quietly lurking will forgive me my transgressions in this thread.

 

[Tiassa]

As briefly as possible

Explain how that statement is not excusing her behavior?

I am aware of the history in the dispute between Bells and Asguard; I've even taken part in that argument.

Both Bells and Asguard are adults and capable of standing for themselves.

You were pretty close, though, when you said:

My own personal view on this is that unless you're claiming that Bells and Asgaurd know eachother very well, personally, and that they have a dispute that is old and unknown to us- then making excuses for poor behavior because someone has a rough past is nonsense.

But you weren't close enough.

Asguard, as I've known him over the years, is generally a pretty good guy. But I, like Bells, have serious concerns about his view of women. And that dispute has been going on for a long time. It's not some ridiculous idea of Bells' hard life that excuses her, but, rather, that this is a long-running argument that I'm going to let them have. They can take care of themselves.

It's not a matter of excusing Bells' behavior. Asguard wanted this fight, and now he's got it.

So, to catch you up in brief:

• "if you don't want the responsibility of a child don't have sex or get snipped, it's as simple as that" — Asguard tried to tag me with this line earlier in the thread, but the problem is that it's a response to his proposition that if a man tells his female partner to have an abortion, and she doesn't, he ought to be excused from child support. This is part of a larger phenomenon that there is almost no issue of women's rights or humanity that won't draw his lament about how men are treated poorly.

• "She might be eating a ham sandwich" — This is a little more complicated, but not much. I forget exactly when the point arose, but it might have been in response to the idea of the courts forcing a pregnant woman to bedrest at her doctor's behest; the general case was that she couldn't afford to take that much time off work to spend laying around, so the doctor got a court order. I think that was the general issue. Asguard's argument emerged that he would expect his partner to behave according to his standards once she was pregnant.

• The underlying theme, of all this is that because a man put his seed in a woman, he is entitled to authority over her body. That's the point of bitter contention. Indeed, it has nothing at all to do with your point about:

"Hate to bust your bubble but that's normal and healthy human interaction. Women pressure men when they want children, marriage and bon bons, too."​

I mean, there is a certain amount of leveraging between partners that is normal and in some cases healthy, but that's not the sort of pressure the dispute is actually about.​

Outside of women's issues, my critique of Asguard is actually benign. But if I'm not putting on my green hat to get in their way, it's because I know the history of what's going on here, and this is going to keep coming up, over and over again, whenever certain issues pertaining to women arise.

 

[Neverfly]

I am aware of the history in the dispute between Bells and Asguard; I've even taken part in that argument.

Asguard, as I've known him over the years, is generally a pretty good guy. But I, like Bells, have serious concerns about his view of women. And that dispute has been going on for a long time.

It's not some ridiculous idea of Bells' hard life that excuses her, but, rather, that this is a long-running argument that I'm going to let them have. They can take care of themselves.

Good to hear, because at first, that is how it appeared to be.
I can accept all that and I retract some of my commentary on that issue.
But there is something I wanna say about it anyway... Contained in a spoiler below. It's a bit rambling...

Spoiler

So, to catch you up in brief

I'm going to be blunt.
Here, you relate the past disagreements. As much as my blunt response may sound like I'm questioning your honesty... It is more of a case of the Telephone Game.
I've experienced first hand how you interpreted my wording once and no matter how many times I refuted it- you stuck to your guns.
I'm taking it with a grain of salt. I've heard your version- file that aside a moment... If I ever hear Asgaurds version- file that one beside it.
Your version of his arguments leaves me to conclude that you three have a history of disagreement just as I have a history of disagreement with Bells.
I do believe that a history of disagreement leads to a bit of bias- You end up creating a facade of that person in your mind in which they may be capable of great evils... at least, this is how I believe Bells perceives me. I'm fully aware that I have a bias of Bells that I cannot seem to shake because when I try to, she sure appears to confirm it.
So, having heard you say what Asgaurd claims, I'm still giving some benefit of the doubt that Asgaurds intentions may have been less controlling and sexist than one may assume considering how easy it is, in a heated argument, to push your case so strongly that you go overboard.

Example: Asgaurd may worry about a pregnant or expectant mothers diet. I don't see anything in that that suggests "Control Freak." A man is kinda supposed to help his wife around when she's pregnant and watch out for two, there, you know? "No, honey, cigarettes are bad for the baby." But that doesn't mean he controlled her smoking (In this example i just made up off the top of my head) when she was not pregnant. It can be nurturing and necessary. If his wife is depressed, he needs to step up and pay attention, motivate her to get up and get out of a funk. And so on. There is the other side- the side of a control freak. And I don't believe anyone on the forum really knows if Asgaurd is one or not.
We all need reminders to behave, sometimes. To take extra care. And it's possible Asgaurd went overboard trying to explain that during a fight. We all control other people to some degree. We make requests, ask favors, make demands, have expectations- we aim to please eachother and sometimes, we don't get it right. Other times, we're oblivious and sometimes, people get a little selfish. S.G. wanted to go out to Karaoke some time recently. We went a few days ago but I only went because she wanted me to. I certainly did not want to go. But another time, she ended up going out alone. I did not hate her or consider her as controlling me when I did go. She did not hate me for not going or consider me as trying to control her into not going when she went out to the karaoke bar alone. But I did say something controlling to her: "Don't drink anything because you're driving tonight."
It's also possible that he didn't go overboard but was being a dick. I never read it. I'm just sayin.' Food for thought.
I've experienced control freaks. I know how they can be.

 

[Trippy]

You have got to be kidding me.

I know right? I find myself greeting the responses that have accumulated during my working day with a comparable level of dismay.

Trippy, how do you justify the charge of "Emotional Abuse?

Trivially.

If a man is a family type of guy and wants kids, that does not insinuate that emotional abuse is involved. If one partner is wanting a career in a high profile corporation in Chicago and the other wants to live in Alaska, they must hash out the difference and come to a solution. Maybe it's splitting up, maybe it's a divide of several years in Chicago and retire in Alaska - but in the end, each is going to have their own wants and as a couple, they must discuss those wants and solve differences.
You absolutely cannot claim someone must be emotionally abusing the other for wanting kids anymore than you can claim it if one is saying, "We need to come up with an exercise routine and healthy diet."

None of these have any relevance to what I actually said.

Quoting direct statistics is dishonest, now?

It is when you present them out of context the way you did, yes.

The only person that made that statement as an example was Bells.
I have pointed out that if a woman can abort for two trimesters, aside from her medical safety or a severe problem with the fetus, there is no justifying excuses for killing a human brain. You're justifying killing by saying people were indecisive. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I can understand the need to terminate late term if someone is in danger- but because they were indecisive? Come on! You don't let Bank Robbers off the hook for shooting a teller because he was "Scared" do you?! Killing Humans Because you were scared, pressured or indecisive is still wrong.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to elaborate on this a little. Finding the decision to terminate the pregnancy a tough choice is not the same as being wibbly and indecisive. Would you rather people found the choice an easy one to make?

I also can't help but note that you haven't addressed that a large reason for delaying was on religous or moral grounds.

Get that? Your stand point is a moral one, and yet people are delaying making the decision for moral reasons (and religous reasons).

Reminder: This was from the same statistics and study that you posted first. She merely took what you presented and gave the breakdown.
So... hey Bells?

See above. You're saying that to the statistics that Trippy first provided.

France restricts abortion beyond 12 weeks of gestation. So your data is irrelevant as you claim mine is. Also, the source of statistics I posted is the EXACT set of statistics YOU originally posted. So do you really wanna go there?

...16 weeks...
...16 weeks....
Bells commented on that, supportive of Trippy.

This statement, or a variant of it, has been made by the pair of you several times now. It really just goes to show why reading comprehension, is so important.

First up, let's examine what I said. Here's the full post:

...The excessive Irony may be bad for your dental health.

A 1987 study found that three out of every four late term abortions were actually caused by ingorance or ass hattery on the part of thirdparties lack of access to facilities, or lack of education.

If you want to avoid the majority of late term abortions, the solution is simple.
Educate your sons on the mothers right to choose, and teach them to support their partners rather than condem them.
Support your daughters decision, don't condem it.
Educate your children about the importance of safe sex and contraception.
Educate your daughters on the importance of making a decision early, and what choices are available to her in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.

75 to 80 percent of late term abortions (post 16 weeks) are caused by familial pressure not to abort, partners pressure not to abort, difficulty in getting an earlier abortion, or simply not understanding the importance of timing or that abortion is an option. Dealing with these societal problems will remove the need for a great many late term abortions.

It's the last paragraph that's important, specifically, it's the bracketed portion of the first clause of the first sentence, and the entire second sentence that are important.

75 to 80 percent of late term abortions (post 16 weeks) are caused by familial pressure not to abort, partners pressure not to abort, difficulty in getting an earlier abortion, or simply not understanding the importance of timing or that abortion is an option. Dealing with these societal problems will remove the need for a great many late term abortions.

I explicitly stated, from the get-go that I was addressing abortions post 16 weeks, and defined that as being what I meant when I said late term, and I specifically avoided addressing third trimester abortions until I had statistics specific to third trimester abortions. Why? Because, and here is where it get's tricky, I under stand that 16 weeks is LESS THAN 28 weeks. Which, as it happens, is precisely why I said that citing that study to counter these claims:

In fact, I do not know nor know of any woman who would reach the third trimester after enduring the sheer joys and bliss of the first two trimesters, because you know, the first two are an absolute party and hellishly fun (yes, that is sarcasm) and then go 'Nah, can't be shagged' and decide to abort. Especially as you are trying to say, 30 seconds before she delivers.

But the fact that third trimester abortions are the rarest in that they constitute the absolute minority of all abortions (I think the figure is less than 3%?) and the absolute majority of even that small figure is because there is a medical problem, I'd have to say that you are clutching at straws because you are angry at 'something something'.

And keep in mind, of the less than 1% who have an abortion in the third trimester, it is the extreme minority of that number who are terminating for reasons that are not for medical issues that may arise or be discovered with the mother or foetus.

Made by Bells was dishonest and amateurish - because the Post 28 week abortions are simpled binned as being "Post 16 weeks" and applying that specific study to a discussion of post 28 week abortions requires the inate assumption that the reasons for getting an abortion post 16 weeks have the same distribution as as the reasons for getting and abortion post 28 weeks. Something which struck me as being exceedingly unlikely.

So, while I may have bought the study into the conversation, I used it appropriately. The use of it to infer information about abortions after 28 weeks is fundamentally flawed, because the study does not distinguish between degrees of lateness, it lumps them all into the same category.

Your source is a wordpress blog by the way.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Unlike some participants in this thread, it seems, I read things in their entirety, and often their sources before I cite them.

If abortion is illegal in France beyond 12 weeks of gestation (sooner than the 16 weeks that you complained about in the statistics I posted, which were the same exact statistics you originally used btw) unless there is some medical risk to mother or fetus, why would you expect to have anyone aborting for any other reason there? Maybe we need to find statistics of reported reasons for third trimester abortions from a region of the world where there are no restrictions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Then we may actually get some valid statistics. I've been trying to find such statistics and cannot considering only 8 states in the US currently do not restrict third trimester or post viability (24-28 weeks) abortions. I think the majority of states restricting post-viability abortions puts a heavy skew on the previously posted statistics (i mean those posted by any of us) because if it is usually illegal to get an abortion post viability for any reason other detrimental health risks to mother or fetus, then it isn't likely to find many post viability abortions reporting any reason other than the presumed legal ones.

There's a couple of points buried here in amongst this verbiage...

First off, let's examine your source shall we?

Abortion in France is legal on demand up to 12-weeks after conception (14 weeks after the last menstrual period).[1][2] Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.

Have you understood what it says this time?

It doesn't say abortion is illegal after 12 months. It says that abortion on demand is available up to 12 weeks, but abortion after 12 weeks is only available with the written consent of two Doctors.

Take another look at the reasons for abortion available:

to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.

If a woman can convince two Drs that continuing the pregnancy poses a grave or permanent threat to her mental health, then she can have an abortion any stage after twelve weeks.

That's significant. It's as significant as the fact that mental health does not appear anywhere in the data I cited in this post:

Further to this:

I have found another source which deals specifically with third trimester abortions:

Source

I should warn you though, the website I have linked to contains a graphic image of ancephaly.

So it seems then that Bells assertion that the majority of third trimester abortions are for medical reasons is not, in fact, busted.

Which, as you can see is for THIRD TRIMESTER abortions, not Post twelve week abortions - remember, twelve is less than twenty eight.

And you call me amateur?

Yes, and you have demonstrated it more throughly than I could ever have hoped to do.

Trippy goes on to provide statistics that started at 12 weeks... from France.

No, the statistics I provided started from 28 weeks in a country where anything after twelve weeks is late term.

All in all, the pair of you have proven yourselves to be more dishonest than I could ever have cared to demonstrate.

 

[Neverfly]

I'm sorry, you're going to have to elaborate on this a little. Finding the decision to terminate the pregnancy a tough choice is not the same as being wibbly and indecisive. Would you rather people found the choice an easy one to make?

No, but being indecisive is not an excuse for killing a human brain. I have elaborated on this so many times... post 325, I think hits it.
I agree it must be a very hard choice. But let's be blunt- putting that off until it's a human brain just seems to make it much harder. It doesn't quite fit with me that they would put off the choice until it was even more human. I realize this is an argument from incredulity, but it also takes the facts into account- the facts I've shown in posts...
209-233-293-And others.

I also can't help but note that you haven't addressed that a large reason for delaying was on religous or moral grounds.

Get that? Your stand point is a moral one, and yet people are delaying making the decision for moral reasons (and religous reasons).

My standpoint is an ethical one. Moral... is up for interpretation. I had not addressed it because I had no idea it needed to be.
That people delay it for religious reasons doesn't interest me. What interest me is that they delay it until it's a human brain. A human brain by our society's standards is not optional for killing. A religious reason for killing a human brain is no more valid than a psychotic one.

First up, let's examine what I said. Here's the full post:
Which, as it happens, is precisely why I said that citing that study to counter these claims:

Made by Bells was dishonest and amateurish

Ok, now I understand that issue.
Dishonesty was not intended. To be sheepish, I had not noticed the 16 week cut off and was too eager to show the errors of the claims.

So, while I may have bought the study into the conversation, I used it appropriately. The use of it to infer information about abortions after 28 weeks is fundamentally flawed, because the study does not distinguish between degrees of lateness, it lumps them all into the same category.

I'm not following you here. Weren't you inferring that when you brought it up? If not, why bring it up?

Which was a study from Paris France.

Which is a point of contention- Why bring up a French study to counter claims about people in the United States under different laws, regulations, and culture?
Now, let's look at the source quote (bold mine):

Abortion in France is legal on demand up to 12-weeks after conception (14 weeks after the last menstrual period).[1][2] Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.

That the abortion will be done to prevent grave injury, a risk to her life or that of the child's life. (Yes, they called it a child. How dare they mangle English like that...)
In other words: Available only if the expectant mother is at risk.
You have failed to show dishonesty, Trippy. You only showed that what she said was accurate: It's not permitted unless no less than two doctors say she's in danger.
So anything beyond 12 weeks or 28 weeks requires two doctors to sign off that her health is in danger.
So the problem with the second chart is that the data from that third trimester chart must only account for cases in which her health was in danger.
From France. That's Misleading.
Period.
Do you understand the contention, there? It's not because your reference goes to 12 weeks (Poor wording on my part) but because anything after 12 weeks must only be health risk cases. From France.

No, the statistics I provided started from 28 weeks in a country where anything after twelve weeks is late term.

Requiring that it be only health risk reasons. That has nothing to do with that topic and that was why S.G. said that we needed to find those stats from somewhere where third trimester abortions are unrestricted. You provided stats from a country in which anything after 12 weeks is restricted.

All in all, the pair of you have proven yourselves to be more dishonest than I could ever have cared to demonstrate.

And I've just shown that your proof equals squat- a bit like a UFOlogist claiming that he's proven aliens have visited us by giving a chart that represents the wrong data. Amateur.

 

[Asguard]

Grow up bells, you want to play me off as abusive to PB then your own life is fair game, if you want to be more respectful then I will be to you, the sad thing is I used to respect you, it's PB who got pissed off with your attitude in that first thread not me. But hey go for it, I find your crap amusing and so does she.

Everyone controls everyone else to some degree, even you have a deal breaker and mine would be a decision not to have kids. Do you really think one person should be compleatly passive in a relationship with no wants and needs of there own?

And yes I don't concider there to be any difference between smoking in a car, smoking while pregant and smoking around a pregant women. Not going to apologise about that, you think it's evil and controlling, good for you, I'm proud of desiring to protect my future child, you think child abuse (because that's what drinking, taking drugs and smoking while pregant with the intention to have the child is) is ok how sad for you. Ever herd of a "child focus"?

 

[Trippy]

No, but being indecisive is not an excuse for killing a human brain. I have elaborated on this so many times...

Regardless of your opinion, being indecisive is irrelevant to the 24% you cited as supporting your opinion, because being indecisive was not included in the 24% - hence, dishonest, cherry picking, and presenting it out of context.

My standpoint is an ethical one. Moral... is up for interpretation. I had not addressed it because I had no idea it needed to be.
That people delay it for religious reasons doesn't interest me. What interest me is that they delay it until it's a human brain. A human brain by our society's standards is not optional for killing.

Are you saying that criminals sentenced to death aren't human? Or are you suggesting they don't have brains? Or does the fact that they wronged somebody make it okay?

Ok, now I understand that issue.
Dishonesty was not intended. To be sheepish, I had not noticed the 16 week cut off and was too eager to show the errors of the claims.

Which is part of the point I have been making. Dishonesty may not have been the intention, but it was the result. I knew, by the way that this: "was too eager to show the errors of the claims" was part of the problem. I gave you - both of you, rope, and you hung yourselves with it.

I'm not following you here. Weren't you inferring that when you brought it up?

I imply, you infer. And no, I wasn't infering or implying anything of the sort when I bought it up. I even went to lengths to illustrate that abortions after 20 weeks form less than one percent of abortions performed in the US.

If not, why bring it up?

Do I really need to spell this out for you.

Which is a point of contention- Why bring up a French study to counter claims about people in the United States under different laws, regulations, and culture?

Because it's relevant. Because it gets cited in US studies, and is used (as I understand it) in the US model. Because its results are directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

That the abortion will be done to prevent grave injury, a risk to her life or that of the child's life.

See, now your lying again. It also says that if the mothers mental health is at risk an abortion may be performed.

In other words: Available only if the expectant mother is at risk.

Lie.

You have failed to show dishonesty, Trippy.

No I didn't. Seagypsy stated the same thing you have just stated, but you both continue to ignore the fact that Seagypsy's own source specifically and explicitly states that mental health can be a consideration when considering whether or not to perform a post 12 week abortion.

You only showed that what she said was accurate: It's not permitted unless no less than two doctors say she's in danger.
So anything beyond 12 weeks or 28 weeks requires two doctors to sign off that her health is in danger.
So the problem with the second chart is that the data from that third trimester chart must only account for cases in which her health was in danger.
From France. That's Misleading.
Period.
Do you understand the contention, there? It's not because your reference goes to 12 weeks (Poor wording on my part) but because anything after 12 weeks must only be health risk cases. From France.

Yes. I understand the contention. I understood it would be a contention before I posted the data. However, the point that the pair of you are choosing to ignore is that mental health is a valid consideration, according to Seagypsys own source.

Requiring that it be only health risk reasons. That has nothing to do with that topic and that was why S.G. said that we needed to find those stats from somewhere where third trimester abortions are unrestricted.

Including mental health. A lot can be passed off as being a danger to your mental health, and yet, mental health features nowhere in the statistics I cited.

And I've just shown that your proof equals squat- a bit like a UFOlogist claiming that he's proven aliens have visited us by giving a chart that represents the wrong data.

No. The only thing that you have proven is that you don't understand the information you have been presented with.

 

[Neverfly]

Straw man arguments removed:

Regardless of your opinion, being indecisive is irrelevant to the 24% you cited as supporting your opinion, because being indecisive was not included in the 24% - hence, dishonest, cherry picking, and presenting it out of context.

Hardly- I quoted it directly.

Do I really need to spell this out for you.

Yes.

Because it's relevant. Because it gets cited in US studies, and is used (as I understand it) in the US model. Because its results are directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Hardly. Bells actually claimed it was a study on Americans that was simply handled in France.
Was that just wrong or was it a Lie?
It was a study done on French in a French hospital.
It was done with regards to French laws which do not permit abortions after 12 weeks without two doctors saying her health is in danger.
Which means those figures have nothing to do with that topic. At all. I suspect you used it because it shows more of what you wanted us to see. It's misleading due to the restrictions they have on abortion. It cannot show any reasons other than risk to mothers health.

See, now your lying again.

Nope. I bolded the bit. Mental health that puts her at risk is still health, dude. You're just trying to use that to worm out.

Lie.

Prove it instead of just claiming it.
You posted an inaccurate chart and misrepresentation in a set of data. And you call me the liar, here?
One more time:

Abortion in France is legal on demand up to 12-weeks after conception (14 weeks after the last menstrual period).[1][2] Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.

Grave permanent.
Again-
Grave permanent risk, Trippy. So what reasons are you thinking would a woman give that means she would be gravely permanently mentally ill from having a child?

 

[Bells]

Grow up bells, you want to play me off as abusive to PB then your own life is fair game, if you want to be more respectful then I will be to you, the sad thing is I used to respect you, it's PB who got pissed off with your attitude in that first thread not me. But hey go for it, I find your crap amusing and so does she.

Everyone controls everyone else to some degree, even you have a deal breaker and mine would be a decision not to have kids. Do you really think one person should be compleatly passive in a relationship with no wants and needs of there own?

And yes I don't concider there to be any difference between smoking in a car, smoking while pregant and smoking around a pregant women. Not going to apologise about that, you think it's evil and controlling, good for you, I'm proud of desiring to protect my future child, you think child abuse (because that's what drinking, taking drugs and smoking while pregant with the intention to have the child is) is ok how sad for you. Ever herd of a "child focus"?

This current disagreement that you and I are having is between us. You know full well that I do not agree with your stance that you as a male should be allowed to pressure your partner to either have a child if you want one or to get an abortion and then refuse to be responsible for the child if you decide you do not want the child. This is something you and I have been arguing for a long time in this thread.

And my point about whether you are still bullying your partner, by your own admittance you said you put a lot of pressure on her and I am not alone in raising eyebrows at how you are portraying yourself here. And you know fully why. After all, you perceive yourself the aggrieved party because you are male, while declaring that you pressure your partner about what you want. And that is the crux of it for you, isn't it?

It is about what you want.

From what you want her to ingest or how you want her to behave while she is pregnant, to pressuring her about having the baby and then to what you feel should be your right if you change your mind about the baby you are trying to conceive with her, which as we both know because you have stated it clearly more than once now - that if she falls pregnant and you change your mind about becoming a parent that it should be your right to demand she either get an abortion or you should not be responsible for the care and maintenance of that child if she chooses to have a child. This is the contentious issue between you and I. That you feel the father of the baby should be within his rights to pressure or force a woman to have an abortion against her will if he does not want the baby and if she does have the baby, you feel the father should not be deemed responsible for it and you also feel that if he wants the child, then it should be within his rights to force her to have the child. Again, it is about what the man wants, hence my 'you da man' comments.. Because as you have advised again and again, it is only about what you want and if she does not comply, then you would leave her if your pressuring her does not work.

And frankly, in discussing that, I expected you to go after my marriage, because that is the low and base type of individual that you are when it comes to any subject regarding the rights of women and their own bodies.

I don't need to play you off as abusive Asguard. You did that all on your very own when you did your whole "I am the man" argument when you stated clearly that you have demanded certain things from your girlfriend and that you pressure her to do what you want because that is what you expect from her body. At the time, I was not the only woman who found your approach to be, frankly, that of an overbearing bully. Men also baulked at your attitudes in that thread and those that have come since. Now I understand that you need to try to misrepresent me about be it drinking, smoking or what have you when it comes to pregnancy. After all, you just spent quite a bit of time making fun of not only the fact that my husband and I are separated, but that we separated because of my illness.

Here is the difference between you and I, Asguard. While I challenge you for your views on women, I would never ever make jokes about what problems you have advised this forum of regarding your relationship and the problems you are having in certain areas within that relationship. On the contrary, I offered you my support for the hardship you are both facing when you brought it up in the past. It is unfortunate that I can never say the same for you. After witnessing your joy at using my separation and thus, my illness, it is clear that you are just lacking in the ability to understand and even show empathy. It shows what you lack, and that is compassion and empathy, which makes your choice of profession even more disturbing. But carry on. Please. You continue to show to all of your detractors regarding your views of women just how little you view them.

 

[Bells]

Hardly. Bells actually claimed it was a study on Americans that was simply handled in France.

Jesus Mary Joseph it is like dealing with a brick.

The study while conducted in France, was reported in the US from the US since it also applied there (really, look at the source it was linked from) -

In other words, it was a French study reported in the US in the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health - because its reasons also match what is found in the US - which I supported by linking another discussion of the study and also Dr Tiller's findings.

Reading.. comprehension.. helps...

 

[Neverfly]

In other words, it was a French study reported in the US in the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health - because its reasons also match what is found in the US - which I supported by linking another discussion of the study and also Dr Tiller's findings.

Reading.. comprehension.. helps...

I misread what you said about it being American. Sorry about that.
Makes no real difference considering I've pretty soundly refuted it to truppiy above.
Dr. Tillers findings were from his off hand guesses on his blog- that's how it was presented.
Dr. Tiller... is from Kansas, where they have a hell of a lot of restrictions on Abortion. Not the best source for the same reason.
Why are you folks using the most restrictive sites on abortion for presenting that data?
I'll post the link about Kansas, from Tiassas post, in a moment- stupid queue problem.
Here: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/kansas-law/kansas-abortion-laws.html
Similar to the French Law- you need a 2nd doctor to sign off on it and only allows for abortions if mothers health is in danger for late term abortions. So citing that is misleading.

 

[Trippy]

Straw man arguments removed:

Liar. I presented no strawman arguments. If you think otherwise, prove

Hardly- I quoted it directly.

Yes, you quoted it directly, but, you presented it out of context, and lied about what it meant.

Hardly. Bells actually claimed it was a study on Americans that was simply handled in France.
Was that just wrong or was it a Lie?

I don't care what you think Bells claimed (you're wrong here anyway).

It was a study done on French in a French hospital.
It was done with regards to French laws which do not permit abortions after 12 weeks without two doctors saying her health is in danger.
Which means those figures have nothing to do with that topic. At all. I suspect you used it because it shows more of what you wanted us to see. It's misleading due to the restrictions they have on abortion. It cannot show any reasons other than risk to mothers health.

Nope. I bolded the bit. Mental health that puts her at risk is still health, dude. You're just trying to use that to worm out.

It's an OR statement, not an AND statement.

...to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical OR mental health of the pregnant woman...

Do you understand what that means? It means a woman can get an abortion after twelve weeks if she can convince two Drs her MENTAL health is at risk, which is exactly what I said. You still haven't grasped the significance of that, just like you still haven't grasped the significance of the fact that mental health does not appear in the data.

Prove it instead of just claiming it.

I have, repeatedly.

You posted an inaccurate chart and misrepresentation in a set of data. And you call me the liar, here?

Liar. I misrepresented nothing.

 

[Trippy]

I misread what you said about it being American. Sorry about that.
Makes no real difference considering I've pretty soundly refuted it.

How can you claim to have refuted it when you haven't understood what it meant in the first instance, and have lied about what bells has claimed in the second?

 

[Neverfly]

How can you claim to have refuted it when you haven't understood what it meant in the first instance, and have lied about what bells has claimed in the second?

So what reasons are you thinking would a woman give that means she would be gravely permanently mentally ill from having a child?

Dude, look at the posts above. I've spelled it out clearly. You can keep calling me a liar all you want- it won't make it true.
I've shown in more than one post that your "data" is severely a misrepresentation because of the restrictions.
At this point, I won't bother to reply to you because you're off an a "He's a liar!" kick and you are totally ignoring the major flaws in your claims.

 

[Neverfly]

The problem with Kansas -further link:
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b20..._article/065_067_0003_section/065_067_0003_k/
Posting statistics about late term abortions from regions, states or countries in which late term abortion is severely restricted (In other words, mothers health must be at risk to perform one) in order to claim that the reasons women would get late term abortions in an unrestricted state, region, country as only because her health is at risk is a pure case of Intellectual Dishonesty.
Those cites only show that abortions in a place where you can only get an abortion if your health is in grave danger, women get them because her health is in grave danger.

 

[Trippy]

I've shown in more than one post that your "data" is severely a misrepresentation because of the restrictions.

You've demonstrated no flaws in my claims, only flaws in your understanding, and you still haven't addressed the point that I made regarding the fact that even though, in France being a threat to your mental health is sufficient for a third term abortion, it doesn't show up in the third term abortion data.

The worst part of it is that it's actually the most relevant data you'll find anywhere, because the CDC record third trimester abortions in the US as being post 21 weeks, so unless someone commissions a study in the US (or has done so) your stuck with the French data.

Alternatively, seeing as how the burden of proof is clearly with you by this stage anyway, why don't you find an American study looking at third trimester abortions that contradicts my assertions.

 

[Bells]

I misread what you said about it being American. Sorry about that.
Makes no real difference considering I've pretty soundly refuted it to truppiy above.
Dr. Tillers findings were from his off hand guesses on his blog- that's how it was presented.
Dr. Tiller... is from Kansas, where they have a hell of a lot of restrictions on Abortion. Not the best source for the same reason.
Why are you folks using the most restrictive sites on abortion for presenting that data?
I'll post the link about Kansas, from Tiassas post, in a moment- stupid queue problem.
Here: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/kansas-law/kansas-abortion-laws.html
Similar to the French Law- you need a 2nd doctor to sign off on it and only allows for abortions if mothers health is in danger for late term abortions. So citing that is misleading.

How is it misleading to show why women get 3rd trimester abortions? In short, those studies explain and show why women are seeing abortions in the 3rd trimester.

Or did that part fail to sink in?

And responding to your absurd misrepresentation of 3rd trimester abortions - carrying on and on as if women simply get to that point and then change their minds, I pointed out, with not only studies but also proof from the doctor who performed such abortions in the US, that women did not just get there and change their minds.

Really, it's not that hard to understand, is it?

 

[Neverfly]

How is it misleading to show why women get 3rd trimester abortions? In short, those studies explain and show why women are seeing abortions in the 3rd trimester.

See post right above yours. Edit: Because the only reason they were permitted to was due to risk to the mothers life.

I pointed out, with not only studies but also proof from the doctor who performed such abortions in the US, that women did not just get there and change their minds.

Because abortions could only be performed if her health was at risk. See post above.

Really, it's not that hard to understand, is it?

Sure isn't.
Or did that part fail to sink in?

the fact that even though, in France being a threat to your mental health is sufficient for a third term abortion, it doesn't show up in the third term abortion data.

That doesn't help your case at all- that's the only straw you were desperately grasping to.

Grave permanent mental illness is not so easy to show!