Including her mental health, but none got abortions because their mental health was at risk.
Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
So... now back to the 16 week study. What does that show when it's not restricted as in the Tiller (Kansas Law) and French study?
....
Heh...
Do I really need to hold everyone's hand through that one?
....
Heh...
Do I really need to hold everyone's hand through that one?
So, none of them could prove grave permanent risk to mental health- what's your point?Including her mental health, but none got abortions because their mental health was at risk.
Maybe so. Sometimes, I am.
But this idiot just showed the glaring error in all that fuss you made and all your claims of lies...
Do you really want to admit to being pwned by an idiot? Might wanna take that little ad hom back...
Showing statistics that say women only get late term abortions due to health risks when the laws on the region of those studies only allow for late term abortions if the mother faces health risks... is an act of an idiot.
No you didn't. You still haven't understood a single thing that has been presented to you. Your claim, for example, that the french data is irrelevant, is at best vacuous. You lied about the 16 week data on multiple occasions, and you have blatantly lied about what others have said to you.
How, precislely is any of that me being pwned by an idiot?
Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and bet you with experience.
As opposed to claiming that Data gathered for post 16 weeks disproves claims made post 28 weeks?
At least the data I presented was relevant. That you can't understand how is not my problem.
By the way, congratulations on editing your post after it was replied to.
Post 363?
Sorry- that happens, sometimes. I prefer not to make 20 posts in a row. The downside is if someone replies pretty quick it can throw them off. The edit button is for making corrections.
A regular member would get a warning, infraction, or ban for this. I've reported it and sent a PM to James. Let's see if mods really are held to the same standards the rest of us are, or if it's as much of a sham as most of already suspect.
Yes, I'm sure you have, and I'm just as sure that, being the fair minded citizen that you clearly are, you've also reported Neverfly for his "Easter egg".
By the way - your hypothesis is inherently flawed, it's not even neccessarily true that a regular member would get a warning or an infraction. Certainly, some, who routinely make such comments might...
Don't sweat it- he hates me too.
And no, mods aren't held to the same standard the rest of us are.
So I stoop to their level.
Don't sweat it- he hates me too.
And no, mods aren't held to the same standard the rest of us are.
So I stoop to their level.
You should consider yourself flattered - not many people can annoy me to the point of insulting them.
I didn't see his easter egg. But last time I checked, being insulted doesn't give you the right to retaliate.
Oh, right. Soemthing about the rules only applying when you want them to. Right.
Wow, thanks. Remind me not to stick up for you again.
Whether or not you saw it is not my problem. Obviously, being the fair minded citizen that you are, having been made aware of it, you will now proceed to report Neverfly for the easter-egg.
More like taking things such as poster history, and complainant credibility into account.
Actually, you know what?
You're absolutely right. As a moderator, I should have known better, and I should have held my tongue.
As a show of good faith, I have voluntarily deleted the offending post, and I hope that Neverfly accepts my unreserved apology for what was little more than a momentary lapse of reason and sensibility.
You know what? I'd be happy with one for repeatedly and abusively calling me a liar. Did honest mistake never occur to you as an option?
But I didn't report it because I started it. I implied you were when you bundled the statistics.
In the end, yes, I made an honest mistake. And made one when I misread part of Bells statements.
Well, I am an idiot, sometimes.
But a liar? No.
I've shown the glaring error and if you were decent about it- you'd admit that showing statistics in regions that only allow later term abortions if there is a health risk isn't very good evidence for supporting the claim that they would get them late term for that reason only. There's a reasonable legal bias there- those studied aren't allowed to get them for any other reason.
The problem here is more than that- It allows/permits killing of a human brain without the right/necessity of self defense. So whether many do or not is not even important- it's that it would legally allow it. Which is a "right" no one in the USA has- to kill another human brain for a reason other than self defense, trauma and risks.
It opens up a whole new can of worms and implications. It sets a precedence.
Last edited:
In the business, we call that a class act.
Bells
Staff member
........
No, really..
How many times does this have to be repeated before you understand it?
We have shown you, with study after study and even first hand testimony from the man who performed third trimester abortions before he was shot and killed by a pro-life advocate, and both showed distinctly why women are granted permission to abort in the third trimester. Roe v Wade even set out circumstances where it is permissible - the health of the mother. And we have provided studies and examples showing that is why women are seeking abortions in the third trimester.
In other words, it is for self preservation and self defense reasons - either foetal health or the health of the mother.
I mean seriously, how can you still not understand this at all? How?
What kind of language do you want us to use for you to understand this? Do we have to draw pictures perhaps?
What do we need to do to get you to understand this point?
Bold and underlined- This, ladies and gentleman - is what's known as shifting the goal posts after the fact.
Too late Bells, you already stated you were Pro-Choice all the way up to birth. You already made it clear no unborn should be 'granted' personhood. You already made it clear that you disbelieve that any woman would get a late term abortion for any reason other than Health Risk- which is what had set that all off.
Apparently you need to actually repeat it at least once, first.
- Status