Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Randwolf]

You think the study was flawed because it failed to look at mental illness? They went with the reasons of women who presented. When you or your wife, whichever one of you tried to claim that the reason women get third trimester abortion for medical reasons was "busted" and a myth, all the studies showed was just how wrong you both were.

The fact is, women don't just change their mind at that point and virtually all proof points to their being something wrong for them to get an abortion.

Although very little data seems to be available as to the reasons for late term abortions i was able to dig up the following summary:

Reasons for performing PBAs:

Again, minimal data is available regarding the reasons for partial-birth abortions. Available data does, however, contradict claims that most are for reasons of medical necessity.

Kansas requires physicians to report reasons for performing PBAs. Of the 240 PBAs reported in Kansas in 1998 and 1999, there were none where the mother's life was at risk; in every case the attending physician certified "that continuing the pregnancy will constitute a substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient's mental function" and that there was not a substantial physical risk to the mother from the pregnancy.[21]

Physicians who perform large numbers of PBAs have stated that many are performed for elective reasons. In an interview with American Medical News, M. Haskell stated that about 80% of the PBAs he performed were purely elective, with the remainder performed for genetic reasons.[22] In testimony to Congress, J. McMahon reported that for about 2,000-2,100 PBAs he had performed, 1,183 (56%) were for fetal "flaws" or "indicators", 175 (9%) were for maternal "indicators", and the remainder (about 700, or 35%) were elective.[23] McMahon further indicated that elective abortions comprised 20% of those he performed after 21 weeks gestation, and none of those he performed after 26 weeks.[24]

McMahon's 1995 testimony to the House Judiciary Committee gave more detailed statistics, which have been analyzed by physicians P. Smith and K. Dowling. Among maternal indicators, the single most frequent was maternal depression (39, or 1.9% of total), with 28 attributed to maternal health conditions "consistent with the birth of a normal child (e.g. sickle cell trait, prolapsed uterus, small pelvis)" (1.3% of total) and the remainder (5% of total) for other maternal factors ranging from maternal health risk to "spousal drug exposure" and "substance abuse". Those performed for fetal indicators included some for lesser conditions such as 9 (0.4% of total) for cleft lip-palate, 24 (1.1% of total) for cystic hydroma, and other for conditions either surgically correctable or involving lesser degrees of neurologic/mental impairment.[25]

Available data indicates that partial-birth abortions are mostly performed for reasons other that for the life or physical health of the mother, reasons including either fetal defects (minor or major) or purely elective reasons. This tends to be consistent with reasons for abortions in general in the United States.[26]

----------------------------------------------------------

21. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 29 March 1999, "Abortions in Kansas 1998, Preliminary Report," Kansas Department of Health and Environment, on line [http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/98itop1.pdf]; Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 24 March 2000, "Abortions in Kansas 1999, Preliminary Report," Kansas Department of Health and Environment, on line [http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/99itop1.pdf]; Kansas Department of Health and Environment, March 2006, "Abortions in Kansas 2005, Preliminary Report," Kansas Department of Health and Environment, on line [http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/05itop1.pdf].

22. Gianelli, D. M., 3 March 1997, "Abortion rights leader urges end to 'half truths'," American Medical News, pp. 3-4, 55-56; Statement of representative Charles T. Canady (R-Fla), 27 March 1996, Congressional Record; Sprang, M. LeRoy, and Mark G. Neerhof, 1998, "Rationale for banning abortions late in pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association, 280:744-747.

23. National Right to Life, 1996, "For what reasons are partial-birth abortions usually performed?," NRLC, on line [http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html]; Statement of representative Charles T. Canady (R-Fla), 27 March 1996, Congressional Record; Sprang, M. LeRoy, and Mark G. Neerhof, 1998, "Rationale for banning abortions late in pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association, 280:744-747.

24. Statement of representative Charles T. Canady (R-Fla), 27 March 1996, Congressional Record.

25. Statement of representative Charles T. Canady (R-Fla), 27 March 1996, Congressional Record; National Right to Life, 1996, "For what reasons are partial-birth abortions usually performed?," NRLC, on line [http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html].

26. W. R. Johnston, 4 Dec. 2006, "Reasons given for having abortions in the United States," Johnston's Archive, on line [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html].

I have no idea if this data is valid or how reliable the source is. I'm so confused at this point that I'm not even sure which side of the debate it supports, if either. Most of it looks to be political in nature with a "Right to Life" spin but the Kansas data is purportedly from an independent origin. Maybe someone wants to delve further into the citations listed here?

Bolded emphasis mine.

Johnston's Archive link

 

[Bells]

This has nothing to do with granting personhood to the unborn.

Granting personhood is not an impediment to perform triage.
In a crisis situation, such as in a natural catastrophe, where the rescue team perform triage, yes, that can sometimes be interpreted to mean that saving one person's life means letting another die. But such is the reality of crisis situations.

Those who are completely against abortion must be having some other reasons for their stance, reasons other than granting personhood to the unborn. It would seem they have overly idealistic notions about how life on earth should be.

Actually, yes it does.

Granting personhood means that the foetus (while it is alive) has equal consideration to the mother in regards to its life and, as all laws states, it is against the law to end the life of a person.

Do you see how it would affect even triage situations?

Medical professionals who, in such a situation where the mother was dying, decided to end the life of the "person" she was carrying to save her, they could very well find themselves charged with murder. As per the OP, if a woman could be charged with a homicide for a miscarriage if she has done anything that may have contributed to it, what do you think would happen to medical professionals who actively seek to "end the life of the person" in utero?

People who are completely against abortion view it as a life from the moment the female egg is fertilised. To them, from that point, it is a person and they believe it should enjoy all the same protections that a "person" enjoys at law..

---

Back on topic, now.

You do not even understand the topic.

This is the topic..

---

I have no idea if this data is valid or how reliable the source is. I'm so confused at this point that I'm not even sure which side of the debate it supports, if either. Most of it looks to be political in nature with a "Right to Life" spin but the Kansas data is purportedly from an independent origin. Maybe someone wants to delve further into the citations listed here?

His site and what he uses as sources on the site itself is all about right to life, I tried to access the link regarding the Kansas Health Department, which applies to what you had highlighted and the link itself did not work and was not found.

So I did some further digging and found a report for 2005 for Kansas (reported in 2006), where they discuss terminations after the 22nd week of gestation. From page 9, the surveys of medical practioners who provide abortion services in Kansas and of the 235 who felt the foetus was viable, if you scroll down, you will find that they also found that it would impede on the mother's health if she were forced to continue with the pregnancy.

The patient would suffer substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function if she were forced to continue the pregnancy.

To arrive at this point, the patient is interviewed and the referring physician also provides a report and the attending physician then makes the determination after examining the patient:

Gestational and diagnostic information provided by the referring physician and other health care professional(s) as well as examination and interview of the patient by attending physician.

* These are from page 9 of the report.


Page 3 of the report also advises:

No Partial Birth procedures have been performed in Kansas since October 1999.

This year's election cycle saw something very worrying from Kansas, however:

The Kansas House of Reps passed one of the most draconian and awful abortion bills imaginable last week. Among other things, it allows doctors to lie to their patients to keep them from getting abortions, even if the mother's health demands it, and mandates that doctors lie about health risks from abortion. It also allows doctors and pharmacists to withhold cancer treatment from pregnant women if they believe it might harm the foetus's health.

[Source]

You can also read more about it here: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/04/478174/kansas-anti-abortion-bill-would-force-doctors-to-warn-women-of-false-cancer-risk/

And here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/kansas-abortion-bill_n_1478706.html

 

[Randwolf]

This year's election cycle saw something very worrying from Kansas

This bill's wording is extremely unsettling. I was only eleven or twelve at the time of Roe v Wade but I remember a great fuss being made over the issue. If bills like this actually pass it would seem to be setting back women's rights half a century or so. I reviewed the actual bill to some extent but my patience didn't hold out for seventy pages. Seventy? For real? Anyway, the disclosure requirements alone would probably serve to impede access or at least frighten many pregnant women, especially the very young or uneducated. Which I'm sure was the intent in the first place. Luckily, it appears to have died on June 1st, 2012. (This link to the Kansas Legislature site also gives access to pdf files of the actual bill both as introduced and as amended) Wow.

This is an interesting excerpt:

New Sec. 8. 7. (a) No person shall perform an abortion with knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely on account of the sex of the unborn child.

(b) (1) A woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced, or upon whom there is an attempt to perform or induce an abortion, in violation of this section, the father, if married to the woman at the time of the abortion, and the parents or custodial guardian of the woman, if the woman has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless, in a case where the plaintiff is not the woman upon whom the abortion was performed, the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct.

Just wow.

 

[Kittamaru]

Mod Hat

For the sake of general sanity and as an appeal to human dignity... can we quit with all the personal attacks? I don't care who introduced what into the thread or who thinks someone did something wrong at this point... all personal references should cease. Attacks against a person or persons for items in their personal life are no longer to be considered valid points of argument.

Neverfly, Seagypsy... seriously? You two are tearing into not only a very private and very personal matter of Bells, but also one that anyone reading this thread could tell is of great personal pain and discomfort. Enough is enough - if you two REALLY feel you are "in the right" here, then be big enough to walk away instead of trying to tear open scars.

This subject... it is one that is a hot topic for many people for many reasons, some personal, some professional, some religious, and some reasons beyond that which many can even understand. Let's stick to the facts and keep this a debate, okay? I am asking, not just as a moderator but as a member of this forum and as a human being... let's have a little dignity here, okay?

 

[Gustav]

so well meaning, our kitta

 

[seagypsy]

Mod Hat
Enough is enough - if you two REALLY feel you are "in the right" here, then be big enough to walk away instead of trying to tear open scars.

I haven't posted since page 18, so I have walked away. The only reason I am posting now is because an official mod action has been directed at me. see my post here. on page 18.

I would appreciate if you acknowledge that Neverfly and I are separate people. He is responsible for his actions and words, and I am responsible for mine. I attacked no one's personal life. Bells just can't tell us apart.

 

[Kittamaru]

As I stated in my reply to your PM - I read the entire thread in one sitting without regard for timestamps, and as such I failed to note when last posts were made and if/when people left the thread. As for your link - I am curious... what "official mod action" was taken against you? As far as I am aware, no moderation action has been taken, and you have no infraction points either... as I stated in my reply to your PM, I will once more state that for someone professing total innocence, you are awfully jumpy and defensive.

As for you and Neverfly being separate people, that is all well and good - however, a tandem attack on someone is quite a simple feat given today's interconnected society... admittedly given what has transpired here, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that the two of you were striving to drive Bells, quite literally, mad.

EDIT @ Gustav - heh, perhaps... then again, sometimes the best way to put out a fire is by quite literally burning it out...

 

[seagypsy]

As I stated in my reply to your PM - I read the entire thread in one sitting without regard for timestamps, and as such I failed to note when last posts were made and if/when people left the thread. As for your link - I am curious... what "official mod action" was taken against you? As far as I am aware, no moderation action has been taken, and you have no infraction points either... as I stated in my reply to your PM, I will once more state that for someone professing total innocence, you are awfully jumpy and defensive.

As for you and Neverfly being separate people, that is all well and good - however, a tandem attack on someone is quite a simple feat given today's interconnected society... admittedly given what has transpired here, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that the two of you were striving to drive Bells, quite literally, mad.

EDIT @ Gustav - heh, perhaps... then again, sometimes the best way to put out a fire is by quite literally burning it out...

The fact that two people share a pov does not mean that they are in tandem to drive someone mad. If that is the case Tiassa and Bells can be assumed to be working in tandem to drive Neverfly and I insane. Which in my opinion is ridiculous. They push similar points but their methods are different and they do not always agree exactly, even if they do not openly point out where they differ. Neverfly and I have both stated differences in our view points. The fact that neither of us have pointed fingers at each other and declared them wrong or gone after each other's throats does not mean we are part of a conscious collective with identical thoughts or motives.

All I am asking is that you hold me accountable for ONLY my own words and I have not attacked Bells' personal life. That attack came from Asguard. She also attacked his personal life. I am not sure who attacked first. But either way, it was a personal argument that should not have been allowed to take place in the thread. But Tiassa enjoyed the drama and so allowed it.

When Neverfly brought up her personal life, he expressed remorse in doing so even as he did it. I think that shows that no intent to attack was present. If she perceived it as an attack that is her prerogative. But I never mentioned the incident that he brought up. The only time I mentioned details of her life were when hypothicals were presented in light of personal information that SHE WILLFULLY put on display as evidence for her claims. Any evidence presented, even if it is personal life details, is subject to scrutiny. She criticized me the times I used my personal experiences to back up my opinions. I did not accuse her of attacking me then. She should not have the right to present anything as evidence that cannot be refuted or criticized. I don't care what that evidence may be.

 

[Kittamaru]

Oh, I never said I felt that your intention was to drive her mad... just that from an outside perspective with out prior knowledge as to what was going on (which is precisely how I entered this thread) one could reasonably reach that conclusion.

My honest opinion on all this is that this is a hot-button topic that anyone partaking in the discussion of should be ready to bear incredible scrutiny and some personal attacks. However, I also feel that the attacks in general have gone too far, all around. A return to simple fact-based debating is the outcome I desire.

 

[Balerion]

Oh, I never said I felt that your intention was to drive her mad... just that from an outside perspective with out prior knowledge as to what was going on (which is precisely how I entered this thread) one could reasonably reach that conclusion.

My honest opinion on all this is that this is a hot-button topic that anyone partaking in the discussion of should be ready to bear incredible scrutiny and some personal attacks. However, I also feel that the attacks in general have gone too far, all around. A return to simple fact-based debating is the outcome I desire.

And protecting Bells' feelings. Because, quite obviously, hers are the only ones that matter. She can call people trolls and get every bit as personal as she likes, but when someone even thinks about saying something personal about her, it's a national goddamn tragedy.

 

[Bells]

This bill's wording is extremely unsettling. I was only eleven or twelve at the time of Roe v Wade but I remember a great fuss being made over the issue. If bills like this actually pass it would seem to be setting back women's rights half a century or so. I reviewed the actual bill to some extent but my patience didn't hold out for seventy pages. Seventy? For real? Anyway, the disclosure requirements alone would probably serve to impede access or at least frighten many pregnant women, especially the very young or uneducated. Which I'm sure was the intent in the first place. Luckily, it appears to have died on June 1st, 2012. (This link to the Kansas Legislature site also gives access to pdf files of the actual bill both as introduced and as amended) Wow.

This is an interesting excerpt:Just wow.

The bill is a terrifying prospect.

What they want is to deny women access to abortion, regardless of the reason. Because the premise behind such bills is to state that even from the point of where the sperm enters the egg, then that fertilised egg has gained equal and full legal rights and protection that everyone is granted.. Except if you are a woman of course..

 

[Balerion]

They aren't protecting my feelings. If they were, those two would have been banned long ago for their first attempt to troll this thread and abuse and swear at people. That aside, you think it's acceptable that she decided to opine on which vagina my husband found more welcoming, after a diatribe of personal attacks that not only went after my son, but after my marriage and health? Really? You think that is acceptable? Okay then Balerion. If this is the standard you think should apply on this site, okay then. And I can assure you, in the past, I have acted against other members who intruded on seagypsy's privacy by commenting on her personal appearance. She and her husband were both very appreciative of that. But since they since to prefer the standard whereby one's personal life is fair game, then so be it. I should be sure to apply their preference as per their performance in this thread to them in the future. Then again, I have too much empathy to lower myself to their depraved and vulgar levels.

At the moment, my feelings be damned. What they should be judged should be the blatant lies and misrepresentation of studies and data they have tried to foist on this thread in their continued attempt to disrupt it and veer it off course.

I haven't been following this thread closely, but knowing you, I'm going to go ahead and assume none of that happened.

Point is that even if they're breaking the rules, you are too. They'll be held accountable, and you won't. That's just how it goes around here.

 

[seagypsy]

This will be my only response to you Bells, considering that where you quoted me, I was talking to Kittamaru, not you.

For those who want to focus on the topic of the thread, ignore the spoilers.(something that has been being used out of respect for the OP.)

Spoiler

Really, so when you made comments about which vagina my husband preferred,

I didn't say he preferred one over the other. Quote me where I did or be shown to be dishonest.

How about when you abused me over and over again because you perceived that I was somehow using what you determined was my hard life in this thread?

define "abused"

I suggested it ONCE, not over and over again. I also clarified that i wasn't accusing YOU. I felt the OTHER MODS were allowing you to behave badly out of pity for you. You just kept bringing it up even after I admitted that it was inappropriate on my part. That you cannot let it go is your problem.

Just a side note about me: If I felt at any time I was getting special treatment as a result of pity, I would be livid. Shedding pity on someone and excusing their behavior as a result of it implies that the ones making the excuses believe the person is mentally incompetent as a result of their experiences and is not capable of behaving appropriately.

And this is after I repeatedly asked that you stop commenting on my personal life and advised you it was none of your business.

None of my business, yep I agree. But you shared your business with us anyway. Why? Why do you tell us the details of your life? I for one do not care about you or your life anymore than you care about mine.

You ignored me and kept on going and going, as though trying to get a reaction I was not willing to give you.

I did not ignore you. I refrained until you brought your personal information up as evidence to support a claim, when you present it as evidence you cannot expect no one to challenge it. Maybe you just need a thicker skin. Or better yet, if you don't want people to know your personal business, keep it to yourself.

So please, you can try and paint yourself as whatever it is you want in this thread.. What was clear from the outset is that you had a goal in mind.

Your opinion and interpretations of what you BELIEVE my goals to be are irrelevant. It has been established on this forum of science that belief in an idea does make it true.

Your verbal diarrhea in this thread speaks for itself.

And this language is not abuse?

While you can keep claiming that you and your spouse are two different individuals, when you both deliberately set out to flame and troll and work in tandem,

Are you claiming that we are NOT separate individuals here?

you will both be treated as acting together, which was clear from this thread.

clear only to the ones who want to believe it is true.

[quoteBells;3009822]]They aren't protecting my feelings. If they were, those two would have been banned long ago for their first attempt to troll this thread and abuse and swear at people. [/quote]

yeah we swore a bit, but who was the first to tell someone to "FUCK OFF"- oh sorry my bad, that wasn't you it was your uterus.

Have a nice day, Bells.

 

[Bells]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but knowing you, I'm going to go ahead and assume none of that happened.

Point is that even if they're breaking the rules, you are too. They'll be held accountable, and you won't. That's just how it goes around here.

You tell me.. This is probably one of the worst of it:

But as you say, any type of pressure to stop someone from using or doing to their body anything they choose is emotional abuse, pressure or what have you. I guess you are then against the idea of divorce maybe? because divorcing a man because he decided to put his penis in a welcoming vagina that was not yours is certainly pressure to order the man to use his body the way YOU want him to. OH but yeah, you did divorce him for that. So I guess you are just the same controlling person disrespecting of a man's rights to use his body as he wishes as you accuse Asguard of being.

This is after I and another person queried Asguard's assertions that he would pressure his girlfriend if she wanted to get an abortion so that she would do what he wanted her to do, after he brought up the issues around the fact that he had in the past, on several occasions, stated that he has threatened to leave his other half if she did not comply to his wishes as they try to conceive or the fact that he thinks if the father changes his mind, then he should not be made to pay child support. So I asked Asguard if he still controlled all that his girlfriend ingested, as he had advised on previous occasions that he did. This is an issue that Asguard and I have argued about for quite a bit over the years/months. This is between he and I and it was clearly so and advised by others to seagypsy and her husband.. seagypsy decided to enter into that conversation with the above, commenting on my marriage and asking me if I had decided to divorce him because he had decided to put his penis in an apparently more welcoming vagina than mine.. Because apparently my husband's penis and my vagina is something worth commenting on in such a fashion outside of any context of this thread? And then she later went on to mock my personal life.. She is, without a doubt, a gem..

And this is after her repeated accusation that I had used my hard life in this thread, when I had told her to stop and when initially challenged on the first time she made that accusation, she tried to deny it was aimed at me and that it was apparently a PM and then in the last few times she has gone after my supposed "hard life" and again accused me of using it in this thread to get away with whatever it is I am getting away with (I believe this was after Trippy and I caught her trying to lie about the studies she was posting and trying to pass them off as for third trimester abortions when they were actually studies for abortions after 16 weeks I believe).. So she instantly attacked my personal life again, repeatedly, and ignored all requests that she stop and without any proof whatsoever, again and repeatedly accused me of using my "hard life" in this thread to get away with what ever. Because heaven forbid she actually answer the charges made against her that she misrepresented studies in this thread and tried to pass them off as something they clearly were not.

Then amazingly enough, she tried to deny ever doing it. I shouldn't be surprised at someone who lied about the studies she was trying to pass through in this debate and who for the first 7 pages, abused me and others, compared one to a serial killer, raised the specter of child abuse in comparisons, because she didn't know what "personhood" meant in the context of this thread. So she can slander, insult, abuse, claim that women in the third trimester should not follow doctor's advice if they advise to abort because of the mother's health because hey, she got lucky and did not die when she did it (thereby opening herself and this site to possible legal action in the future), attack people's health and marriage and make comments on people's supposedly welcoming and less than welcoming vagina's because of why again? Oh yes, you just don't believe it happened because you haven't been following this thread and instead, prefer to just assume because of your personal feelings for me. How.. original of you Balerion.

But hey, god forbid you actually check before you just assume 'none of that happened'. Everyone else who was unfortunate enough to participate in this thread and read her vulgar displays are all wrong and you are right..

So she can try and portray herself as whatever. Her posts here, as well as her husband's and mine speak for themselves. And now she is trying to make sure her husband is excused for not only supporting her, but also for his trying to pass off those studies in this thread and his lies.

But hey, none of this happened because you, Balerion, says so..

 

[lightgigantic]

The bill is a terrifying prospect.

What they want is to deny women access to abortion, regardless of the reason. Because the premise behind such bills is to state that even from the point of where the sperm enters the egg, then that fertilised egg has gained equal and full legal rights and protection that everyone is granted.. Except if you are a woman of course..

the only one disregarding reason is you.

Several posters have stated time and time and yet time again that, in the case where there are pending medical issues for both the mother and the child, there is no essential requirement for the mother's rights to automatically be vetoed. The fact that we already have triage procedures in place and functioning quite nicely, prove this. IOW if an unborn child is granted the legal status of personhood, then it can quite easily be accommodated by existing triage proceedures and/or similar network of regulation laws that already surround potentially dubious acts like liquor sales, gambling or prostitution. Instead you insist that the only viable option is to make abortion less regulatory than the sale of chicken eggs or cow's milk.

Despite repeated attempts to make you address this simple straight forward fact you merely cite radical interpretations that operate outside of such triage procedures. If citing radical interpretations of law or precept were sufficient to abandon all measures of regulation and authority, we would practically have no laws.

:shrug:

 

[seagypsy]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but knowing you, I'm going to go ahead and assume none of that happened.

Point is that even if they're breaking the rules, you are too. They'll be held accountable, and you won't. That's just how it goes around here.

Ironically, I don't believe that Bells is certain she has proven her case. If she really believed that what she is accusing me of, she could, as she often says, let the posts speak for themselves. But she can't. She MUST INSIST retelling the story as she wants people to believe it played out. She can't run the risk of them checking the thread and deciding for themselves. She simply can not.

 

[Bells]

Seagypsy

I am not going to bother wasting any more oxygen in responding to your lies point per point, because frankly, you are not worth my time on this planet.

You have slandered me, slandered another person when you accused him of being like a serial killer, I think at one point you accused me of supporting killing children? Or was that your husband? You accused and blatantly lied repeatedly, from your initial claim that your first false and slanderous accusation you lobbed at me was actually a PM you were writing to someone else, to when you later admitted that it was aimed at me when you again slandered and lied about me by your repeated claims that I used my personal and what you deemed my "hard life" in this thread. And this is after I repeatedly asked you to stop, you not only failed to stop, but you kept on going and going, all without proof or evidence of your claims, even after I asked you to back it up. You also lied repeatedly in this thread in trying to pass off studies as being for third trimester when they were in fact for 2nd trimester abortions. When you were caught doing this, instead of addressing the fairly grievous charge of deliberately providing false information in a thread, you launched another flurry of personal attacks against me, my health and my marriage and again, without any evidence, accused me of apparently using it in this thread. And then when you were again caught out doing this, you withdrew from this thread while your husband went out of his way to, it seem, excuse your behaviour for whatever reason.

Now, I can assure you, I do not view you and your husband as being the same person. However, since the both of you went out of your way to deliberately misrepresent facts and studies in this thread, repeatedly, if you face moderation, it will be for your individual behaviour in how you have both done this. You see, when you act in tandem as you have in lying about studies and deliberately trying to mislead studies and facts, both of you will be looked at as individuals. Not just the first or the second. So you will be looked at equally, if you are moderated. I am not going to moderate you. I could, and I am well within my rights to do so after the lies you tried to pass off and how you tried to misrepresent studies in this thread, but I will not because I am one of you accusers. And I am not alone in commenting and having noticed just how deliberately dishonest you and your husband have been in this thread, nor have I been alone in noticing how you went out of your way to then attack my personal life (even after repeated requests that you stop) after you were caught out.

In your posts, you also openly claimed that women who are in their third trimester and suffering from health concerns that their doctors advise to abort, you claimed, without proof or reason, that these women should just have the baby and ignore their doctor's advice, because you did it and you did not die. In doing so, you not only opened yourself to possible legal action but also this site. So as a member of staff here, you will excuse me if I do not thank you for your repeated unsolicited and frankly, ignorant medical advice.

So you can lie as much as you want and misrepresent everything as much as you want. Don't worry, I am not involved in whatever decisions may be made against you and your husband in this thread.

However as a moderator, I am also within my rights to apply the standard you applied to me here and apply that to you.. For example, like when you posted links to your blogs and someone posted your photo from your links and commented on your appearance. If I were to follow your standards, I would not have acted against that individual and instead told you to suck it up because you posted the links to your blog and photos anyway. Thankfully for you, I do have empathy and I would never lower myself down to your pathetic levels..

 

[Bells]

the only one disregarding reason is you.

Several posters have stated time and time and yet time again that, in the case where there are pending medical issues for both the mother and the child, there is no essential requirement for the mother's rights to automatically be vetoed. The fact that we already have triage procedures in place and functioning quite nicely, prove this. IOW if an unborn child is granted the legal status of personhood, then it can quite easily be accommodated by existing triage proceedures and/or similar network of regulation laws that already surround potentially dubious acts like liquor sales, gambling or prostitution. Instead you insist that the only viable option is to make abortion less regulatory than the sale of chicken eggs or cow's milk.

Despite repeated attempts to make you address this simple straight forward fact you merely cite radical interpretations that operate outside of such triage procedures. If citing radical interpretations of law or precept were sufficient to abandon all measures of regulation and authority, we would practically have no laws.

:shrug:

And as has been shown to you repeatedly, the mother's rights are being repeatedly veteod while pending medical issues for both the mother and child arise.

 

[GeoffP]

Ooh, I've missed these threads.

 

[lightgigantic]

And as has been shown to you repeatedly, the mother's rights are being repeatedly veteod while pending medical issues for both the mother and child arise.

sure, ....... by irrelevant examples of radical interpretations that stand outside already existing standard models of triage ... much like I can also show you similarly irrelevant radical interpretations of liquor licensing, prostitution, gambling, punitive punishment for crimes (and even the sale of eggs and milk) that in no way provide anything remotely substantial for the case of disbanding already existing regulatory bodies that govern these operations.

Just to make it clear, the real question which you don't address is the application of already existing models of triage to the situation of pregnancy.

The irony is that even the so called radical institutions address this point, while you fail to do so.

:shrug: