Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Asguard]

What a pack of hypocrites

FR shouldn't you be shut up in a courner not speaking as per your wife's instructions insted of threatening seagypsy, after all HER opinion is the only valid one acording to you, infact I'm yet to hear you tell Tiassa to shut up because he has a dick

Tiassa as per your own quote "if you don't want the responsibility of a child don't have sex or get snipped, it's as simple as that"

Bells, congratulations, your bile makes me want to vote for Tony Abbott and I thought NOTHING could do that

 

[Bowser]

My position in this:
-I believe abortions should be allowable early term. The reason for this is that although conception has occurred, the actual development is not human and the mother has the right to decide whether she's willing to allow it to continue to develop.
-I believe that late term abortions, where the brain and nervous system are established (Offhand general time-frame is 22 weeks plus) should be disallowed if the mother simply changes her mind about motherhood- that, same as a post birth case, she's obligated. After-all, she cannot kill her infant 1 minute after birth.
-I believe that in cases of trauma, danger to the mother or deformity or hardship of the fetus, abortions must be allowed, no matter when the term. As a man, no one can tell me I cannot kill a burglar in my home or an attacker of myself or family in self defense. Likewise, a mother must have the ability to defend herself from serious harm or life threatening situations, even if the harm is being caused by the fetus.

Thank you. That couldn't be clearer. Now, I would like to hear from Bells, Tiassa, SG, and anybody else who has a dog in this race.

These positions are the same positions I have advocated throughout the entire thread and anyone that disbelieves this may quote directly where I strayed from this position.

That's how I was reading it. But let's not open the door for further dispute.

 

[Neverfly]

Now, I would like to hear from Bells, Tiassa, SG, and anybody else who has a dog in this race.

Good deal.

That's how I was reading it. But let's not open the door for further dispute.

If I may, some people (Self included) struggle with leaving an accusation or misrepresentation unanswered. To not answer seems to validate it somehow.
What I suggest for those of us engaging in that is to use the spoiler! tags to wrap the off topic arguments to only be viewed if the reader chooses.

Such as here:

Spoiler

Off topic rant and self defensive sniping here. Oh, by the way, Asgaurd and Bowser thanks for confirming that readers are not fooled by some of the tactics used.

 

[seagypsy]

See, I do not understand how or what my personal life or medical or personal issues actually have to do with you or this discussion. At all.

I agree and have already stated that it was inappropriate on my part to bring it up. Why you keep bringing it up though I have conceded fault in doing so is beyond me.

Now, you accused me directly of apparently using it in some form or other to garner sympathy or pity in this debate, when I had not done so, before you then went on and described your own personal and private and current problems for reasons unknown. You did this. Not me. Not anyone else.

I do not know what PM's you are talking about as I don't really chat with you via that medium unless I have to convey something to you in regards to something posted in Human Science. Unless of course this is how you speak to people via PM's if they were unfortunate enough to divulge something personal about their lives to you, then so be it. That is between you and that individual. It is of no concern to me or the subject matter of this thread.

Why do you assume it was PM between me and you?

You did not understand his posts and responses to you?



Which part of his answers did you not quite comprehend seagypsy?

The entirety. Why do you bother posting links to posts that are long as hell. But not point out directly exactly where the answers are. I can link you to a page out of your diary, if it were posted publicly, and claim you confesses to being a transsexual, but unless I can point out the actual words that prove it, my claims would have no validity. And so it stands here. Your links are worthless since they do not quote the specific remarks in answer to my questions.

You seem to have this need for me to be as upset and angry in this thread and about this thread as you are.

I can say the same about you.

Sorry if I cannot oblige.

And neither can I, so why don't we just drop the accusations of emotional instability and respond with actual data, or links that relate to the actual topic at hand? And remaining honorable while doing it.

If you feel being told that you should calm down before posting is suppressing you...?

No asking me to calm down isn't what is suppressing. Asking me to leave the debate IS.

My apologies. I had forgotten that the Government of your country also uses gas chambers to kill people and you are only applying local knowledge to such a matter.

Sorry for the confusion and my mistake.


Refer to above.

And again, my apologies for not also recognising that your country also used gas chambers to kill people.

Thank you.


You said:



"In most cases, if the woman's life becomes endangered in the 3rd trimester, killing the baby is unnecessary and will be as traumatic as giving birth."..

Quite a claim.[/quote] It sure is. And so is your claim that a fetus is not human until it has fully exited your vagina. That's a doozy.

Without any proof or back-up whatsoever.

Your only back up has been that two moderators have agreed with you. One seems a bit shaky since he won't post his real feelings out of fear of the wrath of his wife. But I get picked at for being supportive of my husband because I genuinely agree with him.

At this point, can I say, I dread the thought that you may actually come into contact with a woman whose life is endangered by her pregnancy because if you give her the kind of advice that you seem to think is correct which you posted and I quoted above, then the thought fills me with dread.

Hello!! I have been that woman 2 times, 3 if you give credit and assume every time the doctor tried to convince me it was true was for valid reasons.

I am not a doctor, nor do I claim to be one. I am also not the one saying that women in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy who find that they have a medical issue which results in their pregnancy putting their life at risk should not listen to their doctor's advice because you were apparently told to abort 3 times and did not and you did not die..

Sure but you are claiming that a fetus is not human until it is fully outside the vagina. Tell me, does the cord also have to be cut before it is human? What medical background do you have to support your claims?

Of all the dangerous and idiotic things said on this forum, this post of yours would have to be up there seagypsy.

Not that your opinion matters, considering my view of you right now, but i really don't give a rats ass what some illogical irrational imbeciles think of my post. I am sure plenty think the same of yours. Who haven't you ever accused of being an idiot at some point, oh maybe Tiassa, but then Tiassa is in authority over you. I wonder if Tiassa took a different position in this thread or changed position would copy cat along side of him? You are right Tiassa has a track record of thinking for himself. You on the other hand have a track record of sucking up to Tiassa. If I am wrong, link me over to any thread and post number where you vehemently disagreed with Tiassa and badgered him in the same manner you are badgering us.

Your question does not even make any sense.

What can't you understand about it. I am asking you to provide support in your rebuttal. You seem to be asserting that aborting in the last trimester can save a mother's life. My doctor couldn't even come up with examples, I am asking if you know of any.

You can start here: http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/ - If you want to wade through the hundreds of bring you to your knees stories of heartbreak that women had to face in having to terminate their pregnancy for medical reasons, you are free to do so. The site is dedicated to women you just called 'child killers'..

I find it ironic that you link me to a site that refers to aborted fetuses as babies. How dare they!?

Lovingly Dedicated to All AHC Babies

We also have the story of Ms Watts:

If the ban were in place in 1995, Tammy Watts would likely be dead, she says.

In March of that year, Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival.

Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as "brutal."

"Losing my baby at the end of my pregnancy was agonizing," says Watts. "But the way the right deals with this issue makes it even worse. When I heard Bush mention 'partial birth abortion' during the debates, I thought 'How dare you stand there and tell flat-out lies?' There is no such thing as this procedure! Why won't the politicians listen to us?"​

I bolded something. The word LIKELY. She would likely be dead. Not the same as would definitely be dead. And they were aborting a pregnancy that was already dying. I knew a girl who had this happen. Her baby had actually been dead for 2 weeks before they removed it from her uterus. She found out because she started getting sick and had a fever. They checked the well being of her baby and could find no heartbeat. Though it was technically considered an abortion, they weren't even removing LIVING cells. They were removing a dead body from hers in order to save her life. I doubt the doctors in your article have any way of proving that if they had waited til the fetus was already fully dead that the mother would have certainly and unavoidably died. If the fact that cocaine MAY lead to miscarriage is not good enough for you then the fact that this dead fetus being inside her MAY have lead to her death is also unacceptable. Remember, you are the one who seems to want to deal with absolutes. Making an absolute claim that it is absolutely not human until absolutely born.

And here:

When Congress first considered the ban in 1995, Watts testified on Capitol Hill. So did Viki Wilson of Fresno, Calif., who had a late-term abortion because the brain of the fetus she was carrying had developed outside the skull. So did Vikki Stella of Naperville, Ill., whose fetus had dwarfism, no brain tissue and seven other major abnormalities.

All three women told legislators they owed their health to late-term abortions and that a continuation of their doomed pregnancies posed grave health risks such as stroke, paralysis, infertility or even death.​

None of these women are doctors, how can they make such claims?

Wow.. You didn't push the murder on her.. Just.. wow.. I actually feel embarrassed for you.

trouble with reading comprehension again? I clearly stated that I put the guilt on the doctor, not the anguished mother. Oh wait, this is your little lying technique again. ... carry on in your usual way.

So you view her as a murderer if she has an abortion out of medical necessity in the third trimester because you were lucky?

Nope.

Well how lucky for you that you were okay. Not every woman has that luxury.

Not luck. The doctors gave no valid reasons for suggesting that an abortion would save my life. Especially considering that abortion can lead to the death of a woman as well. And they had to admit it. And they had to admit that they had no way of determining that I would survive the abortion or the delivery. They seems sure that I was going to die no matter what. So if the odds are against me but I can allow my child to live in spite of my own death it only makes sense. Save the one that seems to have the best chance of survival. And so we did, and as it turned out the doctors simply had ulterior motives for encouraging the abortions. One even admitted to it.

You must have applauded Akin's statement's then. I mean you are putting even pro-lifer's to shame here.

Who the hell is Akin?

No, I had advised my colleagues when you first started becoming abusive about this issue that I was waiting for the killing kittens argument. Unfortunately, you did not fail to deliver.

So it was an adolescent retort... still not a rebuttal. Thank you.

In a paragraph discussing late term abortions for medical necessity and where you accuse women who are unfortunate enough to have to make that decision to save their own lives of being child killers... Sure..

sure ...Come everybody let's do the twist!!

What tactics do you think I am using here?

Not getting angry and emotional, slanderous, libelous and abusive and making false and spurious accusations such as accusing people of being serial killers?

Doing all the things you just denied.

That's what bothers you the most, doesn't it? That I am not biting back.

Not biting back huh? have you seen the length of your post?

I am sorry seagypsy. You are not worth any effort in that regard.

So the debate is finished then? Yay! Though I doubt you will remain silent to me. Please prove me wrong. Stop responding to me. Please.

Your views are, frankly, dangerous and repugnant.

So? That's your opinion, not a fact. No human being can go through life with opinions that please everyone. The fact that YOU see my views this way is quite comforting to me.

My ilk?

Who is my ilk?

Don't know the meaning of the word "ILK". Look it up, your ignorance is not my problem. If you are given to the delusion that you are completely unique in your philosophies or perceptions of the world, that is also not my problem.

People who feel that women should be given the right to choose, just as you exercised your right to choose?

No that is not what I am referring to at all.

Your attempt to flame have been duly noted, as have your slanderous accusations towards a member of the staff here that he is like a serial killer. As much as you can try and claim that Tiassa and I are supposedly misinterpreting Neverfly's posts or yours, the actual reality is that we are not and your posts stand as an embarrassing testament of repugnant attitudes and beliefs such as the likes of Akin and you have declared in this thread.

bla bla bla you sound like a broken record. "I can't offer a good rebuttal so will claim posts stand as testimony." Sure go ahead because our posts as well as yours DO INDEED stand as testimony. Anything else. Btw, I notice after saying i wasn't worth debating with, you still continued to debate my remarks on and on and on in the same thread after you made such a claim. All bluff I guess.

Neverfly's attitudes are pro-life, something you acknowledged yourself when you accused us of apparently turning him into someone pro-life. And his attitudes are misogynistic, as are yours. And yours and the claims you have made in this thread are not just misogynistic and cruel, but downright dangerous.

OMG now I am misogynistic? Holy shit! you are a trip. Omg.. ok at this point, I will give you the thread because you deserve nothing but ridicule at this point.

May I remind you, seagypsy, you have abused my personal circumstance and accused me of supposedly using them for gain in this thread, you also inferred slanderous things about me and then went on to suggest that Tiassa was like a serial killer. And you believe that this is logical behaviour?

I advised you, politely to calm down before you return to this thread, because frankly, your embarrassing display has become a dangerous and repugnant one.


Okay, I need to ask, because now you nave piqued my curiosity.

Why do you have this need for me to be annoyed?


Figure of speech escaped you?

Seagypsy, we have come to the point where I am begging you to stop giving yourself more rope here. No, seriously.

You have gotten to the point where you are accusing women who have medically necessary abortions in the third trimester of being murderers and have declared they did not need to have abortions.. You have accused Tiassa, without any proof or reason, of being like a serial killer.

This is bordering on an SNL sketch of the ridiculous..

And as someone who used to value your posts and found you insightful and intelligent, it makes me cringe and withdraw with horror and repugnance.

I don't know how else to get this through your head.

Stop..


If I was, at any point, going to threaten you with moderation, it would have been made very obvious to you. And as much as you can try and accuse me of that, all I have asked you, for your own sake and everyone else's, is that you do take a step back, calm down before you return to this thread.

In case you have failed to notice, you are drowning out other people in this thread and your posts are now bordering on, well, sorry, but Akin like with misinformation and dangerous propaganda.

But okay, I will stop telling you to calm down. So please, knock yourself out.....

You are absolutely right! I was such a fool. Silly me from now on before posting I will ask you to approve my position before posting. Because apparently any opinion other than the ones you approve of is completely invalid. I am going to erect a temple in your honor Bells, because obviously you are the pinnacle of truth and reason, the only truth that matters in a fucked up world.

Have a nice night.

 

[seagypsy]

This will eventually look like a duplicate post since the original went to mod queue. I'm sure Tiassa wont mind deleting the duplicate.

The following is my response to Bells, those who prefer to not read the response to flaming feel free to ignore. Otherwise if it tickles you all pretty like to see someone attempt to put someone else in their place feel free to click the spoiler

Spoiler

See, I do not understand how or what my personal life or medical or personal issues actually have to do with you or this discussion. At all.

I agree and have already stated that it was inappropriate on my part to bring it up. Why you keep bringing it up though I have conceded fault in doing so is beyond me.

Now, you accused me directly of apparently using it in some form or other to garner sympathy or pity in this debate, when I had not done so, before you then went on and described your own personal and private and current problems for reasons unknown. You did this. Not me. Not anyone else.

I do not know what PM's you are talking about as I don't really chat with you via that medium unless I have to convey something to you in regards to something posted in Human Science. Unless of course this is how you speak to people via PM's if they were unfortunate enough to divulge something personal about their lives to you, then so be it. That is between you and that individual. It is of no concern to me or the subject matter of this thread.

Why do you assume it was PM between me and you?

You did not understand his posts and responses to you?



Which part of his answers did you not quite comprehend seagypsy?

The entirety. Why do you bother posting links to posts that are long as hell. But not point out directly exactly where the answers are. I can link you to a page out of your diary, if it were posted publicly, and claim you confesses to being a transsexual, but unless I can point out the actual words that prove it, my claims would have no validity. And so it stands here. Your links are worthless since they do not quote the specific remarks in answer to my questions.

You seem to have this need for me to be as upset and angry in this thread and about this thread as you are.

I can say the same about you.

Sorry if I cannot oblige.

And neither can I, so why don't we just drop the accusations of emotional instability and respond with actual data, or links that relate to the actual topic at hand? And remaining honorable while doing it.

If you feel being told that you should calm down before posting is suppressing you...?

No asking me to calm down isn't what is suppressing. Asking me to leave the debate IS.

My apologies. I had forgotten that the Government of your country also uses gas chambers to kill people and you are only applying local knowledge to such a matter.

Sorry for the confusion and my mistake.


Refer to above.

And again, my apologies for not also recognising that your country also used gas chambers to kill people.

Thank you.

You said:



"In most cases, if the woman's life becomes endangered in the 3rd trimester, killing the baby is unnecessary and will be as traumatic as giving birth."..

Quite a claim.

It sure is. And so is your claim that a fetus is not human until it has fully exited your vagina. That's a doozy.

Without any proof or back-up whatsoever.

Your only back up has been that two moderators have agreed with you. One seems a bit shaky since he won't post his real feelings out of fear of the wrath of his wife. But I get picked at for being supportive of my husband because I genuinely agree with him.

At this point, can I say, I dread the thought that you may actually come into contact with a woman whose life is endangered by her pregnancy because if you give her the kind of advice that you seem to think is correct which you posted and I quoted above, then the thought fills me with dread.

Hello!! I have been that woman 2 times, 3 if you give credit and assume every time the doctor tried to convince me it was true was for valid reasons.

I am not a doctor, nor do I claim to be one. I am also not the one saying that women in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy who find that they have a medical issue which results in their pregnancy putting their life at risk should not listen to their doctor's advice because you were apparently told to abort 3 times and did not and you did not die..

Sure but you are claiming that a fetus is not human until it is fully outside the vagina. Tell me, does the cord also have to be cut before it is human? What medical background do you have to support your claims?

Of all the dangerous and idiotic things said on this forum, this post of yours would have to be up there seagypsy.

Not that your opinion matters, considering my view of you right now, but i really don't give a rats ass what some illogical irrational imbeciles think of my post. I am sure plenty think the same of yours. Who haven't you ever accused of being an idiot at some point, oh maybe Tiassa, but then Tiassa is in authority over you. I wonder if Tiassa took a different position in this thread or changed position would copy cat along side of him? You are right Tiassa has a track record of thinking for himself. You on the other hand have a track record of sucking up to Tiassa. If I am wrong, link me over to any thread and post number where you vehemently disagreed with Tiassa and badgered him in the same manner you are badgering us.

Your question does not even make any sense.

What can't you understand about it. I am asking you to provide support for your counter claim. You seem to be asserting that aborting in the last trimester can save a mother's life. My doctor couldn't even come up with examples, I am asking if you know of any.

You can start here: http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/ - If you want to wade through the hundreds of bring you to your knees stories of heartbreak that women had to face in having to terminate their pregnancy for medical reasons, you are free to do so. The site is dedicated to women you just called 'child killers'..

I find it ironic that you link me to a site that refers to aborted fetuses as babies. How dare they!?

Lovingly Dedicated to All AHC Babies

We also have the story of Ms Watts:

If the ban were in place in 1995, Tammy Watts would likely be dead, she says.

In March of that year, Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival.

Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as "brutal."

"Losing my baby at the end of my pregnancy was agonizing," says Watts. "But the way the right deals with this issue makes it even worse. When I heard Bush mention 'partial birth abortion' during the debates, I thought 'How dare you stand there and tell flat-out lies?' There is no such thing as this procedure! Why won't the politicians listen to us?"​

I bolded something. The word LIKELY. She would likely be dead. Not the same as would definitely be dead. And they were aborting a pregnancy that was already dying. I knew a girl who had this happen. Her baby had actually been dead for 2 weeks before they removed it from her uterus. She found out because she started getting sick and had a fever. They checked the well being of her baby and could find no heartbeat. Though it was technically considered an abortion, they weren't even removing LIVING cells. They were removing a dead body from hers in order to save her life. I doubt the doctors in your article have any way of proving that if they had waited til the fetus was already fully dead that the mother would have certainly and unavoidably died. If the fact that cocaine MAY lead to miscarriage is not good enough for you then the fact that this dead fetus being inside her MAY have lead to her death is also unacceptable. Remember, you are the one who seems to want to deal with absolutes. Making an absolute claim that it is absolutely not human until absolutely born.

And here:

When Congress first considered the ban in 1995, Watts testified on Capitol Hill. So did Viki Wilson of Fresno, Calif., who had a late-term abortion because the brain of the fetus she was carrying had developed outside the skull. So did Vikki Stella of Naperville, Ill., whose fetus had dwarfism, no brain tissue and seven other major abnormalities.

All three women told legislators they owed their health to late-term abortions and that a continuation of their doomed pregnancies posed grave health risks such as stroke, paralysis, infertility or even death.​

None of these women are doctors, how can they make such claims?

Wow.. You didn't push the murder on her.. Just.. wow.. I actually feel embarrassed for you.

trouble with reading comprehension again? I clearly stated that I put the guilt on the doctor, not the anguished mother. Oh wait, this is your little lying technique again. ... carry on in your usual way.

So you view her as a murderer if she has an abortion out of medical necessity in the third trimester because you were lucky?

Nope.

Well how lucky for you that you were okay. Not every woman has that luxury.

Not luck. The doctors gave no valid reasons for suggesting that an abortion would save my life. Especially considering that abortion can lead to the death of a woman as well. And they had to admit it. And they had to admit that they had no way of determining that I would survive the abortion or the delivery. They seems sure that I was going to die no matter what. So if the odds are against me but I can allow my child to live in spite of my own death it only makes sense. Save the one that seems to have the best chance of survival. And so we did, and as it turned out the doctors simply had ulterior motives for encouraging the abortions. One even admitted to it.

You must have applauded Akin's statement's then. I mean you are putting even pro-lifer's to shame here.

Who the hell is Akin?

No, I had advised my colleagues when you first started becoming abusive about this issue that I was waiting for the killing kittens argument. Unfortunately, you did not fail to deliver.

So it was an adolescent retort... still not a rebuttal. Thank you.

In a paragraph discussing late term abortions for medical necessity and where you accuse women who are unfortunate enough to have to make that decision to save their own lives of being child killers... Sure..

sure ...Come everybody let's do the twist!!

What tactics do you think I am using here?

Not getting angry and emotional, slanderous, libelous and abusive and making false and spurious accusations such as accusing people of being serial killers?

Doing all the things you just denied.

That's what bothers you the most, doesn't it? That I am not biting back.

Not biting back huh? have you seen the length of your post?

I am sorry seagypsy. You are not worth any effort in that regard.

So the debate is finished then? Yay! Though I doubt you will remain silent to me.

Please prove me wrong.

Stop responding to me.

Please.

I mean really..

Your views are, frankly, dangerous and repugnant.

So? That's your opinion, not a fact. No human being can go through life with opinions that please everyone. The fact that YOU see my views this way is quite comforting to me.

My ilk?

Who is my ilk?

Don't know the meaning of the word "ILK". Look it up, your ignorance is not my problem. If you are given to the delusion that you are completely unique in your philosophies or perceptions of the world, that is also not my problem.

People who feel that women should be given the right to choose, just as you exercised your right to choose?

No that is not what I am referring to at all.

Your attempt to flame have been duly noted, as have your slanderous accusations towards a member of the staff here that he is like a serial killer. As much as you can try and claim that Tiassa and I are supposedly misinterpreting Neverfly's posts or yours, the actual reality is that we are not and your posts stand as an embarrassing testament of repugnant attitudes and beliefs such as the likes of Akin and you have declared in this thread.

bla bla bla you sound like a broken record. "I can't offer a good rebuttal so will claim posts stand as testimony." Sure go ahead because our posts as well as yours DO INDEED stand as testimony. Anything else. Btw, I notice after saying i wasn't worth debating with, you still continued to debate my remarks on and on and on in the same post after you made such a claim. All bluff I guess.

Neverfly's attitudes are pro-life, something you acknowledged yourself when you accused us of apparently turning him into someone pro-life. And his attitudes are misogynistic, as are yours. And yours and the claims you have made in this thread are not just misogynistic and cruel, but downright dangerous.

OMG now I am misogynistic? Holy shit! you are a trip. Omg.. ok at this point, I will give you the thread because you deserve nothing but ridicule at this point.

May I remind you, seagypsy, you have abused my personal circumstance and accused me of supposedly using them for gain in this thread, you also inferred slanderous things about me and then went on to suggest that Tiassa was like a serial killer. And you believe that this is logical behaviour?

I advised you, politely to calm down before you return to this thread, because frankly, your embarrassing display has become a dangerous and repugnant one.


Okay, I need to ask, because now you nave piqued my curiosity.

Why do you have this need for me to be annoyed?


Figure of speech escaped you?

Seagypsy, we have come to the point where I am begging you to stop giving yourself more rope here. No, seriously.

You have gotten to the point where you are accusing women who have medically necessary abortions in the third trimester of being murderers and have declared they did not need to have abortions.. You have accused Tiassa, without any proof or reason, of being like a serial killer.

This is bordering on an SNL sketch of the ridiculous..

And as someone who used to value your posts and found you insightful and intelligent, it makes me cringe and withdraw with horror and repugnance.

I don't know how else to get this through your head.

Stop..


If I was, at any point, going to threaten you with moderation, it would have been made very obvious to you. And as much as you can try and accuse me of that, all I have asked you, for your own sake and everyone else's, is that you do take a step back, calm down before you return to this thread.

In case you have failed to notice, you are drowning out other people in this thread and your posts are now bordering on, well, sorry, but Akin like with misinformation and dangerous propaganda.

But okay, I will stop telling you to calm down. So please, knock yourself out.....

You are absolutely right! I was such a fool. Silly me from now on before posting I will ask you to approve my position before posting. Because apparently any opinion other than the ones you approve of is completely invalid. I am going to erect a temple in your honor Bells, because obviously you are the pinnacle of truth and reason, the only truth that matters in a fucked up world.

Have a nice night.

 

[Bowser]

Excellent suggestion. The spoiler tag would be most appropriate.

 

[seagypsy]

Oh, it's good to have company.

Now, maybe you good neighbors should simply make a detailed statement that unequivocally establishes your position on abortion, to clear up any misunderstanding.

People are arguing over points that seem to be, well, a distraction. :shrug:

Absolutely let's get back on topic.

1. I believe that a human being has a right to protect his/her own life and that he/she should be under no legal obligation to put any life before his/her own.
2. I believe that the above point coincides with inalienable human rights.
3. in regards to the person-hood of an unborn child. I believe that a fetus becomes a person worthy of protection when it has reached a level of development where it stands a reasonable chance of long term survival outside the womb. It is my understanding that survival rates are quite high for births that happen anytime within the third trimester.
4. I believe if there is sufficient evidence to suggest the third trimester fetus is deformed or sick beyond any reasonable hope of recovery and that death of that fetus within the first year of life is statistically shown to be the most likely outcome, then an abortion along the terms of euthanasia is acceptable.
5. I believe if the doctor genuinely believes that the mother's life is in danger, even in late term, and that a live delivery option such as c section or early inducement of labor would reduce her chances of survival more than an abortion would, then the abortion is a reasonable action.
6. I believe abortion, up until the point of development I believe gives person-hood to the fetus, should remain legal for any reason the mother chooses to do so.
7. I personally do not like abortion. But I also do not like extreme body art. But I do not feel I have a right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own body so long as it does not violate the right of another person to exist. When it is a matter of choosing who survives refer back to the first point.

 

[Neverfly]

Who the hell is Akin?

Todd Akin - that idiot that claimed that women have the ability to block getting pregnant when raped.

 

[seagypsy]

Todd Akin - that idiot that claimed that women have the ability to block getting pregnant when raped.

Oh that doofus, well I don't know, I doubt this, but maybe the guy was referring to the fact that a woman CAN get an abortion. LOL, ok ok, not funny I know. The guy is a pile of excrement. It takes too much psychosis to defend his position.

I had seen a reference to clay akin once in the thread as well. But I don't see how an American Idol winner would have any major affect on voting.

Ah yes, a fellow traveler of Clay Akin. You know more about women than women do.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh, it's good to have company.

Now, maybe you good neighbors should simply make a detailed statement that unequivocally establishes your position on abortion, to clear up any misunderstanding.

People are arguing over points that seem to be, well, a distraction. :shrug:

I am of the opinion that life begins at conception, so any issue of abortion weighs up that there are two lives in the balance, not one.
As for implications on abortion, I think that any social policy has to be backed up by the society its in otherwise it fails.
Discussing the massive legal implications for suddenly granting an unborn child its rightful state isn't a very realistic approach since we see historically that making the learning curve occurs through generations, not policy makers

 

[Bells]

Why do you assume it was PM between me and you?

I believe I was quite clear when I did not know what PM's you are talking about and since I do not chat to you via PM, it obviously has nothing to do with me.

Having said that, how unfortunate for the recipient of that PM, who it appears from your vitriolic spray, may have trusted you enough to tell you something personal about themselves and that is your response..

The entirety. Why do you bother posting links to posts that are long as hell. But not point out directly exactly where the answers are. I can link you to a page out of your diary, if it were posted publicly, and claim you confesses to being a transsexual, but unless I can point out the actual words that prove it, my claims would have no validity. And so it stands here. Your links are worthless since they do not quote the specific remarks in answer to my questions.

You asked for links.

Let me refresh your memory of your own post:

Where? Links? you declaring something so doesn't make it true.

I provided you with the links.

Also, you should pay particular attention to this:

"12. If you ask another member for evidence, be prepared to read the information that he or she provides for you. Don’t claim that evidence has not been provided just because you didn’t take the effort to read it."​

From this site's rules and posting standards.

Just because you are either unable or incapable of reading and comprehending it is not my problem.

I can say the same about you.

That I want to upset you?

Considering you entered this thread upset before I had even spoken to you...

Seagypsy, you seem to want something something..

Suffice to say, if you are frustrated with something, don't expect others to feed your need to conflict or attention. I have responded to you calmly and politely. You have made spurious accusations at me, made some bizarre attack on my personal life and then apologised for it while saying it wasn't really an apology, and then attempted to deny it was even aimed at me, you have been rude and vulgar and the level of dishonesty displayed by you has been, well, astounding. You have also made claims that if any pregnant woman reading this thread paid attention to, could endanger her life if she actually took you seriously.

I do not particularly care what you have going on, which you advised earlier was apparently the cause of your stress. It is of no concern to me, with this thread or this forum.

And neither can I, so why don't we just drop the accusations of emotional instability and respond with actual data, or links that relate to the actual topic at hand? And remaining honorable while doing it.

I provided the links. Just because you cannot read or understand it is not my concern or issue.

No asking me to calm down isn't what is suppressing. Asking me to leave the debate IS.

I asked you to step back, until you felt calm enough to return.

Do you understand the difference?

It sure is. And so is your claim that a fetus is not human until it has fully exited your vagina. That's a doozy.

Can you please show me where I have said that a human foetus is not "human"?

You have made this accusation about me in this thread before.

Please show me where I have said that a foetus is not human in a discussion regarding abortion within the human species.

Thank you.

Your only back up has been that two moderators have agreed with you. One seems a bit shaky since he won't post his real feelings out of fear of the wrath of his wife. But I get picked at for being supportive of my husband because I genuinely agree with him.

My back up has been science and fact that an embryo or foetus is not a "very young child". I am also backed by science and fact that when referring to an unborn of the human species, it is commonly and scientifically referred to as an embryo or foetus, contrary to your aversion to this term or my using it. I am also backed by facts when I say, clearly, that proposing that women should not listen to their doctors who may recommend a late term abortion because it may be medically necessary is downright dangerous for you to say on this site, because you are not a doctor or a specialist in gynaecology or obstetrics or paediatrics. This is a science site, hence the name "sciforums". Not the "carebearforums" or "letsuseemotivelanguage forums"..

I would suggest the same to you but I don't believe in suppressing the opposition.

Of course you don't..

Hello!! I have been that woman 2 times, 3 if you give credit and assume every time the doctor tried to convince me it was true was for valid reasons.

And?

You are not every woman, seagypsy.

Not every woman will be as lucky as you have been with the gamble that you chose to take for yourself.

So when you make such claims and apply it as you have, you do not know the circumstances or medical issues that may have arisen in any woman's pregnancy which could lead her doctor to advise her as such.

This is a public forum and anyone and everyone can read this thread and your comments and claim that:

And if a woman's life only becomes endangered in the 3rd trimester, what good will abortion do that inducing early live birth can't do? In most cases, if the woman's life becomes endangered in the 3rd trimester, killing the baby is unnecessary and will be as traumatic as giving birth. So why needlessly kill something that is alive. It's like stopping to kill a kitten because you are running late to work. It serves NO purpose.

I have to ask, are you comfortable with the knowledge that a woman facing such a decision could be reading this thread right now and take you at your word and disregard the advice of her doctors? Does that give you comfort?

Because what you have said is downright dangerous.

Sure but you are claiming that a fetus is not human until it is fully outside the vagina. Tell me, does the cord also have to be cut before it is human? What medical background do you have to support your claims?

Show me exactly where I have said that a human foetus is not human at any point or stage of its development up to and including birth.

What I did say was that in Australia, hospitals do not grant personhood or rights to the unborn when the mother's life is at risk and that where the mother's life is at risk, that foetus and its health and safety become secondary.

Here is the discussion I had with Neverfly about it earlier in this thread:

What you have said in this thread is suggestive that until that baby comes out of the mother- it simply doesn't count. Now, unless you say that you also oppose late term abortions, I'm strongly under the impression that you actually believe that the act of birth makes it a human and unless it's born- it isn't one.

Pretty much.

It has no rights. In Australia, if a woman's life becomes threatened by her pregnancy regardless of where she is during that pregnancy, that "child" no longer counts. To put it into some perspective for you, I was in labour and I was told, to my face that my "child" did not count. Even though I had made that choice to save it above my own life.

So can you please show me where I have claimed that a "fetus is not human until it is fully outside the vagina"?

Not that your opinion matters, considering my view of you right now, but i really don't give a rats ass what some illogical irrational imbeciles think of my post. I am sure plenty think the same of yours. Who haven't you ever accused of being an idiot at some point, oh maybe Tiassa, but then Tiassa is in authority over you. I wonder if Tiassa took a different position in this thread or changed position would copy cat along side of him? You are right Tiassa has a track record of thinking for himself. You on the other hand have a track record of sucking up to Tiassa. If I am wrong, link me over to any thread and post number where you vehemently disagreed with Tiassa and badgered him in the same manner you are badgering us.

Badgering you?

I was discussing this issue with Neverfly and Bowser when you entered it swearing at me like a vulgar fishwife.

And you kept at me until you got the attention you seemed to crave and I still responded to you politely and from what I can see, the more polite I am the angrier you are.

You have put on quite a spectacle.

Now, while you may not care what someone may think of your post, and I find this astounding because I was pointing out the dangers of your comments and you seem to believe that members and non-members alike or everyone else are "illogical irrational imbeciles".. You are free to your opinion.

Tiassa and I have had some knock down dirty fights in the past and I suspect we will in the future as well. Since I cannot link things in the mod forum, you are free to ask him.

And sucking up to Tiassa?

My.. You're on a roll.

What can't you understand about it. I am asking you to provide support for your counter claim. You seem to be asserting that aborting in the last trimester can save a mother's life. My doctor couldn't even come up with examples, I am asking if you know of any.

You can't even and did not even provide any support for the claim you made. Only some vague reference to what your doctor may or may not have told you.

And I did provide you with links.

I bolded something. The word LIKELY. She would likely be dead. Not the same as would definitely be dead. And they were aborting a pregnancy that was already dying. I knew a girl who had this happen. Her baby had actually been dead for 2 weeks before they removed it from her uterus. She found out because she started getting sick and had a fever. They checked the well being of her baby and could find no heartbeat. Though it was technically considered an abortion, they weren't even removing LIVING cells. They were removing a dead body from hers in order to save her life. I doubt the doctors in your article have any way of proving that if they had waited til the fetus was already fully dead that the mother would have certainly and unavoidably died. If the fact that cocaine MAY lead to miscarriage is not good enough for you then the fact that this dead fetus being inside her MAY have lead to her death is also unacceptable. Remember, you are the one who seems to want to deal with absolutes. Making an absolute claim that it is absolutely not human until absolutely born.

How terrible for that girl you knew. Did you call her a murderer as well?

Or did she get an out because her child was unfortunately already dead inside of her?

As for the cocaine argument. The article I linked was clear. There was no evidence that the cocaine she had consumed had led to the stillbirth. What part of that don't you understand, exactly?

Now, likely to be dead.. She listened to her doctors.

You have openly declared that women in the third trimester who listen to their doctors and have an abortion because it is deemed medically necessary to protect her life should not be doing so.

That was your absolute claim. Because you feel that she can just give birth instead of aborting it. Because of what apparently happened to you a few times.

Again, may I remind you. You do not speak for all women and you and your medical issues do not apply to all women.

And I just hope that any pregnant woman who may be facing that horrendous decision and is unfortunate enough to be reading your comment does not take you at your word and instead seeks medical advice.

Now, something you should keep in mind when you make such dangerous and extraordinary and completely unsubstantiated and unsupported claims such as the one you made about how women should just give birth instead of aborting in the 3rd trimester if faced with a decision based on the health of the mother and medical necessity because you don't think doctors are right:

11. Be aware that you may be held legally responsible for any content you submit to sciforums.

12. Be aware that your posts may remain on sciforums for many years. Future readers may include employers, friends, family, journalists and others.

13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions. Links and references are always welcome, though a convincing argument will often do just as well or better.

15. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you’re claiming that Einstein was wrong, or that evolution does not occur, or that aliens are visiting Earth, be prepared to provide strong evidence in defence of your argument. If you only have an opinion, avoid posting on topics such as these.

17. Financial, legal and medical advice is best provided by qualified professionals. We welcome discussion of financial, legal and health issues but we reserve the right to remove posts that may put readers at risk.
​

The rules of this site and plain and simple. Perhaps you should follow them instead of making dangerous unsubstantiated and unsupported claims about pregnant women who may have been advised that it is medically necessary to abort the pregnancy and you claiming that they should not because you think it is murder and you do not think doctors are right and because you believe they should just give birth instead.

None of these women are doctors, how can they make such claims?

Perhaps because they are following medical advice from their doctors and practitioners.

trouble with reading comprehension again? I clearly stated that I put the guilt on the doctor, not the anguished mother. Oh wait, this is your little lying technique again. ... carry on in your usual way.

You advised that women should not listen to their doctors advice in the third trimester if their doctor recommends they abort because it is medically necessary for them to do so.

Not luck. The doctors gave no valid reasons for suggesting that an abortion would save my life. Especially considering that abortion can lead to the death of a woman as well. And they had to admit it. And they had to admit that they had no way of determining that I would survive the abortion or the delivery. They seems sure that I was going to die no matter what. So if the odds are against me but I can allow my child to live in spite of my own death it only makes sense. Save the one that seems to have the best chance of survival. And so we did, and as it turned out the doctors simply had ulterior motives for encouraging the abortions. One even admitted to it.

And again, that is you.

Your gamble and your luck and your situation is not the same as every other women facing that decision or that horrendous predicament.

So declaring that they should just have the baby and not listen to the doctor is dangerous, because not every woman in this situation is going to be the same as you.

Doing all the things you just denied.

I am sorry if I cannot fulfill your pathological need to get as angry as you are.:shrug:

Not biting back huh? have you seen the length of your post?

Biting back would be to respond to you in kind. However, I am not vulgar. I will make a quick joke, yes. So I do not carry on like some sort of literary fishwife who swears the paint off the walls and has some sort of a meltdown to the point where her husband is saying he has had to try to calm her down...

I like to take my time and respond properly and sometimes my posts are long and wordy.

So the debate is finished then? Yay! Though I doubt you will remain silent to me.

Please prove me wrong.

Stop responding to me.

Please.

I mean really..

When you make false accusations about people, those individuals are allowed to to respond to you and request that you back up your accusations and your claims.

As much as you may claim you do not like to suppress the opinions of others, your demand that I stop responding to your false and misleading accusations and slander proves you wrong. There was also the fact that I had to clearly point out to you that you could be held legally liable at some point in the future for your dangerous and wild claims you made about how women should be like you and ignore doctor's recommendations for aborting in the third trimester due to medical necessity or some risk to the mother's health and wellbeing.

So? That's your opinion, not a fact. No human being can go through life with opinions that please everyone. The fact that YOU see my views this way is quite comforting to me.

It is an opinion and it is stated as such.

Don't know the meaning of the word "ILK". Look it up, your ignorance is not my problem. If you are given to the delusion that you are completely unique in your philosophies or perceptions of the world, that is also not my problem.

If I wanted to know the definition of "ilk", I would have said "what does ilk mean?".

What I said was "who is my ilk?".. In other words, to put it simpler, who are you saying is my ilk?

bla bla bla you sound like a broken record. "I can't offer a good rebuttal so will claim posts stand as testimony." Sure go ahead because our posts as well as yours DO INDEED stand as testimony. Anything else. Btw, I notice after saying i wasn't worth debating with, you still continued to debate my remarks on and on and on in the same post after you made such a claim. All bluff I guess.

I am not the one making the dangerous claims that you have.

:shrug:

OMG now I am misogynistic? Holy shit! you are a trip. Omg.. ok at this point, I will give you the thread because you deserve nothing but ridicule at this point.

Yes, you are misogynistic.

Do you think being a woman somehow absolves you of this?

You are absolutely right! I was such a fool. Silly me from now on before posting I will ask you to approve my position before posting. Because apparently any opinion other than the ones you approve of is completely invalid. I am going to erect a temple in your honor Bells, because obviously you are the pinnacle of truth and reason, the only truth that matters in a fucked up world.

Have a nice night.

At the moment, I am just hoping you do not get sued because some poor woman out there actually took you at your word.

But toodlepip.

 

[billvon]

Please stop referring to fetuses as "children." I will cite my authority as Linguistics Moderator to ban you for a semester so you can take a course in Remedial English.

I don't really have a dog in this fight but this is an egregious abuse of moderator powers. Trying to ban specific language that you do not want to see used is Orwellian at best. It would be akin to banning someone who uses "cold fusion" on the LENR thread because the moderator supports LENR, and feels that the term "cold fusion" reduces the legitimacy of the "technology."

 

[Tiassa]

Marketplace solutions and the learning curve of generations

Discussing the massive legal implications for suddenly granting an unborn child its rightful state isn't a very realistic approach since we see historically that making the learning curve occurs through generations, not policy makers

I did want to point out that instead of policy makers, you're essentially leaving it to lawyers.

At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced foetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.

South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.

(Pilkington)​

While abortion access advocates were skeptical from the outset, believing these fetal homicide laws were a back-door to LACP, it is lawyers who are proving the point.

The problem with certain market-based solutions is that they take time, and during that time there will be many sacrificial lambs. I tried to make this point earlier in the thread:

Nor would one want me in charge if personhood was the rule; Equal Protection is a vital foundation of our society, and I would sacrifice as many lambs, send as many people to prison, wreck as many lives, as I must in order to make the point. Meanwhile, I would be remiss in my duty, as such, if I did not. Did a woman experience menstrual irregularity? We must investigate, in order to make sure a "person" has not died, and if we have evidence suggesting such a death, we must ensure that the defenseless "person" did not die by homicide.​

That isn't a matter of spite. Rather, it's how important Equal Protection is to our society. And here's the thing about the appearance of spite: This is why I think the concept of "personhood" at conception doesn't work. Can it be made to work? Perhaps, but at the same time, I'm not inclined to find out. The better ways, in my opinion, to reduce the number of abortions in society, are education and access to prevention tools. Yet, as we see in our political culture, these approaches, too, are objectionable.

In truth, I have a hard time separating abortion from issues of sexual conduct.

Have you ever seen a burn line in fighting wildfires? It's a risky maneuver; in the middle of a tinder-dry region, the theory is that by burning out enough area in the path of the wildfire that the blaze cannot cross. And while we can certainly declare our faith in fire crews, even they know that a controlled burn can erupt into something much worse in a heartbeat.

I raise this issue because it seems that leaping past sex education and contraceptive access to LACP, which is a politically viable set of assertions in our society, is metaphorically akin to putting out a fire by setting other things on fire, and the statistical result of ignorance and lack of access is like throwing gasoline on the fire to put it out.

Additionally, abortion is not the only aspect of self-governance that a woman loses under LACP. Sure, it's easy enough to point to smoking, drinking, or piles of cocaine, but it also pertains to work, traveling in a car, or even walking on a sidewalk. It pertains to a woman's exposure to anything that might endanger the organism growing inside her. In the name of Equal Protection, the organism inside the woman becomes superior, and while that might seem an emotional rhetorical appeal, the functional implications are tremendous.

I would also note that while our society sees much argument about the life of the mother, there is little talk of what actually drives the most part of late-term abortions. Yesterday, I excerpted a legal brief from Supreme Court hearings focused on late-term D&X (a.k.a. "partial birth abortion"). And as I noted, it's a soul-scarring read.

Nobody with a shred of human decency is going to drag an anti-abortion advocate into a hospital to watch a baby slowly and painfully dying of a disorder identified in utero, and say, "This child's suffering is all on you." But I also don't think enough people are considering the fact that their policy preference, LACP, would create such a situation.

The question of implications gauges the intent of LACP, and so far it really does seem to be about the War of the Sexes more than it is the children.

End hunger. Get the hundred-thousand-plus children in the United States who need stable homes into stable, loving homes. Our society spends so much argument on the rights of the unborn, even if that means the right of the unborn to be born into suffering. This doesn't make sense.

It's true, I reject LACP because its implications are unacceptable to my outlook. But if it ever becomes the law of the land, I would certainly hope we have some idea what we're getting ourselves into. And, yes, in truth, I think that, as a society, we will be blindsided by the implications of LACP if we don't give it some serious thought beforehand.

Remember that under the Fourteenth Amendment, women were not considered people insofar as fifty-two years passed before the Nineteenth. And even as the marketplace tried to give women the vote in the states, those laws, even when passed in the states, were repeatedly quashed.

Some would suggest that slavery was on its way out, anyway, suggesting that the Civil War and Thirteenth Amendment were unnecessary. Some would suggest that civil rights for people with dark skin was on its way, and thus Supreme Court decisions in Brown and Loving were unnecessary. The unspoken price, though, is the number of people who would suffer during the interim.

If we leave the implications of LACP to the learning curve of generations, how many times will we screw up? How many people will suffer?

That's why it's important to have this discussion on the front side.

Of course, I don't foresee LACP becoming the law of the land anytime soon, so perhaps the only real purpose of asking people to think about the implications is to make sure they understand what they're advocating.

And I find it interesting that when the personhood issue pushed to the fore in 2010, the response on the liberal and Democratic Party side of the aisle was to focus on hormonal birth control, in vitro fertilization, and other such medical aspects at risk. Perhaps the leading voices, be it members of Congress or the media commentariat, &c., thought it would be too complicated a discussion to undertake consideration of the broader implications. Judging by the discussion so far in this thread, they would have been right. To the other, it's also possible it just didn't occur to them; when one deals in superficiality, deeper implications often remain unnoticed.

But if people are going to advocate LACP, it would probably be a good thing to consider the wider implications; indeed, I cannot see why they wouldn't want to, unless this really is about political aesthetics instead of genuine concern for humanity.
____________________

Notes:

Pilkington, Ed. "Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges". The Guardian. June 24, 2011. Guardian.co.uk. November 5, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

 

[Bowser]

Now, maybe you good neighbors should simply make a detailed statement that unequivocally establishes your position on abortion, to clear up any misunderstanding.

My thanks to NeverFly, SG and LG for their honest replies. I'm not sure that Bells and Tiassa have offered theirs. I think I know where they stand, but I don't want to make any assumptions. If you could give us a clear statement, not a convoluted spill, that would be great.

 

[seagypsy]

Please show me where I have said that a foetus is not human in a discussion regarding abortion within the human species.
...
Show me exactly where I have said that a human foetus is not human at any point or stage of its development up to and including birth.

Originally Posted by Bells

Originally Posted by Neverfly
What you have said in this thread is suggestive that until that baby comes out of the mother- it simply doesn't count. Now, unless you say that you also oppose late term abortions, I'm strongly under the impression that you actually believe that the act of birth makes it a human and unless it's born- it isn't one.

Pretty much.

birth (berth) a coming into being; act or process of being born.
complete birth entire separation of the infant from the maternal body (after cutting of the umbilical cord).
multiple birth the birth of two or more offspring produced in the same gestation period.
postterm birth birth of an infant at or after 42 completed weeks (294 days) of gestation.
premature birth , preterm birth birth of an infant before 37 completed weeks (259 days) of gestation.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/birth

So maybe you just not saying what you actually mean. Or maybe your position has changed.

Hmmm. Maybe I have been misunderstanding you. So you DO see a human fetus as a HUMAN? Even before it is born? Is this correct?

meaning

human fetus = human.

all human fetuses are human.

Am I interpreting you correctly?

And Tiassa, do you also agree that a human fetus is human?

 

[Bells]

Maybe you need to learn to read and comprehend and actually follow the course of the discussion and not take two words out of context and run with it and instead actually read the context it was stated in. In other words, I was discussing how in Australia, the health of the mother is paramount, even during labour. So the "pretty much" was to advise Neverfly that here, the baby ceases to count while in utero if the mother's health becomes in danger - ie.. during birth, if the mother goes into distress, they save the mother first and not the baby first.

At no time did I or anyone else in this thread ever state that a human foetus is not human. At no time.

What I have been saying is that in Australia, while in utero, it does not have personhood in that it's rights will not supersede the mother's if the mother's health is at risk, even during birth.

Do you know and understand the difference between "human" and "personhood" in the context of this debate, seagypsy?

Because if you do not, then please say so and stop abusing and swearing at people like a demented fishwife because you do not understand basic legal terminology which applies to this debate.

I would suggest you also owe some people in this thread an apology. A very big one and hope they are willing to forgive you for the pathetic display you have put on here in this thread and the level of abuse and the manner in which you have conducted yourself here. Because I can assure you, I would not after the things you have said to me and the manner in which you have attacked my personal life without provocation.

 

[seagypsy]

Maybe you need to learn to read and comprehend and actually follow the course of the discussion and not take two words out of context and run with it and instead actually read the context it was stated in. In other words, I was discussing how in Australia, the health of the mother is paramount, even during labour. So the "pretty much" was to advise Neverfly that here, the baby ceases to count while in utero if the mother's health becomes in danger - ie.. during birth, if the mother goes into distress, they save the mother first and not the baby first.

At no time did I or anyone else in this thread ever state that a human foetus is not human. At no time.

What I have been saying is that in Australia, while in utero, it does not have personhood in that it's rights will not supersede the mother's if the mother's health is at risk, even during birth.

Do you know and understand the difference between "human" and "personhood" in the context of this debate, seagypsy?

Because if you do not, then please say so and stop abusing and swearing at people like a demented fishwife because you do not understand basic legal terminology which applies to this debate.

I would suggest you also owe some people in this thread an apology. A very big one and hope they are willing to forgive you for the pathetic display you have put on here in this thread and the level of abuse and the manner in which you have conducted yourself here. Because I can assure you, I would not after the things you have said to me and the manner in which you have attacked my personal life without provocation.

So ... do you think a fetus is human? why is that question so hard to answer? Maybe your posts would be easier to understand if you just directly answered questions rather than blathering on about how someone cant read. YOU said a fetus is not human until it is born. You cannot deny it. The words are there plain as day. Now if you want to say you misspoke, that's fine with me. I will accept your clarification that you only meant is not a person, not that it isn't human.

So am I correct?
You believe a human fetus is human even before birth, but that this human is not granted personhood until after it is fully born?

I do not deny that Australian law says what you claim it says. I don't care about Australian law. So I don't read about it. I will take your word for it. Australians can govern themselves any way they like. I live in the USA. My opinions only count here.

Why do you bring up Australian laws when the thread is about American law makers? Does Australia have some right to tell us how to govern our own country? Is Australian opinion relevant in the making of American laws? Last I checked Australians cannot vote in US elections.

So back to the question. You clarified that you do not see the unborn child as one granted personhood. Does that mean that human does not equal personhood?

Please clarify your position. Do you see a human fetus as human? I am not asking you what any law says, I am asking for YOUR personal opinion. Is a human fetus a human?

Also note, all participants of this thread, excluding you, have continued to discuss this in a civilized manner. Would you like to join and do the same?

 

[seagypsy]

I did want to point out that instead of policy makers, you're essentially leaving it to lawyers.

At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced foetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.

South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.

(Pilkington)​

While abortion access advocates were skeptical from the outset, believing these fetal homicide laws were a back-door to LACP, it is lawyers who are proving the point.

The problem with certain market-based solutions is that they take time, and during that time there will be many sacrificial lambs. I tried to make this point earlier in the thread:

Nor would one want me in charge if personhood was the rule; Equal Protection is a vital foundation of our society, and I would sacrifice as many lambs, send as many people to prison, wreck as many lives, as I must in order to make the point. Meanwhile, I would be remiss in my duty, as such, if I did not. Did a woman experience menstrual irregularity? We must investigate, in order to make sure a "person" has not died, and if we have evidence suggesting such a death, we must ensure that the defenseless "person" did not die by homicide.​

That isn't a matter of spite. Rather, it's how important Equal Protection is to our society. And here's the thing about the appearance of spite: This is why I think the concept of "personhood" at conception doesn't work. Can it be made to work? Perhaps, but at the same time, I'm not inclined to find out. The better ways, in my opinion, to reduce the number of abortions in society, are education and access to prevention tools. Yet, as we see in our political culture, these approaches, too, are objectionable.

In truth, I have a hard time separating abortion from issues of sexual conduct.

Have you ever seen a burn line in fighting wildfires? It's a risky maneuver; in the middle of a tinder-dry region, the theory is that by burning out enough area in the path of the wildfire that the blaze cannot cross. And while we can certainly declare our faith in fire crews, even they know that a controlled burn can erupt into something much worse in a heartbeat.

I raise this issue because it seems that leaping past sex education and contraceptive access to LACP, which is a politically viable set of assertions in our society, is metaphorically akin to putting out a fire by setting other things on fire, and the statistical result of ignorance and lack of access is like throwing gasoline on the fire to put it out.

Additionally, abortion is not the only aspect of self-governance that a woman loses under LACP. Sure, it's easy enough to point to smoking, drinking, or piles of cocaine, but it also pertains to work, traveling in a car, or even walking on a sidewalk. It pertains to a woman's exposure to anything that might endanger the organism growing inside her. In the name of Equal Protection, the organism inside the woman becomes superior, and while that might seem an emotional rhetorical appeal, the functional implications are tremendous.

I would also note that while our society sees much argument about the life of the mother, there is little talk of what actually drives the most part of late-term abortions. Yesterday, I excerpted a legal brief from Supreme Court hearings focused on late-term D&X (a.k.a. "partial birth abortion"). And as I noted, it's a soul-scarring read.

Nobody with a shred of human decency is going to drag an anti-abortion advocate into a hospital to watch a baby slowly and painfully dying of a disorder identified in utero, and say, "This child's suffering is all on you." But I also don't think enough people are considering the fact that their policy preference, LACP, would create such a situation.

The question of implications gauges the intent of LACP, and so far it really does seem to be about the War of the Sexes more than it is the children.

End hunger. Get the hundred-thousand-plus children in the United States who need stable homes into stable, loving homes. Our society spends so much argument on the rights of the unborn, even if that means the right of the unborn to be born into suffering. This doesn't make sense.

It's true, I reject LACP because its implications are unacceptable to my outlook. But if it ever becomes the law of the land, I would certainly hope we have some idea what we're getting ourselves into. And, yes, in truth, I think that, as a society, we will be blindsided by the implications of LACP if we don't give it some serious thought beforehand.

Remember that under the Fourteenth Amendment, women were not considered people insofar as fifty-two years passed before the Nineteenth. And even as the marketplace tried to give women the vote in the states, those laws, even when passed in the states, were repeatedly quashed.

Some would suggest that slavery was on its way out, anyway, suggesting that the Civil War and Thirteenth Amendment were unnecessary. Some would suggest that civil rights for people with dark skin was on its way, and thus Supreme Court decisions in Brown and Loving were unnecessary. The unspoken price, though, is the number of people who would suffer during the interim.

If we leave the implications of LACP to the learning curve of generations, how many times will we screw up? How many people will suffer?

That's why it's important to have this discussion on the front side.

Of course, I don't foresee LACP becoming the law of the land anytime soon, so perhaps the only real purpose of asking people to think about the implications is to make sure they understand what they're advocating.

And I find it interesting that when the personhood issue pushed to the fore in 2010, the response on the liberal and Democratic Party side of the aisle was to focus on hormonal birth control, in vitro fertilization, and other such medical aspects at risk. Perhaps the leading voices, be it members of Congress or the media commentariat, &c., thought it would be too complicated a discussion to undertake consideration of the broader implications. Judging by the discussion so far in this thread, they would have been right. To the other, it's also possible it just didn't occur to them; when one deals in superficiality, deeper implications often remain unnoticed.

But if people are going to advocate LACP, it would probably be a good thing to consider the wider implications; indeed, I cannot see why they wouldn't want to, unless this really is about political aesthetics instead of genuine concern for humanity.
____________________

Notes:

Pilkington, Ed. "Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges". The Guardian. June 24, 2011. Guardian.co.uk. November 5, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

This post is very rational calm and makes sense. I agree with you 100%. The implications of LACP and the slippery slope it creates is terrifying.

It's interesting how people can anticipate corrupt misinterpretation and enforcement of laws such as ACTA but their objectivity and critical thinking goes out the door when it comes to anything that endorses a subjective philosophical or religious belief.

As far as your remarks about how no one would want you in charge if personhood was the rule. well you are wrong, I'd back you up. I don't subscribe to the idea that what is fair must be pretty or give you warm fuzzies all day.

 

[Bells]

So ... do you think a fetus is human? why is that question so hard to answer? Maybe your posts would be easier to understand if you just directly answered questions rather than blathering on about how someone cant read. YOU said a fetus is not human until it is born. You cannot deny it. The words are there plain as day. Now if you want to say you misspoke, that's fine with me. I will accept your clarification that you only meant is not a person, not that it isn't human.

So am I correct?
You believe a human fetus is human even before birth, but that this human is not granted personhood until after it is fully born?

I cannot believe that you are incapable of understanding the english language to the point where you are asking me if I believe a human foetus is human..

It defies belief.

Yes, of course I think a human foetus is human.. If it was a horse foetus, I would believe it was a horse foetus and so forth.

I do not deny that Australian law says what you claim it says. I don't care about Australian law. So I don't read about it. I will take your word for it. Australians can govern themselves any way they like. I live in the USA. My opinions only count here.

Why do you bring up Australian laws when the thread is about American law makers? Does Australia have some right to tell us how to govern our own country? Is Australian opinion relevant in the making of American laws? Last I checked Australians cannot vote in US elections.

The notion of citing an example in the context of what I was saying escaped you somewhat?

Should we use smaller words for you?

No, please, you have to let us know these things and we can make allowances for you.

So back to the question. You clarified that you do not see the unborn child as one granted personhood. Does that mean that human does not equal personhood?

Please clarify your position. Do you see a human fetus as human? I am not asking you what any law says, I am asking for YOUR personal opinion. Is a human fetus a human?

Also note, all participants of this thread, excluding you, have continued to discuss this in a civilized manner. Would you like to join and do the same?

So you do not understand the concept of "personhood" in the context of this debate... Okay then..

Personhood in the legal confines of this debate and how I applied it, because I obviously incorrectly assumed that people would understand how it was applied in a debate such as this, means that the foetus is not given legal rights over the mother rights. Ie, it is not a person with rights yet.

Denying it "personhood" in the context of this debate and how I clearly and obviously applied it is when the unborn foetus' rights will not supersede the mother's rights to her body and health, especially where her health is concerned. In short, if the mother's health is in danger, I do not believe the foetus should have more rights than the mother, as such, I do believe that women should be given the right to choose and in cases where her health is at risk, she should not be denied an abortion because I believe that the foetus does not have any legal rights until it exits the womb - ie it does not have more legal rights than the mother or more rights over her body to the point where she is denied any rights over her own body. Once it exits the womb, it has full legal rights and protection. I believe that while in the womb, the mother's rights supersede the foetus' rights.

Do you understand now? Do I need to use smaller words? Draw pictures perhaps?

And let me be clear, seagypsy, civilised manner does not involve swearing at people as you have been and abusing them in the vulgar manner that you have been. Nor is it civilised to attack people's personal problems or apparently, as you claim you have done in this thread, post responses to PM's as you have done, nor is it civilised to falsely accuse people and slander people as being serial killers, etc. Nor is it civilised to say that pregnant women should not listen to their doctors advice in the 3rd trimester if their doctor tells them that it is medically necessary for them to terminate to save their lives.

But perhaps my definition of civilised is different to yours..

 

[Asguard]

Tiassa, concidering that corporations are "persons" in the US who was charged with murder over the collaps of liman brothers?