Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Bells]

No re-edit ... can't say I am surprised


Because you don't read.

Oh I can read. And all I have seen is you dodging and trolling as per usual.

I discussed this with you about 12 or so months ago on a similar topic.
The irony is that you took the same path of outright doubt about this same scenario.
Its not so much that you haven't heard about it, but you don't assimilate information.

Nope. Try again. You are incapable of being honest enough to answer.

But all this aside, you are not really making a salient point unless you want to somehow drive home the colossal notion of ignorance that there are no extraordinary challenges in life for someone somehow surviving an abortion (along with the contingent aspects of culpability this might include)

My young cousin survived an abortion at 14 weeks. She is 18 now and was kicked out of home by her mother for being a lesbian when she was 14 years of age. So you can troll as much as you want, but a woman living off the tragedy of her birth pales in comparison to years of abuse and being kicked out of home to live on the streets, to being sexually molested and abused.

It wouldn't matter if she was your ex-lesbian lover, had an affair with your husband or sold your children into slavery ... unless you can somehow tie these acts later in her life being some consequence of surviving an abortion attempt

I have seen the consequences of surviving an abortion troll and I am paying for her to get an education and make something out of her life. I have also seen women having to make that awful decision and being abused by the likes of you, being spat on, threatened and called a murderer by people just like you. What have you done? Oh yes, masturbate over some chick on the internet and make her your poster child. And you dare wonder why I don't take pro life little plebs like you seriously.

Weirdo.
"carrying a child" doesn't require a dramatic sojourn outside the english language

Again with the trolling. Your "carrying a child" is meant to be emotive. To portray a foetus as a "child". One that can be held, cuddled, and cooed at.

And you would see a child forced to die for no reason outside of the whim of the mother ... hence we are having this discussion

The God you bow to saw fit to let his child die for no reason outside of the whim of the father for the sins of others.

Funny that, eh?

You are the type of misogynistic troll who values women so little that her body is not even her own. Hell, you worship a God that saw fit to rape a teenage girl and get her pregnant, no wonder you are pro-life. Too bad your own God is not pro-life.

Then again when the discussion gets desperate for you, you make comments devoid of any reference than your imagination

How did you term it? Oh yes, rape prevention and holding women responsible for their own rape.

Lets see, if a woman has been raped (since you know, this thread is about rape and abortion) and falls pregnant to her rapist, you would have her forced to give birth to the child of the man who raped her, because if she has an abortion, then for you, you would view her actions as that of a whim.

Unfortunately, it is not my imagination but your sexist and twisted little mind.

Already given.
Let us know when you get around to reading them ...

Nope. You didn't. You even admitted to not having done so. Because you are too busy dodging and trolling and trying to throw this thread off topic.

However at the moment we are in the middle of discussing how this view of yours defaults to an infringement on rights generally afforded to others.
Now from here we can talk about special situations or aspects unique to this scenario which may entail these rights being applied or suspended according to time place and circumstance ... or alternatively you just drone on the same party line rhetoric as if nothing else mattered in the universe except your opinion and your resources of imagination to back it up.

Again, troll, read the thread's topic before trying to claim this is not what this thread is about.

So answer the question and Randwolf's since you have been dodging his as well, stop trolling and throwing this thread off topic in trying to dodge the questions or you can say bye bye? Clear enough for you now?

already answered slobberchops

Call me that again, and you will take a holiday from this forum.

Stick to this thread's topic, answer the questions and stop trolling.

already explained how this is simply adding chaff to your presentation ... unless you have some macabre idea of how killing a child in the womb born from rape somehow establishes a satisfactory standard of justice regarding the criminality of the act.

Perhaps you can explain why a 14 year old girl who is a victim of rape should be forced to remain pregnant and give birth against her consent?

Or do you value women so little that rape means nothing and is not macabre in and of itself and she should just put up with it because your religious beliefs are worth more than her rights and her body?

That's the thing with you, LG, you only value women and even girls for their wombs and what they can push out. If it takes rape to happen, then so be it. Hell, after your rape prevention spiel, you probably think she is partially responsible for her own rape. Suffer the little children.

Do you know what is truly ironic with you? In all the threads discussing the killing of children, you remain silent. 11,000 children have died so far in Syria. Did you even discuss the killing of children in the Syria threads on this site? Nope. Not even a peep from you. Why? They aren't of any value once they are out of the womb for you. It is only when a woman is in control of her body that you feel the need to step up and protect the "child". Because heaven forbid a woman has rights over her own body. How about the parents of a little girl battling to keep their brain dead child on life support? Nup, nothing from you there either.

But outside of the religious forum where you troll the most, the moment there is a thread discussing women's rights, you're in there, scraping your backside on the ground like you have a rash on your genitals, itching to demand the removal of rights from women and trolling in the worst way possible. It stops here.

 

[Bells]

Sanity prevailed..

Back to the topic.

As discussed earlier, regarding the case of the 14 year old rape victim who was denied an abortion after finding out that she was pregnant from her rapist, a higher Court in Argentina has granted her the right to have an abortion.

Sanity prevailed for this poor girl.

A court in Argentina ruled on Friday that a 14-year old rape victim could have an abortion, overturning a judge's earlier decision barring the girl from seeking the procedure.

The teenage girl discovered early last month that she was pregnant after being raped by her mother's partner.

---

The lower court decision denying the girl an abortion had provoked outrage by women's groups which maintained that the judge had exceeded his authority.

Judge Victor Soria had ruled that the right to life of the unborn child trumped the rights of the teen, but Salta's Supreme Court on today overturned that decision.
​

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh I can read. And all I have seen is you dodging and trolling as per usual.

If you can read, we certainly don't see too much evidence if it in your posts

Nope. Try again. You are incapable of being honest enough to answer.

oh yes we did.

Here we go :

You :It's legal in some parts of the world.
Maybe you should get out more.

Me: Nothing in those links to suggest that nurses in california during 1977 (you know, the place where Gianna survived her abortion) were legally permitted to carry out third trimester abortions ... although if it took till 1994 for a PA to be legally permitted to perform first trimester abortion, I think we can effectively rule out the possibility of a nurse performing it in 1977?
What now?
Do you wan to make some more stuff up?

On that thread you were again trying to deny aspects of gianna's life, so when you start talking about having "never heard" of these sorts of things, it tends to indicate you have information assimilation issues.
:shrug:

My young cousin survived an abortion at 14 weeks. She is 18 now and was kicked out of home by her mother for being a lesbian when she was 14 years of age. So you can troll as much as you want, but a woman living off the tragedy of her birth pales in comparison to years of abuse and being kicked out of home to live on the streets, to being sexually molested and abused.

Feel free to explain how this suggests no extraordinary challenges to life accrue as a result of surviving an abortion, troll.

I have seen the consequences of surviving an abortion troll and I am paying for her to get an education and make something out of her life.

If you think its reasonable to doubt the grounds for acquiring cerebral palsy from a saline abortion, its not clear what reasonable grounds (outside of your coveted imagination of course) you are suggesting being a rebellious lesbian becomes the default position of an abortion survivor.

I have also seen women having to make that awful decision and being abused by the likes of you, being spat on, threatened and called a murderer by people just like you.

Given that I (or gianna for that matter) have never spat on such women and called them murderers, we again have more grounds to doubt the substance of your claims or your capacity to actually assimilate the information being presented in this discussion and engage in it beyond your imagination..

But that aside, its the nature of "a silent Holocaust" ( as gianna calls it) that you don't have too many advocates for the other party, so citing your so-called experience is not relevant.

What have you done? Oh yes, masturbate over some chick on the internet and make her your poster child. And you dare wonder why I don't take pro life little plebs like you seriously.

and you wonder why I call you the names that I do?
Feel free to rejoin the discussion after you get your false teeth and tongue back in your mouth and have mopped up all this cathartic dribble from your chin ....

Again with the trolling. Your "carrying a child" is meant to be emotive. To portray a foetus as a "child". One that can be held, cuddled, and cooed at.

err .. no . Carrying a child means precisely that : carrying a child

The God you bow to saw fit to let his child die for no reason outside of the whim of the father for the sins of others.

feel free to find the posts where I identify myself as a christian.

Funny that, eh?

Yes, your lack of attention in these sorts of discussions is a joke enjoyed by many

You are the type of misogynistic troll who values women so little that her body is not even her own.

Its the nature of justice that no body has a body that is simply their own, since there are a host of things one can do with it to infringe on the lives of others.
IOW you have a faulty premise at the onset as the basis for your "human rights" since civilization doesn't function like that.
It may be popular to rant about "keep your laws off my body", but I can guarantee that the moment you get assaulted you will be ranting "bring your laws to my body."

I did however introduce the subject of triage to suggest how one can address the complications of conflicting justice issues, or how one body may interact with another in terms of values or rights in an environment of limited resources, ... but for some reason your brain goes off the charts and can't even come close to discussing this

Hell, you worship a God that saw fit to rape a teenage girl and get her pregnant, no wonder you are pro-life. Too bad your own God is not pro-life.

drool on my sweetness

How did you term it? Oh yes, rape prevention and holding women responsible for their own rape.

lol

no that's how you termed it, via your highly exercised bodily organ of imagination

the problem with your discussions is that you have a tendency to jump on to hyperbolic assumptions and then ride with them for years, despite never being able to quote where people say the stuff you imagine they say

Lets see, if a woman has been raped (since you know, this thread is about rape and abortion) and falls pregnant to her rapist, you would have her forced to give birth to the child of the man who raped her, because if she has an abortion, then for you, you would view her actions as that of a whim.

and once again, if we want to actually bring this subject within the confines of the thread, you will now have to explain how being a product of incest or rape grants one a different status in terms of justice or rights ... but then if we look at the issue, you are not even willing to even engage in discussions about theoretically awarding these rights to those not conceived out of rape .... so it then begs the question why you are throwing this chaff into the discussion ... outside of the obvious ploy of throwing emotional issues to cloud the progress of the discussion.

IOW the real question is why do you have this agenda to stagnate the discussion of this thread?
:shrug:

Unfortunately, it is not my imagination but your sexist and twisted little mind.

that was an opportunity to substantiate the claim outside of your imagination : not reinforce it.
:shrug:

Nope. You didn't. You even admitted to not having done so. Because you are too busy dodging and trolling and trying to throw this thread off topic.

actually if you did read it, which I think we can safely assume by now you haven't, can't and won't, you would see I give guidelines how to bring it back on topic to the thread and avoid asking loaded questions.

Again, troll, read the thread's topic before trying to claim this is not what this thread is about.

Do you think "personhood" in the thread OP is only about the mother?

So answer the question and Randwolf's since you have been dodging his as well, stop trolling and throwing this thread off topic in trying to dodge the questions or you can say bye bye? Clear enough for you now?

I did answer his question.
I did answer yours (at least as far as its possible to answer a loaded question).

Call me that again, and you will take a holiday from this forum.

If you feel you have an open license to call people all sorts of names, lay all sorts of charges against them and have no basis for such statements aside from your fervent imagination,


eg (just from your last response):

You are the type of misogynistic troll who values women so little that her body is not even her own.
....
Unfortunately, it is not my imagination but your sexist and twisted little mind.
...
What have you done? Oh yes, masturbate over some chick on the internet and make her your poster child. And you dare wonder why I don't take pro life little plebs like you seriously.

you can expect similar reciprocation.

Mop up your slobber or wear it, darling.

Stick to this thread's topic, answer the questions and stop trolling.

Go back to where I did answer them, and take the discussion from there.
In case you haven't noticed, you are still yet to give a decent answer to the question I also asked, but I am simply at the point of explaining why your anecdotal stories are of no relevance.

Perhaps you can explain why a 14 year old girl who is a victim of rape should be forced to remain pregnant and give birth against her consent?

because, at least if we are to rely on the information you provide for the scenario, there is another party involved and you have totally failed to give any explanation on why being conceived out of rape suddenly renders one with less civil rights afforded to others.

Or do you value women so little that rape means nothing and is not macabre in and of itself and she should just put up with it because your religious beliefs are worth more than her rights and her body?

Its not so much that rape means nothing but that there is a total absence in your reasoning regarding the other party involved ... which is, you know, the OP title.

That's the thing with you, LG, you only value women and even girls for their wombs and what they can push out. If it takes rape to happen, then so be it. Hell, after your rape prevention spiel, you probably think she is partially responsible for her own rape. Suffer the little children.

Once again, mop it up or wear it bells.

Do you know what is truly ironic with you? In all the threads discussing the killing of children, you remain silent. 11,000 children have died so far in Syria. Did you even discuss the killing of children in the Syria threads on this site? Nope. Not even a peep from you. Why?

Because in my mind its a straight forward moral transgression.

They aren't of any value once they are out of the womb for you. It is only when a woman is in control of her body that you feel the need to step up and protect the "child". Because heaven forbid a woman has rights over her own body.

Mop it up or wear it

How about the parents of a little girl battling to keep their brain dead child on life support? Nup, nothing from you there either.

interestingly enough, people discussing that topic are capable of assimilating the subject of triage ..... unlike some particular contributors here.

But outside of the religious forum where you troll the most, the moment there is a thread discussing women's rights, you're in there, scraping your backside on the ground like you have a rash on your genitals, itching to demand the removal of rights from women and trolling in the worst way possible. It stops here.

a comparison to those threads would be if you had some fool arguing that the children in syria or the girl on the life machine have no status and their very life and death simply rest on the whim of people who are stronger. IOW there is no further scope for discussing their welfare outside of the agenda of people who may find their death convenient ..... which is what we find here with your contributions
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

I advocate them being fully advised, in every respect. There is a difference between being informed of all available options and being pressured toward one particular option. Being informed is not inherently pressuring.

Being imposed upon and assigned extra costs etc is inherently pressuring.

You did not advocate full information or advice of any kind, but the imposition of specific expensive, harassing, and medically unnecessary procedures on top of the unavoidable costs and risks and necessary burdens of abortion -

unless you think untrained regular people are capable of interpreting sonograms, ultrasounds, etc? Most young women getting abortions come from educationally deficient backgrounds (fundamentalist Christian homes, low income neighborhoods, etc), not unusually sophisticated ones.

You advocate the imposition rather than the information, in part because you have a fantasy of the nature of human development you think will be supported by overlooked facts of the matter - you think the information you wish to impart (your fantasy) becomes automatically visible in some physical fact without "interpretation" by medical staff etc - and in part because you favor creating opportunities to impose maximally severe consequences and inculcate maximum levels of guilt, shame, or regret in women getting an abortion (or doing anything else connected with sexual behavior you don't control - that's why you favor "complete information" being imposed on abortion seekers, but censorship and withholding of information from young women considering having sex without your permission - no mandatory sonograms depicting the nature of male and female orgasm in high school biology classes, no mandatory "complete" information on avoiding pregnancy and abortion in the first place, eh? )

a comparison to those threads would be

Nobody was comparing "to" threads - merely describing obvious aspects of your behavior. You don't have a moral position, a consistent ethical point of view, or an ounce of intellectual integrity, and among the various ways of highlighting that a particularly simple one is to box up the fog of misused vocabulary and incoherent rhetoric so that the larger structure of your behavior patterns here is plain.

if you had some fool arguing that the children in syria or the girl on the life machine have no status and their very life and death simply rest on the whim of people who are stronger.

I've seen you argue essentially that - right here, in fact, when discussing the value of the life of a 14 year old girl impregnated by rape (a common event in the Syria you are overlooking these days, btw, and an aspect of matters also in several other threads not graced by your rhetorical contributions), in which you subordinate the entire value of her life (including risk of crippling injury or death) to your ignorance and delusion driven valuation of the developing embryo inside her. Some fool, indeed.

 

[lightgigantic]

Back to the topic.

As discussed earlier, regarding the case of the 14 year old rape victim who was denied an abortion after finding out that she was pregnant from her rapist, a higher Court in Argentina has granted her the right to have an abortion.

Sanity prevailed for this poor girl.

A court in Argentina ruled on Friday that a 14-year old rape victim could have an abortion, overturning a judge's earlier decision barring the girl from seeking the procedure.

The teenage girl discovered early last month that she was pregnant after being raped by her mother's partner.

---

The lower court decision denying the girl an abortion had provoked outrage by women's groups which maintained that the judge had exceeded his authority.

Judge Victor Soria had ruled that the right to life of the unborn child trumped the rights of the teen, but Salta's Supreme Court on today overturned that decision.
​

Fancy that eh?
The scenario involved weighing up the rights of two individuals which bore an obvious impact on the other and, despite the complexity, a conclusion was able to be arrived at without defaulting the status of one of the individuals to "nonexistent".

:scratchin:

 

[ElectricFetus]

A fetus is not "nonexistent", it just does not have a right to life over its mother's right to choice.

 

[lightgigantic]

A fetus is not "nonexistent", it just does not have a right to life over its mother's right to choice.

Which then raises the question what model of personhood you are running with and how consistently it can be applied.

What is interesting with the notion of triage however is that its based on the idea of bringing limited resources to a complex problem as a means to the solution .... as opposed to politically redefining the terms of the problem (such as suggesting there are no issues of personhood to be attributed to a fetus) for the sake of convenience, palatability etc

 

[lightgigantic]

Being imposed upon and assigned extra costs etc is inherently pressuring.

You did not advocate full information or advice of any kind, but the imposition of specific expensive, harassing, and medically unnecessary procedures on top of the unavoidable costs and risks and necessary burdens of abortion -

unless you think untrained regular people are capable of interpreting sonograms, ultrasounds, etc? Most young women getting abortions come from educationally deficient backgrounds (fundamentalist Christian homes, low income neighborhoods, etc), not unusually sophisticated ones.

You advocate the imposition rather than the information, in part because you have a fantasy of the nature of human development you think will be supported by overlooked facts of the matter - you think the information you wish to impart (your fantasy) becomes automatically visible in some physical fact without "interpretation" by medical staff etc - and in part because you favor creating opportunities to impose maximally severe consequences and inculcate maximum levels of guilt, shame, or regret in women getting an abortion (or doing anything else connected with sexual behavior you don't control - that's why you favor "complete information" being imposed on abortion seekers, but censorship and withholding of information from young women considering having sex without your permission - no mandatory sonograms depicting the nature of male and female orgasm in high school biology classes, no mandatory "complete" information on avoiding pregnancy and abortion in the first place, eh? )

Nobody was comparing "to" threads - merely describing obvious aspects of your behavior. You don't have a moral position, a consistent ethical point of view, or an ounce of intellectual integrity, and among the various ways of highlighting that a particularly simple one is to box up the fog of misused vocabulary and incoherent rhetoric so that the larger structure of your behavior patterns here is plain.

I've seen you argue essentially that - right here, in fact, when discussing the value of the life of a 14 year old girl impregnated by rape (a common event in the Syria you are overlooking these days, btw, and an aspect of matters also in several other threads not graced by your rhetorical contributions), in which you subordinate the entire value of her life (including risk of crippling injury or death) to your ignorance and delusion driven valuation of the developing embryo inside her. Some fool, indeed.

A good opportunity for you to display these ample reserves of intellectual integrity you are constantly alluding to might involve you quoting me where I actually cite such an argument.

In the meantime we can only conclude that, like bells, you spend most of you energy forming arguments against ideas nobody has offered.

:shrug:

 

[billvon]

A fetus is not "nonexistent", it just does not have a right to life over its mother's right to choice.

Question -

As it currently stands (and to make it clear I agree with this) the mother can choose to no longer support the fetus at any time in her pregnancy. Removal of the fetus ends the risk to her. Should she have the right to also kill the fetus after it is removed, since the two are not causally connected after about 25 weeks?

 

[Syne]

I advocate them being fully advised, in every respect. There is a difference between being informed of all available options and being pressured toward one particular option. Being informed is not inherently pressuring.

Being imposed upon and assigned extra costs etc is inherently pressuring.

You did not advocate full information or advice of any kind, but the imposition of specific expensive, harassing, and medically unnecessary procedures on top of the unavoidable costs and risks and necessary burdens of abortion -

unless you think untrained regular people are capable of interpreting sonograms, ultrasounds, etc?

...because you favor creating opportunities to impose maximally severe consequences and inculcate maximum levels of guilt, shame, or regret in women getting an abortion (or doing anything else connected with sexual behavior you don't control - that's why you favor "complete information" being imposed on abortion seekers, but censorship and withholding of information from young women considering having sex without your permission - no mandatory sonograms depicting the nature of male and female orgasm in high school biology classes, no mandatory "complete" information on avoiding pregnancy and abortion in the first place, eh? )

I did not make any sort of exhaustive list of what I considered "full information", but have since agreed with all suggestions given here, including abortion, adoption, fetal heartbeat, etc.. That you feel you need to jump on my one suggestion as somehow exclusive or exhaustive merely shows your eagerness to demonize your opposition in an attempt to poison the well (as if you fret a reasonable debate).

Believe it or not, I do not always have a fully-formed opinion, especially, on complex issues. I often use these sorts of interactions to more fully develop my opinion. The rhetoric you and Bells engage in makes it appears as if you use volume in the stead of rationale.


But why would seeing an ultrasound or hearing a heartbeat have any negative effect? Are you assuming that some small degree of "guilt, shame, or regret" necessarily exists in any woman getting an abortion?

And I have said nothing about sex-ed, so you have absolutely no basis for those assumptions.

 

[Bells]

But why would seeing an ultrasound or hearing a heartbeat have any negative effect? Are you assuming that some small degree of "guilt, shame, or regret" necessarily exists in any woman getting an abortion?

Because the use of invasive ultrasounds (and usually, at the start of the pregnancy, the ultrasounds are internal ones) and forcing women to listen to the foetal heartbeat is designed to make women feel shamed and guilty for getting an abortion. In many districts in the US where such provisions are in place, there are no exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

It doesn't take much to realise that forcing a victim of rape or any woman for that matter to have a penile shaped instrument inserted into her vagina so she can see and hear the foetal heartbeat that is only there because someone raped her is a horrendous practice.

But that is what is happening and worse.


At the heart of the abortion debate and this applies distinctly in cases of rape, is the right of women to have "control over their reproductive and sexual organs". Do you think it is acceptable to forcibly penetrate women even against her will for no medical reason except to make her look at an ultra-sound image and listen to a foetal heartbeat if she wants to have an abortion? To reiterate, if someone forcibly penetrates you with anything against your will or consent, it is deemed rape. Now imagine forcing a rape victim to undergo this procedure because she wants to abort the result of her rape or sexual assault? Imagine forcing a teenage girl to undergo this after being raped by her father and falling pregnant to her own relative? These are the issues facing women and why pro-choice supporters are so against the measures being forced on women by pro-life groups.

 

[billvon]

(duplicate post deleted)

 

[billvon]

But why would seeing an ultrasound or hearing a heartbeat have any negative effect?

Because it is an attempt to generate an emotional response in a woman rather than a rational response.

Imagine, for example, requiring a woman to watch a graphic video of a mastectomy, start to finish, before she is allowed to consent to one. Would that lend itself to more rational decisionmaking, based on a levelheaded assessment of the risks, or lead to more emotional decisionmaking, resulting from an aversion to the graphic images she had just seen? Would such a requirement have a negative or positive effect overall, if your goal was better women's health outcomes?

Are you assuming that some small degree of "guilt, shame, or regret" necessarily exists in any woman getting an abortion?

No, and some pro-life types see that as a problem. Hence their attempt to create guilt/shame/regret through mandatory imaging.

 

[lightgigantic]

Because it is an attempt to generate an emotional response in a woman rather than a rational response.

Imagine, for example, requiring a woman to watch a graphic video of a mastectomy, start to finish, before she is allowed to consent to one. Would that lend itself to more rational decisionmaking, based on a levelheaded assessment of the risks, or lead to more emotional decisionmaking, resulting from an aversion to the graphic images she had just seen? Would such a requirement have a negative or positive effect overall, if your goal was better women's health outcomes?



No, and some pro-life types see that as a problem. Hence their attempt to create guilt/shame/regret through mandatory imaging.

On the contrary, I would argue that any value judgment bereft of emotion that has a bearing on lives in the balance is irrational.

IOW full disclosure of an incident involving human life (or even any life actually) has a necessary emotional element in order to be healthy.

 

[Bells]

On the contrary, I would argue that any value judgment bereft of emotion that has a bearing on lives in the balance is irrational.

IOW full disclosure of an incident involving human life (or even any life actually) has a necessary emotional element in order to be healthy.

Yep and when you force a rape victim to have an object forced into her vagina against her consent, moved and shoved around in there so she can experience that "emotional element" before she aborts the pregnancy that was the result of her rape, would you say that was healthy?

 

[lightgigantic]

Yep and when you force a rape victim to have an object forced into her vagina against her consent, moved and shoved around in there so she can experience that "emotional element" before she aborts the pregnancy that was the result of her rape, would you say that was healthy?

Can you think of any way to educate women about children in their womb (like say, educating pregnant mothers about the dangers associated with smoking ... just to work on a parallel subject for a moment since it appears you've blown a fuse somewhere) aside from sticking something up their vagina?

 

[Bells]

Can you think of any way to educate women about children in their womb (like say, educating pregnant mothers about the dangers associated with smoking ... just to work on a parallel subject for a moment since it appears you've blown a fuse somewhere) aside from sticking something up their vagina?

Because rape is comparable to smoking?

Only someone who thinks women are stupid could come up with such a statement.

Women who are pregnant and decide to have an abortion already know what is in their womb LG. They don't need to be educated about it. They certainly do not need to be forcibly penetrated to teach them that there is a "child" in there. Rape and victims of incest certainly should never ever be forcibly penetrated to adhere to the religious beliefs of others, under the guise of educating them about the contents of their wombs. Under any other circumstance, forcibly penetrating someone is rape. Unless of course you are pro-life. Then it's just about asserting control over the wombs of women.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Question -

As it currently stands (and to make it clear I agree with this) the mother can choose to no longer support the fetus at any time in her pregnancy. Removal of the fetus ends the risk to her. Should she have the right to also kill the fetus after it is removed, since the two are not causally connected after about 25 weeks?

I think I've gone over this question already. The fetus loses right to life because it is a parasite not capable of independent life, although in the late third term independent life may be possible, hence why legality of 3rd term abortion was left open to the states by Roe vs Wade. This issue requires complex answers, not simply ones that hardened pro-life and pro-choice advocates make. The slippery slope may be extended to "why can't women kill their children?" Well again because a child, even a baby is capable of independent life, is capable of breathing and consuming food from a source other then it mother. A baby can be put up for adoption, a fetus on the other hand is only capable of being cared for by the mother, completely against her will even. Of course perhaps someday the technology may exist that could allow for a fetus to be extracted at any stage of pregnancy and grown to infancy, if and when the day comes morality once again will need to be reviewed and even changed.

 

[lightgigantic]

Because rape is comparable to smoking?

Only someone who thinks women are stupid could come up with such a statement.

Women who are pregnant and decide to have an abortion already know what is in their womb LG. They don't need to be educated about it. They certainly do not need to be forcibly penetrated to teach them that there is a "child" in there. Rape and victims of incest certainly should never ever be forcibly penetrated to adhere to the religious beliefs of others, under the guise of educating them about the contents of their wombs. Under any other circumstance, forcibly penetrating someone is rape. Unless of course you are pro-life. Then it's just about asserting control over the wombs of women.

I'll take that as a "no* .......

Please reassure us you are not involved in women's education.

 

[billvon]

On the contrary, I would argue that any value judgment bereft of emotion that has a bearing on lives in the balance is irrational.

So completely rational choices are irrational, and choices that favor emotion over rationality are more rational?

full disclosure of an incident involving human life (or even any life actually) has a necessary emotional element in order to be healthy.

Yes, and pretty much all abortions do have an emotional element. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous people attempt to use emotion to manipulate women into doing what they want.