Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[lightgigantic]

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

No
Choices in this regard that focus on eliminating the emotional are irrational. Far from being diametrically opposed to rationality, it's an integral element in this scenario (applied to all parties involved ... just in case bells latches on this as another opportunity to drone on about the same sort of imaginative rhetoric as already given)

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.

They do the same in the name of rationality also ... such as describing the procedure as tissue removal, trying to draw it as non different from A parasite etc

 

[billvon]

Choices in this regard that focus on eliminating the emotional are irrational.

So choices in which emotion is eliminated (i.e. decisions that are rational rather than emotional) are irrational.

Not sure what you are trying to get at, but your definitions aren't working within the English language. A purely rational decision, by definition, is not influenced by emotion. It is common to suggest that someone make a rational rather than an emotional decision.

They do the same in the name of rationality also ... such as describing the procedure as tissue removal, trying to draw it as non different from A parasite etc

I agree that both sides use a lot of emotion.

 

[Randwolf]

I came across this gem in another thread. I had to share it here because it seems so on point in summing up the "other side's" POV:

If you think in terms of sexuality, men would like to have sex all the time. It does not take a social fad to induce this within the males since this is natural. Females like sex, also, but not as much, and not as often as males, due to their own natural female cycles. If we add this up, these is excess male demand for sex and limited female supply for sex. This is why males tend to rape women more than women rape men; demand without enough supply. Men will have to pay for sex one way or another; rings, dinner, movies, flattery, lies, etc, to balance the equation.

Prostitution was invented to add to the supply, but most women keep this taboo, since the lack of supply gives them more leverage over their males. If supply was to equal demand women would lose leverage. In a male world,this is a woman's trump card.

This systematic leverage of the female, can be used for good or for bad. In modern culture, women dressing like ho's is connected to an attempt to induce more demand, thereby giving more leverage over the males. If guys are horny all the time and you limit supply, they are more compliant to even irrational demands. While abortion, divorce and birth control help raise the supply in the open market. The women get the profit.

The free market dynamics come down to female motivation, since the male is linear and instinctive. Marital rape lowers supply even in marriage for more leverage, which is why this scam came about in the first place. I would guess that gay is part of this dynamics and is a way to lower the net demand for women. This is offset by removing some of the supply via lesbians to keep the ratio up.

It does down to what do the women do with this leverage, and does it benefit culture or lead to costly problems? The bible says that women like laws of good and evil, and therefore will like to impose rules on the males; tries to change him using the sex leverage. The dual standard of women's liberation is allowed because it is an accommodation to help increase supply. This is why abortion became more needed; supply trade-off for the dual standard.

If we took sex out of the equation, so there is no female leverage, their influence would not be based on a dual standard; devil's forked tongue. Men would treat them like men and they would have to use the single logical standard. Do the math!

In Muslim countries the female is more covered from head to toe, thereby lower induced demand. Alcohol and drunks which increase supply an demand are taboo. The equation adds differently.

Really people? I mean, really?

 

[lightgigantic]

So choices in which emotion is eliminated (i.e. decisions that are rational rather than emotional) are irrational.

If you don't edit out "in this regard" , then yes.

Not sure what you are trying to get at, but your definitions aren't working within the English language. A purely rational decision, by definition, is not influenced by emotion. It is common to suggest that someone make a rational rather than an emotional decision.

Its rational not to get upset if someone throws a chair out a 2 story window.
Its not rational not to get upset if someone throws a child out a 2 story window.

I agree that both sides use a lot of emotion.

I think its more that in one case there is an effort to eliminate emotion through the use of political language in order to enable the performance of an act our standard barometer of morality would otherwise prohibit.

In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.
George Orwell

 

[Randwolf]

We also have this little nugget from LG in response to yet another participant in that thread:

Other than that, the OP is largely incoherent.

+1 ...

You guys are on fire over there. Wow.

 

[lightgigantic]

We also have this little nugget from LG in response to yet another participant in that thread:
You guys are on fire over there. Wow.

What can we say other than ignorance killed the cat ....

In the meantime, feel free to browse the sites the image appears on to see if you can detect a pattern of context emerging

:shrug:

 

[Randwolf]

What can we say other than ignorance killed the cat ....

In the meantime, feel free to browse the sites the image appears on to see if you can detect a pattern of context emerging

:shrug:

Oh, I detect a pattern of context quite well LG. You just don't like that pattern being exposed to the light of day. Ever seen cockroaches scurry when the light is turned on? I totally expected you and your ilk to attempt obfuscation here. The rest of us see you for what you are...

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh, I detect a pattern of context quite well LG.

Ok
then tell us what your indepth investigation of the other sites reveal.

 

[Randwolf]

Ok
then tell us what your indepth investigation of the other sites reveal.

I'm not concerned with other sites at the moment LG. I'm concerned with what you post right here, right now. And it ain't pretty so far. Are you saying that you stand in disagreement with your neighbor wellwisher on his "thesis"? I'll reproduce it here again to save you the trouble of looking back a few posts:

If you think in terms of sexuality, men would like to have sex all the time. It does not take a social fad to induce this within the males since this is natural. Females like sex, also, but not as much, and not as often as males, due to their own natural female cycles. If we add this up, these is excess male demand for sex and limited female supply for sex. This is why males tend to rape women more than women rape men; demand without enough supply. Men will have to pay for sex one way or another; rings, dinner, movies, flattery, lies, etc, to balance the equation.

Prostitution was invented to add to the supply, but most women keep this taboo, since the lack of supply gives them more leverage over their males. If supply was to equal demand women would lose leverage. In a male world,this is a woman's trump card.

This systematic leverage of the female, can be used for good or for bad. In modern culture, women dressing like ho's is connected to an attempt to induce more demand, thereby giving more leverage over the males. If guys are horny all the time and you limit supply, they are more compliant to even irrational demands. While abortion, divorce and birth control help raise the supply in the open market. The women get the profit.

The free market dynamics come down to female motivation, since the male is linear and instinctive. Marital rape lowers supply even in marriage for more leverage, which is why this scam came about in the first place. I would guess that gay is part of this dynamics and is a way to lower the net demand for women. This is offset by removing some of the supply via lesbians to keep the ratio up.

It does down to what do the women do with this leverage, and does it benefit culture or lead to costly problems? The bible says that women like laws of good and evil, and therefore will like to impose rules on the males; tries to change him using the sex leverage. The dual standard of women's liberation is allowed because it is an accommodation to help increase supply. This is why abortion became more needed; supply trade-off for the dual standard.

If we took sex out of the equation, so there is no female leverage, their influence would not be based on a dual standard; devil's forked tongue. Men would treat them like men and they would have to use the single logical standard. Do the math!

In Muslim countries the female is more covered from head to toe, thereby lower induced demand. Alcohol and drunks which increase supply an demand are taboo. The equation adds differently.

Tell us LG... How do you feel about this position? Because as I see it you stand for the same principles - or lack thereof. Am I mislabeling you? Do you object to any of the points raised here?

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm not concerned with other sites at the moment LG.

my bad
I was just following this fanfare you were drumming up about revealing the truth of the matter in the light of day.
False alarm.

I'm concerned with what you post right here, right now. And it ain't pretty so far. Are you saying that you stand in disagreement with your neighbor wellwisher on his "thesis"? I'll reproduce it here again to save you the trouble of looking back a few posts:

Tell us LG... How do you feel about this position? Because as I see it you stand for the same principles - or lack thereof. Am I mislabeling you? Do you object to any of the points raised here?

Needless to say its not my position.


But its kind of funny how you talk about being concerned with what I post and say right here, right now and then immediately ask me to attribute someone else's ideas to myself.
I guess we can chalk that up as another false alarm.

I guess engaging in arguments with caricatures makes life easy ... at least for as long as one isn't too concerned about engaging in valid discussion

:shrug:

 

[Randwolf]

my bad
I was just following this fanfare you were drumming up about revealing the truth of the matter in the light of day.
False alarm.

Hardly a false alarm. Just a truth you don't want to deal with. At least not right here, right now.

Needless to say its not my position.

Quite the contrary. It needs to be said. Is it safe to assume that you are asserting that you disagree with our neighbor's position in toto? Nothing you have posted to date would negate such an encompassing denial, right LG? Are you absolutely sure?

But its kind of funny how you talk about being concerned with what I post and say right here, right now and then immediately ask me to attribute someone else's ideas to myself.

I fail to see the humour LG. I was not asking you "to attribute someone else's ideas to yourmyself". I was hoping you would distance yourself as far as possible from that individual's "ideas" and join the 21st century. Ah well, hope in vain.

I guess we can chalk that up as another false alarm.

I guess you can chalk that up to anything you like so long as it allows you to evade, avoid, misconstrue and misunderstand what is being asked of you. Please, pray tell, where do the two of you differ? Be specific...

I guess engaging in arguments with caricatures makes life easy ... at least for as long as one isn't too concerned about engaging in valid discussion

You guess a lot. Usually you miss the mark. You do have one valid point, I feel like I am engaging with a caricature. Or at least I wish I was. Unfortunately your kind is all to real, much to the misfortune of others, especially if their gender happens to be female.

 

[Syne]

Mod note

I came across this gem in another thread. I had to share it here because it seems so on point in summing up the "other side's" POV:

Really people? I mean, really?

As per SciForums posting guidelines:

"Do not cross-post."

 

[RussellCrawford]

I agree with your reasoning regarding the social impacts as you have described them. There are other points that impact the issue as well. Two issues are:
1)The "Personhood" suggestion is complicated by the fact that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype one cannot tell if the product of conception is alive or human enough to live as a human. Why, because the process of "expression" is time dependent on what occurs in a sequential order. For example the DNA must first express a phenotype that functions as a fetal heart. Then at the appropriate moment, the DNA must "express" the change of function from a fetal heart to an infant heart (baby). If that sequence does not occur at the correct time, and death occurs, then the DNA has not expressed the correct phenotype. If a fetus cannot live as a human due to failure to express the correct organs at the correct time then it cannot be called human life or to posses personhood. Because there are 4 major changes (and many minor changes) that must occur before, during or after birth, personhood can only be certain after birth.
2) Further complicating the issue is the fact that 70 percent of conceptions die in the first trimester and therefore one cannot reasonably expect "life at conception" to produce human life more than 30 percent of the time.

 

[Randwolf]

As per SciForums posting guidelines:

"Do not cross-post."

Get a clue Syne. I'm not posting the same message multiple times.

Crossposting is the act of posting the same message to multiple information channels (forums, mailing lists, or newsgroups) in such a way that reading software can relate copies of this message on different information channels. Thus reading software is showing this message only once. This is distinct from multiposting, where copies of the message cannot be related.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Linking member's posts and reproducing them in another thread is common practice at Sci. Is this the best you can do?

 

[lightgigantic]

I fail to see the humour LG.

Given that you are still struggling with the context of the mathematical diagram proving women are evil, its hardly surprising.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Get a clue Syne. I'm not posting the same message multiple times.

Crossposting is the act of posting the same message to multiple information channels (forums, mailing lists, or newsgroups) in such a way that reading software can relate copies of this message on different information channels. Thus reading software is showing this message only once. This is distinct from multiposting, where copies of the message cannot be related.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Linking member's posts and reproducing them in another thread is common practice at Sci. Is this the best you can do?

you could try discussing the nefarious implications of the diagram in the thread you picked it from and thus expand the heartfelt laughter of the sciforums community at your expense.

 

[Syne]

Get a clue Syne. I'm not posting the same message multiple times.

Crossposting is the act of posting the same message to multiple information channels (forums, mailing lists, or newsgroups) in such a way that reading software can relate copies of this message on different information channels. Thus reading software is showing this message only once. This is distinct from multiposting, where copies of the message cannot be related.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Linking member's posts and reproducing them in another thread is common practice at Sci. Is this the best you can do?

That warning could have been given for several different reasons. I simply chose one.

Crossposting and off-topic could be considered spamming. The more channels receive a message, the less is the probability that it is on-topic, so excessive crossposting is generally considered bad practice. In the extreme case, if all messages were crossposted to every unmoderated channel, then every unmoderated channel would look exactly the same. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting​

I consider cross-posting to generally cover postings that may homogenize discussions in different threads, by cross-pollination. By quoting other threads, you open this one up to a digression into any content of that post (which was not intended to address this thread). I also consider it possible trolling to quote from a different thread when the quoted poster has already made a similar, more directly on-topic, post in this one.

You are advised to respond to posts in their own threads.

 

[Bells]

That warning could have been given for several different reasons. I simply chose one.

Crossposting and off-topic could be considered spamming. The more channels receive a message, the less is the probability that it is on-topic, so excessive crossposting is generally considered bad practice. In the extreme case, if all messages were crossposted to every unmoderated channel, then every unmoderated channel would look exactly the same. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting​

I consider cross-posting to generally cover postings that may homogenize discussions in different threads, by cross-pollination. By quoting other threads, you open this one up to a digression into any content of that post (which was not intended to address this thread). I also consider it possible trolling to quote from a different thread when the quoted poster has already made a similar, more directly on-topic, post in this one.

You are advised to respond to posts in their own threads.

If he was cross posting to the pseudoscience sub-forum, discussing Star Trek vs Star Wars, then certainly, you could say it could cause a digression in this thread and if he was spamming it across the forum, then sure, you could say it was spamming. Sadly, he was linking directly to a thread about how some of our members and staff view women. I think the biggest issue here is the fact that he is posting the opinions that some of the participants in this thread seem to have of women and seem to be able to post in the religion forum. After all, it does not suit to have your opinions of women made public in this thread when you are discussing the rights of women over their own bodies, does it? Especially when you consider the views of many conservatives when it comes to women in general.

That thread and your post, and LG's response to your post kind of throws your argument here in this thread right out of bounds of any credibility you may have had. While one could hope that your posting that cartoon was one of a joke, others participating in that thread are sadly not joking. And unfortunately, the views of women being spouted in that thread is very much connected to this debate.

 

[lightgigantic]

If he was cross posting to the pseudoscience sub-forum, discussing Star Trek vs Star Wars, then certainly, you could say it could cause a digression in this thread and if he was spamming it across the forum, then sure, you could say it was spamming. Sadly, he was linking directly to a thread about how some of our members and staff view women. I think the biggest issue here is the fact that he is posting the opinions that some of the participants in this thread seem to have of women and seem to be able to post in the religion forum. After all, it does not suit to have your opinions of women made public in this thread when you are discussing the rights of women over their own bodies, does it? Especially when you consider the views of many conservatives when it comes to women in general.

That thread and your post, and LG's response to your post kind of throws your argument here in this thread right out of bounds of any credibility you may have had. While one could hope that your posting that cartoon was one of a joke, others participating in that thread are sadly not joking. And unfortunately, the views of women being spouted in that thread is very much connected to this debate.

Then by all means, feel free to reveal the rational thought processes you utilized coming to these wonderful conclusions (as opposed to attempting to reduce the thread to an "idea blurting" competition ) and once and for all dispel the nasty rumours that you periodically display the literacy skills of a pithed toad.



:scratchin:

 

[Bells]

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

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

I am actually involved in helping rape victims and abuse victims.

Pray tell, how do you propose women be educated before abortions? Counseling? Lectures? That happens already. Since women decided to have abortions anyway, the right to life groups decided to up the ante and force them to undergo invasive and intrusive procedures to try to garner an emotional response. And it seems you seem to believe that if someone acts without emotion, and thinks about their choice in a manner that they do not let their emotions cloud their judgements, then that individual is irrational. When full disclosure is forcing women to have objects jammed up their vaginas to calm the hysterics of the likes of men like you, then you have already lost any moral ground you could have ever hoped to take. Then again, one pro-life law maker in the US saw no issues at all with forcing women to be penetrated twice:

“I got pregnant vaginally. Something else could come in my vagina for a medical test that wouldn’t be that intrusive to me. So I find that argument a little ridiculous.”

“Something else could come in my vagina for a medical test”? ​

Now imagine those words to a rape victim?

But your stance is not new or original. The view that women are somehow too stupid to know what's going on inside their bodies is one that has been spoken of before. One even went so far as to view women as "little girls", too stupid to know better:

Brannon serves as the medical director for Hand of Hope, a nonprofit that operates several North Carolina crisis pregnancy centers. At a recent Hand of Hope fundraiser, Brannon described the centers' clients as "little girls [who] don't understand what's going on to their bodies." He said he often presses these "little girls" to marry their boyfriends: "When I see little girls that come here, boyfriends that do show up are my favorites. Then I can whoop on them with love. How many people have we got married over the last 20 years just by riding that boy's rear end?"​

So your argument is just the same as the misogynistic ones that have come before it.

Then by all means, feel free to reveal the rational thought processes you utilized coming to these wonderful conclusions (as opposed to attempting to reduce the thread to an "idea blurting" competition ) and once and for all dispel the nasty rumours that you periodically display the literacy skills of a pithed toad.

Context and your history on this site. All of us who have been unfortunate enough to have to read your posts and your views on women know your history and your manner of trolling. That you have been allowed to get away with it up till now... well, lets just say that that shit won't wash anymore.:shrug: Fun times ahead for you LG. Don't get too comfy.