It is your responsibility to read the post before making your own comment. Anything else is just being lazy.
____ In order to say that nobody has any idea what I am saying you would have to know everybody. And you don't. So your claim is nonsense.
Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
It is your responsibility to read the post before making your own comment. Anything else is just being lazy.
____ In order to say that nobody has any idea what I am saying you would have to know everybody. And you don't. So your claim is nonsense.
You should have read the history of the post before commenting.
So prospective parents should forget about hedging their bets around what to name it if it is a boy or a girl, and instead expand their prospects to the wider possibility of several different species?
:m:
We have.
Its your responsibility to make sense.
All you can do is reiterate the same bizarre conclusion about a babies dying unless there is an abortion to save them.
When we try to unpack this statement, you get all sweaty and say the same incoherent slogan again.
:shrug:
Sorry let me qualify my statement.
Nobody in this thread knows what you are talking about.
Arguably that statement could even extend to you.
Bells
Staff member
I have addressed it so many times in debating this issue, that really, I'm about to hire a plane and have sign writing. How many times do we need to go over this again and again?
Why don't you ask what pro-lifer's feel.
And you have not made any argument that it does not. What was yours? Oh yes, brain and put the figure at week 8. For your information, the brain starts to form by week 5. What do you think sends the particular cells to where they need to go?
Why don't you ask LG when life begins. He is very much pro-life.
The whole pro-life argument is silly.
The whole pro-life stance sees the unborn as pure and innocent and worthy of saving and protecting over those who are alive and thus, unpure. A broken wrists does not mean that the accident itself could not have damaged the "baby". Rationally, you would say save the 2 year old first. Granting personhood means the unborn deserves as much time and treatment as the severely injured 2 year old. So to determine the health and safety of the "baby", scans must be performed. Understand the dangers now?
You doubt the number?
You are aware that women are already in jail for murder because they miscarried, aren't you? I had linked it earlier on in this farce of a debate. As ridiculous as the prospect is, if a woman miscarries a person, then it is murder and they need to determine whether it was on purpose or not. For example, did she do anything to increase the risk of miscarriage? Did she consume anything that could cause it, such as what food did she eat and what did she drink? Did she smoke or take any drugs, legal or illegal (many legal drugs and medications are dangerous during pregnancy). The list goes on and on. Did she do any activity that could have put the person at risk.
As I said to you Syne, you are no longer in any position to complain about being called a misogynist. At all.
When you fall pregnant, you can decide what it is you want to do if you are responsible enough for such a decision, of course. Until that happens, your beliefs are personal. Just like your personhood belief is a personal one. Not everyone shares your view. The majority of pro-life people believe personhood occurs at the moment of conception. You have set an arbitrary time, based on your belief of when the brain starts to form (it's actually several weeks earlier than that), a time when most women would only just be realising they may be late. So even in that, you would deny women the right to an abortion..
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
As a friend says:
I'll give a flying fuck what men think about abortion the first time one of you assholes gets pregnant!
Or to quote from my 2nd-most popular karaoke song, "What It's Like" by Everlast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&feature=iv&src_vid=nlF1qnhmq28&v=JM8RG0Qq__w
Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tommy, said he was in love.
"Don't you worry 'bout a thing, Baby Doll. I'm the man you been dreamin' of."
Then three months later he says he won't date her or return her calls.
She swears, "Goddamn, if I catch that man I'm cuttin' off his balls."
So she heads for the clinic and she gets some static goin' through the door.
They call her a "killer" and they call her a "sinner" and they call her a "whore."
Well, God forbid you should ever have to walk a mile in her shoes.
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose.
"Don't you worry 'bout a thing, Baby Doll. I'm the man you been dreamin' of."
Then three months later he says he won't date her or return her calls.
She swears, "Goddamn, if I catch that man I'm cuttin' off his balls."
So she heads for the clinic and she gets some static goin' through the door.
They call her a "killer" and they call her a "sinner" and they call her a "whore."
Well, God forbid you should ever have to walk a mile in her shoes.
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose.
If that's that's the case, then a survivor of abortion can kindly tell other people to fuck off (in a flying fashion or otherwise) who don't share their same experiences.
Of course, however, its a totally moronic view point to suggest that advocacy, or even having a valid opinion of a controversial issue, be relegated to individuals already established in the political status quo or have direct experience.
If you thought otherwise you wouldn't even have a 1/100th of the number of posts you have contributed to this site.
:shrug:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Her point is that, statistically, men are little more than a footnote in the vast majority of "problem pregnancies." As in the song, they're paragons of support during the first trimester. Then as reality sinks in they start to get cold feet. The closer the delivery date comes, and the woman who didn't want the damn baby in the first place gives them an increasingly strident preview of what their new life will be like, getting a real job, giving up the carousing, learning to change diapers, waking up during the night to screaming that seems to have no <Pause> button, and learning to live lower on the hog... well then they start wondering if there's a doctor within a thousand miles who will perform a late-term abortion. Or more likely, just disappear one night.
Why should this demographic's opinion be worth recording, much less respecting?
Sure, there is a small percentage of men who will come through these nine months with flying colors, but we have no way to identify them. Besides, why should the person who actually has to endure the pregnancy inside her own body, and also deal with the nursing, the depression, and the nearly-destructive impact on her career, not have the deciding vote?
It's a fact of nature that pregnancy, childbirth and the early years of rearing have a much greater impact on the mother's life than the father's. It's also a fact of modern civilization that a shockingly large cohort of fathers simply abandon both mother and child, quite often not even supplying the court-ordered support payments. It's easy to do that: just work in the underground economy as a musician, drug dealer, day laborer, etc.
Statistics must be respected. We have an epidemic of fatherless children in the USA, and after a few generations of this we've learned that children (especially boys) who grow up without a father figure simply don't usually grow up right. They end up filling our prisons, or at least our homeless shelters.
So if you're a good man who wants to change your partner's mind about having an abortion, change the odds by convincing the other 90% to be as good as you are.
EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that this post can be misunderstood. Let me assure you that I am not categorizing all men as assholes. My point is that the majority of "problem pregnancies," as they were called 30 years ago, involve an unmarried couple. The woman wants the abortion and the man may try to coax her out of it by promising to marry her and be a great father. In the vast majority of cases it just doesn't work out that way. Halfway through the pregnancy he realizes that he doesn't want to give up the life he has now and he simply vanishes. She may be able to get a court order for child support, but if he sticks to the underground economy (musician, drug dealer, day laborer) the court will never be able to garnish his wages--and for that matter he'll probably never make enough money to support the kid anyway.
Of course there are millions of men who are great husbands and fathers. These are not very often the guys whose wives end up in this predicament.
RE-EDIT: Once again, I have been asked by a member with too much time on his hands to micro-edit this post. The numbers I posted were not based on published statistics. They were based on articles I've read, workshops I've attended, and the first-hand accounts of people I've known who have experienced the problem, over the five decades since my adolescence ended.
My bottom line is that abortion is a women's issue and men should not be allowed to influence public policy or legislation.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
I am struggling somewhat with what you are attempting to convey in this thread.
Do you mean that if you stop or save one foetus from being aborted and one other child must die, is this because if someone's energy is spent on saving the unborn, then one born child who is at risk ends up dying because that person is not making the effort to save a born child?
Ergo, the energy being spent and put towards saving an unborn child is not being spent and utilised towards saving a child who is already born and possibly suffering?
Is this what you are saying in this thread?
Lets just play your game. You take my remarks out of context and make things up and I take yours out of context and make things up. Lets see where that takes us. You said and I quote "So prospective parents should forget about hedging their bets around what to name it if it is a boy or a girl, and instead expand their prospects to the wider possibility of several different species" That is a direct quote from you, not based upon anything I said, because I said nothing like what you said.
Those are your exact words and you believe them to be true. Why do you believe that a fetus is a different species from its parents. Why do you believe that it is not a boy or a girl, that sounds homophobic to me. Why do you believe that different species should have sex with humans. Why do you believe that asteroids have babies in their atmosphere floating around? Why do you believe that rocks were once dinosaurs? Why do you not believe in evolution.
Please answer my questions. You said all that stuff, right? So you must believe what I posted, right?
OK I will play your game.
You have repeatedly made up things and attributed them to me. So I will make up things and attribute them to you.
You have repeatedly made up things and attributed them to me. So I will make up things and attribute them to you.
What you said above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Lets try to make sense of what you are saying. You said "Its a totally moronic view that advocacy be relegated to individuals. So that means that you believe that people that advocate against rape and incest are wrong. You therefore believe in rape and incest. Can you defend your beliefs, not one person in the world agrees with you.
Do you see what I have done, it is the same thing that you are doing.
Fraud on this site
Fraggle Rocker, Do you intend to continue to let the fraudulent posts on this site stay up? The fact is that you and a number of other posters on this site have intentionally misrepresented what I have said. Do you intend on continuing with the fraud?
Fraggle Rocker, Do you intend to continue to let the fraudulent posts on this site stay up? The fact is that you and a number of other posters on this site have intentionally misrepresented what I have said. Do you intend on continuing with the fraud?
You may be struggling, but some are simply being fraudulent. It is fraud to claim that I am saying something that I have repeatedly said I am not saying.
You are getting close, but you are not there yet. It does not matter about the energy spent, it only matters if the "choice" is made to save a fetus rather than a choice to save a baby. Resources of any nature do not impact the choice. And you need to understand that both are already dying.
The best way to understand what I am saying is to read what I post. There are 7 billion people dying, you can't save them all. So if you are compelled to save a human life, you must choose whom to save. You may choose to save a baby or let it die and choose to save a fetus instead. It is really that simple. I have posted an analogy called "the burning babies analogy" and another explanation called the "Joepro Lifer" story. Both explain this in an easy to understand manner.
You have a good general feel for what I am saying, but the "energy" part is not necessary and would in fact make the law invalid.
Not exactly, but you are on the right track. Look up the "burning baby analogy". Or, if you request, I will repost it.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I am not the Moderator of this subforum. You're asking the wrong guy. I moderate Linguistics and Arts & Culture.
I can't speak for the other posters. I have twice called you on your bizarre notion (paraphrased) that every abortion that is not performed results in another person's death. You have still not explained why you believe this true, and I have provided considerable evidence to the contrary.
This is a place of science and scholarship. When someone challenges your assertion, you are obliged to either
- Respond to the challenge by providing clarification, supporting evidence or supporting arguments, or
- Concede defeat and cease pursuing that line of reasoning.
But in any case, the one thing that you may not do is to continue pursuing your argument without acknowledging the challenge or providing the requested clarification or evidence. This is a textbook case of disingenuous argument, which is one of the worst forms of trolling. Trolling is a violation of the rules of this website.
I suggest that it is you who have some unfinished business.
I don't think he's even sure himself.
Let me tell you the usual method round here.
First you say something, and then we say whether we agree with you or not.
The procedure is not for you to say what you aren't saying , then have us guess what you would be saying if you were saying it,
only for you to tell us we are wrong.
Why not tell us what you are saying rather than what you are not saying?
It would make life so much easier, and you wouldn't have to repeat yourself so much.
Last edited:
I have told you what I am saying and I have no problem if you tell others what I have said. But if you lie about what I am saying that is quite a different matter. And the people on this site are lying about what I say.
Lets talk about statistics and abortion for a moment because there seems to be some misconceptions stated even on this thread.
From: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
1. First of all the majority of women having abortions are in their 20's, they are racial diverse even more so then population averages. Teen mothers are the minority of abortions and the stereotype that blacks and Hispanics aren't having abortions as much as whites is BS.
2. 45% of them are not married or co-habituating. And from the study "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives" I quote "The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work
or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents." So a majority of women that are having abortions are married or co-habituating and have these abortions for rational reasons of which flight or problems with the father are a slightly under a half the time a variable in that reasoning.
3. "46% of women who had abortions had not used contraceptives in the month they became pregnant" and of the 56% who did "76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use." I think this is a point here for the pro-lifers, clearly nearly half of women who get aborts are doing so as their only birth control (other then the rhythm) because for some reason they could not use contraceptives. Of course that would mean it would be in the pro-lifers best interest in order to prevent more "murder" of "people" to promote contraceptive use, that would take out nearly 50% of abortions and if consistent contraceptive use could be promoted to 100% usage that would probably take out ~85% of abortions. Unless of course every sperm is sacred then I don't know what to say, abstinence is probably less viable then getting everyone to be only fruit eating vegans and fast regularly in order to minimize suffering to any other life-form. For most people either of those are far beyond their will-power, proclivities or ethics.
4. "1% had been forced to have sex." the result of allowing abortions for rape only, would technically outlaw 99% of abortions.
Now I have way to much time on my hands, it took forever to type in one search on google "Why do women have abortions statistics" and click on just two of the top links and read half a page each.
From: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
1. First of all the majority of women having abortions are in their 20's, they are racial diverse even more so then population averages. Teen mothers are the minority of abortions and the stereotype that blacks and Hispanics aren't having abortions as much as whites is BS.
2. 45% of them are not married or co-habituating. And from the study "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives" I quote "The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work
or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents." So a majority of women that are having abortions are married or co-habituating and have these abortions for rational reasons of which flight or problems with the father are a slightly under a half the time a variable in that reasoning.
3. "46% of women who had abortions had not used contraceptives in the month they became pregnant" and of the 56% who did "76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use." I think this is a point here for the pro-lifers, clearly nearly half of women who get aborts are doing so as their only birth control (other then the rhythm) because for some reason they could not use contraceptives. Of course that would mean it would be in the pro-lifers best interest in order to prevent more "murder" of "people" to promote contraceptive use, that would take out nearly 50% of abortions and if consistent contraceptive use could be promoted to 100% usage that would probably take out ~85% of abortions. Unless of course every sperm is sacred then I don't know what to say, abstinence is probably less viable then getting everyone to be only fruit eating vegans and fast regularly in order to minimize suffering to any other life-form. For most people either of those are far beyond their will-power, proclivities or ethics.
4. "1% had been forced to have sex." the result of allowing abortions for rape only, would technically outlaw 99% of abortions.
Now I have way to much time on my hands, it took forever to type in one search on google "Why do women have abortions statistics" and click on just two of the top links and read half a page each.
You implied that you had the power of a moderator on this site.
I have never said or implied "that every abortion that is not performed results in another person's death". If you think you can defend that, then do. Such a statement is nonsense. I demand that you remove your lie and apologize for lying about what I am saying.
No, a place of science and scholarship is not based upon lies and distortions. You are posting lies and distortions.
I am not required to reply to nonsense and lies. You need to remove the lies.
You must remove the lies and distortions and then we can continue.
I don't have to respond to lies and distortions. If you can post anything showing where I have made the statement you claim I made then you have a point, otherwise you are simply attempting fraud.
Until you support your claim, we are at an impasse. You are distorting what I say.
It is trolling to intentionally misrepresent what I say in an effort to entice an argument. What you claim I have said is insane. Your attempt to get me to respond is abusive. Remove your fraudulent statements.
We shall see about that. Remove your fraudulent representations of my statements.
- Status