Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[wynn]

We can make sure we convey onto you, the exact same level of personhood the "unborn" have.

Hell, we can even treat you like an "unborn" and pretend you are not here and cannot hear, speak or understand (which wouldn't be a huge stretch right now), which would also mean that we can pass you naturally, as often happens with "unborn persons".

Which would you prefer?

How utterly kind of you.

Again, who is forcing women to have sex and stigmatizing them if they do not wish to have sex?

People like you:

Well we could advocate not having sex until you want to have a child, but most people are normal and actually enjoy sex LG.

If you view sex as being solely for procreation, then yes, I guess your stance would apply. Thankfully the greater majority of people are normal and do not follow your bizarre ideologies.

Googlesearch gave me 1320 results for "Bells psychopathic and sex" at sciforums.com and I didn't bother to wade through all of them. You know damn well what I'm talking about.
Apparently according to you, to avoid being labeled as "abnormal," "psychopathic" and "following bizarre ideologies," a person must have sex even when they don't want to have children.

Of course not. Don't be silly. I think you are a psychopath whether you have sex or not.

How utterly kind of you.

Why do I bother ...

No, seriously, what the hell are you even on about?

I think I'm onto something ... something many people would rather not acknowledge ...

 

[Bells]

People like you:




Googlesearch gave me 1320 results for "Bells psychopathic and sex" at sciforums.com and I didn't bother to wade through all of them. You know damn well what I'm talking about.
Apparently according to you, to avoid being labeled as "abnormal," "psychopathic" and "following bizarre ideologies," a person must have sex even when they don't want to have children.

I typed in that sentence and got only one. And it's from you.

Do I think sex is normal? Yes. Do I think people who view it as being solely for procreation and thus, only have sex to have babies and instead ignore and avoid intimacy with their partner or spouse to be somewhat not normal? Pretty much.

At no time have I ever forced someone to have sex. Far from it. I just don't think there is anything wrong with having sex, whereas you appear to obviously believe differently.

Finally, I don't believe you are a psychopath so much because of your attitudes to having sex outside of having children. I have always explained to you that your issues arise from your treatment of women (and men) who have sex, even those who were sexually abused and molested or raped. That aside, you are not exactly dispelling the tag by acting like a lunatic.

I think I'm onto something ... something many people would rather not acknowledge ...

Ooookay...

Are you speaking of the possible voices you hear?

 

[ElectricFetus]

I think what wynn getting at is if some people don't want to have sex fine for them, if some people do equally fine, but for those that do they need to accept "responsibility" for their action, to that I say an abortion is not irresponsible behavior, it is in fact very responsible behavior. Fucking in a broom closet is not too hard, going through the hassle of an abortion is, and requires a good deal of force of will. Just what responsibility wynn do you think they need to take when they get pregnant?

 

[wynn]

At no time have I ever forced someone to have sex.

Of course not. You are just one extremely kind, tolerant, benevolent person.
The scathing judgment you exact on those who don't agree with you exerts no pressure on them whatsoever.

Finally, I don't believe you are a psychopath so much because of your attitudes to having sex outside of having children. I have always explained to you that your issues arise from your treatment of women (and men) who have sex, even those who were sexually abused and molested or raped. That aside, you are not exactly dispelling the tag by acting like a lunatic.

Ooookay...

Are you speaking of the possible voices you hear?

Wow, just wow ...

Heaven help you.

 

[wynn]

I think what wynn getting at is if some people don't want to have sex fine for them, if some people do equally fine, but for those that do they need to accept "responsibility" for their action, to that I say an abortion is not irresponsible behavior, it is in fact very responsible behavior. Fucking in a broom closet is not too hard, going through the hassle of an abortion is, and requires a good deal of force of will. Just what responsibility wynn do you think they need to take when they get pregnant?

Actually, it's pretty pointless to discuss sex in modern soceity with all its taboos around sex ...

 

[ElectricFetus]

Actually, it's pretty pointless to discuss sex in modern soceity with all its taboos around sex ...

taboos? There was a time and place when a women was to be stoned to death if she showed some ankle (actually there still a place for that in some middle eastern countries) relatively few taboos about sex exist today, but what ever the case please discuss away, I won't judge, Bells might, but I won't. Please tell me what responsibilities sex requires?

 

[wynn]

relatively few taboos about sex exist today,

Errrmm ....

but what ever the case please discuss away, I won't judge, Bells might,

That Bells and the like do and will judge, is a sure sign that there is a taboo on discussing sex among modern progressively oriented people.

but I won't. Please tell me what responsibilities sex requires?

That depends on the person and their goals in life.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

See, I don't actually exist for you. "I" - that which you refer to as "you" when you direct your words at me - am a mere figment of your imagination.

You ascribe to me a position I don't hold, and then you demand me to defend it, and you judge me for it.

You do not allow for me. You do not allow for an other.

Actually, I had originally misattributed the quote, while composing the post, to another person. I caught that mistake. But apparently I failed to revise that sentence.

My apologies for the error. I will endeavor to be more vigilant about which troll writing in the same disingenuous posting style I'm addressing.

Still, though, you need to support that ridiculous ... whatever it is:

"Will the raping never end?

I guess you can't back down now from the abuse, you've gone too far." (#858)​

Of course, we already know that you won't.

• • •​

Can't you just get over it? Here I was talking directly about morality for abortion and your still talking about how offensive my trying with some degree of success to get Bells to talk personhood was to you. Get over it.

Wow, you actually have a chance to do something useful with your rube goldberg scaramouche routine, and you refuse?

Noted.

But it is relevant to what you and I were discussing; this is par l'indignation, par for the course.

And of course if you insist childishly enough, Bells will accommodate to some degree your need for everyone else to play along with your distraction from a discussion of what would happen to a woman's human rights if we grant LACP.

I think it would probably help on any number of levels—including perceptions of misogyny, delusional behavior, and even general infantile tantrums—if the body politic did not hang together come what may; there are circumstances where assertions of bodies politic become problematic for the asserting body politic.

To consider a larger version; look at what fractures Democrats internally, and what fractures Republicans. There are labor Democrats who think a woman should never be president, green Democrats who think labor Democrats are hurting the environment, and all sorts of other little divisions. This is actually why the Democrats so rarely march lockstep in Congress, but still hold together in the coalition that keeps the DNC afloat—because they perceive that they must, else everyone in the coalition loses. It is a hang together/hang separately proposition.[sup]†[/sup]

Meanwhile, look at what is fracturing Republicans. They're literally trying to one-up each other on points they already agree on. But here's the thing: One of the factions in that internal dispute sees this happening, and knows what it means to the bottom line. The dispute is finally getting to the point that the GOP would rather hang separately; as right-flank primaries are damaging the party in congressional and presidential considerations, some Republicans are feeling obliged to put some distance, acknowledge some barriers, between themselves and their colleagues.

The reason I raise this point is that the GOP is in a different phase than this discussion. Where the point ties in is that Republicans have long been willing to hang together, and now that means some are being identified in ways they find not only tactically inconvenient but also personally objectionable. The only reason they're addressing some of these issues specifically is because the common cause of the conservative body politic has followed a path bringing it to circumstances in which the question is relevant. The perfect example is what happened in 2012, when a number of Republicans said really stupid things about rape. And that's part of what it took for the party leaders to get the hint: Regardless of what we actually believe, we don't want people saying that's what we believe.

And, sure, that last is cynical, but it's true that not all Republicans believe the things their colleagues were saying. Some do, but only when the cross-contamination, the guilt by association, the willingness to harvest the bitter fruit of such toxic seed—i.e., enjoy the voter support that comes with more generic associations, such as voting for Republicans in general because they are anti-abortion—becomes utterly and absolutely undeniable.

The moral of the story: As long as the band of brothers has one another's backs, they will be seen as having one another's backs.

We've had forty years to watch this process. Someone wants us to restate what is on the record, and then argue every point of that, in order to forestall the current issue.

Pat yourself on the back for whatever success your ego chooses to enjoy; I wouldn't take that away from you. But that success is still offensive to those who are wondering why people find it so objectionable to discuss what happens to a woman's human rights and status under LACP.

Everything else is just us tolerating the willful distraction.

This is actually important. If the anti-abortion crowd doesn't like the accusations of misogyny, they should exorcise those misogynistic elements from their movement. As long as they are happy to play along and reap whatever benefits they imagine the misogyny gets them, they're part of this.

And, yes, fourteen months of desperate evasion is more than merely suggestive.

Indeed, there's a reason it seems like the problem with the topic proposition is that in order to suspend a woman's human rights she must first have them.
____________________

Notes:

[sup]†[/sup] TURD: This Unfortunately Requisite Disclaimer would simply remind that the hanging portion of that proposition is generally metaphorical, and should not be taken literally.

 

[ElectricFetus]

That depends on the person and their goals in life.

Ok then so what the problem with abortion then? If some people priority is to have fun with their bodies and have kids when they want to (if ever) then what the deal?

And of course if you insist childishly enough, Bells will accommodate to some degree your need for everyone else to play along with your distraction from a discussion of what would happen to a woman's human rights if we grant LACP.

Oh so that what you on about, I though I covered that pages ago? Ok first what is LACP, did a Google search on "LACP" and "abortion" and this thread is the first hit, so either you made up the acronym or it is really esoteric. I'm just going to assume it means criminalized abortion. Second, can you provide proof for this imply slippery slope that if abortion is made illegal most if not all other rights for women will collapse with it? Third, and I think I covered this repeatedly now, making abortion simply a women rights issue leads to poor ethical conclusion: basically your saying women have the right to murder, that a special right, not a equal right (and if your advocating women have special rights your a sexist, as well as an advocate for mass murder), hence why you need to disprove personhood first, without personhood there is no reason not to make abortion legal and all other pro-choice arguments are irrelevant or superfluous: women need no special right to murder, because it not murder. But to the pro-lifer your talk of women rights uber alles translates into just that: here listen to bizarre-o-pro-life-Bells:

I call it extreme because like all extremists, pro-choice groups expect others to bow to their beliefs, even if it means babies have to die as a result. I call it extreme because you have a bunch of anti-religious groups and political groups who are trying to control children's lives and their right to live, so much so, that they are willing to murder innocent babies for their beliefs. In that regard, they are no different to the terrorist groups the West has been engaging in its war on terror for the last decade.

I advocate for right to life for all people. You advocate denying babies the right to life simply because the mother does not want it.

This leads to endless name calling between murderer and misogynist, no dialogue, discussion or development or change of personal ethics.

 

[Bells]

Ok then so what the problem with abortion then? If some people priority is to have fun with their bodies and have kids when they want to (if ever) then what the deal?



Oh so that what you on about, I though I covered that pages ago? Ok first what is LACP, did a Google search on "LACP" and "abortion" and this thread is the first hit, so either you made up the acronym or it is really esoteric. I'm just going to assume it means criminalized abortion. Second, can you provide proof for this imply slippery slope that if abortion is made illegal most if not all other rights for women will collapse with it? Third, and I think I covered this repeatedly now, making abortion simply a women rights issue leads to poor ethical conclusion: basically your saying women have the right to murder, that a special right, not a equal right (and if your advocating women have special rights your a sexist, as well as an advocate for mass murder), hence why you need to disprove personhood first, without personhood there is no reason not to make abortion legal and all other pro-choice arguments are irrelevant or superfluous: women need no special right to murder, because it not murder. But to the pro-lifer your talk of women rights uber alles translates into just that: here listen to bizarre-o-pro-life-Bells:

I call it extreme because like all extremists, pro-choice groups expect others to bow to their beliefs, even if it means babies have to die as a result. I call it extreme because you have a bunch of anti-religious groups and political groups who are trying to control children's lives and their right to live, so much so, that they are willing to murder innocent babies for their beliefs. In that regard, they are no different to the terrorist groups the West has been engaging in its war on terror for the last decade.

I advocate for right to life for all people. You advocate denying babies the right to life simply because the mother does not want it.

This leads to endless name calling between murderer and misogynist, no dialogue, discussion or development or change of personal ethics.

Can you link where I said that?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Can you link where I said that?

I said bizarro you, you said the equivalent about pro-lifers on post #870: to the pro-lifer mindest you are the murder, the extremist, by the very same logic you use just with inverted or "bizarro" premises... ridiculous I know, just as ridiculous as thinking pro-lifers are no different from terrorists.

 

[Bells]

I said bizarro you, you said the equivalent about pro-lifers on post #870: to the pro-lifer mindest you are the murder, the extremist, by the very same logic you use just with inverted or "bizarro" premises... ridiculous I know, just as ridiculous as thinking pro-lifers are no different from terrorists.

Some of them are terrorists and have killed people with their terrorist acts.

What do you call people who bomb abortion clinics or threatens clinics and staff with anthrax?

The Army of God is a pro-life terrorist group. And people associated with them have killed and injured many people, including the bombing at the Atlanta Games.

Pro-lifer's, some of them, are domestic terrorists because they have committed terrorist acts. And then you have the many who support and even praise them for their acts of terror and murder.

I don't understand why you think it is wrong to identify them as such?

Record of bombings and arson attacks by pro-life individuals on abortion clinics: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/arsons.htm

Number of letters threatening anthrax, sent by pro-life individuals to abortion clinics: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/anthrax.html

Number of shootings and murders at clinics and at abortion clinic staff members by pro-lifer's: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/murders.asp

Number of acid attacks on abortion clinics, by pro lifer's: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/butyric_acid.asp

Perhaps you can explain how and why they should not be referred to as terrorists? What do you think sets people who bomb abortion clinics, threaten people with anthrax, murder innocent people and use acid to attack abortion clinics and create terror in abortion clinic staff.... What sets them apart from terrorists, in your opinion? Why shouldn't they be called terrorists?

I get it, women are having sex and they are pissed off. But to feign disgust that they are correctly labeled as terrorists? As I said to you earlier Fetus, the devil is not stupid and you are failing at devil's advocate.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Some of them are terrorists and have killed people with their terrorist acts.

The critical word there is "Some", there was not "Some" in your original statement, what you were implying before was ALL of them are extremist and terrorist, like saying "Muslims are terrorist" verse "Some Muslims are terrorist".

Pro-lifer's, some of them, are domestic terrorists because they have committed terrorist acts. And then you have the many who support and even praise them for their acts of terror and murder.

yeah and the same can be said about Muslims, by that logic how many of them can we really trust?

I don't understand why you think it is wrong to identify them as such?

I think it wrong to imply they are ALL terrorist, its a hateful generalization on your part.

Perhaps you can explain how and why they should not be referred to as terrorists? What do you think sets people who bomb abortion clinics, threaten people with anthrax, murder innocent people and use acid to attack abortion clinics and create terror in abortion clinic staff.... What sets them apart from terrorists, in your opinion? Why shouldn't they be called terrorists?

and here again is your bate-and-switch, sure we can call those ones terrorist, but not all pro-lifers are terrorist.

But to feign disgust that they are correctly labeled as terrorists? As I said to you earlier Fetus, the devil is not stupid and you are failing at devil's advocate.

I won as devil's advocate pages ago, strangely your not able to notice the difference. See stating that it wrong to call pro-lifers terrorist does not mean I'm advocating their position, I'm only pointing out your hateful name calling, as you haven't notice I've been advocating for pro-choice positions all this time, but also advocating for fair, calm, rational debate, not name calling.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Oh so that what you on about, I though I covered that pages ago?

I'm sure you think you did.

Ok first what is LACP, did a Google search on "LACP" and "abortion" and this thread is the first hit, so either you made up the acronym or it is really esoteric. I'm just going to assume it means criminalized abortion.

A brief search suggests the term is on record in forty-nine postts in this thread.

Yes, I made it up, because LACP is a much faster typing experience than Life At Conception Personhood. Still, though, your point being?

Because it's fourteen months later, the usage is established, and you're just now noticing your own confusion?

Thank you for clarifying your role in this discussion.

I call it extreme because like all extremists, pro-choice groups expect others to bow to their beliefs, even if it means babies have to die as a result.

You do realize the functional problem with your turnabout? That is to say, once again we are back to the proposition that a religious person is somehow forced to bow down to others' beliefs if that religious person is not empowered by law to force that other person to bow down to them. See #29 above:

At its heart is a simple American principle, freedom, that is utterly botched. If you look closely, you'll find a tacit argument reiterating itself over and over when fundamentalist Christianity has a problem with American society: My freedom is violated as long as someone else's freedom is intact.

• Abortion: Don't agree with the principle? Don't have one.

• Gay rights: Don't like homosexuality? Don't have a gay relationship.

• Library books: Don't like a certain book? Don't read it.​

This might seem obvious to some, or obviously cavalier to others, but it's a fairly simple notion that results in everyone getting to exercise their rights. But it is also unsatisfactory to the religious side of the arguments.

• Abortion: My right to free Christian conscience is violated if anyone can have an abortion.

• Gay rights: My right to free Christian conscience is violated if people can be gay.

• Library books: My right to free Christian conscience is violated if that author is not censored.​

There are some considerations within that; should public funds, including taxes paid by Christians, be used for abortions, or to buy books for libraries? Well, okay, I can see that argument clearly enough, but, to the one, what about non-Christians? It took decades to make the point about obligatory prayer in public schools—i.e, Should Christian children be obliged to recite another faith's prayer? In order to enforce this assertion of freedom, well, it's hard to describe. What would be the point of having a public library? I mean, if I can object to keeping the Catholic Encyclopedia in a public library?

Or, to put it functionally: Okay, so no Darwin in the library (evolution). No Heather Has Two Mommies (homosexuality). No Boy's Life by Robert McCammon° (a character named “Demon”). No Starhawk (witchcraft). So, right. I can certainly imagine an atheist petitioning against all sorts of religiously-associated titles. At some point, this outlook on rights runs into a functional problem.

The underlying motif is one in which “equality” is defined as “supremacy”. And here, I might invoke the question of what equality equals for people. For the deprived classes, it is a step up. For the privileged classes, it is a step down. And that step down is what drives this sort of religious politic. Many evangelical fundamentalists consider equality a deprivation because they consider privilege a right.

We might consider the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, which held what should be its last opening ceremony this week. The construction site was vandalized, even torched at one point. A local judge tried to stall the opening with some procedural tactic to the point that the federal court had to tell him to knock it off. The whole point of the resistance was that Muslims had no right to build a mosque in town. For the record, though, local officials did stand up for the Center, and a neighboring church, after the arson at the construction site, opened its doors to the Muslim community and offered them a place to gather on Fridays. That is, the pushback was somewhat limited, and the public trust generally stood up for the First Amendment rights of Muslims in Murfreesboro.

Or we can look to what would be a funny situation in Louisiana, except that it's kind of depressing at the same time. The legislature passed, and Governor Jindal signed, a charter schools measure that would allow public funds to go to religious schools. And some of these schools are clearly political to the point of being insane. Dinosaurs and humans, liberalism as a tool of Satan, young-Earth creationism, and all that sort of thing. But the problem for folks in Louisiana arose when a Muslim school applied for and received charter authorization. One legislator who voted for the charter schools bill actually said that if she had known it would include Islam, she would have voted against it. No, really. It comes down to free religion, but only for Christans.​

and here again is your bate-and-switch, sure we can call those ones terrorist, but not all pro-lifers are terrorist.

That might be of use, but the problem with needing us all to line up and repeat the same phrases is that people complain about us repeating the same phrases.

Or, tied together into a nearly neat little package:

They get one every few years. Indeed, if we held "Christianity" to the same standard, what would we say of the steady, low-key barrage of arson and terrorism that occasionally peaks in a murder? We can no more imagine that deviant bloodlust to be representative of Christianity than a Kermit Gosnell would represent doctors who perform abortions. Certainly, such terrorism is becoming more prominently recognized as part of the anti-abortion movement specifically, but that transference to Christianity in general would be inappropriate. (#813)

• • •​

Over the past forty years, the pro-choice community has becomes somewhat accustomed to the increasingly disrespectful antics of the anti-abortion movement. And, look, when it's arson or even murder, we get it. No, of course they didn't want that to happen. Sure, they knew that kind of violence existed when they created the dead-or-alive flyers. Sure, they wanted widespread outrage about a murderer being on the loose. But, oh, gosh, of course they didn't want murder or terrorism. (#776)​

Would you please show me where in the anti-abortion movement they are protesting the terrorism that keeps abortion out of Wichita, Kansas? Or are they thrilled to have won?

You do realize that terroristic threats are protected speech in Kansas—get this—because after a doctor is gunned down for religious zeal, an admirer of the murderer telling the Associated Press that she admires that zeal and then threatening to blow up the doctor who would succeed the murder victim is apparently not a true threat.

So where are the "pro-life" objections to harvesting the fruit of terrorism?

Your attempt to conflate two separate aspects of the issue into one misconstrued mashup doesn't stand well against the record.

Terrorism is an important consideration in this discussion in three ways:

(1) It's one of the reasons the pro-choice camp is so weary of this fallacious stonewalling from the anti-abortion argument; this would all be academic were it not for legislation and other public policy crafted to accommodate the question.

(2) The terrorism does, in fact, continue while the discussion continues to break down.

(3) The anti-abortion movement is happy to reap the benefits of this terrorism; cf., Wichita.​

We cannot separate the anti-abortion movement—especially in the context of LACP—from the other obsessions inextricably connected to the abortion question; the overlap is too great.

I think it wrong to imply they are ALL terrorist, its a hateful generalization on your part.

And I think it is wrong to invent straw men in order to skew the discussion.

Generally speaking, at least. I don't recall the last time I saw one deployed effectively and appropriately, but neither can I rule out the possibility that such a context exists.

Either way, your straw was moldy before you started cramming it into that cartoonish, farmboy-clodhopper-cartoon scarecrow. That is, in this case, you obviously missed appropriately—as I said, that would be a rare thing, anyway—but I'm not entirely certain you meant to be so ineffective about it.

I won as devil's advocate pages ago, strangely your not able to notice the difference.

That's so adorable, every time I see it.

See stating that it wrong to call pro-lifers terrorist does not mean I'm advocating their position, I'm only pointing out your hateful name calling, as you haven't notice I've been advocating for pro-choice positions all this time, but also advocating for fair, calm, rational debate, not name calling.

Setting the question of impatience aside, I would point out that it is wrong to hold such aspects as terrorism at arm's length. Indeed, you have just committed the classic straw man fallacy. You set up the scarecrow, and then you told us what is wrong with it.

But you did so, it seems, with the intention of avoiding the issue, which arises in part because you seem to be appealing for infinite patience in order to accommodate the infinitely disingenuous, self-righteous anti-abortion movement while insisting on the necessity of accomplishing a logical fallacy—i.e., proving a negative, and with the additional proviso that the audience would not accept any actual proof, anyway—in order to be sensitive to a negative identification. Yes, remember that we know more about what personhood assertion isn't than what it actually is.

I mean, think of it this way, which sort of leads to the topic proposition you want to drag us away from:

"Personhood is personhood. What's so hard about that?"

—Well, what are we going to do about [this implication]?

"What do you mean? That's not what I mean."

—It is a demonstrable consequence of personhood.

"That's too complicated" ....​

So what, then, does personhood mean? Does it mean the only right of this class of people is the right to not be aborted? That's the thing: As long as I am the one defining personhood, the definition will be problematic. That's not a sinister promise, that's just the way it goes because what objections actually are enumerated suggest that the anti-abortion argument disagrees with my view of what personhood is and means.

Does it mean fetal-Americans are guaranteed (i.e., Amendment XIV) as equal of opportunity as society can provide in the womb? I mean, there's a cottage industry right there—Prenatal Management Consultants, LLC.

But you see what I mean? There seems to be a disagreement insofar as anti-abortion advocates would appear to disdain the operating model of personhood on which I base various considerations.

Thus: What are they talking about, then?

The right to life is the right to life. What's so hard about that?

Well, in all my years with this issue, we know more about what the anti-abortion platform doesn't think it does to women's rights than either why it thinks that or what it thinks it actually does to women's rights.

It's a very convenient means of warding off the discussion, especially when the audience is willing to consider a demand for proof of negative a rational position.
____________________

Notes:

Operation Rescue. "Victory: Operation Rescue Successfully Thwarts Abortion’s Return to Wichita, Kansas". February 15, 2011. OperationRescue.org. January 28, 2011. http://www.operationrescue.org/arch...y-thwarts-abortions-return-to-wichita-kansas/

Feminist Newswire. "Federal Judge Rules In Favor of Anti-Abortion Extremist Angel Dillard". August 16, 2013. Feminist.org. January 28, 2013. http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/...vor-of-anti-abortion-extremist-angel-dillard/

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Actually, it's pretty pointless to discuss sex in modern soceity with all its taboos around sex ...

I suppose there are some. But having come of age in the 1950s, I can't see them.

Okay, rape is a taboo, at least in the Western countries, only in civilian life, and difficult to prosecute even there. Still we're better off than in my day when rape was often not even reported because the woman would be shamed.

And sex between an adult and a young child.

But the former is a crime of violence and the latter is child abuse, both of which are already taboos regardless of any sexual component.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Thank you for clarifying your role in this discussion.

Oh scathing, but my guess was close enough so my point was made, which you ignored.

You do realize the functional problem with your turnabout? That is to say, once again we are back to the proposition that a religious person is somehow forced to bow down to others' beliefs if that religious person is not empowered by law to force that other person to bow down to them.

Merely a product of turning around Bell's exact words, the basic premise is the pro-life arguement is pro-choicers are demanding murder be legal, certainly they are just as convince of our evil and your are of theirs. You fail to again reconginize this and go off on a long winded irrelevent tangent.

That might be of use, but the problem with needing us all to line up and repeat the same phrases is that people complain about us repeating the same phrases.

Well if the phrase is "misogynist terrorist religous extermist" or something to that extend, I can see why they complain.

Would you please show me where in the anti-abortion movement they are protesting the terrorism that keeps abortion out of Wichita, Kansas?

So if pro-choicers don't openly condem such acts they must also be terrorists, is that what your saying? Why then have we not killed off most of the world muslism for being "terrorist" then?

Your attempt to conflate two separate aspects of the issue into one misconstrued mashup doesn't stand well against the record.

What two separate aspects of the issue have I misconstrued into one?

(1) It's one of the reasons the pro-choice camp is so weary of this fallacious stonewalling from the anti-abortion argument; this would all be academic were it not for legislation and other public policy crafted to accommodate the question.​

What stonewalling? pro-lifers are here, now, talking calmly and rationally on this thread.

(2) The terrorism does, in fact, continue while the discussion continues to break down.

Here a hypothesis, maybe the discussion is breaking down because pro-choicers are actively breaking it down with mindless hateful jabbering of the same level the pro-lifers provide.

(3) The anti-abortion movement is happy to reap the benefits of this terrorism; cf., Wichita.

Every single one of them?

We cannot separate the anti-abortion movement—especially in the context of LACP—from the other obsessions inextricably connected to the abortion question; the overlap is too great.

Can we separate the good Muslims from the bad or do they overlap to greatly as well? I still see no reason we can discuss personhood here and now, on this thread, as it is title, it is not the pro-lifers that have brought up "terrorism", “perverts” or other diversions of the issue like this but you and Bells! Is any pro-lifers here talking about terrorizing abortion clinics? No, then I see no reason to raise the issue.

And I think it is wrong to invent straw men in order to skew the discussion.

Bell's invented it not I.

That's so adorable, every time I see it.

Is it possible to talk about the issue and not indirectly slander people? Adorable is your behavior, like a child, instead of talking about the issue, you make disparaging comments.

Setting the question of impatience aside, I would point out that it is wrong to hold such aspects as terrorism at arm's length. Indeed, you have just committed the classic straw man fallacy. You set up the scarecrow, and then you told us what is wrong with it.

Are you telling me that Bells did not mean all prolifers, all prolifer groups, that she specified clearly that only some were perverts and only some were terrorist all this time? Well forgive me if her language made it appear she was speaking of all, at least now she said "some" when pressed to the point, so I think strawman or not she has made the alterations at least once as per my instigation.

But you did so, it seems, with the intention of avoiding the issue, which arises in part because you seem to be appealing for infinite patience in order to accommodate the infinitely disingenuous, self-righteous anti-abortion movement while insisting on the necessity of accomplishing a logical fallacy—i.e., proving a negative, and with the additional proviso that the audience would not accept any actual proof, anyway—in order to be sensitive to a negative identification. Yes, remember that we know more about what personhood assertion isn't than what it actually is.

1)Well again we have pro-lifers here, that we are debating, no patiences is needed there behavior as so far been reasonable.
2)What negative am I proving?

So what, then, does personhood mean? Does it mean the only right of this class of people is the right to not be aborted? That's the thing: As long as I am the one defining personhood, the definition will be problematic. That's not a sinister promise, that's just the way it goes because what objections actually are enumerated suggest that the anti-abortion argument disagrees with my view of what personhood is and means.

I been asking repeated about us actually defining personhood, are you saying that we shouldn't try, that we need no ethical framework to validate abortion, because the otherside won't listen? I personally would like the have my ethics sorted out before siding with any issue, regardless if the otherside will listen or not. We can provide an extensive argument for why a fetus does not have a right to life, why its not a person, yet your saying we should not waste the time? We need to call prolifers names instead, warranted or not?

The right to life is the right to life. What's so hard about that?

No I don't see the self-evidence there.

Well, in all my years with this issue, we know more about what the anti-abortion platform doesn't think it does to women's rights than either why it thinks that or what it thinks it actually does to women's rights.

Women's rights are unimportant if we don't prove that mass murder is not taking place. Why is it so hard to focus on proving a fetus is not a person, not deserving of a right to life over it hostess right to choice? When ever a pro-lifer says something, the counter argument should not be “what about women's rights?” because that allow their stance of the fetus deserving a right to live standing, it diverts the issue to endless bickering and name-calling, as we have seen. Now this is not a court of law, that we have a higher ground it, this is not some kind of important debate of any kind, this is an Internet forum, one which claims to have standards but by your own admission does not.

It's a very convenient means of warding off the discussion, especially when the audience is willing to consider a demand for proof of negative a rational position.

Yeah please clarify these negative rational position you speak of again.

 

[Bells]

The critical word there is "Some", there was not "Some" in your original statement, what you were implying before was ALL of them are extremist and terrorist, like saying "Muslims are terrorist" verse "Some Muslims are terrorist".



yeah and the same can be said about Muslims, by that logic how many of them can we really trust?



I think it wrong to imply they are ALL terrorist, its a hateful generalization on your part.



and here again is your bate-and-switch, sure we can call those ones terrorist, but not all pro-lifers are terrorist.



I won as devil's advocate pages ago, strangely your not able to notice the difference. See stating that it wrong to call pro-lifers terrorist does not mean I'm advocating their position, I'm only pointing out your hateful name calling, as you haven't notice I've been advocating for pro-choice positions all this time, but also advocating for fair, calm, rational debate, not name calling.

I would imagine anyone with half a brain would understand what I meant. But if you are going to play this game and troll, because, you know, this is the role you have designated for yourself here, you are going to once again pick the stupid fight.

Disregard what "some" pro-lifer's do and support and instead focus on the word "some". Disregard the very hypocrisy of their actions by terrorising and murdering people under the guise of pro-life. Disregard the danger they put pregnant women who attend these medical centers for their pregnancy care and who are not there for abortions. Disregard the latest way to terrorise is by kidnapping women. Oh no. You, once again, take the 'I'm a herp derp' route. Because, you know, that's conducive and necessary in this discussion. You feel the desperate need for more attention for dragging this thread into yet another tangent to satisfy something only you can identify. You're like Baron Max or arauca. Complain about everything and offer nothing of substance in return.

You are complaining that everyone has correctly assigned the word "terrorist" to people who bomb abortion clinics, terrorise and threaten men and women and through acts of terror and threats of more terrorist attacks, restrict women's access to health care? Really?

And once again Fetus, the Devil is not stupid. The only thing you have won is stupid.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I would imagine anyone with half a brain would understand what I meant. But if you are going to play this game and troll, because, you know, this is the role you have designated for yourself here, you are going to once again pick the stupid fight.

Disregard what "some" pro-lifer's do and support and instead focus on the word "some". Disregard the very hypocrisy of their actions by terrorising and murdering people under the guise of pro-life. Disregard the danger they put pregnant women who attend these medical centers for their pregnancy care and who are not there for abortions. Disregard the latest way to terrorise is by kidnapping women. Oh no. You, once again, take the 'I'm a herp derp' route. Because, you know, that's conducive and necessary in this discussion. You feel the desperate need for more attention for dragging this thread into yet another tangent to satisfy something only you can identify. You're like Baron Max or arauca. Complain about everything and offer nothing of substance in return.

You are complaining that everyone has correctly assigned the word "terrorist" to people who bomb abortion clinics, terrorise and threaten men and women and through acts of terror and threats of more terrorist attacks, restrict women's access to health care? Really?

And once again Fetus, the Devil is not stupid. The only thing you have won is stupid.

Yeah so this is where your at: the bottom of the arguement pyramid. Look you can call me stupid forever, I don't care, I'm still going to point out not all prolifers plant bombs in abortions clinic, terrorise anyone, restict women's access to anything, and such statement don't add anything constructive or even relevent to this thead.

Now I have on the other hand been adding discussion to this thread, I repeatedly stated arguement for pro-choice, arguements against fetal personhood, asked questions about ethics, and you have refused to talk about any of that.

And if your going to threaten to bannish me please say it out loud, I had enough problems with inuendos from Tiassa on this.

 

[lightgigantic]

I would imagine anyone with half a brain would understand what I meant. But if you are going to play this game and troll, because, you know, this is the role you have designated for yourself here, you are going to once again pick the stupid fight.

Disregard what "some" pro-lifer's do and support and instead focus on the word "some". Disregard the very hypocrisy of their actions by terrorising and murdering people under the guise of pro-life. Disregard the danger they put pregnant women who attend these medical centers for their pregnancy care and who are not there for abortions. Disregard the latest way to terrorise is by kidnapping women. Oh no. You, once again, take the 'I'm a herp derp' route. Because, you know, that's conducive and necessary in this discussion. You feel the desperate need for more attention for dragging this thread into yet another tangent to satisfy something only you can identify. You're like Baron Max or arauca. Complain about everything and offer nothing of substance in return.

You are complaining that everyone has correctly assigned the word "terrorist" to people who bomb abortion clinics, terrorise and threaten men and women and through acts of terror and threats of more terrorist attacks, restrict women's access to health care? Really?

And once again Fetus, the Devil is not stupid. The only thing you have won is stupid.

On the contrary, it was you who introduced a fanatic extreme to the discussion, by way of your own example, which is why we are discussing it now.

That's why we ask questions like, IYHO, as far as discussing people who belong to a category, are muslims terrorists?

If not, what path of intelligence do you use to distinguish terrorists (who happen to be muslim) and musilims?

You still don't answer these sorts of questions.

:shrug:

 

[Bells]

Yeah so this is where your at: the bottom of the arguement pyramid. Look you can call me stupid forever, I don't care, I'm still going to point out not all prolifers plant bombs in abortions clinic, terrorise anyone, restict women's access to anything, and such statement don't add anything constructive or even relevent to this thead.

Now I have on the other hand been adding discussion to this thread, I repeatedly stated arguement for pro-choice, arguements against fetal personhood, asked questions about ethics, and you have refused to talk about any of that.

And if your going to threaten to bannish me please say it out loud, I had enough problems with inuendos from Tiassa on this.

Just to reiterate so we stop following you down the stupid road you have demanded we set ourselves on in your incessant whine about things that should not matter in this debate. Not all pro-lifer's are terrorists.

Had you read the article I linked, you would have seen, however, that the majority of pro-life groups directly associate themselves with those who do and have committed acts of terrorism in the US, from logistics to funding support. While many such groups condemn the acts of terrorism, they do not stop the vitriol that led to the attacks and they have played a direct role in indentifying and stirring the 'base' when each target has been identified. Those individuals, are, by any definition, sympathizers and worse. But hey, you keep giving your "pro-choice" argument because you're too busy sitting on the fence to see exactly the troll role you are playing here.

You have not offered pro-choice anything, but you have instead brought this discussion down to the level of stupid. Instead of focusing on the issues, you have instead decided to pick fights and troll about a word here or a word there.

Finally, where did I say I was going to ban you? I called you a troll and stupid because you are acting like a troll and your argument is downright stupid. Claiming to be playing devil's advocate is no excuse for the rampant stupidity and trolling you have been doing in this thread.

I have been trying to discuss things but you have been too busy trolling and demanding we discuss other things to notice. I have repeatedly over what? YEARS stated my position about foetal personhood, ethics, and everything in between. Not my fault that you are too busy trolling and asking the most stupid questions to drag threads off topic to notice.

You want to know about my position on foetal personhood, the ethics of abortion and my argument for pro-choice. Then look at every single abortion and women's rights thread posted on this site since I joined and read them. There are also many, many references and comments by me in this very thread. Stop demanding what I have already answered and stated for over 10 years, because you feel the need to throw threads off topic by asking the same stupid questions that have been answered repeatedly and for years.

Get it now?

Or do you want to whine some more because you think that qualifies as "devil's advocate"?

---

On the contrary, it was you who introduced a fanatic extreme to the discussion, by way of your own example, which is why we are discussing it now.

That's why we ask questions like, IYHO, as far as discussing people who belong to a category, are muslims terrorists?

If not, what path of intelligence do you use to distinguish terrorists (who happen to be muslim) and musilims?

You still don't answer these sorts of questions.

The fanatic extreme is not introduced by me. It was introduced by extreme pro-lifer's who go out of their way to restrict women's access to health care and by other extremist pro-lifer's who commit acts of terrorism for the pro-life cause.

No, Muslims are not terrorists, but nice strawman, troll.