Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Do I support the proposition? (see post #2)


  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, two in a row. I think that only leaves Syne and Capracus still holding out. You're on a roll Bells...
Lol
On a roll of ad homming born of information assimilation issues.
Anyone with even moderate skills of comprehension and literacy can see that this is how we introduced our ideas on the subject in the beginning.
Bells has simply departed on a desperate hysterical crusade to designate individuals as representative of her imaginative caricatures.
 
Isn't it amazing how these men try and shut down the only woman participating in this discussion by telling her that replying to them would be just like giving them a blowjob? Because hey, if I keep responding to their trolling and their advocating of killing women, then I obviously must enjoy giving them pleasure, so I may as well give them a blowjob.
Its amazing how you interpret a comment aimed at highlighting your trollish behaviour and inability to refrain from ad homming as a gender issue

LG's 'you're hysterical' argument reeks of so much sexism, and then joining in on the blowjob comments, because hey, I responded to him, so I went with the blowjob comment, or when he dared me to not respond to EF's comments in a manner that was not prim and proper and ladylike.
Your inability to discuss things in a sane manner bereft of hysteria has nothing to do with your gender

I have a few choices left open to me as a moderator on this site, in the face of such sexual harassment.
Notice how none of these options involve you analyzing whether you are interpreting thing correctly.
Its simply yet another band wagon of hysteria for bells ...
:shrug:
 
Exactly what regulations do we need? I would think that abortifacient that are safe and effective should be available at doctors prescription for women in early pregnancy, so I don't see much regulation needed, well at least for first trimester pregnancy. It only needs to be regulated as far as to optimize women's health up until viability at which point saving the fetus starts to become a concern and abortions on demand would need to fall to abortions only for specific cases such as that the pregnancy can't be continued (yet removing the fetus alive is somehow not possible) or eugenic reasoning if we a society can stomach allowing that or admitting we still have some of that reasoning.
I am thinking along the lines of collecting data on women who have abortions and also those that provide the service, as well as providing strict window periods on when it can can be performed.




I can live with that, tolerance does not mean you need to love what other people do, merely stay out of there way and let them do what they do and try not to watch. But you live in a society that does need to make laws, laws for abortion, you say you want it more regulated, how so, and would you be letting out intolerance in doing so?
Its the nature of questionable acts that society has somehow become socialized to be regulated for reasons beyond mere finance and sales - eg gambling, prostitution, alcohol, etc.
Its not so much about tolerating it but regulating it since people are hell bent to pursue it anyway.
 
I am thinking along the lines of collecting data on women who have abortions and also those that provide the service, as well as providing strict window periods on when it can can be performed.

Why?

Its the nature of questionable acts that society has somehow become socialized to be regulated for reasons beyond mere finance and sales - eg gambling, prostitution, alcohol, etc.
Its not so much about tolerating it but regulating it since people are hell bent to pursue it anyway.

But is not abortion already regulated heavily, what more regulation does it need?
 
On Rape Advocacy

Cutting to the Boner

"Your hysteria simply prohibits you from discussing this subject like a sane human being." (#1036)

"You (continue to) respond like a hysterical fool .... I challenge you *not to* continue to respond to EF in your clearly illustrated hysterical ad hom smearing fashion." (#1039)

"Its like you are so hysterical you have actually lost the ability to read." (#1046)

"Bells has simply departed on a desperate hysterical crusade to designate individuals as representative of her imaginative caricatures." (#1061)

"Your inability to discuss things in a sane manner bereft of hysteria has nothing to do with your gender .... Its simply yet another band wagon of hysteria for bells ..." (#1062)

When we're down to deliberately implying that a woman needs to be sexually assaulted for therapeutic benefit, the facts of misogyny in general and rape advocacy in particular are laid bare.

No, really, this is where we're at. In response to the question of a woman's human rights under LACP, LightGigantic is now advocating therapeutic sexual assault.

And this is the thing: Will his fellow anti-abortion advocates stand with him?

I mean, sure, I suppose he can always claim ignorance as an explanation, but such ignorance would severely undermine the proposition that he has anything relevant or useful to say regarding the larger subject. After all, it's only fifteen months later, and he's now down to repeatedly accusing a woman of hysteria in order to avoid answering the issue.

It's the reason Freudian psychotherapy works at all; if you let people talk long enough, they will eventually tell you the truth.
 
Cutting to the Boner

"Your hysteria simply prohibits you from discussing this subject like a sane human being." (#1036)

"You (continue to) respond like a hysterical fool .... I challenge you *not to* continue to respond to EF in your clearly illustrated hysterical ad hom smearing fashion." (#1039)

"Its like you are so hysterical you have actually lost the ability to read." (#1046)

"Bells has simply departed on a desperate hysterical crusade to designate individuals as representative of her imaginative caricatures." (#1061)

"Your inability to discuss things in a sane manner bereft of hysteria has nothing to do with your gender .... Its simply yet another band wagon of hysteria for bells ..." (#1062)

When we're down to deliberately implying that a woman needs to be sexually assaulted for therapeutic benefit, the facts of misogyny in general and rape advocacy in particular are laid bare.

No, really, this is where we're at. In response to the question of a woman's human rights under LACP, LightGigantic is now advocating therapeutic sexual assault.

And this is the thing: Will his fellow anti-abortion advocates stand with him?

I mean, sure, I suppose he can always claim ignorance as an explanation, but such ignorance would severely undermine the proposition that he has anything relevant or useful to say regarding the larger subject. After all, it's only fifteen months later, and he's now down to repeatedly accusing a woman of hysteria in order to avoid answering the issue.

It's the reason Freudian psychotherapy works at all; if you let people talk long enough, they will eventually tell you the truth.
I guess the next question is how you interpret this comment :

This is an internet forum, take what you get in stride, what ever they say don't show the incredible amounts of anger and disgust that you have shown, for that is what trolls love to see. Consider how readily you call someone a troll you should know that many of the things you said turn trolls on, for example you say that being asked to eat the baby's placenta was less disgusting than them, you might as well be giving them a blowjob.


... as sexual assault.

If Bells has anything relevant to say, we are yet to see her manage to do it a manner that isn't born of hysterical rage bordering on the deranged.
The irony of this is that any hysteria that is dealt back to her (with the aim of letting her see just exactly how she is behaving) in the same sort of fashion at a ratio of about 50% simply sends her over the edge.

I mean did EF really suggest that she was giving someone a blow job?
Funnily enough the last time I suggested she was a troll and that she "waddle back to her cave" she raised her hairs about this somehow being a suggestion she was over weight?

Its pretty obvious there is an agenda afoot to misrepresent what and why people are saying things.


:shrug:
 
So you can see who is involved in these practices, observe trends etc.
For instance I recall one doctor who was one of the rare ones who consented to performing late term abortions having their license temporarily suspended (like getting a slap on the wrist) for prescribing over the counter drugs to patients in an unregulated manner. I think these sorts of things have to be scrutinized more carefully.


But is not abortion already regulated heavily, what more regulation does it need?
More along the lines of establishing it as provisional as opposed to some sort of essential ingredient of the public health welfare package.
As far as service delivery goes, there may not be a whole of difference between these two options , but it would represent a change in attitude towards it.
 
The Obvious Point

LightGigantic said:

I guess the next question is how you interpret this comment ....

To the one, it's nothing more than misogynistic trolling.

To the other, what does ElectricFetus have to do with your rape advocacy?

Don't try to change the subject.

If Bells has anything relevant to say, we are yet to see her manage to do it a manner that isn't born of hysterical rage bordering on the deranged.

Imagine that. Again.

How surprising.
 
Hysterical Accuracy

To the one, it's nothing more than misogynistic trolling.
To the one, you are just making airy assertions that have no correlation to what is being discussed

To the other, what does ElectricFetus have to do with your rape advocacy?
Well it was EF who suggested Bells behaviour was "tantamount" to giving a blowjob, and Bells did continue withe same before mentioned behaviour.

But then again, if you interpret this comment :

This is an internet forum, take what you get in stride, what ever they say don't show the incredible amounts of anger and disgust that you have shown, for that is what trolls love to see. Consider how readily you call someone a troll you should know that many of the things you said turn trolls on, for example you say that being asked to eat the baby's placenta was less disgusting than them, you might as well be giving them a blowjob.

... as rape advocacy, you are just arguing from a platform even more hysterical than Bells
:shrug:



Don't try to change the subject.
Don't try to discuss subjects outside of the context they are presented in, thanks.



Imagine that. Again.

How surprising.
huh?
Like the last 10 pages of EF trying to dissuade Bells from being an all out troll somehow passed you by?

:shrug:
 
The Obvious Quesiton

LightGigantic said:

Well it was EF who suggested Bells behaviour was "tantamount" to giving a blowjob, and Bells did continue withe same before mentioned behaviour.

But then again, if you interpret this comment :

This is an internet forum, take what you get in stride, what ever they say don't show the incredible amounts of anger and disgust that you have shown, for that is what trolls love to see. Consider how readily you call someone a troll you should know that many of the things you said turn trolls on, for example you say that being asked to eat the baby's placenta was less disgusting than them, you might as well be giving them a blowjob.

... as rape advocacy, you are just arguing from a platform even more hysterical than Bells

Again, what does EF's comment have to do with your rape advocacy?
 
And as I said before only as long as it would take to bring a pregnancy to term, so 3 months max or the time between viability and birth.

If she is going to die before the viable fetus can be born naturally, then it should be extracted, if the extraction is going to kill her then and there so be it. Alternatively might as well wait for her to die and then extract the baby from her the moments after she dies.
Other than the desire to observe that you expect us to believe you are so stupid that you can't think your way through a three sentence hypothetical, what are we left with?

Oh yeah, this: "If she is going to die before the viable fetus can be born naturally, then it should be extracted, if the extraction is going to kill her then and there so be it."

OK. So be it. At least your position is clear, nothing more to say to you. I would say I hope that your wife finds herself having to choose between dying several months or years early in order to give birth to your child but I imagine you would take that in stride. And justify it with some sort of superiority argument. Plus, it wouldn't be fair to that hypothetical "wife".

So you have the unmitigated gall to claim to be pro-choice. My revulsion could not be more profound. Ah well, the odious must exist as well..
 
Hysterical Accuracy Part 2

Again, what does EF's comment have to do with your rape advocacy?
everything, since you interpret this comment :

This is an internet forum, take what you get in stride, what ever they say don't show the incredible amounts of anger and disgust that you have shown, for that is what trolls love to see. Consider how readily you call someone a troll you should know that many of the things you said turn trolls on, for example you say that being asked to eat the baby's placenta was less disgusting than them, you might as well be giving them a blowjob.

as rape advocacy.

:shrug:
 
¿It's Not So Difficult, Is It?

LightGigantic said:

everything, since you interpret this comment ... as rape advocacy.

Please demonstrate that claim.

And while you're at it, please make some useful explanation of how EF's comment relates to, justifies, excuses, explains, or otherwise mitigates your own sexual harassment and rape advocacy.
 
Well it was EF who suggested Bells behaviour was "tantamount" to giving a blowjob, and Bells did continue withe same before mentioned behaviour.
In other words, my "behaviour" was to disagree with EF's beliefs and and to feel disgust at his stance and behaviour in this thread. Of course, since he can do no wrong, then my inciting his trolling by disagreeing with him and telling him that his attitude towards killing women was disgusting, was tantamount to just giving him a blowjob, so continuing to disagree with him would continue the sexual harassment. In short, I'm just asking for men like you to sexually harass me and using arguments that have been used by rape advocates (she was hysterical, she was asking for it, she needed to be controlled) for generations.
 
In other words, my "behaviour" was to disagree with EF's beliefs and and to feel disgust at his stance and behaviour in this thread.
incorrect
Plenty of people disagreeing with each other on this thread, yet it was only you he singled out in a specific fashion ... in a specific fashion that has absolutely nothing to do with your gender I might add ....

Of course, since he can do no wrong, then my inciting his trolling by disagreeing with him and telling him that his attitude towards killing women was disgusting, was tantamount to just giving him a blowjob, so continuing to disagree with him would continue the sexual harassment. In short, I'm just asking for men like you to sexually harass me and using arguments that have been used by rape advocates (she was hysterical, she was asking for it, she needed to be controlled) for generations.
Its not so much about his or anyone's sense of self-righteousness.
Its your beahviour to bring things down to the lowest tier on the argument pyramid, as he put it.
 
Operational Difficulties

Please demonstrate that claim.

And while you're at it, please make some useful explanation of how EF's comment relates to, justifies, excuses, explains, or otherwise mitigates your own sexual harassment and rape advocacy.
I just did.
EF introduced the subject of blow jobs.

You are now suggesting this is rape advocacy.
If anyone needs to demonstrate their claims, its you.
:shrug:
 
(Insert Title Here)

LightGigantic said:

I just did.
EF introduced the subject of blow jobs.

You are now suggesting this is rape advocacy.

Please demonstrate that claim.

If anyone needs to demonstrate their claims, its you.

Since you are the one claiming what I claim, you need to provide that affirmative proof.
 
Operational Difficulty Part 2

Please demonstrate that claim.
If you want to demonstrate "my rape advocacy" you will have to be a bit more specific than simply saying stuff off the top of your head with loaded questions.
:shrug:


Since you are the one claiming what I claim, you need to provide that affirmative proof.
Be nice if you were also obedient to this idea before you launched claims ..... its a small detail that helps distinguish a pertinent question from a loaded one ...


:shrug:
 
Start Making Sense

LightGigantic said:

If you want to demonstrate "my rape advocacy" you will have to be a bit more specific than simply saying stuff off the top of your head with loaded questions.

Since it was implicitly noted this morning, and explicitly this evening, and accounting for ... what was it, five attempts to pin your posts on someone else? ... that is quite a remarkable line you've offered.

Review your response at #1066, and see if you can figure out what's wrong with it.

Be nice if you were also obedient to this idea before you launched claims ..... its a small detail that helps distinguish a pertinent question from a loaded one ...

It would be even nicer if you would start to make sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top