"Women are Hosts"

[Bells]

Needlessly argumentative. You know perfectly well, that "what was she thinking" does not apply to non-consensual sex. I have been a inserting "consensual sex" in virtually every post.

These questions need to be asked.

If you are so concerned about the "life" that was created out of sex, why are you only concerned about women who have consensual sex and not others, who are victims of sexual violence? Why does that "life" matter less for women who are victims of sexual violence, but women who consent to sex are somehow irresponsible and thus they waive their rights to their bodies as a result?

Do you understand how, ermm, twisted your argument has been in this thread? Do you understand how sexist it has been? Do you understand that you have spent pages slut shaming women who have consensual sex for reasons other than 'makin' babies'?

So again, why do you refuse to acknowledge all women who seek abortions and their circumstances surrounding that need for said abortions? Why do you focus solely on women who dare to "think that sex is merely recreational"?

Could the same thing be argued for a baby one month after birth? "I take responsibility by deciding to end it."

Seriously?

Is it so hard to have a discussion about abortion without resorting to these kinds of scenarios? I mean, are you going for shock value?

Do you understand why the circumstances change after birth? Do you understand that it is no longer residing inside the body of another person? Do you understand the argument of her body at all? Do you understand that personhood cannot be granted to a foetus because it is not a person and because it resides inside the body of its mother, and thus, it is impossible to have competing interests as a result?

Yep. And if there were a way that she could give up an unborn fetus without ending its life, that would make a good point.

Oh yay, more taking my comments out of context. Yay you! Well done.

I don't either. Which is to my point.
It seems that you are implying this is an OK thing.

Nope. Once again..

Do you want me to use smaller words, perhaps? Because you seem to be having difficulty understanding that "it is her body and not my place or anyone else's place, to tell her what to do with it. It is her body, her life and her decision. It is private and personal matter, between her and her doctor. It is not my place or society's to judge her as being irresponsible for wanting to procure an abortion"..

How you went from that to implying that women are somehow or other saying that 'they can always just get an abortion' or that I am implying this is an okay thing from that, god knows.

Guessing that pretzel still has room for you to twist it.

...and its another spitball.

If you made an argument based on what I've actually said, without the melodrama, do you think it would still carry weight?


You have made several references to feeling shamed. Do you want to talk?

I beg your pardon? Are you trying to ask questions about my sex life, Dave? Or are you perhaps trying to imply that I feel ashamed for having sex? Oh noes, I have sex for reasons other than procreation. Does this mean you think I should forfeit or have waived rights to my body?

Do you want me to quote your words back to you? You can just scroll up and read what I quoted from a few posts on just one page in this thread. You want to argue again if I think it will carry any more weight?

Am I arguing that they engage in an act wilfully and knowingly that would raise the issue of responsibility for another life.

What did she think was going to happen??

Surely the time to decide that she didn't want to take responsibility for another life was before she engaged in creating one.

So this now raises the question:
They've decided to engage in sex
despite the risk of creating a baby
and, if the dice don't fall in their favor
she can decide after-the-fact, that she doesn't want to take the responsibility - the known consequences of her actions
but it's OK, because abortion is always an option as retroactive birth-control.

Were you possessed when you wrote that?

You don't see just how you are slut shaming women with comments like that?

Is this an excuse? "I didn't think of it."

You didn't actually answer the question.

True.

But pretending there's no gray area where an unborn child might have rights is not the way to resolve the debate.

What gray area? It's inside her body. She has her fundamental human rights to her body and if she chooses to abort, it is a private and personal matter, something between herself and her physician. It's not that hard really.

No one (certainly not me) said they should.

I guess that means we're in agreement. Women do not forfeit ALL rights to their bodies.

Perhaps you should re-read what I have been saying, and what you have been saying and you can explain how or why you think we are in agreement. Otherwise, I'll just assume that you are deliberately misrepresenting my words and taking them out of context in a pallid attempt to appear to be clever with word games.

 

[iceaura]

So you’re saying that at some point during pregnancy a fetus acquires a right to life? Would that also extend to a right to optimal health?

We talking law or morality? The connection would be ethics.

It acquires the person's State right to not be killed (with the normal caveats), and to the resources of the State in its defense. I doubt "optimal health" is definable (or the attempt wise), but defense against injury, disease, etc, should be. imho.
It acquires the rights of a child of its status, not much different from one that has been born, in other words.

No rights are absolute. My principles are more Confucian than Christian, in guiding the establishment of political power. Do not do by State power what one would not suffer, that kind of thing; prohibition, not mandate. Avoid tyranny.

The principle is whether a fetus of some development should be considered to have personhood.

That's easy - of course. We are all in agreement there.

The problem is that lots of people would like to think their lives is carefree and consequence free.

That's not "the problem". The problem is that people often want to define, arrange, and then enforce, their own ideas of what consequences there should be and what behavior should have which ones. And sometimes that is ok, and sometimes it is not - hence the discussion.

People have had such discussions before. Go back a few decades, and many people thought lightning rods should be forbidden by the State. Seriously. They were contrivances that allowed people to avoid "the consequences" of heedless and prideful behavior, of just going around doing what they wanted to do, selfishly even.

And these people were absolutely correct in that basic assessment. That's exactly what lightning rods are.

 

[billvon]

I can’t imagine that there are many ethically challenged doctors that would perform a 39 week abortion.

I can easily imagine it. A fetus with thanatophoric dysplasia, or with Type 1 SMA, is going to die anyway shortly after birth. If the mother is starting to show signs of pre-eclampsia - or even is having discomfort - then aborting the fetus at that point isn't much of an ethical decision; it's basically changing the date of the fetus/baby's death by a small amount.

 

[Michael 345]

So, let me ask, at what point does that "life" begin? If it's not at conception, at what point in the pregnancy should she forfeit her rights to her body?

The hard religious maintain that THAT life does begin at conception

Of course they can never show any such a thing as a soul within the blastocyst or even any born person

But, according to the religious, it MUST be within all of us because that's (the soul) is what gives us life and makes us different from animals

No way are we descended from apes they cry

Ignoring that evolution does not make THAT claim

From a shared ape like common ancestor yes

The woman NEVER forfeits her rights

 

[billvon]

The hard religious maintain that THAT life does begin at conception

That's not hard. Sperm are alive; so are egg cells. The argument begins when they claim that conception confers personhood, with all the rights associated with that status.

 

[DaveC426913]

No. The common rule of thumb is: after birth, a baby is entitled to protection, but is not a person. A child of 0-16 or 18 years is a ward of its parents or the state or some institution - not a person in its own right. When it can live on its own - make decisions, earn its keep, get arrested, drive, open a bank account - it's a person with rights and responsibilities.

Where I come from that's called an adult. I never heard of person to exclude minors or children, but I could be wrong.

If a mistake can be rectified with minimal effort and expense, why make a big issue of it?

This presupposes that they have no right to live. As as long you hold to that presupposition, of course aborting a fetus won't be a big issue.

I just don't see that as a cut and dry issue.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh you have made yourself quite clear. Your repeated comments about her consenting to sex, while knowing the risk, and the manner in which you made those comments.. Believe me, you are quite clear.

Are we still having a discussion? Just checking.

I will say though how you can claim to be pro-choice is kind of beyond me.

That's OK. The danger lies in deciding that there are exactly two stances, and no other viewpoint.

There is no "but" or any other card on the table, Dave. She either has fundamental human rights to her body or she does not. There is no but.

If the issue is black and white to you then there's really not much more for you to say.

I've got more to say though.

We all give up freedoms to a greater or lesser extent, simply be being part of society, but certainly by making commitments.

So, this term fundamental rights. Let's define that.

I asked about engaging in risky activity. There are plenty of circumstance less contrived than scuba diving where a parent has made a commitment to a child, even at the expense of their personal health. (You can;t always just hand a baby off)
When they decided to have a child, they decided that they would put that child's safety paramount.

As a woman who has had two children, both of whom were wanted and very much desired and fought for, I can assure you, it was like growing two parasites in my body as they stripped me of everything, meaning that when they were born, I required huge blood transfusions, iron tablets, iron shots, calcium tablets, along with a plethora of other issues that arose during and after both pregnancies.

Understand now?

Is that what I said?

Does it bother you if I make implications about what you might be saying?
Would it bother you even more if I put those words right in your mouth?

... you deny that you are shaming women ...

Judge and shame her for having sex ...

Ya, because how you put it is sooooooo much better and not puritanical or shaming women for having consensual sex for reasons other than procreation, at all..

You've clearly got an issue about shaming. Let me now if you want to get back to the actual issue under discussion, rather than painting this issue with your own personal agenda.

As a woman who has had two children, both of whom were wanted and very much desired and fought for, I can assure you, it was like growing two parasites in my body as they stripped me of everything, meaning that when they were born, I required huge blood transfusions, iron tablets, iron shots, calcium tablets, along with a plethora of other issues that arose during and after both pregnancies.

Understand now?

I am definitely beginning to understand why this issue is important to you personally.

But your personal journey should not interfere the fates and actions of others.

 

[Jeeves]

This presupposes that they have no right to live.

Nobody has a right to live. I've told you that already.
People - and all other biological entities - get killed; they die of all kinds of things at all ages, and everybody has to stop living sometime.

I just don't see that as a cut and dry issue.

Good. You should resolve all the right-to-life issues.
Start with innocent people on death row, political prisoners, victims of police shootings,
then work your way through civilian casualties in wars... You'll get to foetuses eventually.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nobody has a right to live. I've told you that already.
People - and all other biological entities - get killed; they die of all kinds of things at all ages, and everybody has to stop living sometime.

That's weird thinking. These are two distinct concepts.

People do have the right to live, and if they are killed, and its someones fault, they can be held accountable for taking it away.

Having a right does not mean it is impossible for that right to be violated by circumstances.

 

[DaveC426913]

Good. You should resolve all the right-to-life issues.
Start with innocent people on death row, political prisoners, victims of police shootings,
then work your way through civilian casualties in wars... You'll get to foetuses eventually.

No. That is a logical fallacy.

 

[iceaura]

The hard religious maintain that THAT life does begin at conception

Only in the context of abortion. For example: Their hospitals, staffed by the very most devout of them, have been discarding early term miscarriages with the rest of the medical waste - not even checking to see it they were alive - for hundreds of years.

When they decided to have a child, they decided that they would put that child's safety paramount.

And when they didn't decide to have a child, they didn't.

 

[Michael 345]

Only in the context of abortion. For example: Their hospitals, staffed by the very most devout of them, have been discarding early term miscarriages with the rest of the medical waste - not even checking to see it they were alive - for hundreds of years.

True enough

None have been able to answer those questions I have put in my post in this thread about the soul

The few I have asked are stumped for answers even after asking those higher up

With identical twins

The soul inserted at conception right

Yes right

Then a short time later the cells begin to multiple right?

Yes right

Then at a early stage instead of just multiplying they make a complete division OK

OK

And begin to develop as identical twins OK

OK

Now does the

• soul divide becoming 2 souls
• do they have only have ½ a soul
• does 1 twin keep the original soul and the other one issued a new soul

Eh don't know

Anyone out there care to comment?

 

[Jeeves]

Anyone out there care to comment?

About souls, no.
About the hypocrisy of right-to-lifers, just one more:
I believe early and comprehensive sex education should be mandated in all schools; all forms of birth control, including vasectomy and tubal ligation, morning-after pill and abortion should be readily and cheaply available. All girls and women should have autonomous control of their own sexual and reproductive functions.
A decent society empowers its capable citizens and protects its dependents; provides the necessities of life and the opportunity for happiness to all of its members.
Talk about the "right to live" in principle is just hot air, without a life-supporting social structure and the political will to ensure a life worth living .

Condemning a child to life as the cross his mother must bear for her sins is .... obscene.
I approve of abortion as a last resort in birth control, because I care about children.
No child should ever be born that is not cherished.

 

[Michael 345]

Dup deleted

 

[cluelusshusbund]

The few I have asked are stumped for answers even after asking those higher up

With identical twins

The soul inserted at conception right

Now does the

• soul divide becoming 2 souls
• do they have only have ½ a soul
• does 1 twin keep the original soul and the other one issued a new soul

Anyone out there care to comment?

I went to the top for the answr... an for women who are gonna have identical twins God inserts 2 soles at conception.!!!

Perty simple really.!!!

 

[Michael 345]

I believe early and comprehensive sex education should be mandated in all schools; all forms of birth control, including vasectomy and tubal ligation, morning-after pill and abortion should be readily and cheaply available. All girls and women should have autonomous control of their own sexual and reproductive functions.

I agree with that

I think that male and female students should be taught in the same class

Parents should be encouraged to attend if able

Videos should be made of every lesson given and held as evidence of what was taught as there will be angry parents hounding the school claiming

' You taught my child.............. about sex. How dare you '

There should be an overreaching video made available to purchase to provide a scaffold for schools to make their own template from

I did note you left out condoms

While the focus should be on birth control some coverage should be given to the health control of sex

I went to the top for the answr... an for women who are gonna have identical twins God inserts 2 soles at conception.!!!

Perty simple really.!!!

OK

So for a short time there is one "life" with two souls

This is the holding pattern until the zygote fully divides

Are you sure?

If you are I guess identical triplets start by having 3 souls in 1 life for a short time correct?

Then of course comes the complete division

But wait there's more

One soul goes into one half of the divided zygote while two souls go into the other half

Because it is the half with two souls which will make another full division to finish with

TAT-TAR

identical triplets

Ya easy really

Really?

 

[Bells]

We all give up freedoms to a greater or lesser extent, simply be being part of society, but certainly by making commitments.

So, this term fundamental rights. Let's define that.

I asked about engaging in risky activity. There are plenty of circumstance less contrived than scuba diving where a parent has made a commitment to a child, even at the expense of their personal health. (You can;t always just hand a baby off)
When they decided to have a child, they decided that they would put that child's safety paramount.

And you keep ignoring the fact that the child in the scuba diving hypothetical is not residing inside the woman's body.

You can tell the difference between that and with a woman's rights to her body in the context of abortion, can you?

Can you tell why one simply cannot even compare or apply to the other?

Does it bother you if I make implications about what you might be saying?
Would it bother you even more if I put those words right in your mouth?

I find it interesting that you fail to clarify or respond to the chunks of quotes I posted from you in this thread and then you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Why do you do that?

I also find it interesting that you seem to have veered to my sex life and asking me if I feel ashamed, after you repeatedly shamed women who have sex for reasons other than procreation, by going on and on about their irresponsibility and "what was she thinking would happen???"..

I also find it interesting that you repeatedly assert that she loses rights over her body when she decides to have consensual sex because of the risk of pregnancy and the "life" that could result from said pregnancy, but you consistently and refuse to answer any questions about issues that pertain to pregnancies that stem from sexual assault, incest or sexual coercion, as though the "life" that is formed in those assaults, matter less, than if the woman "gasp" had consensual sex and got pregnant. It seems to be as though you are more intent on complaining about women being irresponsible for having sex without a desire for having babies than you are about discussing abortion as a whole. Because pretty much the majority of your posts in this thread, have focused on the irresponsibility of women who have sex without any intention of having children.

You've clearly got an issue about shaming. Let me now if you want to get back to the actual issue under discussion, rather than painting this issue with your own personal agenda.

I have an issue with anyone who wishes to control the bodies of women based on their own sexist views. Because, whether you wish to admit it or not, your views are deeply sexist.

The idea that women must curtail their desires because they might get pregnant and then possibly face the prospect of an abortion, is sexist. The very idea that you believe that women waive or forfeit their rights over their bodies because they might fall pregnant, is deeply sexist.

You have spent pages shaming women who have consensual sex without any intention of having kids. You have gone on and on about how they are irresponsible for doing so and how their rights should be curtailed or forfeited if they fall pregnant, because "what did she think was going to happen". You are literally shaming sexually active women who do not plan or wish to have children.

That is what I have an issue with Dave, as I have made clear, repeatedly. Your attempts to turn this on me, says a lot about you, really.

Your personal agenda appears to be reminding women of their place, which pretty much amounts to being hosts because you believe that their fundamental human rights over their own bodies have been forfeited if they have consensual sex. You have asserted this repeatedly. Why? Because you think there is a competing interest in her womb. And to top it off, you then decide to go full hog, and try and bring my sex life into it. You really are on a roll, aren't you?

I am definitely beginning to understand why this issue is important to you personally.

But your personal journey should not interfere the fates and actions of others.

I don't think you do understand why this issue is important to me personally.

It is important to me personally because abortion is a private and personal matter, which can and should do without the input of individuals such as yourself. Why? Because you do not bear any responsibility, nor can your rights over your body be curtailed or forfeited or waived. The woman's, on the other hand, does.

Understand now? It's not about my pregnancies and my choices. It is about having a choice, Dave. You know, it's about ensuring that my rights over my body be protected from men like you, who believe that I should not have any rights over my body if I choose to have sex. Is that clear enough for you now?

 

[Bells]

I went to the top for the answr... an for women who are gonna have identical twins God inserts 2 soles at conception.!!!

Perty simple really.!!!

What happens in instances of parasitic twins? When after conception, one absorbs the other and sometimes, bits of the other grow and develop inside the body of the remaining twin?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

What happens in instances of parasitic twins? When after conception, one absorbs the other and sometimes, bits of the other grow and develop inside the body of the remaining twin?

From Gods mouth to my ear... an i quote:::

"The good news... the child will have a soul an sooner or later will wind up in heaven... an the woman will go to hell sinse its more than likely that her body caused the parasitic issue.!!!"

~ God

 

[Bells]

From Gods mouth to my ear... an i quote:::

"The good news... the child will have a soul an sooner or later will wind up in heaven... an the woman will go to hell sinse its more than likely that her body caused the parasitic issue.!!!"

~ God

Which child and which soul?

Two children become one, you said that both receive a soul from the moment of conception. So which one?