Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[seagypsy]

I would say the problem is more that he considers your physical reality as a woman an arbitrary distinction.

How does his acknowledging the physical reality of an unborn child automatically mean that he sees my physical reality as an arbitrary distinction? If a mother has two children in immediate peril, she can only save one and has to choose which, ultimately saving the one she has the greater possibility of successfully rescuing. Does that mean she did not care about the one she didn't save? How is it that you reach the conclusion, that acknowledging the value of an unborn child to automatically discounting the value of the mother?

Some see no difference between an independently-existing human being and an organism growing inside another person's body.

Such as it is, a fertilized ovum does not have an independent physical reality. Its physical reality depends on the woman it grows inside.

But I'm curious: How does it feel to have your own humanity regarded as an arbitrary distinction?

Again, I refer you back to the questions I asked before. I see the lack of compassion for the defenseless unborn child to be regarding all of humanity as an arbitrary distinction.

I mean, why shouldn't he beat the hell out of you? Or use your body for whatever sexual or other physical gratification he wants? After all, your human rights center around the observable fact of your independent physical reality, which he apparently objects to as an arbitrary distinction.

You are a sick individual for implying that he thinks that way. You should be ashamed of yourself. This is a gross attack on his character and completely inappropriate. He has said nothing that implies that a woman is not human and you should stop claiming it or provide proof that he did. Give quotes!

The underlying question of this thread has to do with the conflict between your human rights as a woman, and the suspension or adjustment thereof because an organism growing inside your body becomes an equal and therefore supersedes you.

You make pro choice supporters look like psychotic killers you know that? Except in cases of rape, incest, or some other non-voluntary action on the part of the woman, I believe a woman exercises her rights and waives such rights when she takes part in activities that she KNOWS will put her at high risk for pregnancy. That being said, I am also supportive of her right to change her mind up until a certain point. I am pro choice with abortion laws as they are, but I do not support the right to late term abortion. Neverfly has expressed the same position in this and other threads. He has NEVER said or implied that a woman is not human or has no rights to her body. STOP LYING!

If this outcome should be the way of things under the law, what do we do about that conflict?

Well, it's easy enough to resolve if we pretend there is no conflict.

But in that pretense, we push dangerously close to a woman's place being barefoot and pregnant.

Presently, I can't tell if he's arguing for principle, or simply to have a fight.

But, hey, don't let that worry your pretty little head. After all, you're a woman, and your independent humanity is an arbitrary distinction. Being arbitrary, it doesn't have any real value.

Don't use your sexist remarks against me, I don't like it. (don't worry your pretty little head) is a sexist demeaning remark. And I will be reporting this post.

How does that make you feel?

It makes me feel like you are a sexist who lies in order to try to make a man look like the sexist. You are the one making derogatory sexist remarks, lying, claiming that he says a woman is not human. You need to stop. You and Bells both. You are both an embarrassment to the feminist movement.

By the way, my 3rd child is a product of rape so don't you dare try to say my opinion is not valid.

(And before you complain about the cruelty of these remarks, please consider that they are the inevitable outcome of your physical reality—the basis of your human rights—being arbitrary. Oh, and remember that as males, neither he nor I are subject to such an arbitrary distinction.)

You are indeed a sexist aren't you. You make me sick.

 

[lightgigantic]

IMO, the only thing that will settle this, to any degree is if the laws are rewritten and a constitutional amendment made declaring WHEN A HUMAN BEING IS IN FACT A HUMAN BEING. And then all other laws regarding whatever resides inside the womb of a woman must be worded and enforced based upon that definition. And IMO, that definition needs to be supported by scientific and statistical data. For instance, the point when survival rates outside the womb reach an agreed upon rate (for instance, 75% of preterm deliveries survive.) IOW, if 75% of babies delivered at 28 wks survive past the age of 12 months, then the 28 wk stage of development would be the cut off for abortions and the life in the womb is considered human and has a right to live. This is just a hypothetical suggestion, I don't know what the statistics are and my personal cut off point would be when 50% of preterm deliveries result in survival beyond 12 months. But my opinion doesn't carry much weight and I am ok with that.

It does seem to be that the debate is over WHEN exactly the physical reality that exists within the womb should be considered human and therefor entitled to the right to live.

I do find it odd that the people who are fighting so adamantly in this thread are all prochoice. Though,perhaps, poor wording on the part of some have them appearing pro-abortion rather than pro choice.

If human life can scientifically be demonstrated at the point of conception (which it can, of course) , any attempts to beguile the authority of science will simply fall into a political/arbitrary designation of human life ... much like the various scientific arguments (in terms of biology, sociology, evolution, culture and behaviour) called upon to exclude blacks from regular civilities offered to the rest of the human race.

IOW there is no scientific doubt about what is occurring at the point of the conception .... you can even say that abortion clinics are catering to the very exclusive nature of conception in a manner that distinguishes them from sun cancer clinics or whatever.

IOW there absolutely no scientific doubt from any of the parties (pro or against) about what is occurring

 

[Neverfly]

Don't use your sexist remarks against me, I don't like it. (don't worry your pretty little head) is a sexist demeaning remark. And I will be reporting this post.
It makes me feel like you are a sexist who lies in order to try to make a man look like the sexist. You are the one making derogatory sexist remarks, lying, claiming that he says a woman is not human.

You are indeed a sexist aren't you. You make me sick.

Funny how both he and Bells make sexist derogatory remarks but gave me hell for what I said as if it's a bad thing, no? Perk of being a mod or something? Pot, meet kettle.

Just like a cotton plantation owner of yesteryear saying blacks have no right to the rights offered to civilized people.

You are simply using political language to hate people at conception

Putting on the kid gloves, eh? While you and I don't see eye to eye on the matter of "when," I'd rather not fight the argument on three fronts- two is bad enough.
A child with a brain, that could survive on its own is a pretty clearly defined line no matter how those two try to dice it so they can claim it has no physical reality except at birth.

Oh, and Tiassa? Try reading:

If the woman should refuse to abort until it's past the legal window, she has little recourse anymore than if she had delivered the baby and then changed her mind.
Frankly, a woman who has been raped and impregnated by it may not be emotionally sound to govern whether the child is carried to term or not- I do not know.
This complexity is horrifying and one good reason to make a mandatory death penalty on all rape crimes. I realize I'm in the wrong to advocate such a thing but Damn, REALLY?! Frankly, the whole thing is fucked up because it leaves a victim of trauma to try to choose between a living human child's life or her sanity. That's the epitome of twisted. I have my opinions about the child involved... and I state them here.
But given the variables, I must stand by the current laws in place- I cannot see how late term abortions could alleviate the suffering of a rape victim at all. I can see how a woman can be so traumatized as to be unsure of what to do. Indecisive and tormented and moreso because it's not the childs fault yet, they may fear holding it against the child.
Perhaps if it was required that the family of the victim take control of the child or that all rape victims must abort early on-- But I don't know either. It's just a pain in the ass with how we've developed as beings.

Your interpretations and claims are, indeed, disgusting.

 

[lightgigantic]

Funny how both he and Bells make sexist derogatory remarks but gave me hell for what I said as if it's a bad thing, no? Perk of being a mod or something? Pot, meet kettle.


Putting on the kid gloves, eh? While you and I don't see eye to eye on the matter of "when," I'd rather not fight the argument on three fronts- two is bad enough.
A child with a brain, that could survive on its own is a pretty clearly defined line no matter how those two try to dice it so they can claim it has no physical reality except at birth.

I've had this discussion with bells on several occasions before.

Unless she has changed her outlook, she is of the opinion that its simply an issue of woman's rights until it comes out of the womb

 

[lightgigantic]

On page 38 of this book appears one of the most remarkable photographs I have seen. It shows a young mother playing an energetic game (tag, perhaps, or pig-in-the-middle) with her three children, two girls and a boy. There are four lively, happy people in the photograph, but only six arms and six legs, for the two girls share a body. Between them they have two legs and two arms, but above a single pair of shoulders there are two necks, two heads, two smiling faces. One of Us is about conjoined twins, and its starting point is the conviction that often such twins should be thought of as two people inhabiting one body, not as two people inhabiting two not-yet-separated bodies. Clearly Abigail and Brittany Hensel (the six-year-olds to whose photograph I keep returning) can never be separated (though they do have two hearts); nor need they be, for they have a fit and healthy body, in which they can do all the things people normally do, except, of course, get away from each other.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n14/david-wootton/separating-gracie-and-rosie

or even : Feminist Ethics and Social and Political Philosophy: Theorizing the Non-Ideal - Chapter 5 Conjoined Twins, Embodied Personhood, and Surgical Separation

If Bells, Tiassa and Fraggle insist on seeing a pregnant mother as one living entity with two bodies, do they have a similar metaphysical difficulty with conjoined twins?

 

[seagypsy]

If human life can scientifically be demonstrated at the point of conception (which it can, of course) , any attempts to beguile the authority of science will simply fall into a political/arbitrary designation of human life ... much like the various scientific arguments (in terms of biology, sociology, evolution, culture and behaviour) called upon to exclude blacks from regular civilities offered to the rest of the human race.

IOW there is no scientific doubt about what is occurring at the point of the conception .... you can even say that abortion clinics are catering to the very exclusive nature of conception in a manner that distinguishes them from sun cancer clinics or whatever.

IOW there absolutely no scientific doubt from any of the parties (pro or against) about what is occurring

I understand where you are coming from, but all I meant to say is that the laws need to make a specific distinction of when a human being is a human being. I suggested that designated point be backed by statistics and scientific studies. I understand your definition of human life is that it carries human DNA. Obviously, many people have different qualifications of what and when a life is a life. As a society, it is impossible to please us all. So compromise is a must. Yes it means people at either extreme of the debate will remain pissed off. But the majority of those who are more moderate in their thinking will be satisfied and that is the best we can ever achieve when making laws to govern such a huge population with varying perspectives on such a volatile subject. One extreme is human at conception, the opposite extreme is human at birth. Meeting somewhere in the middle is the route that will please the most people and allow acknowledgement of a grey area. There is no easy way to say who is right or wrong in this. There is no easy solution. In the end, someone will be or feel violated. And there isn't anything anyone can do about it. And until we can find a way for men to carry babies, there will be fundy feminists out there who feel the overwhelming urge to blame men for not being able to carry the young and will label any male who fights for the life of his unborn child as a sexist pig rather than considering that his desire for the child to live is as valid as any mother's desire for their baby to live, and that they cannot prove that the unborn child does not desire to live as well. Men, Women, and Children all need each other to survive. But it seems everyone is too buried in their own selfishness to acknowledge that. All our physical realities are arbitrary distinctions, in my opinion. I don't believe any human being has the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or property when whatever they want encroaches on the right of another human being to exist. And I believe whatever rights we have depend on what we are capable of. An unborn child cannot remove itself from the woman's womb without killing itself and no human being should be obligated to give its life in order to spare another some inconvenience. This is my opinion. And I don't give two shits for Bells', Tiassa's, or anyone elses' opinions of my opinions.

 

[Neverfly]

And I believe whatever rights we have depend on what we are capable of. An unborn child cannot remove itself from the woman's womb without killing itself and no human being should be obligated to give its life in order to spare another some inconvenience.

This has to be the best worded rebuttal I have ever seen. You make me proud...

Ever read something all concise that really nailed it after you've struggled to make your case and wished you'd thought of putting it that way? Sheesh...

she is of the opinion that its simply an issue of woman's rights until it comes out of the womb

It's not an issue of one groups rights but many peoples rights including more than one gender and children- it's a humans rights issue, if anything.

Why is it that they think if it was a womans rights issue, that means F' all everyone elses rights?

Hell, we give animals lives more credence than this...

 

[Bells]

bolding mine


Are you implying that he does see a woman having full rights over her body as a problem? And what's the purpose of constantly calling him Mr? Does his maleness somehow affect the meaning of his posts?

I often refer to people as Mr and Mrs/Miss on this forum as a manner of politeness when discussing very heated subjects such as this one.

If you have a problem with that, you are free to PM the moderator of this sub-forum with your concern.

Unless of course you prefer I not be polite, Madam?

---

No, but it does refute your claims.

Actually it does not.

Early term, yes. But your arguments and Tiassas arguments have nothing to do with term, do they? They disregard life for convenience.

An argument often used by religious pro-life supporters when they have nothing left to fall back on.

Agreed and they are out of line. I may be somewhat off topic for this thread. But when I see arguments based in the manner you and Tiassa are basing them, they still deserve examination. You seem so intent on some anti-conservative or anti-religion crusade that you're willing to utterly disregard the lives of young children.

So now it's young children?

My my, we have gone from you declaring that a foetus tried to escape the suction tube to now declaring that I have a complete disregard for the lives of "young children". What next Mr Neverfly?

From your link:
"There are also data showing that spontaneous abortion and low birth weight are associated with cocaine use.[10] "
Thank you. Bells.

None of which was found to have been the case in the case of Rennie Gibbs. I quote:

"Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence."​

Emphasis mine..

Now, show me in your links where they discussed Ms Gibbs' case as I was discussing that. They charged her based on a "may" without any concrete proof that her supposed habit was the direct cause of the stillbirth. In short, she is being charged for murder on a maybe. It would be akin to you being charged with murder because your child developed cancer and died of cancer and they discover that you smoked in your child's presence, even though there is no evidence that the second hand smoke from your cigarette caused that child's death. Do you understand the implication and consequence of charging someone for murder with a life sentence based solely on a 'maybe' without any concrete proof?

In other words, it may have played that part or it may not have. But it wasn't about that tangent- it was about you ignoring that basis in the prosecution and your reporting of it as if she was prosecuted solely because she miscarried. Problem is, there is evidence that cocaine use leads to miscarriages.

You don't even make sense Mr Neverfly.

The basis of the prosecution is because they discovered she had a cocaine habit and charged her with murder as a result, without any proof that the cocaine was the actual cause of the stillbirth. She was 15 years of age, and it is just as likely that the position she slept in during that later stage of pregnancy could have caused the stillbirth. In short, you have virtually declared her guilty without any proof that her cocaine use was the actual cause of the stillbirth.

Actually... the law disallows late term abortions, does it not? Yet your argument makes those children into "not children" from an arbitrary line you've drawn out of convenience and no matter how much hiding from that you do, it's still dripping from your words.

Actually, Roe v Wade protects the the mother's right to a late term abortion if her life is at risk. Those rights are being withdrawn to the point that some hospitals are refusing to provide women care during miscarriages if there is still a foetal heartbeat.

You know, because of the 'they are children' argument.

The attention you're bringing to this is good and hopefully, others are showing what these deceptive people are doing, as well.

Other states are already following along the same path.

It is a terrifying prospect, isn't it?

Would it be appalling if a man in a state of distress when his girlfriend broke up with him, murdered her and then tried to kill himself? Would he be tried for her murder when he got out of the hospital? Would that be appalling to you? That woman attempted to kill herself, while a human was within, because her boyfriend left her. That article does not say the woman is mentally ill. It says she tried to kill herself when her man left her. This is akin to you demanding evidence that cocaine use directly caused that other womans miscarriage while ignoring that it's shown to cause it- now you're declaring that woman must be mentally ill.

Are you claiming that the laws in the US does not provide for and/or not charge and try people who are mentally ill and not in full control of their faculties when a crime is committed?

Did I miss that memo, Mr Neverfly?

That must be corrected instead of allowing murder.

Hmmm...

See, your wording here is pretty much the wording used by people who support and/or create such laws in the first place.

Yes, may

So without actual evidence that it did cause the stillbirth, you think it is acceptable to charge someone for murder because of a "may"?

It's a PDF file. link here: http://www.otispregnancy.org/cocaine-r108094 If your virus scanner reacted to a pdf file, I suggest you check your scanner. Attached a screenshot for you. That blacked out bit is just blank space at bottom of page and the taskbar- you can download the .pdf and review it or demand proof I'm not lying and I'll post more screenshots.

Interesting.

The stillbirth was not caused by a placental abruption, Mr Neverfly.

Intellectual dishonesty, Bells.
None of those links were posted to prove that that particular womans use of cocaine directly caused her to miscarry.
They were posted to show that your claims that cocaine had nothing to do with a miscarriage is false. Your claims that there is Zero Evidence that cocaine use can cause a miscarriage have been shown to be absolutely 100% false. Deal with it.
What you're doing here is akin to a Conspiracy Theorist or a Fundie arguing against evidence of evolution. That is a clear and deliberate distortion of reality just to make a case and that's far more appalling than all your straw man claims about others position on the topic.
So drinking and driving can or may lead to manslaughter. So if a drunken driver causes a car accident resulting in a death, the case must be thrown out unless it can be proven that his drunkenness directly caused the death of the other person? May be difficult if the direct cause of death is established as severe impact from the deceased's cranium on the dashboard.
You have no regard for reasonable discussion to bring out opinions and issues, do you? To have played such a wild hand, you demonstrate only a desire to push your cause regardless of the facts.
I sure wish you had an easier time with honesty- these discussions would get a lot less heated.

I believe my question was very very clear and explicit.

If you are unable to follow clear and simple instructions, Sir, accusing others of intellectual dishonesty because your links do not support your claims that her use of cocaine caused her child to be stillborn is, well, silly and you grasping at straws to label a 15 year old a murderer.

As to your example..

If alcohol is seen to be a direct cause for someone crashing their car, then yes, they are charged. Can you tell the difference?

In this case, there is no proof that her use of cocaine caused her to give birth to a still born child. There are a myriad of causes that can lead to stillbirth. None of that was investigated. Instead, long after they found out she was a cocaine user, they then charged her with murder based on that alone because cocaine may have been the cause. In short, the prosecution has to prove that her cocaine use caused her to give birth to a stillborn child. Not based on a mere assumption because cocaine may cause placental abruption in later stages of pregnancy.

Actually, I wasn't nor can you quote me anywhere where I made that assumption or claim.

Speaking of dishonesty....

Are you seriously going to take this line of argument now?

Is this "Mr." business an attempt on your part to make this into a sexist argument? I read them- you did not understand basic communication- not my problem. They, again, provide the evidence that cocaine use can cause a miscarriage which you claim otherwise.

Actually no, that thought had not entered my mind.

Do you have an issue with being called Mr Neverfly or Sir?

Would you prefer I call you Mrs Neverfly or Madam?

Wow, you're really full of shit, today, aren't you? As usual, you're accusing me of things I've never endorsed nor said. It's your common tactic when you cannot intelligently refute an argument.

Shall we look at what you said?

100% true and the mother could have done everything that she could to handle her pregnancy well and properly.

Your words, not mine.

I'd suggest next time you choose your words a bit more carefully instead of speaking without thinking first.

When it kills another human brain, yes I absolutely do. Do you have a problem with that, Bells?

Yes, Sir, I do.

Do you have a problem with that, Neverfly?

After all, I don't think you should have a right or a say over what I or any other woman does with their womb or its contents - and that applies whether you are male or female, Neverfly.

I pointed out that "Mr." thing too, lol. And notice we posted at the exact same time, again...

Yes, her question seems to utterly disregard what I had actually said, doesn't it? Not surprising.

You are aware that you can just tell her this in person, right?

 

[seagypsy]

I often refer to people as Mr and Mrs/Miss on this forum as a manner of politeness when discussing very heated subjects such as this one.

If you have a problem with that, you are free to PM the moderator of this sub-forum with your concern.

Unless of course you prefer I not be polite, Madam?

Yes, I prefer you do not extend your faux politeness towards me. Don't call me madam again. Follow forum rules and address me by my proper screen name. Got it?

You are aware that you can just tell her this in person, right?

Yes he can, but there is no rule he cannot tell me on the forum. Right? Sometimes we speak directly to one person but we express an idea that is meant to be heard by all. You do understand that concept right?

 

[Bells]

Let's recap a bit:
We've got Fraggle Rocker comparing a fetus/baby to dog/refrigerator.
Tiassa suggesting that a baby in the womb is not a physical reality... I'm sorry but the wording really does suggest it. It boggled my mind when I read that. Almost as much as the dog/fridge thing.
And, lastly, Bells suggesting that it's unjust to accuse a cocaine snorting pregnant woman of abusing the life in her womb by snorting coke.

Is this the best that the crowd that believes fetus's are fodder has to offer?

Yet, Bells called the man that made the choice to protect his own body by running in a wild panic from a theater filled with gunfire a "pathetic excuse for a parent." And I agreed with her. I admit, he was in a panic and I have no idea if he even knew what he was doing or not- but he was pathetic for leaving them.

Double standard...?




All of this is as logical as your apologetics for killing something with a brain.

It's appalling. Yes, Bells. Appalling.

Now... Bells, for the record, I'm sorry to do this. I don't feel very good about it, but I think putting your very own words directly in front of you may make you question the position you've so heavily enforced here, in this thread. I don't doubt you'll be angry about it- and I am sorry. I'm not heartless. But what is it that you say here?:

Your son... By the definitions given by Tiassa and fraggle and even yourself here- He was not your son, at that time. Yet, you as a parent still knew that value. You didn't disregard it- even at risk of yourself.
So why do you advocate in your wording in these posts above that it be disregarded?! I can make no sense of that.

I realize, I'm being a terror -using your emotional state at a traumatic time in your life against you in an argument. But it's not about the argument- it's about real lives out there and our votes count. If you are made to examine yourself, you might see you don't even agree with the arguments you've made here. Not fully. You may agree with what I have said, more than you think. That that person, like your son, was a person. Was physically real. Even if not yet born.

And I sincerely hope you can forgive my having used this example. I debated using it at all... It's cruel and I'm sorry.

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuous..

Firstly, you do know and understand the difference between a live child and a foetus, yes?

Because if you cannot, then discussing this with you is pointless.

Secondly, while it is clear you have a reading and comprehension problem and cannot understand the points being made by Fraggle, Tiassa and myself, blaming others for your shortcomings and trying to bolster your religious beliefs about when life commences is, well, dishonest of you.

Thirdly, by bringing up my son, what is your point? I made the active and valid choice to have my son, Sir. Not you, not anyone else. But me. Since it was my body.

Let me reiterate that, just for you.

I made the choice to continue with the pregnancy and have my son.

Is that clear for you?

Do you understand the concept and notion of choice now?

If I had decided to end that pregnancy, it would have been within my human rights to do so and it would have been within my rights as the bearer of that foetus which later became my son.

It was my choice.

 

[Neverfly]

Most the b.s. removed...:

An argument often used by religious pro-life supporters when they have nothing left to fall back on.

That human life is human life and not trash for the dustbin? How dare they! I dunno, Bells... Seems like that is one hell of a strong position to fall back on. Unless you're ok with killing humans and from your words, it appears that you are.

So now it's young children?

Yes, considering the stage of development and none of your religious-like denials will alter reality.

You don't even make sense Mr Neverfly.

What I've said made sense and was humane, unlike your arguments.

Are you seriously going to take this line of argument now?

Yes, it was valid and your distortion does not change that. You're claiming that one must prove that her cocaine use directly caused the miscarriage- which is impossible. You set that bar there as an act of dishonesty, to prevent being shown in error. You also omitted that information in your detail reporting that event. Dishonesty by omission. However, I did show it in error with my links that you tried to make it look like did not say clearly, "Cocaine use CAN cause miscarriage." Unless all those links lied- you cannot accuse me of dishonesty, Bells.

Do you have an issue with being called Mr Neverfly or Sir?

Yes, your reason of "politeness" is bullshit. You may call me Neverfly. No other title is appropriate.

I'd suggest next time you choose your words a bit more carefully instead of speaking without thinking first.

I chose them just fine and your usual tactics of dishonesty do not change my words, Bells.

After all, I don't think you should have a right or a say over what I or any other woman does with their womb or its contents

Contents: Including living human beings.

You are aware that you can just tell her this in person, right?

Yes, but it's more fun to say it in front of your eyes.

 

[Bells]

Yes, I prefer you do not extend your faux politeness towards me. Don't call me madam again. Follow forum rules and address me by my proper screen name. Got it?

Who do you think you are talking to, Seagypsy?

Yes he can, but there is no rule he cannot tell me on the forum. Right? Sometimes we speak directly to one person but we express an idea that is meant to be heard by all. You do understand that concept right?

:shrug:

Whatever floats your boats.

 

[seagypsy]

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuous..

Firstly, you do know and understand the difference between a live child and a foetus, yes?

Because if you cannot, then discussing this with you is pointless.

Secondly, while it is clear you have a reading and comprehension problem and cannot understand the points being made by Fraggle, Tiassa and myself, blaming others for your shortcomings and trying to bolster your religious beliefs about when life commences is, well, dishonest of you.

You are a fucking liar Bells, YOU know damned well that Neverfly is an atheist. Stop lying and twisting his words and creating a character for him that does not exist. You are doing the very thing that I brought up nearly a year ago. Lying and twisting again. Ad hom attacking because he doesn't share your view. His disagreement with you does not mean he has no reading comprehension it only means he disagrees with you. You are a liar and YOU are not worth discussing this with. You expect him to share the opinion of when a human is a human as if that concept has been defined by some official office or something. There is NO CONSENSUS AMONG AUTHORITY AS TO WHEN A HUMAN IS A HUMAN. This is why the laws are so vague and corrupt because the most important part of those laws has been left out. YOU have no more authority to call an unborn fetus anything other than human than a theist has the right to called the first fertilized cell of conception a human. So do not act as if this is a concept that is widely accepted by the general population and he just isn't getting it.

 

[seagypsy]

Who do you think you are talking to, Seagypsy?


:shrug:

Whatever floats your boats.

Who do I think I am talking to? What is that? Some kind of threat?

 

[lightgigantic]

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuous..

Firstly, you do know and understand the difference between a live child and a foetus, yes?

Because if you cannot, then discussing this with you is pointless.

Secondly, while it is clear you have a reading and comprehension problem and cannot understand the points being made by Fraggle, Tiassa and myself, blaming others for your shortcomings and trying to bolster your religious beliefs about when life commences is, well, dishonest of you.

Thirdly, by bringing up my son, what is your point? I made the active and valid choice to have my son, Sir. Not you, not anyone else. But me. Since it was my body.

Let me reiterate that, just for you.

I made the choice to continue with the pregnancy and have my son.

Is that clear for you?

Do you understand the concept and notion of choice now?

If I had decided to end that pregnancy, it would have been within my human rights to do so and it would have been within my rights as the bearer of that foetus which later became my son.

It was my choice.

So you how do you rationalize the cerebral palsy that Gianna received from the choice her mother made?
(or do you rationalize that she received the condition as a consequence of her being born in the absence of a doctor authorized to carry out abortions?)
Do you feel her rights have been violated in any manner?

 

[Neverfly]

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuous..

Yes, you are, but let's stay on topic.

Firstly, you do know and understand the difference between a live child and a foetus, yes?

Because if you cannot, then discussing this with you is pointless.

I do; you don't.
Pointlessness- fascinating.

trying to bolster your religious beliefs about when life commences is, well, dishonest of you.

This is so laughable I cannot even begin. That I'm almost a Militant Atheist is very well known across all the members on the forum. And you attempt to claim I'm being dishonest- hilarious. This was probably the worst argument you could have made. Are you claiming I'm calling the child "Souled" now? What if it's a ginger? I'm glad to be an atheist that makes these arguments and to demonstrate that atheists in general are not so cruel and dismissive about human beings.

Thirdly, by bringing up my son, what is your point?

I made my point and I AM sorry that I stooped to that level. I will accept any moderator punishment for having done so.

I made the choice to continue with the pregnancy and have my son.

Yes. Because he was your son, Bells. Not a lump of clustered cells- Your son.

 

[Bells]

Most the b.s. removed...:

Would you like me to use smaller words?

That human life is human life and not trash for the dustbin? How dare they! I dunno, Bells... Seems like that is one hell of a strong position to fall back on. Unless you're ok with killing humans and from your words, it appears that you are.

I need to ask.

When do you believe human life begins?

As for killing humans.... Live humans..

When I joined the U.S. Army, I wondered if I truly was capable of taking a life. I was concerned that I might flinch; I might fail. I found out that tragically, I am capable of taking a mans life. I'm capable of killing men just as I'm capable of killing hogs or deer- I am capable of Killing to Survive. I can and will kill to save lives.

So let me see if I have this correct. You took umbrage at Mr Fraggle's example of a refrigerator, but you openly declare that you are capable of killing live men just as you are capable of killing wild animals... And then tried to round that up by saying that you can and will kill to survive. And yet, if a woman determines that she cannot have another child for whatever reason, lets just say she determines she cannot afford it and having it will impede in her ability to survive as an example, you would find that offensive or murderous? Or would you find that acceptable?

Yes, considering the stage of development and none of your religious-like denials will alter reality.

So when does it become "young children"?

When the sperm enters the egg?

I mean since you've skipped newborn, baby, infant, toddler and have decided to graduate immediately to "young children"..

What I've said made sense and was humane, unlike your arguments.

*Snort*

Humane?

By virtually determining a 15 year old girl as being a murderer because she used cocaine while she was pregnant and gave birth to a stillborn baby and then labeling a mentally ill woman who attempted to commit suicide a murderer.. this was you being humane?

Or were you being humane when you brought up my son into the argument and my reasons for having him? Was that you being humane?

Yes, it was valid and your distortion does not change that. You're claiming that one must prove that her cocaine use directly caused the miscarriage- which is impossible. You set that bar there as an act of dishonesty, to prevent being shown in error. However, I did show it in error with my links that you tried to make it look like did not say clearly, "Cocaine use CAN cause miscarriage." Unless all those links lied- you cannot accuse me of dishonesty, Bells.

Here is something I have noticed about you Neverfly is that the very moment you are unable to answer something on this forum, you accuse others of distorting the facts or or intellectual dishonesty.

I asked you very clearly to show me proof with links that her use of cocaine was the actual cause of the stillbirth. You showed me links that said that cocaine "may" cause placental abruption...

Yes, your reason of "politeness" is bullshit. You may call me Neverfly. No other title is appropriate.

Whatever..

I chose them just fine and your usual tactics of dishonesty do not change my words, Bells.

Here is the thing Neverfly. I do not change your words. I never have. Your words stand as testament to how you debate here. Just because you come off sounding as you do is your fault and no one else's.

Including living human beings.

And?

No, really, and?

You seem to believe you should be free to kill animals to eat and survive. And apparently do the same to actual living human beings. But a woman exercising her right to choose and you think you should get a say?

To put it as politely as possible..

From my womb (when I had it) to you.... "fuck off"..

Yes, but it's more fun to say it in front of your eyes.

Because of why?

See, no offense, but I find such exchanges strange. Do you think I or anyone else here cares about what you discuss with your spouse or say to her?

 

[seagypsy]

From my womb (when I had it) to you.... "fuck off"..

Since you have set the precedent that telling people to fuck off is okay, why don't you FUCK OFF?!

 

[Neverfly]

Would you like me to use smaller words?

Shorter posts would be nice, yes. These long drawn out multi-quote flame wars distract from the thread. This is why I remove as many redundancies as I can.

As for killing humans.... Live humans..
So let me see if I have this correct. You took umbrage at Mr Fraggle's example of a refrigerator, but you openly declare that you are capable of killing live men just as you are capable of killing wild animals... And then tried to round that up by saying that you can and will kill to survive.

Correct.
Did you read the whole post? Might explain a lot. See below.

So when does it become "young children"?

When the sperm enters the egg?

No and my posts show when. I've said it many times. That you ask this demonstrates your ummm wait, didn't you accuse me of lacking reading comprehension, etc? Hell, you apparently didn't know I'm atheist LOL

Humane?

Is sucking babies down tubes and crushing their heads humane?

Or were you being humane when you brought up my son into the argument and my reasons for having him?

I do not know. It's a reminder to you, that you vote on this issue and when it came down to it, your arguments that dismiss the humanity of the child held little sway when you called him, "Your Son."
It was cruel for me to do so, but I feel that it's necessary. I may apologize for it. But in the end Bells, you have the power to examine your words, your position and ask yourself the hard questions. It's sad that I put it in front of you and I hope I never feel the need to again.

Here is something I have noticed about you Neverfly is that the very moment you are unable to answer something on this forum, you accuse others of distorting the facts or or intellectual dishonesty.

No, nice try, Bells. I've shown your dishonesty clearly. My back ain't against the wall and I'm quite confident in the merit and validity of my words.

Here is the thing Neverfly. I do not change your words. I never have. Your words stand as testament to how you debate here. Just because you come off sounding as you do is your fault and no one else's.

Yes my words do stand, as usual... But in the meantime, you ignore some things I say (Dishonesty by omission) you claim I say things I do not say (Dishonesty directly) and you asked for impossible evidence to support something that is well known to be very dangerous to a child in the womb. Your tactics and words stand as a testament as well. So now what?

You seem to believe you should be free to kill animals to eat and survive. And apparently do the same to actual living human beings.

Hunting and combat.

But a woman exercising her right to choose and you think you should get a say?

The baby within is not an armed soldier out to kill her, is it? If the baby threatens her life, I pointed out in the post you quoted, and that you omitted in your quote- that she has the right to say. This is where you're dishonest. By omission and directly- both. This is an example of you changing my words- claiming I've said things I haven't and in fact, I've said the opposite. I repeat- You questioned my reading comprehension?

To put it as politely as possible.. "fuck off"..

Kinda like the "Mr." huh?

See, no offense, but I find such exchanges strange. Do you think I or anyone else here cares about what you discuss with your spouse or say to her?

Yes. I responded to her public posts for her excellent rebuttals. Whether ten feet away or ten miles makes no difference- the discussion was taking place here.

I find how you resort to so much ad hom attack, strange.

 

[Neverfly]

My rebuttal went to Mod queue so whenever it shows up...