Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

There may be no precedent. I think that is why he asks. It is certainly why I ask. What precedent do you feel should be set? Sure we are talking hypotheticals here but what IF a pair of conjoined twins, where one is parasitic turns 18 and the host twin decides she wants a normal sex life and can't have one. She feels her right to her own body is being violated. Perhaps her parasitic twin is in love with a guy who the host twin hates. The parasitic twin and the guy get married. In order for her husband to be able to be intimate with his wife, even if he is respectful to only touch the parts that belong to his own wife, the host twin still will be forced to participate in certain acts even if it is only by being present. What if they share a vagina? Sex with the husband would put the non married twin in a state of rape. What does one do? It's my guess that most twins simply compromise, but how? And what if they can't? How can a court take a side in the case without inflicting a terrible injustice on the one that lost?

This is the point that I believe he is trying to make. What precedent would you set? And what legal justifications would you give for said precedent? Keeping in mind that whatever legal declarations you make in this case can and most certainly will be taken out of context by a fanatical lawyer and interpreted in anyway she possibly can in order to make her case and possibly push a political agenda in doing so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is clear that you do not feel that the concern of women for their own bodily integrity is a real right that they are entitled to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

right. Let's not because that is not what it is. And unless the woman was actually raped, the presence of the fetus is the result of her own actions.

Again, unless she was ACTUALLY raped, it was her own actions that led to the presence of life in her womb. So it is not assault to accept consequences of ones own actions. If I shove a turkey baster full of fresh sperm up into my vagina because it feels good to me, who's fault is it if I get pregnant in the process? Mine. I can hardly say that there is an assault against me because I am held responsible for the existence of the fetus in my womb. I chose to shove sperm up there knowing I have eggs and that when sperm meets egg often the conception of a human fetus takes place. Just like a person should not be allowed to sue McDonalds because they got fat scarfing down 20 big macs a day while laying around on their ass.

We women,simply do not get to throw around accusations at people because we don't want to be responsible for how a fetus that we are at least half responsible for creating.

Right lets call it what it is, except in cases of rape, he advocates a woman taking responsibility for the fetus she has at least 50% responsibility in creating.

Oh wait, I'm wrong again, because he doesn't even demand she take responsibility for it unless she waits til it is past a certain stage of fetal development to make up her mind.

So yeah, stop twisting what people advocate to suit your ego. It's tacky and dishonest. And since you seem insistant in proceeding this way, I have no problem with putting you on ignore. I have no attachment to any contribution you may make outside of this thread. There are no unique opinions so any reasonable post you make in any other thread will undoubtedly be mirrored by someone else's. I consider all online existences to be expendable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So would it be fair then to call you a misandrist for your own remarks?

To both you and Neverfly: please lets not get back to what we were yesterday. Mudslinging, ad homs and the like need to stop.

 

It's not responsibility if you are forcing her to do something. Women either have the right to bodily integrity or they do not. If they do, then you cannot interfere with an abortion. If they don't, then just admit it.

 

edit - content superfluous Tiassa feel free to delete this... ( I didn't expect you to delete yours)

 

Tiassa, you attributed the quote to the wrong person. Neverfly did not say that. I did.

I have submitted a response to your remarks deleted post however in a separate post but they went into the mod queue.

ETA: assuming my response to the deleted post will also be deleted from the mod queue without publication, I assume this post will also be deleted since ... oh fuck i don't suppose some official remark is needed from me. I need an aspirin.

 

Does there need to be? I'm not asking you to tell me what others think, I'm asking your opinion. What do you think should be done in the case I described?

<chuckle> no, can't count that one...

This sounds like a dodge to me. If you cannot answer based on the premise I gave - say you do not know. If you believe that the primary twin body has more rights than the secondary and should have the right to choose the others death, say so. If you think that the secondary has the right to choose to live, even if that means he's using the primary twins organs, say so. If you don't know- can't decide, say so.
This mucking about is just that- mucking about.

 

First I said that, not Neverfly. Second, I never said it wasn't absurd. but an absurd possibility is still a possiblity. I'm sure at one point in time the idea that a woman would kill her children by driving them into a lake and then tell the police and press that a black guy car jacked her seemed absurd... until it actually happened. I am only considering All possibilities. I'm sure when lawmakers made laws to protect pregnant women from assault, the idea that the law would be turned around to prosecute innocent miscarriages was absurd to them as well, but the absurdity of it didn't stop it from happening.

That's an interesting concept. I can't disagree with it. But again, if that is the precedent, I can imagine an absurd fanatical attorney declaring that any abortion should require a psych evaluation. Actually, I think that argument has already been presented back in the 80's. I seem to remember, even as a little kid, hearing that a woman would not be allowed to get an abortion at any time for any reason without a psych eval and extensive counseling, which ultimately took the form of a pro life advocate wearing a lab coat inflicting guilt on the expectant mother for wanting to "hack her infant to bits with an ax". My mom contemplated aborting my little brother when I was a kid and I unfortunately watched the videos the doctors sent her home with.

it may make sense for you to bring this up if Neverfly had made the statements you quoted above, but he didn't. I did.

I will disregard this since you clearly have a situation of mistake identity and assume that the same person made all the statements you are referring to. Clearly you are mistaken and perhaps the fact that I am an independent reality from Neverfly, would help MY statements to make more sense, rather than assuming what I say and think somehow is dependent on what Neverfly says.

 

Edit: Due to Mod Queue the posting numbers changed. I reiterated what the post says by quoting myself in the next post below.

That is not what I said and I know that you know it. I said, can you make the question I asked in post number 209 make sense? It was specific, not general across all posts as you implied. As Tiassa was doing, you're avoiding it. You're dodging it. Can you provide an answer to the question in post 209 that makes sense?

They're called Easter Eggs.
The rest of your post misrepresents the "initiative" as men and women are involved in that stance. The claim that "men are trying to subjugate" was inaccurate and absurd. Physbangs posts are extremely derogatory and sexist and if you support them, calling me a misogynist for what I said in post 209 is equally absurd.

 

That is not what the dilemma in post 209 relays at all. You either did not read the post or you did not understand it or you are flatly refusing to do so.

I will repeat it:

It's not about how absurd you may think 1 minute before birth is- it's that the line drawn at birth is very arbitrary, that it allows the right to kill a brain at that point. It permits it. In the meantime, many of you advocating extreme Pro-Choice would be directly opposed to a law that allows or permits women murdering her husband if she does not want him.

Physbang, notice that at no time, in the above, were rights stripped away from anyone accept for when they chose to kill another person. Not for ridding themselves of a cluster of cells.

 

Yes, you are. Because you cannot make it make sense and you know it would undermine your position if you admit you cannot.
The premise is:
A woman may have an abortion up until the third trimester. She has that right.
Once the third trimester is reached, it's established there is another human brain involved and while she had the right to abort for two trimesters- nothing has been taken away that she didn't have, by choosing not to abort she chose to carry to term. She does not have the "right" nor does any of us have the "right" to kill another human brain frivolously. Just as if I sleep in and fail to go to work, I am choosing to lose my job. A choice by omission is still a choice.
Those that allow for that choice up until it's killing a human brain are avoiding answering this "Killing Problem." The killing problem being that the mother did have the right to choose but no one has the right to choose when killing another human brain. Since she could abort at any time for two full trimesters, the continued right to choose after the brain is established is what is idiotic, absurd and utterly contrary to societal demands- that we are disallowed from killing eachother frivolously.
If the mothers life is not in danger, (Self defense laws) she does not have the right to kill a human brain anymore than anyone else does (Accepting self defense laws).

Inaccurate. Physbang seems to be under the impression that I've advocated something I've not. I have addressed the "killing problem" repeatedly and putting blinders on will not alter that real problem.
The extreme pro-choice stance seems to be unaware their stance can easily backfire in the eyes of the Law, just as prosecuting a woman for a miscarriage can backfire. It's just as slippery a slope.

She was granted the right to an abortion. Once it reaches a certain stage where the human brain is established, she lacks the right already to kill another human brain. None of us have that "right." The only time any of us have that right is if it's self defensive and I support that, even in this. It's like you want to have your cake and eat it too, you want more "rights' than anyone is ever granted.

Wrong. Since she has the right to abort, nothing I have said endorses what you just claimed. The rest of your post was just reiteration of the same absurdity.
Again, she has the right to abort. You ignoring that changes nothing.

 

First we really need to stop stating what other people believe. Neverfly has said on many occasions that if the mother's life is in danger he does not feel she should be forced to continue the pregnancy.

Clearly all our posts speak for themselves. We do not need to tell readers how to interpret the words of another. Every reader is fully capable of reading what is said and deciphering for themselves what they believe the poster intended. If they have any doubts or confusion they can simply ask for clarification. The presumption that any one of us knows better what a poster intends than the poster themselves is a major source of contention and major cause of Hiroshima type explosions which create an environment where all involved lose site of objective rational discourse.

Neverfly has said on many occasions that if the mother's life is in danger he does not feel she should be forced to continue the pregnancy. And he has never specifically stated a change in that position. If you have interpreted an implication on his part that is between you and your own conscience. But there is no rule that states, because one CAN interpret a string of words to mean something, that it automatically means that interpretation is correct.

 

deleted by author -This (same post follows) was a duplicate that went to mod queue.

 

This post is in response to Fraggle Rockers excuses and attempts to rationalize what we all clearly saw take place. It is not on topic with the OP and so I put in spoilers so that readers reasonably frustrated with the off topic flaming and posturing can easily skip pass this post on to more relevant discourse.

Spoiler

No you haven't directly voiced an opinion about abortion itself but you have expressed your opinion of those who voice theirs. Maybe not the samething. But indirectly you have stated that men have no right to say anything about abortion. So yes you have expressed an opinion in the matter of abortion. You have stated who you think has a right to call the shots in abortion.

I didn't see anything directly stating that you merely felt men should not participate in discussion. You stated the opinion that men hold opinions on account of their penis. And you expressed the opinion that men hold their opinions because they believe the existence of their penis gives them to right to do so. If you believe men should remain quiet in these issues then why did you feel compelled to chime in on anything other then misuse of proper terms?

So you are declaring one set of rules for Neverfly and a different one for the rest of us? Because I, several times referred to the fetus as a baby and a child. But at least you are admitting that you do not fairly enforce rules. You will enforce rules against those you, perhaps don't like, but ignore those you have more respect for. Or maybe it is a gender based decision. Neverfly cannot misuse words because he has a penis, but I can misuse them all I want because I am the more deserving gender of female.

If you are going to start a thread? Neverfly did not start this thread. Your statement makes no sense. You are just throwing out a baseless accusation.

But I won't because I have in my possession a glorious vagina!

 

How is this relevant to the "killing problem" described above?

I believe that reasonable wording should be understood, not misunderstood. I will try to be clear as I can with my wording, so that one cannot claim that I intentionally misled them by defining terms.
A human brain cannot be denied for a political agenda.

Fair enough.

 

This, That, and the Other

At the outset, I would ask you to stop for a minute and think about the absurdity you're describing. Indeed, as an American, I can imagine laughter ringing from sea to shining sea until people got it out of their systems and were capable of taking the proposition seriously. After all, finding humor in extreme morbidity is a common ego defense complex.

But once people got over it and took the issue seriously, I think the first thing to do would be to get a psych evaluation. Not counseling to reconcile the twins, but a psych evaluation to establish competency.

Beyond that, though, I've got nothing new for you; I've already considered these issues in a prior post.

• • •​

As I noted in my erroneously-attributed response now deleted (but largely reproduced in the prior section above), you're now asking me to rehash what you've already dismissed as jumping through hoops.

• • •​

Note to Neverfly and Seagypsy

My apologies for the earlier attribution error.

 

I agree

Tiassa is fudging.


After going to great lengths to place similarities between having influenza or even cancer and being pregnant, he sure picked a bad time to start explaining how there are too many irrevocable differences between conjoined twins and the relationship between a pregnant mother and her unborn child ....