A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

The breakpoint according to whom?

Do you believe you have a right to set a breakpoint based on your personal beliefs on the womb of women? Just out of curiosity..

Some laws attempt to ban abortions outright and others have gone so far as to criminalize miscarriages and women are in prison for miscarrying. So which law do you wish to go with?

I feel that women should be the ones to make the decision about something that affects them personally and physically. I would not impose my own personal opinions on the bodies and rights of other women. I also think women are more than capable of doing the right thing by themselves and for themselves and yes, for the child they are carrying. I also think and believe that women should be able to access safe and legal abortions. Obviously, you think this makes me monstrous and evil. I think men like you attempting to limit women's rights to even their bodies are evil.

You were the one who used the sentence, you tell me what you think it means.

So what does this mean GeoffP? She decides up to the third trimester whereupon people wholly unconnected to her and her body and her rights decide that she suddenly loses all rights to decide for herself? She then loses all rights over her body? She then loses all rights? Is the third trimester the point where a woman's body belongs to society, ie, you and you get to decide for her?

In other words, women's rights and a woman's rights over her body is limited depending on the men and women around her as it is they who determine the extent of her bodily rights.

So the foetus now has more rights to her body and life than she does? Are you claiming society, ie you, have more rights to her body than she does? That the baby she is carrying is not hers?

Interesting.

Do you actually think women get late term abortions for fun? Nah, changed her mind, just kill it? Because your argument seems to go that way. What of a woman or young girl who is prevented from gaining access to an abortion earlier on? Should she be forced to have the baby?

Because what you clearly advocate is forcing women to have babies against their will.

Oh no, Capracus went with that for maximum effect.

Regardless of the fact that it was clearly shown in the thread that late term abortion providers (those that weren't murdered by pro-lifer's that is) won't abort a healthy foetus past 34-35 weeks due to the health risks to the mother. Those who do have them past that date are usually because of something severely wrong with the baby. And as those providers advise, women who abort in the 3rd trimester don't get to that point without having weighed up all of their options. They haven't gotten to that point because they changed their minds. A very large portion get past the 30 week point and then discover severe abnormalities with the foetus. As a woman who faced the fear of having a scan at 38 weeks and being told that there might be something wrong, I sympathise with these women and I understand the sheer terror. As a person who knows someone who went through it, who after having assembled all the nursery furniture, bought baby clothes, started buying nappies and wipes, to be told at 33 weeks her baby had very little time left and was dying inside her and who ended up having an abortion at 36 weeks and being spat on by people standing outside waving placards, I find your argument and especially Capracus' hypothetical to be offensive in the extreme.

Not only did his argument disregard the mother's position and her very existence, but it was framed in such a way as to insult the intelligence of all women. If you people can't even acknowledge the mother's rights and her existence in the debate, then really, why should I take notice or give it due credence? If you believe that a woman's rights are limited "up to a point", why should I, as a woman, give you the notice you feel you deserve?

Why do you feel that resorting to outright lying is a good way to go about this discussion?

So a woman who aborts her child in the 3rd trimester is a murderer? Is that the analogy you are going with?

And kindly stop lying about me.

So the DF policy is where the woman determines at all points and the DF policy is evil in your opinion, but the woman is not evil for asserting her rights under the DF policy that is what the pro-choice argument is about? That she gets the right to choose?

Oh my, talk about weasel wording on your part.

Well you believe that using such analogies based solely outside the realm of reality and which would kill both the mother and her baby and which does not even acknowledge the woman in question to not be sick. You also used murder as an analogy to discuss and compare with abortion. You don't think using such extreme language is sick in and of itself?

Who are you trying to convince here? I say that a woman has the right to choose and determine for herself. You respond with analogy's about murder. Capracus responded with an analogy that rendered the woman in the same position as a dead and plucked turkey. I too have absolute control over my opinions. And in my opinion, you are a hypocrite.

The central basis of the pro-choice movement is that women decide. Not you, not your opinion. Not me or my opinions. Certainly not turducken man and his sick and twisted opinions. The woman who is pregnant decides for herself. Now, within the realms of reality, without delving into sick and frankly psychotic and twisted fantasies about how to kill a woman during childbirth, why do you equate a woman's right to decide after the 3rd trimester to be somehow relative to murder, if your analogy is to be taken in light of this issue? What if a woman and her doctor get the dates wrong? Should she be forced to continue with the pregnancy because she finds out she's 29 weeks pregnant and not 24 as she and her doctor had thought? What of a woman who is forced to wait a month after going to try and get an abortion at 23 weeks due to lack of funds, did not realise she was that far along, inability to access an abortion sooner? Yes, there are laws that seek to impose waiting periods of up to 4 weeks in a bid to get pregnant women past the cut off point where they can legally access an abortion.. Should she be forced to continue with a pregnancy she clearly does not want? These are the real life scenarios that women face on a day to day basis and what you just compared to murder and what Capracus just reduced to 'can she wait until it's out, have the umbilical cord re-attached and stuffed back inside and abort it then?'..

I don't know GeoffP, when did you say that women's rights was an issue for religion?

Or are you now going to backpedal and claim that religious ideology, that as AI put it, resulted in people protesting and harassing pregnant women in front of health clinics, is not an issue for women's rights?

But I forget, you already did that when you tried to claim that abortion and a woman's right to choose was not about women's rights, but about ethics. "Who shall decide" indeed..

Just a reminder, GeoffP, women's reproductive rights is a central basis of "women's rights". And if you are going to try to deny that, then good luck to you.

If you deny women the right to abortions, even after the 3rd trimester, women who need or desire an abortion after that arbitrary timeline will end up either being forced to have a baby against her will and against her wishes or be forced into a position of acquiring a backyard or illegal abortion which could very well cost her her life.

Which do you think is a better option? Safe and legal abortions? Or forcing women to have a baby because her pregnancy has gone past an arbitrary line set at 27 weeks or a dangerous and sometimes deadly illegal abortion?

You know, try your best to assume that women are rational beings who know what is best for them and try to answer that question without resorting to stupid analogies such as the one Capracus tried to use and you tried to use by comparing it to murder rates.

Why do you think I should resign because I believe in a woman's right to choose? Is being pro-choice now worthy of being forced to step down?

 

I don't know. You determined it should be 27 weeks and then gave an analogy to murder in regards to women who have abortions in the 3rd trimester. Why should I bother taking you seriously at all?

Whatever gave you that idea?

I am of the belief that women should be allowed to control their destiny and are more than capable of making the correct decision for themselves. Why do you have an issue with this?

Not really. You either believe women are rational beings and capable of choosing what is right for them or you do not. If you choose to limit people's choices over their own bodies, which if we have it your way, women would be forced to have unsafe and illegal backyard abortions or be forced to carry to term. That is not my choice to make, nor should it be yours. I simply believe women have the right to choose. Simple as that.

I think any society that deems it essential to control women's reproductive rights is inherently evil and decidedly sexist.

Because as we have seen repeatedly, assigning personhood to a foetus has its own issues which often result in women being denied their rights, to the point of some women now being imprisoned for murder for miscarriages and stillbirths. Surely this cannot have escaped your notice?

The issue of viability is also one fraught with danger for the mother's rights. Viability is actually 24 weeks. 27 weeks is the start of the third trimester. By your logic, the 27 week or what you believe is the time of viability is the magic marker. Not all babies are viable at 27 weeks.

Then of course, if we use the viability mark as a means to determine the mother's rights based on the foetus fate or existence, or more to the point the rights of the foetus, then that would restrict the mother's rights and also her rights and her baby's rights to medical intervention should it be needed..

In other words, if a foetus is viable at 27 weeks, and its rights are now paramount, would the mother be within her rights to have an amniocentesis? Since it presents a risk to the viable foetus, such medical interventions could result in the doctor and the mother being imprisoned for endangering the person in her womb.

My point is actually quite clear. I think you should ask yourself that question.

If you limit the woman's rights to her womb up to the 27 weeks, then any medical tests she may need to have could be banned if it poses a risk to the 'person' inside her. It would also mean that she loses her rights over her own body regardless.

At its heart, it is an evil proposition for the pro-life lobby which deems her existence and her rights to be inferior and her child's rights to be superior. So I find your question to be misleading and hypocritical and disingenuous and similar to the ones used by pro-lifer's constantly. At 27 weeks, you deem the mother's presence and her very existence to be second nature. She becomes the vessel. You apply language like an extension of herself like her appendix on purpose. Well that shit isn't going to fly with me, sorry.

No I will not.

Since you are incapable of having this discussion without resorting to moronic and offensive analogies like murder, what is the point?

Well if you ban all abortions after the viability mark, and women are unable to access abortions after that date, then they would be forced to continue with the pregnancy, would they not?

Or are you going to deny that banning abortions past the point of viability and using analogies of 'murder' is not your real intent here?

And once again, stop presenting lies about me and stop lying about my supposed metaphors.

Firstly, stop lying.

Do not lie about me and do not attribute things to me that are not actually mine.

Secondly, the time factor and not getting the dates right is a common issue with pregnancy. It is always give or take a few weeks. Do you think women who find they are really 28 weeks and not 25 weeks as they had originally been told by their doctor should be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, yes or no?

Because this is what you refuse to acknowledge. When a woman is denied an abortion, then she is being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. Is this acceptable for you?

I think you should apologise for attributing something to me that I actually never invented or did.

You have consistently lied and declared that I invented the dry foot policy and you have consistently lied that it is my analogy. So stop doing it and apologise your repeated lies.

What I advocate is women's right to choose. You are applying murder and Capracus is applying fuck knows what to it. And you think I should take you at your word? You are incapable of being honest, as is clearly evidenced by your repeated lies about my words and me in this thread.

Perhaps you think I am stupid?

So the dry foot policy of woman's rights over her body is evil, but the woman is not evil if she exercises her rights to choose?

I personally think that abortion is wrong, but I would never ever impose my personal beliefs on other women because unlike you, I think women are more than capable of doing what they need to do that is right for them. Hence I am pro-choice. I believe abortions should be legal and safe and I believe women should not be treated or deemed or compared to murderers if they choose to exercise their rights over their own bodies.

I think prohibiting late term abortions and making it illegal will result in women being sometimes forced to consider extreme measures which has been shown and known to result in their deaths due to complications that often arise out of backyard abortions and if they are lucky, complications that may result in their being made infertile.. That is if they are lucky.

Does this answer your question fully enough?

I think it is more dangerous, and we know it is more dangerous because we have the reality and history of backyard abortions as a prime example of what happens when abortions are restricted and/or made illegal, to restrict a woman's rights to determine her reproductive rights.

Please tell me what "ideologies" you were referring to?

Considering you have repeatedly lied about me, declared and applied a standard to me that I never actually invented or came up with but was merely describing it, and since you are basing your opinions on what someone else has said and you clearly have not even read the thread or the discussions in which such comments were made, you are a fine one to talk about misrepresentation. Then again, this is something you do often.

How about you try couching your argument so that it isn't based on a lie in the first place?

Knowing you, however, you won't apologise for your repeatedly lying about me. So yeah, I guess I could say 'shove it' to this last statement of yours.

 

I beg your pardon?

Lets see, he attributes something to me that is not mine, he assumes and declares I am monstrous and evil as a result, and I should apologise to him?

What planet are you from?

What evasiveness? What dishonesty? What? Pro-choice is now dishonesty? He has consistently used women's rights to complain about certain religions and his use of ideologies when it pertains to human rights in this thread is suddenly not about religion? Really? He questioned that reproductive rights and abortion rights is women's rights and then he refuses to even acknowledge it and attempted to dodge it. He based his assumption on what others have said, he did not even read the thread. If he had, he would never have made the assumptions he decided to make.

Oh wait, let me guess, you're just here protesting for the sake of protesting because "gasp", I'm disagreeing with GeoffP and calling him out on his hypocritical bullshit he peddles. Shame on me. Or are you now suddenly pro-life because well, to be pro-choice would be to be on the same side as I am.

No, I won't apologise to him. I don't apologise to people who openly lie about me. I certainly will not apologise to him for lying about me and to me repeatedly even after I asked him to stop.

What is utter bullshit? My pro-choice stance?

Please Balerion, since you have absolutely nothing to add to discussions here except to complain, go away.

 

Oh, that was an apology was it? And slander you?

So this isn't slander? This was part of your supposed apology.. I'm sorry, but you expect me to take this seriously?

I see, in GeoffP land, this isn't slander.. And only in your twisted mind where using murder as an analogy to women's right to choose and women's rights in general is this an apology...

Your position is clear. You wish to limit a woman's rights over her body if she is past 27 weeks pregnant. I believe women should have rights over their body all the time, pregnant or not. You obviously disagree.

Had you read the other abortion thread in question instead of leaping on the 'amg someone is against Bells bandwagon' that you often do, you'd have understood my position right from the start. Instead, you have done what you do, which is jump on the popular bandwagon without any knowledge and understanding of what it is you are even complaining about. So much so that you are demanding I resign for being pro-life after you falsely attributed things to me and you continued to do so knowingly.

You have also joined the popular and disingenuous religious pro-life side of applying ridiculous analogies to women's rights.. All of which completely disregard the mother's right and at times, remove her from the equation. You are so desperate that you are even asking for the definition of the word "ban". Could you be more desperate? Could you possibly be more ridiculous?

No, I do not believe that abortions should be restricted based on the personal opinions of men such as you who have nothing to do with the woman's right, her life or anything to do with her. In short, your opinion is your own. You think abortion is wrong after 27 weeks? Fine, don't have one. But don't think that it is acceptable to impose your beliefs on the rights of women and it is certainly not right for you to impose it on their wombs.

You have clearly not paid much attention to the women's rights movement and the reproductive rights movement because had you done so, you would have clearly recognised the dangers of arbitrary timelines and what that often entails to pregnant women. But hey, lets not recognise reality. It's best to use stupid and moronic comparisons to murder rates instead..

Here's a little secret, well not secret, but what you clearly do not understand..

Since you clearly did not bother to read the other thread or take part in it, you have instead jumped on the bandwagon of the psycho who also failed to recognise what was meant by 'dry foot'. What dry foot means is that while the baby is inside the mother, her rights over her body and herself are paramount since you know, it's her body. Yet for some bizarre reason, pro-lifer's like you seem to believe that it means she can apparently abort during childbirth. When the response and appeal to reality is given in response, people like you protest because it doesn't fit into the twisted and frankly sick and perverted analogies you decide to dream up. Unless of course you think that past the 27 week period, a woman is solely deemed an incubator and her rights over her body should disappear? Dry foot policy is about the mother's rights to her body. It's not just about aborting at 40 weeks as so many of you seem to believe it is. But hey, since simply reading the thread where this was discussed is just not worth your while because heaven fucking forbid you do something honestly for a change, it's just better to jump on the bandwagon and simply abuse all you deem worthy of abuse and lie.

 

I think you have me confused with GeoffP. Not only has he lied and attributed things to me that I never, as he claimed, invented, but he also equated abortion with murder by the use of his analogies..

And what limits do you think should exist as a "pro-choice" Balerion. Please, enlighten me. Since you claim to be pro-choice and then advised that pro-choice can have limits, what limits can they have?

 

Or how about pregnancy not be criminalised?

Because once you give personhood to a foetus which often occurs with arbitrary time limits because the foetus is now deemed a person with rights, then the mother's rights go out the window and the result is often horrifying, from forced c-sections to imprisonment for not following a particular course of treatment recommended by a doctor.

Women are humans too and they also have rights.

 

Rigghhttt...

So he kept attributing it to me afterwards is what? A giant boo boo?

I referred to Capracus' analogy of 'what if you reattached the umbilical cord and stuffed it back in' to be what a psycho would say. Or do you disagree?

So you can't answer the question?

What limits do you think should there be to "pro-choice"?

It's not a hard question. GeoffP clearly stated he believes his limit is 27 weeks, which I agree with on the basis that applying an arbitrary limit will often result in women being jailed for endangering the 'person' she is carrying and it will also mean that women will endanger their lives by having backyard abortions and it is why I think abortions should be legal and safe for women who seek to have them.

So what would you propose?