Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Nonsense. Claiming that everyone on the continent would laugh their ass off at a serious question that has real and serious implications that many of us understood just fine and I even explained SeaGypsies points to you even though she and I don't see eye to eye on everything.
This is a rather absurd dodge, nothing more.

I'm asking you to give an honest and direct answer, rather than jumping through hoops.

Dude, that's no problem. Considering that member and I are sitting in the same room and talking out loud to eachother as we post. Although I may disagree with some aspects of how this debate is going, such as I definitely think you're dodging the very real concerns I brought up in post number 209 and 233. I think you're dodging the conjoined twin problem by playing it off as absurd or doesn't relate when it does by the basis of the extreme pro-choice viewpoint: It's ok to kill another human brain because it's using another persons body/organs to survive. These implications are very real and just as slippery as when Bells addressed prosecuting miscarriages.
But your honesty in moderation, queued posts and keeping who said what straight is beyond question- and complaint.
I don't care much about a mix up- but I would like some direct answers instead of beating around the bush. It's ok to say, "That's convoluted and I'm unsure of what to make of it."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hunh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I cant tell what you are saying.

With whom? Tiassa or Neverfly? It seems to be a response to Tiassa since that is who you quoted. But if you agree with Tiassa then the next statement does not follow:

This makes me think you were meaning to agree with Neverfly, but if that's the case then this does not follow:

This seems to be alluding to Neverfly; Since Tiassa challenged and discounted the analogies suggesting a similarity between flu or cancer and pregnancy.

This seems to be alluding to Tiassa, since Neverfly has agreed that there are similarities between the case of conjoined twins and mother and unborn child.

Can you please rephrase and be a bit more clear?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa mentioned earlier that being pregnant and not having the option of abortion was like having cancer or influenza and not having the option of medical treatment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

She's confused because you're attributing to Tiassa what I had claimed, actually. Which is a little embarrassing because I was being facetious when I said the flu... More out of frustration than anything else.

 

duplicate post as a result of mod queue... deleted by author

 

Below is the response (post number 230) I gave to your post which was ultimately deleted. I have crossed out the parts that are no longer relevant since you deleted.

Fair enough, I wasn't expecting perfection or anything like that. The question was posed only to demonstrate that issues like these are not simple, as I tried to clarify above. Even when I disagree with you, I consider you one of the most insightful people on the forum and even you are coming up virtually blank for a clear solution. The thing is, I may disagree with you on the detail of when exactly a person should be legally a person, but my biggest concern is that your own wording, like the existing laws intended to protect pregnant women, can be turned around by absurd fanatical lawyers to produce the opposite effect than what you intended.

At risk of sounding like Fraggle, we really really need to think about how we word things when we propose a definition for something as precious as person-hood in legal realms. Because for every well intentioned law signed into reality, there are a hundred or more absurd fanatical and powerful lawyers ready to pounce on any weak wording they can to turn the law on its head to produce the opposite effect than the law was intended for.

accepted

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That was Neverfly that did that, apparently being facetious as he stated above. Don't feel bad. Tiassa also got the who's of who said what confused. As crazy as this debate has become I doubt that it is hard to get confused.

 

Mod Note — On the spam queue

Mod Note — On the spam queue

I have no idea why so many posts from this discussion are getting dumped into the spam bucket. Apologies, of course, that I'm not getting to them faster. I appreciate your patience and, indeed, creativity in dealing with the problem. But, yes, it does seem an unusual number of posts are getting the shield.

Oh, right. You don't see the shield. But, yeah, it's a strange result.

 

The advantage we have is that we can hash out issues face to face. While we may appear to be somewhat on the same page on the forum or thread, here, face to face there have been some very heated exchanges over some rather dumb things that the folks on here have been spared being seen. They make the arguments between Bells and I look lightweight.
This advantage, though, is having had the chance to get our viewpoints to each be seen by eachother before you or I ever discuss them here. It's also in being able to discuss outside of threads- but that's always been rare except for very recently. We usually have plenty of other things to deal with and only can discuss the thread topics when actually in a thread. Due to working at home, it seems to be too often.

Considering the patience you must demonstrate in sifting the mess, I doubt you'll get many complaints. In addition the patience of understanding why folks post the same post over and over trying to get around the queue... As well as trying to follow a debate while doing all of that.

 

I can't imagine what a headache you are having with this. I have a headache and its just from imagining yours. I can't help but assume all the mod queue mess contributed to the stress of being able to remember who said what earlier. I'd say a prayer for you if there was a god.

 

Just stop. Please, for the love of the gods that don't exist.

 

Well, you quoted it twice. Next, time quote it only once. Or did you spasm on the mouse?

 

I meant to quote your wife's post as well. Call it a brain spasm.

 

Just buttering him up so he'll look bad if he gets mean to us, again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You wink, but don't think I don't know that's exactly what you're doing.

 

I'm not without sincerity. I've participated on some boards that were corrupt. I mean seriously, the Mods were corrupt. To witness first hand that even if I disagree with debate tactics that the abuse of authority seen here is heavily overwhelmed by what I've actually seen elsewhere...
It's refreshing to see the mod clear a post he may dislike intensely. If this situation occurred on several boards I've been on, it would have been deleted as spam and shrugged off as accidental.
The most we have here is some doubts of Fraggles threat- yet on any other board, even questioning that at all publicly would have led to a ban, probably permanently.
Many boards ban members then lie about the reason. Another board I'm currently banned on now is a ban based on a series of lies by that mod and to really make it worse, he banned another innocent member he disliked claiming that he was a sock puppet of me. It's pretty outrageous and I take it personally because I do not ever make sock puppets. And I bet that guy is pretty pissed about it, too. Corruption...
So on and so on. So, yeah, we bitch, and are not wrong to do so, at times. But over-all, the mods here are still way ahead of many.

Sometimes that needs to be recognized along with the bitching. And I had, in fairness, cussed Tiassa out just previous to the clap on the back.

 

As soon as the mods show the ability to accept criticism, then they can get their pat on the back. Until then, you're just stoking the fire.

 

This Post Has No Title

I want to start with this because you're restating my underlying point. Some apparently find recognition of such complexity a form of jumping through hoops in order to dodge.

I agree that these are complex issues, but at the same time, my recognition of complexity is being openly rejected in this discussion. In your opinion, how should one deal with that?

Here we come back to certain points I raised earlier:

• Conjoined twins: Whose body is it? What are the criteria for establishing such ownership?

• Circumstance of condition: A conjoined twin whose survival depends on the continued life of the other is a statistical deviation, whereas the physical dependency of a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus upon the mother is not.

• Boundaries of condition: While it is true that conjoined twins are attached, it generally does not exist inside the body of the other twin. This condition does occur; it is called fetus in fetu, and there is no happy outcome for the "person" existing inside the other person. A fetus in fetu is considered alive much in the sense that my liver is alive; that is, the cells and tissues composing its corpus are not specifically dead. A 2008 paper by Khalifa, Maximous, and Abd-Elsayed notes, "Complete excision is curative and allows confirmation of the diagnosis." In other words, the "person" within a person, the life within a life, is destroyed. But this is not the end of the consideration; as I noted earlier, "It's clear to most people that when two heads are speaking, you're listening to more than one person." In order to fulfill the hypothetical consideration proposed, the underlying question of how that works needs to be quantified and resolved. You make the point that these are not simple issues, and I certainly agree, but at least two others in this thread would appear to disagree.​

There is a larger general question, then, of how to move forward with the discussion if the complexities and nuances are merely rhetorical dodges. But more specifically, where I cannot subscribe to your comparison of mental health evaluations for abortion compared to separation of conjoined twins is found in these and other differences.

I don't accept that the mere fact of attachment makes the two notions equivalent. There are more issues to resolve, but some would suggest undertaking those considerations prevarication.

Meanwhile, the underlying question starts to seem redundant. That is, as Neverfly put it:

"If neither twin is in any danger, one twin is using the heart and one lung to survive, the rest of the body belongs to the other twin and that twin decides he doesn't want the smaller twin that has it's own brain attached anymore- removing that person would kill him, what is your ruling for that case?"​

I've long argued a dry-foot policy. Indeed, I'm uncertain how many times I have to repeat myself on that point before it sinks in for some people: You make it to the world, welcome to the world.

They've made it to the world. This, too, is a fundamental difference in my view, but I recognize it means nothing for those who respond to a question of the implications of LACP by insisting on LACP.

Frankly, I find the conjoined twins comparison rather quite stupid and desperate. In a discussion that opens by conceding LACP in order to explore the implications, the argument to establish LACP seems extraneous at the very least.
____________________

Notes:

Khalifa, Nisreen M., Doaa W. Maximous, and Alaa A. Abd-Elsayed. "Fetus in fetu: a case report". Journal of Medical Case Reports. January 10, 2008; DOI 10.1186/1752-1947-2-2. NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov. November 7, 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253549/

 

I have explained clearly where the similarity lies- which is why I've accused you of dodging it.

 

As I stated, picking an option that would satisfy most people. I don't deny that it is not exactly a statement that declares what is right in any specific case, but I believe in more cases than not, our laws are designed to satisfy the ego of the masses, not dictate what is actually right or wrong. IMO, right and wrong can only exist if there is a god to declare which is which.

Well, in fairness, I don't personally see a comparison for it, but my concern is for wording. I am trying to look at the propositions from the pov of a fanatical pro-life lawyer who is good at her job and will twist any even slightly vague wording to her advantage in order to overturn Roe vs Wade.

I agree. That is why we pro-choicers, even if we disagree on the details, who are against LACP need to word our arguments in ways that ABSOLUTELY no misunderstanding or misinterpretation can be made. The fact that their justifications for their demands do not hold water unless you believe in god, doesn't mean that we should be so lax in wording our justifications for opposing their claims. There are plenty of logical reasons to oppose it but we need to find the perfect wording to prove it. I mean if fellow pro-choicers can interpret holes in an argument, even when they agree with the basic premise, pro-lifers can have an absolute field day with us.

It may be stupid or desperate, but it is one that the LACP supporters have brought up and at least a few pro-choicer believe has some merit. I think it has merit but I do not believe it equates to person-hood at conception. In my case, the application of the comparison is not relevant to LACP claims. But it would be relevant in supporting opposition to late term abortion where the mother's life is not in danger. Also, judges do not seem to ignore or dismiss an argument just because one side feels it is stupid, desperate, or absurd.


[hr][/hr]

On a side note, you have used some expressions and/or statements that I have never heard before or am unfamiliar with the context in which they originated and am not sure what they mean.

"Complete excision is curative and allows confirmation of the diagnosis." - I realized you attempted to explain with your next statement but I'm still at a loss. Forgive me, perhaps I am a little dense.

"a dry-foot policy" - I think you defined this but I just want to be sure so that I am not making an assumption. Does this mean:

"you make it to the world,..."- if you are successfully birthed
" welcome to the world"....- you are afforded the same rights as any other member of the human race

Keep in mind, I am playing the role of the absurd fanatical pro-life lawyer waiting to pounce on any definition that can be broadened to cover something it was not intended to.

I'm sorry for being annoying, but I feel it is necessary. To protect oneself from a particular opponent, one must think like that opponent.