Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Nov 1, 2012.


Do I support this proposition?

Poll closed Nov 1, 2013.
  1. Anti-abortion: Yes

    0 vote(s)
  2. Anti-abortion: No

    0 vote(s)
  3. Pro-choice: Yes

  4. Pro-choice: No

  5. Other (Please explain below)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    When you were presented with all of the information required to avoid making the honest mistake from the outset? No.

    Whether you did it deliberately, or inadvertantly, you still misrepresented what was said. You also misrepresnted the meaning of the 24% figure - remember, my accusation is not based on a single event.

    I will admit an error when I have actually made an error.

    This is the point that you have failed to understand. There are other reasons available under the law - this is why I keep harping on about the significance of the inclusion of mental health in the law, versus its complete absence in the statistics. That's the thing about 'mental health' and claiming that the abortion is for reasons of mental health. How do you prove that carrying a pregnancy to full term will cause permanent damage to mental health? Well, in some cases it's obvious, but in other cases, you would have to settle for a credible threat - an example might be peripartum psychosis or peripartum depression.

    My experience suggests that convincing a Dr that a credible threat of permanent damage to your mental health due to any event can come down to choosing a sympathetic Dr.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Neverfly Banned Banned

    In other words, it's not a person and it has no rights.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    It still does not defeat the actual fact that a woman has to actually have a valid health reason to get an abortion in the third trimester.

    In that when you tried to claim erroneously earlier that women could apparently just change their minds at any point in the third trimester and then tried to use the obscenely stupid 1 minute rule as an example, you were wrong. Because a) It is not permitted and b) What woman do you know, in her right mind, would agree to put up with two trimesters of pregnancy and then change her mind for reasons that does not include her health but because she just cannot be bothered anymore? No, really, what woman would do this?

    The examples you tried to cite included teenage girls who even you described as being desperate because they could not get access to an abortion earlier and then you tried to cite the case of young girls and young women who suffer a form of mental illness where they cannot even acknowledge that they are pregnant as another example of their choosing to actively have the baby and then change their mind..

    You and your spouse then spent another disproportionate amount of time misrepresenting studies and lying through your teeth.

    The both of you are nothing but trolls.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Which I agree with. So let me ask- Do you agree with restricted (Health risk only) third trimester Laws?
    I never claimed that- at all.
    Quote me where I made that claim. You can't because I didn't.
    Context: We were at that time discussing the P.O.V. you had presented in which abortion/Right To Choose extended up until birth. I quoted you above on that, minutes ago. We were discussing your P.O.V.'s at that time.

    How do I know that? Because I already knew what Roe vs. Wade ruled. That's not a federal Law. It's left up to the states to determine whether or not to restrict Third Trimester.

    And Trippy, you defeated your own argument. Show what state includes mental health as a requirement in the USA.
    The statistics you gave show only those approved, it does not show what reasons were given for requested or unapproved procedures.
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I haven't defeated my own argument. You've missed my point entirely.
  9. Bells Staff Member

    If you grant personhood and rights to unborn children, then even in cases where the mother was dying, she would not be able to do anything to save herself if that meant having an abortion. For example, in Columbia, abortion even for the health of the mother is illegal. And this is what happens where you grant personhood to the unborn:

    Now tell me Neverfly, for all of your posturing and lies in this thread.

    Do you think this is an acceptable thing to do?

    Do you think that if a woman has uterine cancer while she is pregnant, that she should be denied the care and treatment that she would need to survive because it could lead to an abortion?

    Yes or no?

    Because this is what happens when you give personhood to the unborn. This is what happens when you give rights to the unborn.

    Then of course we have cases in Catholic run public and private hospitals in the US, where the Catholic church grants personhood to the unborn and women in the middle of miscarriage, some even going septic, are being denied basic medical care because there is a foetal heartbeat.

    That is giving personhood to the unborn, regardless of the trimester. This is the face and the result of granting personhood to the unborn. This is what happens when you grant personhood to the unborn, be it in the first, second and/or third trimester. For all of your pathetic and idiotic arguments in this thread and you and your wife's attempts to lie and weasel your way through this thread by being intellectually dishonest through the misrepresentation of studies to even the lies you have told about others, to the point where you wife saw fit to attack my personal life, marriage over and over again even after being asked to stop... So it all comes down to this. This is what granting personhood does and this is the pure and direct result of granting personhood to the unborn.

    Now tell me that this is acceptable to you.

    Yes or No.
  10. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Bells, you're contradicting yourself here.
    It's already established that the right to abort exists all the way up through the third trimester if the mothers life/health is in danger.

    Asking if those stories are ok with me, of course they are not ok with me- I've established that I support MANY TIMES throughout this thread that I support the right to abort late term if the life/health of mother is endangered.

    That is not what was being discussed: What was being discussed was not granting personhood in Late Term abortions where the mothers health was not at risk. You claimed no one would ever abort late term unless her health was at risk even if she was allowed to abort for any reason at all.

    For all your claims of lies and misrepresentation: Only studies were shown where the only permitted reason to abort was if her health was at risk. So none of them answered the question as to whether or not granting personhood would challenge the mothers right to self defense. None of them established what reasons may be given or used if a woman could abort all the way through for any reason she chose.
    That is why the studies were misleading.

    Edit to add: The second story covers a deplorable case in which she had an 11 week old aborted and the ruling by some Priest was that it was wrong to do that. That's during the time when I had already said, many times in this thread- that my opinion was she could abort for any reason at all. So asking me if I think that's acceptable is downright foolish. I've established that many times.
    Do I need to go through and count how many times I said it- including in many posts you refused to address my questions in?
    After Bowser asked us all to Clarify Our position, for example? First and second trimester, have at it, but once it has a human brain, only in cases where mothers health is at risk- how many times did I say it?
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    So lets get this straight :

    Because we can find examples of situations where personhood is delegated to the unborn baby, even at the expense of the life of the mother bearing it, all other examples where it is not done so at the expense of the mother automatically become redundant?

  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    The third trimester is the period between 7 to 9 months.
    Tiassa answers his own question in the same post that he stated it:
    I have repeatedly said my opinion"
    That 1st 2nd trimester - no established brain- full right to abort. Read my posts in this thread. It's been said so damn many times...
    I have said, I have a problem only with late term abortions.
    I have said, the mother has the right to self defense. Many times. If mothers health is in danger or the baby is deformed or would have a low quality of life that I support her right to choose all the way up until birth if needs be. I used the example of when I was in Combat- I had the right to defend myself even if taking another life.
    It's intellectually impossible that any of that was left unclear.

    The contention made (not by me): Mothers should have the right to choose no matter what the reason all the way up til birth.

    My rebuttal (Stated many freaking times): This sets a precedent in which we are granting a certain group only with the right to kill even when not in any danger.
    No other person in our society has that right.

    Rebuttal made against me: No one would have an abortion late term if they weren't in danger.

    Stats were given that mislead by showing results in areas where the mother could only abort if in danger- that does not settle the question.

    Read the link above that Tiassa had actually given. The 17 year old was in the third trimester and did try to kill it, out of emotional distress- she went to extremes. It allows people to get away with killing other human brains for a reason other than Self Defense. A girl cannot, for example, murder the girl that screwed her boyfriend causing her emotional distress- she goes to prison.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    And now to reply to your edit. I have noticed that you have a habit of completely editing and re-arranging your post constantly. Well here is the reply to this latest edit.

    When responding to a comment about why granting personhood would erode the mother's rights, you posed the question about women who would suspend the child's rights for a matter of convenience.

    Which has been shown to you repeatedly that you are incorrect and which you repeatedly ignored, lied about and disregarded all evidence provided to you. That was also the post where you claimed that you did not think it would benefit a rape victim to allow her to abort in the third trimester. But lets carry on, shall we? Other examples of where you claim that women are disregarding life for convenience in the third trimester and even other trimesters:

    Where you asked if a woman should have a child she simply did not want.. because again, a woman would get to the third trimester and change her mind:

    Then the next sentence you bring up what happens if she just wants to kill it in utero:

    Carrying on..

    You then use the 'amg she can abort up to 30 seconds before birth' and claimed we apparently justified killing because she does not want to be a parent in the third trimester. You then introduced your unsubstantiated claim that we apparently ignore these women who change their minds at the last minute and you then blamed us on resorting to "sick moms":

    Moving on..

    You again make comments that the mother gets to the third trimester and suddenly does not want the baby:

    You again mention the mother changing her mind in the third trimester and how you do not think she should be allowed to (again, you have no evidence that women do this and you tried to lie about it):

    I think this is only up to page 7.

    Are you still going to claim that you never made the claim that women could just change their minds at any point in the third trimester, because throughout this thread, you harped on and on about how you were against women aborting in the third trimester because she may have changed her mind. Studies provided and evidence from an abortion doctor contradicted you that women did not have abortions in the third trimester because she changed her mind and you then deny ever making such a claim?

    Can you be more dishonest? Carrying on..

    Page 8, where you again tried to use the argument that a woman could apparently just change her mind, and ask for an abortion 30 seconds before birth no less:

    Oh look, another reference of women apparently changing her mind in the last trimester:

    Because you know, women would go through 30 weeks and then change her mind for "frivolous reasons"...

    By this point, I think we can safely say that you have referred to women changing their minds quite a bit.. Regardless of the sea of evidence in front of you that this is not the case at all for women to get an abortion in the third trimester. And now you try and lie and say you have never said such a thing..

    I would keep going but frankly, having to wade through the crapulence that amounts to your posts and arguments in this thread one more time makes me want to burn out my eyeballs with hot coals.
  14. Neverfly Banned Banned

    See my post right above that long thing, Bells.

    WOW and you accuse me of dishonesty!
    Bells the context you used implied that I had said women could legally abort in third trimester.
    See that bit in bold?
    I told you I never said she could legally and I told you to quote me if I had.
    You quoted where I challenged your position of full rights up until birth no matter what the reason. Then you ask if I am claiming that I never claimed a woman might want to change their mind.
    Stop shifting the goal posts.

    No I never said that I did not claim a woman might have an invalid reason to abort. Nor was that the context.

    Jesus... you even quoted me where I said, "Not because her life is in danger and as an act of self defense, but as an act of callous murder when she simply does not wish to have the damned thing." While a moment ago- acting like I believe that the mother must die and posting long stories asking if it is ok with me that they did what they did...
    And you accuse me of dishonesty?!

    Edit: I give up... Those posts reported for such glaring and absolutely obvious intellectual dishonesty (even though reporting them will probably do no good.)
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    No. Granting personhood does not automatically result in the impossibility to set priorities as to whom to help first or the most.

    If granting personhood would automatically result in the impossibility to set priorities as to whom to help first or the most, then emergency room doctors, military doctors, firefighters, police officers, and various kinds of rescue workers would either not exist or their job description would be vastly different than it currently is.

    Normally, when the number of people who need help, or when the kind of help they need exceed the capacities of the rescue personnel, the rescue personnel performs triage: they decide which people and in what order they can and will help.

    Severe pregnancy complications are on principle a case for triage.
    The question is why those Catholic doctors don't perform triage in those cases.

    It would be interesting to know how those Catholic doctors respond to other cases where triage is needed: Do they step back and refuse to help at all, because they think that setting priorities as to whom to help first or the most would mean they are "playing God"?
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Yes I accuse you of dishonesty.

    I have stated from the start that in no way could a woman get to the third trimester and simply change her mind because frankly, unless she is mentally ill, I really cannot see how or why a woman would go through two semesters and simply change their minds as you have been trying to portray throughout this thread.

    And I have said this to you over and over again, provided studies and comments about third trimester abortions all of which support the fact that women would not just change their minds.

    My words were clear Neverfly. So you can try and weasel and lie your way through this as well. We have been putting up with your blatant dishonesty for what? How many pages is this thread? What is one more post of you lying? Lets face it, this is what we have come to expect from you.


    Actually it does set priorities since granting personhood to an unborn at any stage of the pregnancy automatically grants the foetus equal value in life as the mother.

    As has been pointed out, doctors in may public hospitals which are run by the Catholic Church are denied the right to provide 'triage' or emergency care to pregnant women if said care would result in the termination of their pregnancy. From hands sticking out of the cervix in a clear case of a miscarriage, to a woman who was septic and hemorrhaging, as soon as there is a heartbeat, personhood applies as far as the Church is concerned and thus, they refuse to allow doctors and nurses to provide treatment. If they attempt to bypass that, they are fired and excommunicated (as was the case with the nun who was excommunicated for approving an abortion to save a woman and I believe in that case, the staff involved in the decision and the treatment itself and the family may have been excommunicated also).

    One doctor refused to step back when presented with such a case and do actually treat their patients:

    To me, that is a horrific situation in any circumstance.

    Personhood means terminating that "person's life", even in the case of the mother's health being in danger, will mean that it will be murder. So Catholic run hospitals deem any form of abortion to be murder, since they believe life begins at conception and what they are doing is denying treatment to women who are miscarrying or ill and need an abortion, if there is a foetal heartbeat present. So doctors either have to comply and gamble with their patient's health, or they lie about the foetal heartbeat and hope no one checks so that they can treat their patient.
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    it was already just explained how granting the status of personhood to an unborn child doesn't automatically mean the mother's health is no longer a valid concern. If there are various industries and professions that can manage triage, there is absolutely no reason why the same models can't function with unborn children

    We all know how much you hate catholics so it doesn't really matter how many case studies from catholicism you present - it still remains a fact that there are different approaches to the problem (even amongst catholics for that matter). Please try and understand, if citing a radical interpretation of a precept was sufficient to discredit it, the world would look even stranger than sciforums.

  18. Bells Staff Member

    What radical interpretation? If this was a protestant hospital doing this, my reaction would be the same.

    You can explain however much you want, unfortunately not all hospitals or belief systems are putting it into practice. Republics have already stated on repeated occasions how they do not believe in abortion, even in cases where the mother's life is at risk. This is not new territory. And Catholic hospitals, at least, have ethics committees in place which are refusing to treat pregnant women who are miscarrying if there is a foetal heartbeat and they are making these women wait it out until the foetus dies. By allowing the women to wait and at times, even to the point where they are septic and end up in intensive care afterwards, they do not consider the mother's health as being valid at all.

    The doctors in these hospitals are not allowed to provide any form of care for these women without the ethic's committee approving it first. In short, they cannot treat miscarrying women accordingly without the hospital's committee's permission and if there is a foetal heartbeat, the committee refuses, so the doctors either have to try and keep the mother alive until the foetus dies and try and stop the bleeding and her going septic or treating it as best they can, or they have to transfer her to another hospital that is not run by any religious organisation so that these women can get the life saving care they need.

    The report I posted states, that in theory they are meant to provide medical care immediately if the mother's health is in danger, regardless. However they are not putting it into practice, hence the report and why there was such a brouhaha about it not that long ago.

    It is an appalling situation.

    The case surrounding Sister McBride at St Joseph is a prime example. She was a nun who served on the ethic's committee of the hospital. A patient was brought in. A young woman who apparently had a few children to her husband and in this case, was in the 11th week of her pregnancy.

    Now Sister McBride was the nun who was in charge of the ethic's committee and she she approved the abortion, because it would have saved the mother's life.

    So Sister McBride was excommunicated, and so was the whole hospital, pretty much. There was no choice for this young mother. If she continued, she would have died. And because of that, because it was a "separate health problem", as far as the Church was concerned, the proper course was to let her die and not save her life.

    And it is not just the Catholic Church.

    At the Republican National Convention this year, the Republican party produced their party platform on abortion and was approved by the party going into the election this year:

    So saving the mother would mean murdering the child. The language is clear. This is what granting personhood from conception means. It's life cannot be infringed at all and when put into practice in Catholic hospitals, for example, they would rather let the mother die than terminate her pregnancy, even in the case of a miscarriage, because there is a foetal heartbeat.

    So while you can say 'health of the mother is paramount, etc', unfortunately those who apply personhood from conception disagree and as we have seen in practice, women are risking death as a result.

    I don't know about you, but this does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling at night.
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Yes, you do. You claim it repeatedly and did some weaseling above, didn't you? You claim it while I show it in your words. I think it's been sufficiently shown at this point, so I'm going to drop it. At this point, you've dodged, ignored every post where I showed your flaws and errors and asked you direct questions. That's all visible, too. I rattled off the post numbers.
    You know... I addressed that, thoroughly, with an example- given by Tiassa, above. I notice you did not choose to reply to that one. How Odd.
    Yeah... studies and a blog in a situation in which they only could have it done for health reasons, legally... You keep ignoring that little problem, too- because that's the crux of your "dishonesty accusation"- You certainly cannot permit yourself to admit being wrong. It might confirm that I wasn't dishonest at all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Ah yes, she must be Mentally Ill- diagnosed by Bells because Bells (a.k.a "we") is never wrong. Oh, by the way, only because you claim that after Trippy made such a big deal about it...

    That study you keep thinking was perfect? It showed no Mentally Ill reasons granted at all for later term.

    Have fun with the thread, Bells. Feel free to reply about how I'm so dishonest if you like. I'm confident everyone can see and form their own opinion.
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Not only did you not really address it, you still misrepresented studies and along with your wife, tried to pass those studies off as being something they were not.

    In short, you both lied and behaved in a dishonest fashion.

    And as has been pointed out to you how many times now? Women were only seeking third trimester abortions if there was something wrong.. yes.. legally. As Dr Tiller pointed out, no woman would seek a third trimester abortion because she wanted to fit in a dress (ie changed her mind at that point in time)..

    You have gone on and on about women apparently seeking third trimester abortions for convenience and have yet to provide a single study discussing it. Possibly because women do not abort in the third trimester for frivolous reasons or for convenience?

    The question was asked to you and you failed to understand it or to respond to it.. 'Barring mental illness, what woman would endure 30 weeks of pregnancy and then change her mind about wanting a child?'...

    You have failed to provide a single study which details women getting third trimester abortions for convenience. No, instead, in the studies conducted and from speaking to abortion doctor who did perform abortions in the third trimester, none of it was for convenience and all was because there was something wrong, either with the foetus or with the mother.

    And you did not even understand what I meant by mentally ill, did you? At all?

    You think the study was flawed because it failed to look at mental illness? They went with the reasons of women who presented. When you or your wife, whichever one of you tried to claim that the reason women get third trimester abortion for medical reasons was "busted" and a myth, all the studies showed was just how wrong you both were.

    The fact is, women don't just change their mind at that point and virtually all proof points to their being something wrong for them to get an abortion.

    Reading.. comprehension.. it does help..
  21. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Whatever you say, Bells

    Back on topic, now.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    This has nothing to do with granting personhood to the unborn.

    Granting personhood is not an impediment to perform triage.
    In a crisis situation, such as in a natural catastrophe, where the rescue team perform triage, yes, that can sometimes be interpreted to mean that saving one person's life means letting another die. But such is the reality of crisis situations.

    Those who are completely against abortion must be having some other reasons for their stance, reasons other than granting personhood to the unborn. It would seem they have overly idealistic notions about how life on earth should be.
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Only in your mind. But if you don't like it, maybe you should provide better stats.

    This is where reading compregension comes into it (again). Being able to read a passage and make logical inferences regarding it. It's an under-rated skill that sadly many people lack.

    Have another look at the portion you quoted. The key is right there in the first paragraph:
    The girl was emotionally blackmailed - emotionally abused, into terminating the pregnancy: "...after her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she didn’t terminate the pregnancy..."

    I wonder if, given that she has seemingly waited until the third trimester to tell her boyfriend she's pregnant in the first place, she might actually have wanted to keep it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page