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. seagypsy Banned Banned

    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?

    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.

    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!

    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!

    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 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.

    You are indeed a sexist aren't you. You make me sick.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    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
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neverfly Banned Banned

    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.

    Oh, and Tiassa? Try reading:
    Your interpretations and claims are, indeed, disgusting.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    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
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    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.


    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?
  9. seagypsy Banned Banned

    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.
  10. Neverfly Banned Banned

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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...
    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...
  11. Bells Staff Member

    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?


    Actually it does not.

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

    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?

    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?

    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, 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.

    Other states are already following along the same path.

    It is a terrifying prospect, isn't it?

    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?


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

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


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

    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.

    Speaking of dishonesty....

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

    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?

    Shall we look at what you said?

    Your words, not mine.

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

    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.

    You are aware that you can just tell her this in person, right?
  12. seagypsy Banned Banned

    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?

    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?
  13. Bells Staff Member

    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.
  14. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Most the b.s. removed...:
    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.
    Yes, considering the stage of development and none of your religious-like denials will alter reality.
    What I've said made sense and was humane, unlike your arguments.
    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.
    Yes, your reason of "politeness" is bullshit. You may call me Neverfly. No other title is appropriate.
    I chose them just fine and your usual tactics of dishonesty do not change my words, Bells.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Contents: Including living human beings.
    Yes, but it's more fun to say it in front of your eyes.
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Who do you think you are talking to, Seagypsy?


    Whatever floats your boats.
  16. seagypsy Banned Banned

    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.
  17. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Who do I think I am talking to? What is that? Some kind of threat?
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    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?
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Yes, you are, but let's stay on topic.
    I do; you don't.
    Pointlessness- fascinating.
    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.
    I made my point and I AM sorry that I stooped to that level. I will accept any moderator punishment for having done so.
    Yes. Because he was your son, Bells. Not a lump of clustered cells- Your son.
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Would you like me to use smaller words?

    I need to ask.

    When do you believe human life begins?

    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. 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?

    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"..



    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?

    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...


    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.


    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"..

    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?
  21. seagypsy Banned Banned

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

    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.
    Did you read the whole post? Might explain a lot. See below.
    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
    Is sucking babies down tubes and crushing their heads humane?
    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.
    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.
    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?
    Hunting and combat.
    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?
    Kinda like the "Mr." huh?
    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.
  23. Neverfly Banned Banned

    My rebuttal went to Mod queue so whenever it shows up...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page