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. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    True. But it wont happen 'til you bring the two together. We are discussing the product of conception.


    No, spilling your sperm on the floor is far from sucking the life out of a uterus, regardless of what Catholics might believe. There's a vast difference between conception and the individual components that make it happen. When they come together, you have the start of life.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    At no time did I justify cocaine use. Ever. You, on the other hand, seem to believe, without any actual proof that the cocaine caused the still birth, deemed it the cause of the stillbirth. Even with the article discussing her case stated clearly that at no time was it proven that it had caused the stillbirth. At no time did I lie. At no time did I slander others by saying, for example, that they somehow support the murder of "very young children" when referring to embryo's. Do not project Neverfly.

    There was no re-interpretation from me Neverfly. At all.

    I was not the one redefining embryo's and foetus' to "very young child".

    If you cannot respond in a calm manner and instead feel the need to resort to slander and spurious accusations, it is no one else's fault but your own.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neverfly Banned Banned

    And stop with the re-interpretations and lies, Bells.
    I said that cocaine use Can/May cause miscarriage and I backed that claim up. You then went about the intellectual dishonesty of declaring one must prove that cocaine use in that womans case directly caused her miscarriage. I never once claimed that it directly caused her miscarriage and even said several times I cannot prove that it did. I pointed out that is impossible and unreasonable. I used an analogy of a drunken driver. If he hits another driver and that driver has a heart attack, then the drunken driver did not directly cause the death of the other- Cardio-Infarction did. It's absolute nonsense. In the meantime, you were dishonest by omission, failing to tell that the woman had been using coke when you reported the article and even claiming that cocaine had no effect whatsoever on the unborn- another point I refuted with quotes and links/citations. You maintained that claim by saying that one article supports that claim.
    Blatant denial won't alter the fact I've repeatedly shown you doing it. Just as I did, above.
    My wording included the last weeks of pregnancy while you three declare that it's not a baby at 30 seconds prior to its birth. You're bias here is very telling. It requires one to ignore the actuality of the being involved in order to justify your position. I find that unscientific and unreasonable. If you cannot post valid scientific arguments that show how a baby is a baby when it's born but not a baby 30 seconds before that- then it's an issue of dogma or semantics. It's not based on reality. This isn't just about a mother that may die, it justifies them killing out of a lack of desire to be a parent, as well. Something else that you ignore when you fall back on the claim it's only about sick moms.
    It's your own fault you choose to misrepresent what I said, Tiassa's fault he chose to call me a misogynist, Fraggles fault he chose to threaten members with a ban should they not word things in the manner he demands it.
    Continuously claiming that I am not posting in a calm manner will not detract from the lack of calm you have been demonstrating.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. seagypsy Banned Banned

    "advice" noted and determined to nothing more than a mod threat in an effort to suppress the opposition.


    His constant inability to agree with your perspective is what is really bothering you isn't it, Bells? Can you quote where he called an unborn child, very young children? I missed it.

    Sure you keep telling yourself that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You can constantly try to bait me into breaking a rule to explain where that was coming from if you want. But I won't give in. It had nothing to do with any current situations you are going through. I missed the part about you having a surgery. You can either accept that it stemmed from something different and keep demanding that I break a rule or not. I really don't care. I guess I can tell you which rule I am avoiding breaking....the one about posting PMs exchanged. I was responding to something in a PM. It was inappropriate for me to do that. I didn't however post quotes or names from the PM so the rule as yet has not been broken. I will say no more regardless of how you badger.

    Where? Links? you declaring something so doesn't make it true.

    I would suggest the same to you but I don't believe in suppressing the opposition.

    Um, are you not aware that the Nazi's are not the only people that use gas chambers? There are plenty of prisons in the USA that either do or have used the gas chamber as their means of execution. Sheesh, Nazi's eat, sleep and die too, are you suggesting that eating, sleeping and dying are all strictly Nazi behaviors? Good grief.

    interesting that you assume only nazi's have ever used the gas chamber. So who brought up nazi's? YOU.

    No, Bells, I am not a doctor. Good point. You are also not a doctor. So you cannot make any more valid claims in this regard than I can. Doctors are not always right. I was told to abort 3 times or I would die. I didn't abort or die. I guess doctors don't know everything do they. Doctors are humans, completely fallible. That is why they leave options up to us. They can give recommendations but they do not give orders. Because they don't KNOW either. I also feel a doctor that pushes a fear onto a woman is unethical.

    Can you provide links to any cases where late term abortion saved a woman, where absolutely no doctor feels that the abortion was not necessary. Late term abortion, from the way it has been described to me seems to cause as much trauma if not more to the woman's body than a c section or induced early labor. But what do I know, YOU are the expert. It's not like I have ever faced death in delivery. 2 times doesn't count. Maybe I should have faced death 5 or 6 times for my experiences to count as first hand.

    I don't put the murder on her. I put it on the doctor actually. Any doctor that manipulates a woman to killing a 3rd trimester fetus is, imo, unethical. You are welcome to view it otherwise. My doctors were adamant in urging me to have abortions. It was traumatic for me to deal with the fears they were projecting onto me. But when I asked them to explain the logic behind the need for abortion they went silent. None of them could give a LOGICAL reason for why I must abort in order to save my life. I find sometimes, Doctors just want the easy way out, maybe their work load is heavy, or maybe my pregnancy was high risk and too demanding of their time. Maybe they thought I didn't deserve a child due to my own terminal illness. Who knows what their motives were, but when asked to provide a logical reason for the pressure they were putting on me, they drew blanks.

    so no rebuttal then? cool. we are getting somewhere maybe?

    You see, if you were careful to always limit your arguments to when a mother's life were in danger, I wouldn't have gone that route, but you have argued in favor of abortion for any reason, such as being inconvenient to the mother. That is why I brought it up. Being late for work is inconvenient, and so is being pregnant, even to those who want their fetuses. But some inconveniences are simply worth it.

    And you are acting as if my participation in this thread is a conspiracy against anyone who debates with Neverfly. He debates in lots of threads. Many that I have no interest in whatsoever. He even tries to get me interested in threads sometimes to no avail. It probably annoys him that I don't take any interest in astronomy or physics. he starts to explain something to me that is being debated in a thread and I just stare at him like a deer in the headlights because I have no interest in anything he is saying and am trying my hardest to look like I am listening. I'm sure he does it to me sometimes too but we can't expect each other to share all our interests with each other. So get a grip. I defend him on rare occasion. And if this were Balerion you were attacking in such a dishonest manner I would defend him too. And Balerion was banned for a few days for using the tactics you are using here. Too bad I don't have those incriminating photos of the admin he suggested that I have . If I did, you wouldn't be getting away with this behavior now either.

    I figure if you and yours can take extreme liberties at how you interpret a person's post, such as you and Tiassa have of Neverfly's, I should be just as allowed to go to extremes in my perspective. Don't like it, then maybe you and your ilk shouldn't be setting the precedent.
    no more slanderous than his calling Neverfly a misogynist or a pro-lifer. And no more slanderous than you claiming that Neverfly doesn't see women as human. No more slanderous than any of the lies you and your ilk have perpetrated against Neverfly.

    I may not be calm but I am logical. Just because YOU cannot discuss this topic in a calm logical manner without spurious and abusive and slanderous attacks on people does not mean that the victims of your slanderous sprays must leave. Keep in mind, I have not ordered or advised anyone to take a break or leave. YOU are the one issuing those demands.

    I have a grip on myself just fine. You are just annoyed that YOU cannot get a grip on me.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Don't inflict your religious demands against me, Bells.Get a grip and stop embarrassing yourself. Really!

    I prefer to refer to HIS words to determine his position on the issue, not yours. I can think for myself thank you. I don't allow fanatical editorials to tell me what to think of what I can see and interpret plainly and easily for myself.

    I find it awesome that you can constantly tell me to get a grip but the one time I suggested that you and others were too emotional to discuss something you threatened me with moderation. I would appreciate if you stop telling me to calm down. I have. If pointing out the fallacies in your charges somehow denotes a lack of calm then you should stop trying to point out fallacies in charges as well, as it is revealing of your lack of calm.
  8. Neverfly Banned Banned

    To declare me a misogynist or antagonistic of womens rights is uncalled for:
    This is an issue where more than one set of rights is called into question. The rights of the unborn are also called into question and this issue has no clear cut defining lines. Too much depends on how one views the gradual development of the unborn.
    All lines must be rather arbitrary and by attempting to clearly define the lines, Tiassa set the precedent in order to justify his slanderous ad hom attack.
    Yet, it's clear that one defending the rights of the unborn is not within those invented and imaginary lines- this justification is absurd behavior. This is not an act of calm and rational thinking but one of dogma. To cut the line at birth, ignore science, is to behave in a manner that expresses fear at losing a political position.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Sunshine, Lollipops, and Rainbows

    You might disagree with my answers, but they are there. It's well enough to disagree with the logical foundation, but if you cannot tell me why you disagree, there really isn't much I can do to resolve the issue with you.

    What I find striking about our disagreement is that while you and Neverfly are busy insisting on LACP as irrefutable, unquestionable fact—even going so far as to consider a blastocyst a young child—the whole purpose of this thread is to explore the implications of conceding the principle.

    Yet you both seem to be blindly swinging away for the sake of a fight. Why the big distraction? Are you unhappy with the implications? If so, why?

    You need to go back and read the posts where the idea of arbitrary distinctions arises. It shouldn't be as complicated as you make it out to be:

    • One side of the dispute asserts that what happens in a woman's body is a woman's right to govern. This principle is derived from her specific, independent physical reality. In other words, that woman is a person who has the right to govern what takes place inside her body.

    • The counterpoint is that this is an arbitrary distinction.

    —We should note specifically that the argument in question is not whether or not a woman has the right to govern what takes place inside her own body, but, rather, that the boundaries of her own body are an arbitrary distinction. Thus, you can play the dutiful wife and make whatever excuses for your husband you wish, but yes, a specific implication of his arbitrary distinction argument is that your independent physical reality is an arbitrary distinction.​

    Nay, m'lady. I would think by this point the question of independent physical reality versus a dependent physical reality that exists within a woman should be clear enough, whether you agree with it or not.

    Let us clear up one thing that seems to confuse you.

    • These are not apples:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    • This is not a child:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Now, I'm perfectly willing to recognize that the difference between my nine year-old daughter who exists as an individual without being physically attached to the interior of her mother's body and that mass of cells above is somehow difficult for you to discern, but if that's the case, I think you're going to need to explain how they're the same thing.

    Actually, in many late-term questions, it is a matter of what other medical data says. As the Institute for Reproductive Health Access explained in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood and Gonzales v. Carhart:

    Women who have second-trimester abortions are from different races, backgrounds, geographic regions, and religious faiths. Of the women who provided accounts, approximately 30 percent obtained second-trimester procedures after their pregnancies were diagnosed with severe fetal anomalies. Less than five percent obtained procedures when their own health became imperiled by their pregnancies; and approximately 55 percent obtained second-trimester procedures for other reasons primarily because of delayed access to abortion services due to financial or geographic obstacles ....

    .... One of the tragic realities of second-trimester abortions is that many women who obtain them are carrying pregnancies that were entirely wanted. As many of the women note, tests to assess whether certain grave conditions or disorders affect a pregnancy cannot be administered prior to the second trimester. As a result, a woman whose fetus is critically impaired will often not learn that fact until well into the second trimester of her pregnancy. Often women learn, only for the first time in the second-trimester, of mortally serious conditions and disorders such as Trisomy 18 or Patau’s syndrome; Trisomy 18 or Edward’s syndrome; Cat Eye syndrome or chromosome 22 disorder; congenital CMV; or Turner Syndrome.

    As the women describe, not only are some of the initial diagnostic tests administered only in the second trimester, but confirmatory tests – essential to the woman making an informed decision – take additional time.


    The brief also notes that, "Beyond the time it takes to obtain a diagnosis, there is the time it takes to decide what to do when the diagnosis is devastating" (10). In many of these cases, termination pushes into the third trimester because the parents are still holding hope for a better diagnosis, or simply trying to gather their heads and figure out what to do.

    And should you choose to read through the brief, please note that, "In their accounts, individual women self-identified as Baptist, Catholic, 'conservative Christian', Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslim, Presbyterian, atheist, and "spiritual" (6). Additionally, "Some of the women who submitted stories identify as 'pro-choice', while others continue to identify as 'pro life'" (9). One was "completely heartbroken" by the cytomegalovirus diagnosis and her decision to terminate at twenty-two weeks (9). Another uses the sort of rhetoric you might recognize:

    We made this decision because we loved our daughter so much. We didn't want her to suffer the definite and the untold problems she was sure to endure, if she even made it. We made the best decision we could with the information we had. We fought for her. We wanted her. But we didn't want to condemn her to a life of agony.


    Or the woman who had already lost a son who reached six years, ten months after birth before his genetic condition killed him. Facing the same diagnosis for the fetus she was carrying:

    It took me an agonizing week to make this heartbreaking decision, but in the end I know it was the best decision for me, my family and most importantly, our child .... We knew without a doubt that we could never in good conscience bring another child into this world with that disease .... Most genetic defects come with their own list of extra problems ... and put that child at risk for painful procedures and even death. No child desrves to come into a world of pain.


    The brief notes: "Women repeatedly state that one of the main reasons they choose to terminate wanted pregnancies is that the information they learn in the second trimester confirms, if the fetus were to survive, its life would be short and fraught with pain" (11).

    So all the fluid was shown on the brain [and] stomach and [the physician] believed the baby had a very severe case of heart defect. And most likely – 90% chance that he was going to die in utero. . . . And even the 10% that he was going to be born he wasn’t going to live very far without, I mean, even with major interventions it was very unlikely that he was going to survive .... o at the time, we made a decision to terminate because I couldn’t—knowing the outcome of what was going to happen I just couldn’t carry on. I mean why put the baby through suffering if I can end his life and set him free of his suffering that he had to endure. That was our thinking.


    Call me crazy if you want, but I'm of the opinion that if you want to know why a woman chooses a late-term abortion, one really good way to find out is to ask them.

    Apparently, the lymph nodes didn’t seal off, and the body was filled with fluid. This fluid was pushing on all the organs, and restricting the growth of the heart and lungs .... She was drowning from the inside, and I was able to save her from that immeasurable pain.


    The brief goes on. It's a soul-scarring read.

    The physician . . . said if everything goes perfectly, [the child] will have to undergo 3 open heart surgeries and still will not have a long life expectancy. She couldn’t tell us how long she would survive. She said “it could be a year, maybe three, maybe ten. That is, if she survives the pregnancy to term, the C-section, and all the surgeries.” After the surgeries, she would be plagued with heart infections and would be constantly monitored at the hospital. If we were lucky and she did survive long enough to walk, she would never be able to run and play with her sister ....

    This is not the life we wanted for our precious little girl. Not only would she suffer her entire existence but it would have emotionally destroyed our other little girl as well.


    So the answer to your question—

    "Tell me something, if a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, does she not figure that out before the third trimester?"​

    —is that many circumstances push the decision to terminate into the late second and even third trimester, and as far as I can tell, in so many of these cases, it isn't a matter of an unwanted pregnancy.

    Perhaps that equals needlessly killing something that is alive (like a kitten, apparently), but if you do ever get a chance to ask such a woman that question, let me know what she says when you tell her that terminating her pregnancy served no purpose.

    One thing that is unclear is how many doctors would perform a late-term D&X for purely elective reasons; it is known that some do in violation of various laws, but late-term abortions are generally performed not because a woman suddenly decides she doesn't want to be pregnant, but because there is something far greater at stake.


    Coll Jr., J. Peter and Linda A Rosenthal et al. "Brief of the Institute for Reproductive Health Access and Fifty-Two Clinics and Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, et al., No. 05-1382, and Motion for Leave to File Brief Out of Time in Support of Respondents in Gonzales v. Carhart, et al., No. 05-380". September 20, 2006. NIRHealth.org. November 4, 2012. http://www.nirhealth.org/sections/howwepartner/documents/amicus-brief-womens-stories.pdf
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2012
  10. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Fraggle Rocker declared that he would ban any member that doesn't use terms he agrees with, citing a linguistic reason.

    Yet, my opposition in this thread just as unscientifically refers to a baby 30 seconds prior to birth as non-existent, nothing, irrelevant or a "parasite." Etc.
    For his linguistic justification, Fraggle Rocker would need to ban himself, Bells and Tiassa for their uses of terms.

    This threat is clearly a fallacy and uncalled for. It undermines rational debate and is a ham fisted approach to ruling through fear.
  11. Neverfly Banned Banned

    No it isn't. Nor have I ever claimed that was.

    However, Bells, Fraggle Rocker and even yourself have claimed that neither is this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You three have said this.
    Yet you're claiming I have said things I have not. Granting for misunderstandings- I've said it from the very first page of the thread. Claiming misunderstanding at this point would be absurd. I've said my position just way too many times. The position you three have stated requires dismissing the "Whatever name fraggle wants" 30 seconds prior to birth in cases where the child is simply unwanted along with times of endangerment to mother etc. That is the "right" to choose that you claim, yet it also makes a choice on behalf of another that you dismiss unscientifically that ends that life.
    Look above and again claim that is not a living human. That's not possible without rejecting science. It's just the way it is. The line is not drawn in a place that is politically convenient for you- so you disregard reality and science in order to place at at birth, to make convenience. I say it cannot be "made" so easily.
  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    So, Bells has enjoyed quoting where I said that as a soldier, I've had to face taking lives. When a man is bearing down on me with a locked and loaded firearm, my life is in danger. She omitted quoting the part of the post which shows exactly what I mean.
    When a mother is facing death during pregnancy, her life is in danger. I said clearly in that post that the choice is hers as the choice was mine in combat.

    However, if I dislike my neighbor, I do not have the choice, where my life is not in danger, in going and killing him simply because I do not want him living there.
    If a mother doesn't want her baby, you three are covering her killing it as a "choice" even though her life is not in danger. Why is that?

    Because the "Fraggle's preferred wording here" is inside of her, you have great difficulty drawing a line that is clear. We've established that is a problem in definitions. So, you must arbitrarily choose a spot and shove a line there. This allows a woman to kill because she does not want it, rather than her life being in danger. It covers too much- makes too much allowance. You then call this a "rights" issue while blatantly ignoring the science of the matter and focusing only on politics. I have pointed out that when it's developed - as above - not just a cluster of cells, it's too far gone- too far into its development to just dismiss to make your political position more convenient. If her life is not in danger, she doesn't get the right to self defense.

    And this defense is then used to claim I have said things I've never said, at all.

    This is not a discussion or a debate. It's absurd. Tiassa, you would do well to do less uncalled for and out of line speculating about motives and do more actual reading of others expression. It helps clarity to listen, rather than tell someone else what they are saying or why they are saying it.
  13. seagypsy Banned Banned

    I didn't see any answers, just ad hom attacks against myself and Neverfly.

    Quick question? Can you read? Neither of us have promoted that a fetus is a human life at the point of conception. That is a concept you are intentionally trying to project on both of us even though we have both stated repeatedly that we don't support that claim. YOU ARE LYING. We have both suggested that personhood should start in late term, I specifically said 3rd trimester, I think he may have suggested something earlier but neitehr of us have said AT CONCEPTION. Provide links and quotes proving that we said LACP is a fact or retract your lie.

    Right back at you. You both seem to be blindly swinging away for the sake of a fight. Why the big distraction? Are you unhappy with the implications? If so, why?

    I'm sorry, but I dont have the skill in distorting people's words that you have. I simply don't see what you are begging for me to see.
    Do you honestly think you're "independent" physical reality isn't arbitrary. I would love to see you try to survive without any other living physical reality. Put you somewhere where there is no other life and you will DIE. No one is and INDEPENDENT physical reality. That is the nature of life. It is self perpetuating.Complex life forms need other life forms to continue to exist. Don't like those implications? Why?

    I have no duty to stick up for my husband if I don't agree with him. Any more than you have the duty to defend any poster on this forum if you feel they are wrong. You assertions that I am controlled by him are inflammatory and insulting. Stop.

    I'm not, m'lady. My screen name is seagypsy, I would appreciate you using it. My perspective is clear to me whether you agree with it or not. So we are at an impasse. Can you accept that, or does allowing a different point of view force you to validate your view to yourself and others by ad hom attacking the opposition and lying about their statements. Why can't you just agree to disagree.

    You are right the second one is not a child. But this is, imo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You finally made some good points and without resorting to ad homs, well done. I still feel that often the death is not necessary. I won't judge the women who did it out of compassion for what they perceived to be their child, not a fetus, in light of high probability for intense long term suffering of the child. I don't know that I wouldn't make the same decision. But these points do not totally negate my points. In most of the cases you posted it was a situation where the fetus itself was in peril. Not so much the mother. Compassion for an unborn child is something I can relate to. I can't however relate to putting my own life or personal inconveniences ahead of an innocent viable living being, born or otherwise.
    I have expressed that if her life is in danger she CAN save herself. I don't always agree with doctors as they tend to avoid risks out of fear of lawsuit. But each case should be seen on a case by case basis. I do not support late term abortion rights when NO life is in danger. I do support abortion rights for any reason up until THE LAST TRIMESTER.
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2012
  14. Neverfly Banned Banned

    S.G., in Tiassa's defense, he hasn't been reading what I say, he's been listening to Bells interpretation of what I've said, it seems. Since I never called a blastocyst a young child, it's the only logical conclusion as to why he seems totally unaware of what I've actually said.

    Which isn't the best way to "discuss" or "debate."
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    deleted - double post
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2012
  16. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    I believe that I'm the only one in this conversation who places any importance on conception and its early product. I see potential there, even though it doesn't look like much. SeaGipsy and Neverfly have placed importance on the later stage of development. My personal opinion is that we are always under the influence of development. It never stops.
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Seagypsy, really.. Enough already.

    No, really.


    Enough trying to flame and bait me. It is not going to work. At all.

    His language is very much pro-life.

    No. He actually isn't bothering me.

    Why do you want him to bother me?

    As for his referring to the unborn as ' very young children', we see the first of it here:

    I queried it:

    Whereupon he confirmed his actual meaning:

    Yes, considering the stage of development and none of your religious-like denials will alter reality.[/QUOTE]

    And then after much to-ing and fro-ing, he gives a definite timeline of when it is a "very young child" because I had pointed out that he was describing an embryo as a "very young child", to which he aid no, that it was from 18-20 weeks of gestation when it has a brain (brain actually starts to function at 8 weeks, which I later pointed out to him when he edited his post. But here is his edited post (I responded to both the original and edited versions):

    Is that sufficient evidence for you?

    I don't need to. The record of this thread speaks for itself.

    See, I do not understand how or what my personal life or medical or personal issues actually have to do with you or this discussion. At all.

    Now, you accused me directly of apparently using it in some form or other to garner sympathy or pity in this debate, when I had not done so, before you then went on and described your own personal and private and current problems for reasons unknown. You did this. Not me. Not anyone else.

    I do not know what PM's you are talking about as I don't really chat with you via that medium unless I have to convey something to you in regards to something posted in Human Science. Unless of course this is how you speak to people via PM's if they were unfortunate enough to divulge something personal about their lives to you, then so be it. That is between you and that individual. It is of no concern to me or the subject matter of this thread.

    You did not understand his posts and responses to you?

    Tiassa's posts which are directed at you start from:

    Post 37

    Post 86 - Where he addresses your questions again.

    Post 107 - Where he again addresses your questions.

    Which part of his answers did you not quite comprehend seagypsy?

    You seem to have this need for me to be as upset and angry in this thread and about this thread as you are.

    Sorry if I cannot oblige.

    If you feel being told that you should calm down before posting is suppressing you...?

    My apologies. I had forgotten that the Government of your country also uses gas chambers to kill people and you are only applying local knowledge to such a matter.

    Sorry for the confusion and my mistake.

    Refer to above.

    And again, my apologies for not also recognising that your country also used gas chambers to kill people.

    You said:

    "In most cases, if the woman's life becomes endangered in the 3rd trimester, killing the baby is unnecessary and will be as traumatic as giving birth."..

    Quite a claim.

    Without any proof or back-up whatsoever.

    So I ask you, are you a doctor to make such a claim?

    And you give the response above..

    At this point, can I say, I dread the thought that you may actually come into contact with a woman whose life is endangered by her pregnancy because if you give her the kind of advice that you seem to think is correct which you posted and I quoted above, then the thought fills me with dread.

    I am not a doctor, nor do I claim to be one. I am also not the one saying that women in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy who find that they have a medical issue which results in their pregnancy putting their life at risk should not listen to their doctor's advice because you were apparently told to abort 3 times and did not and you did not die..

    Of all the dangerous and idiotic things said on this forum, this post of yours would have to be up there seagypsy.

    Your question does not even make any sense.

    Are you asking me to provide proof or links to refute the unsupported and unsubstantiated claims you have made?

    You can start here: http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/ - If you want to wade through the hundreds of bring you to your knees stories of heartbreak that women had to face in having to terminate their pregnancy for medical reasons, you are free to do so. The site is dedicated to women you just called 'child killers'..

    We also have the story of Ms Watts:

    If the ban were in place in 1995, Tammy Watts would likely be dead, she says.

    In March of that year, Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival.

    Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as "brutal."

    "Losing my baby at the end of my pregnancy was agonizing," says Watts. "But the way the right deals with this issue makes it even worse. When I heard Bush mention 'partial birth abortion' during the debates, I thought 'How dare you stand there and tell flat-out lies?' There is no such thing as this procedure! Why won't the politicians listen to us?"

    And here:

    When Congress first considered the ban in 1995, Watts testified on Capitol Hill. So did Viki Wilson of Fresno, Calif., who had a late-term abortion because the brain of the fetus she was carrying had developed outside the skull. So did Vikki Stella of Naperville, Ill., whose fetus had dwarfism, no brain tissue and seven other major abnormalities.

    All three women told legislators they owed their health to late-term abortions and that a continuation of their doomed pregnancies posed grave health risks such as stroke, paralysis, infertility or even death.

    Wow.. You didn't push the murder on her.. Just.. wow.. I actually feel embarrassed for you.

    So you view her as a murderer if she has an abortion out of medical necessity in the third trimester because you were lucky?

    Well how lucky for you that you were okay. Not every woman has that luxury.

    You must have applauded Akin's statement's then. I mean you are putting even pro-lifer's to shame here.

    No, I had advised my colleagues when you first started becoming abusive about this issue that I was waiting for the killing kittens argument. Unfortunately, you did not fail to deliver.

    In a paragraph discussing late term abortions for medical necessity and where you accuse women who are unfortunate enough to have to make that decision to save their own lives of being child killers... Sure..

    What tactics do you think I am using here?

    Not getting angry and emotional, slanderous, libelous and abusive and making false and spurious accusations such as accusing people of being serial killers?

    That's what bothers you the most, doesn't it? That I am not biting back.

    I am sorry seagypsy. You are not worth any effort in that regard.

    Your views are, frankly, dangerous and repugnant.

    My ilk?

    Who is my ilk?

    People who feel that women should be given the right to choose, just as you exercised your right to choose?

    Your attempt to flame have been duly noted, as have your slanderous accusations towards a member of the staff here that he is like a serial killer. As much as you can try and claim that Tiassa and I are supposedly misinterpreting Neverfly's posts or yours, the actual reality is that we are not and your posts stand as an embarrassing testament of repugnant attitudes and beliefs such as the likes of Akin and you have declared in this thread.

    Neverfly's attitudes are pro-life, something you acknowledged yourself when you accused us of apparently turning him into someone pro-life. And his attitudes are misogynistic, as are yours. And yours and the claims you have made in this thread are not just misogynistic and cruel, but downright dangerous.

    May I remind you, seagypsy, you have abused my personal circumstance and accused me of supposedly using them for gain in this thread, you also inferred slanderous things about me and then went on to suggest that Tiassa was like a serial killer. And you believe that this is logical behaviour?

    I advised you, politely to calm down before you return to this thread, because frankly, your embarrassing display has become a dangerous and repugnant one.

    Okay, I need to ask, because now you nave piqued my curiosity.

    Why do you have this need for me to be annoyed?

    Figure of speech escaped you?

    Seagypsy, we have come to the point where I am begging you to stop giving yourself more rope here. No, seriously.

    You have gotten to the point where you are accusing women who have medically necessary abortions in the third trimester of being murderers and have declared they did not need to have abortions.. You have accused Tiassa, without any proof or reason, of being like a serial killer.

    This is bordering on an SNL sketch of the ridiculous..

    And as someone who used to value your posts and found you insightful and intelligent, it makes me cringe and withdraw with horror and repugnance.

    I don't know how else to get this through your head.


    If I was, at any point, going to threaten you with moderation, it would have been made very obvious to you. And as much as you can try and accuse me of that, all I have asked you, for your own sake and everyone else's, is that you do take a step back, calm down before you return to this thread.

    In case you have failed to notice, you are drowning out other people in this thread and your posts are now bordering on, well, sorry, but Akin like with misinformation and dangerous propaganda.

    But okay, I will stop telling you to calm down. So please, knock yourself out.....
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Actually no, you referred to an embryo and a foetus as a "young child".

    And believe it or not, but Tiassa is more than capable of forming his own opinion of you and your words.

    So please do not make false and frankly idiotic accusations.
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    as I mentioned earlier , the whole idea of personhood is that issues like obligation are introduced to the discussion. Granted that medical issues can be severe enough for one to reneg on the obligation/performance of duty (like a fireman that doesn't enter a burning chemical plant to rescue people on account of the danger posed) but on the whole, non-life threatening medical conditions are no grounds for impeding the rights of another to the point of murder.

    perhaps if personhood and hence issues of obligation were not introduced to the discussion that would make sense. I mean its not like a school teacher can justifiably crush the skulls of her students with forceps and suck out their insides with a high powered vacuum because she is at risk of contracting medical ailments from them

    Yet we would equate a society that doesn't aim to provide him with such things short sighted to the point of being maniacal

    yet (as in the case of gianna jensen) crimes can be performed against his person (unless you think its possible to perform a crime against one's non-existence) while in the womb that affect his sleeping, eating and digestion

    I've got to ask whether you suffer from the same metaphysical difficulty when contemplating conjoined twins

    On the contrary, most parents (or even parent in the case of a single mother or whatever) would concede that they suffer a greater deprivation of liberty in dealing with a new born child than they did during pregnancy (what to speak of during conception). Regardless on whether you want to split hairs about the time and resource constraints of dealing with children, I think we can both agree that the cost is not so great that it becomes a free license for murder. In fact, we would probably agree that even the suggestion that it be feasible in a free and easy manner is despicable and the sign of a sick society

    I suggested that it would still be problematic due to the mixed messages society gives.
    I suggested that there are other avenues for society to go about addressing issues than mere persecution and prosecution

    It might pay to examine the issue of chain smoking and drinking by a mother as a bridging exercise to the problem

    On the contrary, most of this thread has been taken up by certain people explaining how an unborn child can't and won't and shouldn't be accepted as a person (despite the thread OP running with the suggestion "OK, an unborn child is a person)

    Instead they were refused rights on political grounds.
    IOW the connection between black slavery and pro-abortion is that the victims are designated a lesser/non existent state due to the use of political language that only effectively permits the offender into any analysis of rights, needs/interests/concerns etc.

    If however you want to focus on the metaphysical position of two living entities in one body, perhaps you can explain your position on conjoined twins

    This is the same sort of 19th century thought that relegated conjoined twins to freak shows

    reject mot definitely.

    Its plain that what we are dealing with is two bodies. One exists in a relationship of subsistence with the other (which will arguably continue to a greater or lesser extent for the next 20 years of their life).

    What you are presenting is simply the appalling argument of the strong over powering the weak

    Given that dereliction of one's duty as a parent towards a child (outside the womb) is also condemnatory through a variety of agencies (and not just the legal system), I can't understand why you can't think about this in a broader sense.

    I mean would you consider a discussion about ways to prevent mothers from chain smoking while pregnant a farce because its not tenable to install pregnancy scanners at places that sell cigarettes and prosecute the offenders?
  20. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Well you DID refer ME to your interpretations of Neverfly's words as proof of what he said rather than referring me to his actual words. I think Neverfly's assumption is fair. But if you want to call Tiassa a liar rather than misinformed or misled, be my guest.
  21. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Then you should be able to quote that directly - until you can, I'll say you're lying. You're simply assuming that your labels apply. As I understand the label, a fetus over 24 weeks is still called a fetus, but is still, by definition, also a young child. Unless you have scientific evidence that it is NOT a young child, (which you don't, this is an argument from faith and semantics we're getting from you) then you have no grounds to complain about it.
    However, I've never said an embryo was since I have been clear that the stage where there IS a brain is past the embryonic stage. You're deliberately seeking to deceive by misrepresenting what I have said.

    This is your dishonesty at work where you claim things I've not said, claim a position I've not held and in fact, have been very clear on exactly what my position is (which you recently quoted while omitting-dishonesty by omission- where I say my position and then pretended I'd posted a pro-life post.) As well as where you link to seagypsie's post as if she expressed agreement with your claim where she never did. As well as your ad hom attacks.
    Why link over to posts and comment with your interpretation of what they said is to misrepresent what they said?-Isn't it better, otherwise, to simply quote it?
    You avoid quoting the person. You link to their thread with a claim as to what they had said. Why?

    You even claimed I was trying to bolster my religious faith, then when confronted abut that- denied you had said it. When the quote was presented, you ignored it and moved on rather than having the decency to say, "Sorry for the misunderstanding." This demonstrates that you're intent is not to discuss or debate the topic but to rule the topic. Otherwise, you would be willing to examine evidence, rather than dishonestly distorting others words.

    Bells, again, I suggest you calm down. Step away from the thread. You're ad homs and clear disregard of other posters actual claims is a disruption.

    Lightgigantic has also voiced conception as the line drawn.
  22. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Oh, it's good to have company.

    Now, maybe you good neighbors should simply make a detailed statement that unequivocally establishes your position on abortion, to clear up any misunderstanding.

    People are arguing over points that seem to be, well, a distraction. :shrug:
  23. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Yes. it is, sorry.

    My position in this:
    -I believe abortions should be allowable early term. The reason for this is that although conception has occurred, the actual development is not human and the mother has the right to decide whether she's willing to allow it to continue to develop.
    -I believe that late term abortions, where the brain and nervous system are established (Offhand general time-frame is 22 weeks plus) should be disallowed if the mother simply changes her mind about motherhood- that, same as a post birth case, she's obligated. After-all, she cannot kill her infant 1 minute after birth.
    -I believe that in cases of trauma, danger to the mother or deformity or hardship of the fetus, abortions must be allowed, no matter when the term. As a man, no one can tell me I cannot kill a burglar in my home or an attacker of myself or family in self defense. Likewise, a mother must have the ability to defend herself from serious harm or life threatening situations, even if the harm is being caused by the fetus.

    These positions are the same positions I have advocated throughout the entire thread and anyone that disbelieves this may quote directly where I strayed from this position.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page