Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n14/david-wootton/separating-gracie-and-rosie

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?

 

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.

 

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...

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Who do I think I am talking to? What is that? Some kind of threat?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

Correct.
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.

 

My rebuttal went to Mod queue so whenever it shows up...