Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Kidchameleon

....... wrote: »

None of this has anything to do with being pro choice.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The only person trying to introduce this red herring about "genetic legacy" is you.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not women have bodily autonomy which is what pro-choice is actually about.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea the desperation to redefine what prochoice means is not common but humorous when it occurs.

smacl wrote: »

Firstly, given your claims to being pro-choice,

I have already conceded that I am not pro choice. Respectfully, are you people paying attention to the thread at all?

Post #1097 (4 days ago)

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im not pro choice, im pro choice+

Post #1090 (4 days ago)

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So your saying that the "pro choice" label may change its meaning over time? That's fine. So I am currently not "pro choice", lets say I

am "pro choice+".


Pro life: no abortions
Pro choice: abortions within 12 weeks

Pro choice+: no time limit for abortion


Its all just labels. Call me whatever you want.

After these posts, I then discussed a suitable term for my position with another poster. So you can see I have the integrity to concede that I am not pro choice and did so 4 days ago. I dont know why you posters are constantly trying to put words in my mouth, I am being honest about the position I hold. Respectfully I ask that you try to show more honesty and integrity yourselves.

Kidchameleon

....... wrote: »

None of this has anything to do with being pro choice.

If you want to get into people being in control of their "genetic legacy" (which is not an idea I have ever come across, either academically or socially)

It is quite a common term. It refers to the genes yourself and your partner pass on down to your children. We are programmed to pass our genes down to our children.


Richard Dawkins:


Sex as means of reproduction is a fallacy as is the focus we commit to it. We don't reproduce our consciousness, just our physical data. DNA is the intelligent life-form that survives by parasitising the human host. Human consciousness, as it occurs in the brain's neocortex is a biproduct and disposable. We are not the star-players. DNA is. Transhumanism and biotechnology will allow DNA, as an intelligence, to supersede its current host.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have already conceded that I am not pro choice. Respectfully, are you people paying attention to the thread at all?

Post #1097 (4 days ago)


Post #1090 (4 days ago)


After these posts, I then discussed a suitable term for my position with another poster. So you can see I have the integrity to concede that I am not pro choice and did so 4 days ago. I dont know why you posters are constantly trying to put words in my mouth, I am being honest about the position I hold. Respectfully I ask that you try to show more honesty and integrity yourselves.

Except that all of that pseudo definition was based on a misinterpretation of what I had said, as I pointed out to you.

Pro choice+ is your own invention to justify infanticide and is no more convincing than a serial killer calling themselves pro euthanasia.

For instance you have failed to explain why the woman should be allowed to kill the baby but not the rapist, other than with some file about waffle about genetic heritage - which would presumably also allow fathers to kill children they hadn't intended to engender. And nor have you explained your time limits to this licence to kill - newborn? Six weeks? Twenty years old?

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How ironic it is to be lectured on the definitions of words in a thread where posters are banned from using the 'K' word to describe an abortion despite the fact an abortion, even at the early stages, is literally the 'K' word. Standing on a tapeworm is the 'K' word also btw.

Mod: Please use plain English. If you feel something will be in breach of the charter through use of a specific word, abbreviating that word does not make it any more acceptable.

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Genetic legacy is massively overstated. We seem to think that our entire genetic code is somehow unique and it is special to us in some way. In fact the variable portion of it, the bit that is ACTUALLY different between you and the next person, is minuscule. The majority of it, and it is a huge majority, is the same in you as anyone else. All the variance we perceive in our species around us actually comes from a tiny almost non-portion of our genetic code.

Many academics would disagree. Richard Dawkins for example. We are programmed to pass on our genes. If we were not, it would be a world full of cucks. Read the Selfish Gene for a start.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which just shows how little thought you appear to have put into this. Because the lack of specifics there is as horrific as your reasoning. The "if any" suggests that potentially you believe she can change her mind when the kid is 4 or even 40 and we as a society should pander to that and have them killed. That your reasoning on this issue is so weak that it not only does not suggest a time limit, but does not even inform you if there should even be one, should be telling to you. That it isn't.... is certainly telling to me.

I have already said I am still pondering the issue. These are important topics, it would be intellectually dishonest of myself to rush to conclusions.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Further nothing in your reasoning here actually explains why this should be limited to rape.

When did I say it should be limited to rape? I never said that. And I am not going to get dragged down a rabbit hole on this, I am simply pointing out that I never said it should be limited to rape. You are putting words in my mouth there.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Because if your reasoning is based on your above claim that people have a right to choose their "genetic legacy" then nothing in that reasoning explains why this is mediated by rape. Why can a person not have this alleged right in ANY act of procreation. Why, for example, should a mother not decide a year after birth of a planned baby, nothing to do with rape, that she wants to exercise her right to genetic legacy and undo her creation? That this right exists, or only comes online, in the context of rape is an example of that "arbitrary" nature you so wrongly accused others of yesterday. Your position is ENTIRELY arbitrary in this regard it seems.

If people have consensual sex, as I have already stated, they are responsible for whatever outcomes may come to pass. If you are having sex, you accept that you may become a parent. I would not advocate post natal abortions in those cases as there is no issue of passing down genes without consent. You make your bed, lie in it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And also when it comes to rape and your reasoning on termination of a child after birth..... what about situations where the man was the one forced into a sexual encounter. The woman goes through the entire pregnancy, gives birth, and by your reasoning the man should be able to demand she have that child killed.

I believe everyone should be entitled to freedom, except in cases where a crime has been committed. In that case, the perpetrator forgoes their right to freedom. If a woman commits a rape resulting in pregnancy, in my opinion, she forgoes the right to decide. A man in a situation like that should be given the same protection as we currently offer to women.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To use your own words back at you: Sickening.

Please note that from the perspective of a pro life advocate, you are sickening in their eyes. I'm sure you do not care, nor do I.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not a protected term however, so why should we give you the courtesy at all of that list when it is not on that list???

However I am afraid your use of the word Euthanized is about as accurate as your spelling of it. Which is to say.... not very. For all it's faults even Wikipedia manages to get the discussion of the term pretty well.

It discusses the "elements" that are required for something to qualify for the definition. You would do well to read it. And in general the term is NOT used to refer to killing one being to relieves the suffering of ANOTHER one different to the one being killed. In fact it notes quite the opposite as being true when it says "n particular, these include situations where a person kills another, painlessly, but for no reason beyond that of personal gain".



Infanticide works for me "a person who kills an infant, especially their own child." "Infanticide the intentional killing of infants."

The term seems to fit and unlike the issue we had with the now "protected terms" a couple of weeks ago.... is actually 100% accurate and is not just being chosen for effect or despite it having attributes that do not actually fit the thing being described. It, unlike the "M" word, does not have legality as a strict pre-requisite hence why it, unlike the "M" word, is actually a correct use of the term.

So no label required really. You are merely someone who is promoting infanticide within entirely arbitrary contexts of your own subjective choosing that you can not back up with any argument or reasoning.

I have responded to this issue with another poster so I will not clog up the thread again. If you need clarification please let me know.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

For instance you have failed to explain why the woman should be allowed to kill the baby but not the rapist

Because the rapist carried out the attack with the full knowledge of the consequences. The victim would not have consented. Why should the victim be forced to have this horrific persons child? Dont get me wrong, I would prefer if the situation was sorted during the first trimester, and the vast majority are. But in rare cases where the pregnancy might last longer, I simply could not have a victims life completely ruined.

volchitsa wrote: »

which would presumably also allow fathers to kill children they hadn't intended to engender.

You presume incorrectly.

volchitsa wrote: »

And nor have you explained your time limits to this licence to kill - newborn? Six weeks? Twenty years old?

For the third and final time, I have openly admitted to not knowing exactly when the time limit would be, it is something I am putting much thought into.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Agreed, I am pro-choice, that does not exclude me from having any other number of stances.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have already conceded that I am not pro choice. Respectfully, are you people paying attention to the thread at all?

I have been paying very close attention to all your twists, turns, contradictions, hyperbole, semantics, and general advocating of extremes views which you then try to position as "+".

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have openly admitted to not knowing exactly when the time limit would be, it is something I am putting much thought into.

Given that you've explored disquisitional avenues that seem rarely, if ever, to have been trodden down by anybody, I'm surprised that you've not had time to consider, or address, such a basic question.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Because the rapist carried out the attack with the full knowledge of the consequences. The victim would not have consented. Why should the victim be forced to have this horrific persons child? Dont get me wrong, I would prefer if the situation was sorted during the first trimester, and the vast majority are. But in rare cases where the pregnancy might last longer, I simply could not have a victims life completely ruined.

This doesn't explain why her life wouldn't be completely ruined by the continued existence of the rapist, which was my question. Why the baby (and remember you said even after birth) but not the rapist?

You presume incorrectly.

I wasn't asking your opinion I was pointing out an apparent inconsistency.
If you can't explain that, then fine, but then it's not my presumption that is wrong, it's your logic.

For the third and final time, I have openly admitted to not knowing exactly when the time limit would be, it is something I am putting much thought into.

And I would suggest that this is because you know that your position is untenable.

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you are having sex, you accept that you may become a parent.

Not in a world where contraception and abortion exist, you're not.

The above line was repeated ad nauseum last year by the most extreme of the anti-choice posters.

I think that says it all.

aloyisious

@Kidchameleon: what is the difference between being Prochoice and being Prochoice+? Is it that you see Prochoice+ as giving the pregnant woman more choice in abortion and terminating her pregnancy than being merely Prochoice? Please be precise and succinct in your reply.

I'd instance that a claim like that compares to a Christian person claiming to be more Christian that any other Christian person, something that exists only in the claimants mind.

Did you ever say here in any of your posts in this debate that you would NOT agree with abortion here after a pregnancy had reached a specific time in existence in the womb, eg:12 weeks, 20 weeks or any number of weeks at all, thereby putting a time limit on any pregnant woman having a choice on abortion?

Kidchameleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have been paying very close attention to all your twists, turns, contradictions, hyperbole, semantics, and general advocating of extremes views which you then try to position as "+".

I thought I was pro choice, a poster explained to me why I was not. I had the integrity to change my position on it. What other twists and turns have I made? Exactly, none.

*edit* would you rather I soapboxed?*

Kidchameleon

aloyisious wrote: »

@Kidchameleon: what is the difference between being Prochoice and being Prochoice+? Is it that you see Prochoice+ as giving the pregnant woman more choice in abortion and terminating her pregnancy than being merely Prochoice? Please be precise and succinct in your reply.

I'd instance that a claim like that compares to a Christian person claiming to be more Christian that any other Christian person, something that exists only in the claimants mind.

Did you ever say here in any of your posts in this debate that you would NOT agree with abortion here after a pregnancy had reached a specific time in existence in the womb, eg:12 weeks, 20 weeks or any number of weeks at all, thereby putting a time limit on any pregnant woman having a choice on abortion?

I have conceded that I am not pro choice by definition, I thought pro choice+ was more apt, apparently it is not. You can label my position however you want.


I would say that pro choice+ means having the option to abort without question at any stage during pregnancy & in extreme circumstances, post natal abortion.



To my knowledge, I have never said there should be a limit on the window of abortion.

Kidchameleon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not in a world where contraception and abortion exist, you're not.

The above line was repeated ad nauseum last year by the most extreme of the anti-choice posters.

I think that says it all.

I would not be happy with post natal abortion by two consenting adults. By all means, abort up until term.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have conceded that I am not pro choice by definition, I thought pro choice+ was more apt, apparently it is not. You can label my position however you want.


I would say that pro choice+ means having the option to abort without question at any stage during pregnancy & in extreme circumstances,[/b] post natal abortion.[/b]



To my knowledge, I have never said there should be a limit on the window of abortion.

There is no such thing as "post natal abortion" whay you're talking about is infantcide and honestly, if you are really advocating for this then i strongly and sincerely suggest you seek professional help!

That is in no way an attack on you im serious, if you think infantcide should be a thing then you have issues.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

This doesn't explain why her life wouldn't be completely ruined by the continued existence of the rapist, which was my question. Why the baby (and remember you said even after birth) but not the rapist?

I have explained several times, the baby in question here carries the rapists and the victims genes. The victim did not consent to having a baby with her rapist. It is unfortunate, but in an extreme situation like that, difficult decisions might need to be made imho. The rapist does not carry the victims genes therefore she has no say over his life. I am struggling to see what is hard to understand about that. We cannot go around killing people because they make someone feel uncomfortable. It is the fact that the child carries the victims genes that make this a special and unfortunate scenario.

volchitsa wrote: »

And I would suggest that this is because you know that your position is untenable.

It is a position that would not get voted in today. But who knows down the line? Even 10 years ago, abortion would not have been voted on in Ireland. Certainly not 25 years ago. Who knows what our culture might be like in 25 years? Fortunately, we live in a democracy, so if my stance is not the majority stance then, you will not have to worry.

Kidchameleon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There is no such thing as "post natal abortion" whay you're talking about is infantcide and honestly, if you are really advocating for this then i strongly and sincerely suggest you seek professional help!

That is in no way an attack on you im serious, if you think infantcide should be a thing then you have issues.

Unfortunately for you, post natal abortion, partial birth abortion, after birth abortion are all real terms in use. If you prefer, call it killing a baby, it is what would be happening after all.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have conceded that I am not pro choice by definition, I thought pro choice+ was more apt, apparently it is not. You can label my position however you want.


I would say that pro choice+ means having the option to abort without question at any stage during pregnancy & in extreme circumstances, post natal abortion.



To my knowledge, I have never said there should be a limit on the window of abortion.

Mod: Use of the term pro-choice+ to include killing born babies is a clear attempt to smear the position of those on one side of this debate using the smallest possible change to their chosen name. Please refrain from associating the words 'pro choice' in any form with killing of born babies.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, post natal abortion, partial birth abortion, after birth abortion are all real terms in use. If you prefer, call it killing a baby, it is what would be happening after all.

Those terms are just made up because infantcide is too horrible to contemplate. As i said, anyone advocating this should seek professional medical help.

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It is quite a common term. It refers to the genes yourself and your partner pass on down to your children. We are programmed to pass our genes down to our children.

Eh, I know what genetic legacy is.

What I have never come across is the notion that people want to be in control of it to the point of killing offspring!

And given what you have posted I dont think you actually understand Dawkins, or the Selfish Gene.

Igotadose

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Those terms are just made up because infantcide is too horrible to contemplate. As i said, anyone advocating this should seek professional medical help.

'Partial Birth abortion' is just a lie made up by anti-abortion to advance their agenda. It's a form of late-term abortion (20 weeks or later.) I remember it showing up 20 or so years ago, and sure enough, some rightwing tGOP fortced birthers from Florida wrote a law that eventually went up to the SCOTUS: https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin. Unfortunately the SCOTUS upheld the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

smacl

Mod: Reminder that as per this previous instruction discussion on infanticide is off-topic for this thread. Further posts will be deleted and sanctions dealt out as deemed appropriate. Thanking you for your attention.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Respectfully, are you people paying attention to the thread at all?

Respectfully, are you???? My post which you replied to here was not at all about you or even remotely directed at you. It was a general post about the practice of redefining the terms as a whole. You alone chose to make it about you.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Many academics would disagree. Richard Dawkins for example. We are programmed to pass on our genes. If we were not, it would be a world full of cucks. Read the Selfish Gene for a start.

Are you possibly assuming I have not? I read both popular science and actual science books all the time. You can rest assured this was one of them. I must add though not only did I read it, I understood it. So if you have any questions about it, just ask.

But by all means rather than vaguely name people you imagine disagree with me, try some actual direct quotes and citations.

And also try to be specific, what do you feel I said in my post they actively disagree with? I think you will find what I wrote is entirely accurate in fact. Not just accurate, but is in fact entirely congruent with pretty much everything you said while pretending to disagree with it. Nothing I wrote there, and nothing you wrote in reply to it, contradict each other in ANY way.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

When did I say it should be limited to rape? I never said that. And I am not going to get dragged down a rabbit hole on this, I am simply pointing out that I never said it should be limited to rape. You are putting words in my mouth there.

I put no words in your mouth there at all, you just pretended I did. I was pointing out that nothing that you have said so far limits your ideas to rape. That fact, and it is a fact, does not require that you at any time SAID it was limited to rape. My statement stands alone.

So in fact it is you putting words in my mouth here. Again.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I believe everyone should be entitled to freedom, except in cases where a crime has been committed. In that case, the perpetrator forgoes their right to freedom.

But that is not what you are advocating here. You are advocating that an innocent bystander to the crime forgoes their rights too. A position you are yet to defend in any way other than the invention of this "genetic legacy" nonsense.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have responded to this issue with another poster so I will not clog up the thread again. If you need clarification please let me know.

More dodge where you do not reply to my post contents then.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Because the rapist carried out the attack with the full knowledge of the consequences. The victim would not have consented. Why should the victim be forced to have this horrific persons child?

The victim is not forced to. The victim has the same option to avail of an abortion that any other woman has. The question is why, once the child becomes a sentient entity in it's own right, should our concern for the rape victim over ride the right to life of another.

Thankfully the window between when a woman can avail of an abortion, and when she can avail of a termination of the pregnancy.... is ever shrinking. So your appeal to what you admit is a very "rare" case is not one I see we need to be overly concerned about. And certainly not one that warrants removing the right to life of an actual, as you advocate.

Since you seem to admit it is vanishingly rare however, I wonder if you can provide any data and statistics on this? What are the number of occurrences? And under what circumstances did they arise such that an abortion was not sought?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have explained several times, the baby in question here carries the rapists and the victims genes.

It is somewhat an overstatement to suggest you "explained" this really. You have STATED it for sure, but explained it not so much. You see what you appear never to have done yet is explained how or why this is actually relevant. The variable part of our genetic code is minute for a start. And of that the mother only provides half. And that half is a new combination made up of a moderate randomization of her own codes but is somewhat unique in and of itself.

Cabaal

Anti-abortion people trying to mislead and lie to women....business as usual as always.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/30/revealed-womens-fertility-app-is-funded-by-anti-abortion-campaigners

Revealed: women's fertility app is funded by anti-abortion campaigners

The Femm app has users in the US, EU and Africa and sows doubt over the safety of birth control, a Guardian investigation has found

A popular women’s health and fertility app sows doubt about birth control, features claims from medical advisers who are not licensed to practice in the US, and is funded and led by anti-abortion, anti-gay Catholic campaigners, a Guardian investigation has found.

The Femm app, which collects personal information about sex and menstruation from users, has been downloaded more than 400,000 times since its launch in 2015, according to developers. It has users in the US, the EU, Africa and Latin America, its operating company claims.

Two of the app’s medical advisers are not licensed to practice in the US and are also closely tied to a Catholic university in Santiago, Chile, where access to abortion remains severely restricted.

Femm receives much of its income from private donors including the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a charity backed almost exclusively by Sean Fieler, a wealthy Catholic hedge-funder based in New York.

Fieler’s foundation has long supported organizations – and politicians such as the vice-president, Mike Pence – that oppose birth control and abortion. Fieler has criticized Republicans for failing to outlaw abortion, calling their reticence “the tyranny of moderation” in a recent editorial.

Kidchameleon

Luckily, 400,000 downloads in 5 years shows barely anyone is downloading it.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Luckily, 400,000 downloads in 5 years shows barely anyone is downloading it.

Barely anyone - just under the current total population of Cork City and Suburbs so hardly worth commenting on really.

Each one of those 400,000 people have been deliberately given bad information - how many unwanted pregnancies do you think were the result? 10k? 20k? 30k?

Kidchameleon

You may have picked me up wrong, I apologize. I am not defending it at all, I think the app and its message as well as its sponsors are repugnant. Perhaps a better way to illustrate my point is by comparing it to say, Watsapp (10 million users I think). Imagine the impact it would have with a user base like that. Even 1 unwanted pregnancy, particularly as the result of misinformation is too much imho.

Cabaal

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/31/netflix-and-disney-threaten-to-boycott-georgia-over-abortion-rights

Netflix and Disney threaten to boycott Georgia over abortion rights

Firms refused to comment on filming in Northern Ireland where laws are stricter

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/31/netflix-and-disney-threaten-to-boycott-georgia-over-abortion-rights

Is it obligatory on US State governors to sign into law bills passed by the State House? I'm looking at Louisiana's governor reported as saying [29 May] he will sign the state "heartbeat" law into effect. He's a Democrat office-holder.

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

Is it obligatory on US State governors to sign into law bills passed by the State House? I'm looking at Louisiana's governor reported as saying [29 May] he will sign the state "heartbeat" law into effect. He's a Democrat office-holder.

They all have veto power