fran17 wrote: » So there is a limit to a woman's right to choose and control over her bodily autonomy.
fran17 wrote: » Does that not contradict your entire argument.
jameorahiely wrote: » aloyisious wrote: » Sorry, for a moment there I thought Texan abortion law was, however temporarily, what we were chatting about. Seeing as it's about Europe, maybe this will fit the bill..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjStPTJgNbSAhUlD8AKHTsvCZUQFghaMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Feurope%2F6235557.stm&usg=AFQjCNG2oZLBmLBj6CI9_cz-oRu2zAGcjg You can talk about what ever countey you want in fairness. I never said not to talk about Texas. I asked what country do you think have good laws that we could model here? Ah yes. The word "Good". Somehow I missed that when I read what you wrote "like the rest of Europe". I ignored the word "good" as written by you in relation to the Guttmacher Institute seeing as how you wrote of it as pro abortion, something you seem to dislike. I regret if I mistook that usage for sarcasm on your part. Originally Posted by jameorahiely View Post What about women with no friends? The good old pro abortion Guttmacher Institute What countries abortionlaws would you like to see here? I thought we wanted abortion laws "like the rest of Europe"?
aloyisious wrote: » Sorry, for a moment there I thought Texan abortion law was, however temporarily, what we were chatting about. Seeing as it's about Europe, maybe this will fit the bill..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjStPTJgNbSAhUlD8AKHTsvCZUQFghaMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Feurope%2F6235557.stm&usg=AFQjCNG2oZLBmLBj6CI9_cz-oRu2zAGcjg You can talk about what ever countey you want in fairness. I never said not to talk about Texas. I asked what country do you think have good laws that we could model here? Ah yes. The word "Good". Somehow I missed that when I read what you wrote "like the rest of Europe". I ignored the word "good" as written by you in relation to the Guttmacher Institute seeing as how you wrote of it as pro abortion, something you seem to dislike. I regret if I mistook that usage for sarcasm on your part. Originally Posted by jameorahiely View Post What about women with no friends? The good old pro abortion Guttmacher Institute What countries abortionlaws would you like to see here? I thought we wanted abortion laws "like the rest of Europe"?
You can talk about what ever countey you want in fairness. I never said not to talk about Texas. I asked what country do you think have good laws that we could model here?
aloyisious wrote: » [ Ah yes. The word "Good". Somehow I missed that when I read what you wrote about Europe. I ignored the word "good" as written by you in relation to the Guttmacher Institute seeing as how you wrote of it as pro abortion, something you seem to dislike. I regret if I mistook that usage for sarcasm on your part. Originally Posted by jameorahiely View Post What about women with no friends? The good old pro abortion Guttmacher Institute What countries abortion laws would you like to see here? I thought we wanted abortion laws "like the rest of Europe"?
jameorahiely wrote: » :rolleyes: Well you can recommend bad abortions laws if that's what you're in to.
aloyisious wrote: » I await your "recommended" list.
jameorahiely wrote: » I don't have a recommended list, I defer to the pro aborts to provide the details of what changes they want made. But maybe they think there's no such thing as a bad abortion, am i right?
jameorahiely wrote: » I don't have a recommended list, I defer to the pro aborts to provide the details of what changes they want made.
jameorahiely wrote: » But maybe they think there's no such thing as a bad abortion, am i right?
Cabaal wrote: Don't try kid yourself, The anti-choice crowd are against abortions for non-viable pregnancy's as well.
stefanovich wrote: » I'm not. I am not part of any crowd, I just think elective abortion is wrong. If you don't want the child then it can be adopted by someone who is in a position to care for it.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Odd then that when someone does provide such details, you wholesale ignore them and their posts. It calls into question whether you do wish to have the details provided that you sit there claiming you want provided. If you say so. None of the actual pro-choice side on here appear to be though. I would not think you are "right" at all. In fact in the posts I have written, and you have engaged in your usual approach of wholesale ignoring, I have outlined a framework in which abortions could be said to be "bad" all the time. One wonders why it is you need to argue and attack against a group of people and ideas that solely appear to exist in YOUR head, rather than the actual groups that exist out here in reality. In fact with words like "pro aborts" you are not only inventing people and positions that do not generally exist....... you even have your own label for them that us out here in reality do not identify with. Your own little army of strawmen complete with their own moniker. Nice.
jameorahiely wrote: » Nozz this is both interesting and Halarious. You accuse me of ignoring posters, yet you freely admitted a couple of posts ago you didn't bother reading the previous couple of pages in the thread and asked for a summary.
jameorahiely wrote: » When bad abortions were being discuused you said "it had nothing to do with abortions" and I wad being "shrill"
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » As if there is some equivilance between not reading EVERY post on a 100s of posts long thread........ and wantonly ignoring posts that are directly specifically at you? Come off it, even by your usual standards that is a stretch of nonsense. You pretend to want to be told things, or read things, but when anyone writes them you whole sale ignore it. That is NOTHING even REMOTELY comparable to me asking for help catching up on an extremely long thread. The things you brought up about the incorrect disposal of medical waste IS nothing to do with the morality ofabortions. Medical malpractice while performing a procedure should not be used to indict the procedure. Such malpractice is no more relevant to the morality of abortion, than child slave labor used on clothing productions lines indicts the morality of buying or wearing clothes. They are ENTIRELY different things. That you have no arguments against abortion and so are forced to desperately cling to people who act poorly while performing or offering them, just shows how intellectually bankrupt and empty your positions actually are.
jameorahiely wrote: » How do you know they weren't aimed at you if you didn't read them?
jameorahiely wrote: » The thread is called abortion part trois. Not the morality of abortion part trois.
jameorahiely wrote: » Maybe if your posts aren't being responded to, you're not saying anything of substance?
jameorahiely wrote: » No point in jumping up and down complainting you're not getting enough attention.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » If you think there are posts that I have missed that replied to the ones I posted to you, then by all means cite/quote/link them. But this cloak and dagger "Oh they might be there, how do you know" canard is not likely to fool anyone..... except possibly yourself. Nor is it called "The standards of conformity to medical good practice while performing abortion" yet you still roll in complaining about fetal matter being tossed in bins. So in all fairness you are probably the LAST person who should be admonishing others on the thread topic, are you not. Or you have no replies of any substance to offer to them, because the points I make are entirely correct and you know as well as I do that you can not rebut them. No pointing telling met here is no point doing what I did not actually do.
aloyisious wrote: » Re changes in law, I thought you understood the change being asked for is the removal of the 8th amendment. Are you against abortions in general or just "bad" abortions?
jameorahiely wrote: » I wasn't the first to mention the Marie Stopes clinic. I replied to a posters who were already talking about it, but maybr you didn't resd their posts either?
jameorahiely wrote: » Anyway, enough attention for you!
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I do not care if 1 person or 1000 mentioned it before you. I replied to YOU and you are dodging that reply ever since. Simple as. And as dodges go "something here might be a reply to you but you missed it, how would you know?" is probably the weakest one I EVER saw on ALL my time on this forum. And I have seen some real doozies. But even then your dodge is a distortion because I am not talking about any particular clinic in my response, so OTHER people discussing that clinic is irrelevant to me. I am talking IN GENERAL about your move of complaining about medical malpractice while offering an abortion service as if it is relevant to the debate. Especially given you have the gall to admonish OTHERS on what the title of the thread is. The two are separate things. The ethics of abortion are entirely different to the medical ethics we adhere to while performing them. Proper practice, proper disposal of waste, proper processing of patients.......... are medical meta issues and if anyone is not performing adequately....... whether they are performing an abortion, cosmetic surgery, removing an appendix, or merely a root canal....... then that is an issue IN AND OF ITSELF, and nothing to do with the procedure they happened to be performing at the time. The issue here is that your arguments against abortion ITSELF are non-existent. Completely. But your strong emotional and/or religious bias against it forces you to grasp at any straws you can to indict it, or the people who perform it, merely by proxy. And this is NOT an honest move from you. As I said that is about as honest (that is to say, not honest at all) as saying the production or wearing of clothing is immoral because SOME people used child slave labor when they manufacture them. Indicting X with the crimes of people who are offering X is a move of sheer desperation and intellectual bankruptcy, and nothing more. So running away again then. Figures. It does afford another oppertunity to test out the old tongue in cheek "nozzferrahhtoo's first law of forum posting" however which I invented as a joke, but has since validated itself multiple times. It states the probability that a user will reply to you in the future goes UP in proportion to the number of times they type something suggesting they will not.
jameorahiely wrote: » Will you evet get real
jameorahiely wrote: » You complain when I reply to the thread.
jameorahiely wrote: » You complain when I don't reply specifically to you.
jameorahiely wrote: » You complain you can't read the thread because I'm too shrill and could somebody sumarise.
jameorahiely wrote: » You complain when the topic expands.
jameorahiely wrote: » Now you think you have asked me something that I'm dodging? I'm not Dodging anything.
jameorahiely wrote: » It's yoy that seems to find some of the topic uncomfortable to talk about
jameorahiely wrote: » But the you do this every thread.
jameorahiely wrote: » I should have predicted the shrill screech of you're dodging would start, ironically you're the one dodging. EVERY SINGLE THREAD
jameorahiely wrote: » Now you think you have asked me something that I'm dodging? I'm not Dodging anything. It's yoy that seems to find some of the topic uncomfortable to talk about judging by you list of complaints.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Never did that either no, that was YOU that did that and I merely showed that it is possible to respond in kind.
jameorahiely wrote: » I want more imformation on what the aim is.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Hi, thanks for asking. I think we all have 100% free right to autonomy in all things UP UNTIL the point that our choices and actions (or inactions maybe) impact on other sentient entities. At SOME point in the process after conception the fetus goes from a blob of living and developing cells to an entity with the faculty of sentience and consciousness. The moment this happens it becomes an entity to which I have to hold moral and ethical concern. Because if moral and ethical concern, and concepts like "rights", are NOT being hung off that attribute..... I genuinely have to admit I do not know what they ARE being mediated on. Our main issue is that we do not know exactly when this happens. There might not even BE a single moment when it happens. Like looking at RED and ORANGE on a rainbow.... we know where "red" is, we know where "orange" is.... but there is no single point where red stops being red and starts being orange. Consciousness is very much like that. We can identify entities that lack it entirely (a zygote or a rock)...... and entities that have it (you and I)......... but we can only make educated guesses as to exactly how and where and when such a transition occurs. So the best we can do is balance probabilities and likelihoods based on what we DO know. And everything we DO know tells us that the MAJORITY of abortions happen at a period in time when there is no reason to see the fetus as worthy of moral and ethical concern. And so it is a service we can, in good conscience, offer. But at SOME point it does make that transition. And in the absence of knowledge absolutes in this regard I think we have to do our best with the data we do have to estimate the best time we can as to when we have made that transition from a single moral entity of concern (the pregnant woman) to two of them, and act accordingly. Which argument? Is it possible you have me mixed up with someone else? As I genuinely recall no argument I have ever made that is contradicted by maintaining term limits on how long we would in good conscience offer abortions as a service.
fran17 wrote: » Really now,that is just a preposterous statement to make.The claim that human life,no matter which stage of development it is at,is in any sense comparable with a rock in unworthy of serious discussion.This human life possesses its own gender,its own unique DNA and blood type.These are all traits which naturally forming substances/minerals do not possess.This is a defence I never envisaged myself having to make but the case for abortion seems to be unique in its attempts to redefine the definition of a human being and thus deny the rights which that recognition bestows. The human heart beat begins at 6 weeks,by 10 weeks the circulatory/digestive/nervous systems are developing,by 12 weeks the limbs are well developed and the child makes fists with his/her fingers,by 16 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the child's entire body and nerves link these to the brain and he/she begins moving in the womb. So knowing all these facts and many more,Do you still maintain that your morals and ethics would be compatible with Dilation and evacuation(Dismemberment of the foetus with a surgical forceps)abortion?
fran17 wrote: » This human life possesses its own gender,its own unique DNA and blood type.
The human heart beat begins at 6 weeks,by 10 weeks the circulatory/digestive/nervous systems are developing,by 12 weeks the limbs are well developed and the child makes fists with his/her fingers,by 16 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the child's entire body and nerves link these to the brain and he/she begins moving in the womb.
fran17 wrote: » by 16 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the child's entire body and nerves link these to the brain and he/she begins moving in the womb. So knowing all these facts and many more,Do you still maintain that your morals and ethics would be compatible with Dilation and evacuation(Dismemberment of the foetus with a surgical forceps)abortion?
volchitsa wrote: » would you care to speculate as to why nobody ever suggests anesthetizing a fetus during miscarriage?
recedite wrote: » I presume being expelled from the body prematurely would not be a painful experience for it, even if it had full pain sensory awareness. It would be different if somebody was attempting to do a vivisection on it.
