pjohnson wrote: » Yes but I was in the most part adressing a person who has repeatedly shown that she does not believe a foetus exists and seems to find it bewildering. She believes that from day 1 it is a baby which I think you can agree is just hilariously wrong. I think trying to break that news to someone is somewhat easier as a starting point. You've got to move these things slowly. You cant give someone advanced gymastics when they are just beginning to learn. Furthermore the fact that you admit that the statistics show that most abortions occur before a foetus is even developed does also crap all over the anti choice hysteria that full term babies will be executed. Most abortions occur long before thier hysterics. Facts really dont suit the anti choice side. But that doesnt stop them posting pictures of full term often born babies and claiming how abortion will "kill the babiez". Yet again propaganda trumps fact with that lot.
pjohnson wrote: » Yes but I was in the most part adressing a person who has repeatedly shown that she does not believe a foetus exists and seems to find it bewildering. She believes that from day 1 it is a baby which I think you can agree is just hilariously wrong. I think trying to break that news to someone is somewhat easier as a starting point. You've got to move these things slowly. You cant give someone advanced gymastics when they are just beginning to learn.
Furthermore the fact that you admit that the statistics show that most abortions occur before a foetus is even developed does also crap all over the anti choice hysteria that full term babies will be executed. Most abortions occur long before thier hysterics. Facts really dont suit the anti choice side. But that doesnt stop them posting pictures of full term often born babies and claiming how abortion will "kill the babiez". Yet again propaganda trumps fact with that lot.
infogiver wrote: » Your making yourself incredibly upset because I don't agree with you. You've gone to a lot of effort to dehumanise an unborn baby so that it becomes palatable to you to dispose of it because it has inconvenienced you. You becoming increasingly patronising and condescending with every post and I can only imagine how frustrated you must feel in your real life when you encounter real people making idiotic mistakes like Serena Williams during the week referring to not just her unborn baby but an unborn child!! And her only 20 weeks pregnant with a bunch of cells!! Carry on.
pjohnson wrote: » No its riotously amusing trying to explain what should have been thought in basic biology. I'm still using too many big words for you I'll stick with Serena since you like her.
Serena is not wrong I never said she is. She can call it an unborn baby or an unborn child or an ukelele or a fridge or a koala or a fire engine or John Lennon or a kalashnikov if she wants. None of that changes the fact that she is actually pregnant with a bunch of cells that is called a foetus.
You still seem to think that since you believe it can only be called a baby that makes it a baby for everyone. Science be damned lol.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't think that's been infogiver's position at all, .
One eyed Jack wrote: » I can't tell do you mean 'thought', or 'taught', as both words would make sense in that context, a bit like the terms 'foetus', 'baby', 'clump of cells', 'human life', 'unborn', 'pre-born', describe pretty much the same concept, and indeed are often used interchangeably (and that's just in the english language!). So you respect Serena's choice to refer to her baby as she chooses, but you still expect that she should give a tuppeny fcuk for how you want to refer to her baby? Don't get too hysterical about that, it's a common theme I've noticed among people who claim to support women who want to make choices for themselves... as long as those women's choices agree with theirs. Otherwise, they're apparently stupid women who should make better choices. I don't think that's been infogiver's position at all, whereas it's yourself who seems insistent that the terminology you use is the terminology that should apply regardless of context. Not so much science be damned, as "anyone who doesn't agree with me be dammed", but as I said earlier - an understandably common theme among people who proclaim to be promoting the rights of other people to make choices for themselves, as long as those people agree with the choices other people would make for them.
notjustsweet wrote: » Unfortunately it is. It's almost the only thing she says and has been since day one, it's the reason people get so annoyed with her. She disappears for a few days then reappears, quotes a post she agrees with and makes a snotty little comment that's derogatory to pro-choice, mentions the words fetus= baby and abortion = termination and usually levers in 9 month abortions along the way. It's an ongoing little game of hers that she seems to enjoy.
pjohnson wrote: » No its riotously amusing trying to explain what should have been thought in basic biology. I'm still using too many big words for you I'll stick with Serena since you like her. Serena is not wrong I never said she is. She can call it an unborn baby or an unborn child or an ukelele or a fridge or a koala or a fire engine or John Lennon or a kalashnikov if she wants. None of that changes the fact that she is actually pregnant with a bunch of cells that is called a foetus. You still seem to think that since you believe it can only be called a baby that makes it a baby for everyone. Science be damned lol.
notjustsweet wrote: » Have you anything to contribute other than bitchy comments and constant repetitions about your issues with wording? Genuine serious question? Instead of the obsession with what words people use maybe have a little more empathy and caring for your fellow humans.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Posters objected to an observable statistic that more unmarried women availed of abortion due to socioeconomic circumstances than married women. Their objection appeared to be based on their perception that I was inferring something untoward about unmarried women. I didn't make up the categories for these surveys and reports. I couldn't care less for a pregnant woman's marital status personally. It appears those posters who objected to my use of the term cared more about their perception of unmarried women who would choose to avail of an abortion than I do, and they chose to project their perceptions and preconceived ideas onto my observations.
infogiver wrote: » Probably the best thing to do is report the post you think breaks the rules and let the mods take care of it, lest you be found to be back seat modding
infogiver wrote: » ...and more condescending prattle as you become increasingly frustrated. Do you use that kind of patronising language in real life with people who simply don't agree with you and won't acquiesce to your demands or do you reserve it for your anonymous persona?
eviltwin wrote: » It's a developing baby.
infogiver wrote: » It was 20 years ago. From the day I knew I was pregnant she was my baby. When I went to my ante natal check ups at Holles St starting at 18 weeks the midwives would have used the expression "have you felt baby move yet?" and subsequently "have you felt baby move much?", even though posters here who claim to work in the oby/gynae world claim that only the expression "foetus" is used. I'm afraid no one told the midwives in Holles St that in 1997. It strikes me that a lot of the politics of the pro abortion lobby is tied up with terminology and phrases. For example, even though you are either "pro water charges" or "anti water charges" you cannot use the expression "pro abortion" . The lobby insists its "pro choice ". It's not aborting a baby or even a foetus, it's "terminating a pregnancy ". And it's definitely not a baby. The contents of my 40 week gestation womb is a foetus even though once it's travelled down the 4 or 5 inches of my vagina(sometimes quite quickly) it then becomes a baby. It strikes me that in order to "sell" abortion to the masses, the exhausting mental gymnastics is like a strict code to make it palatable to people, and there's a level of dishonesty there that's disturbing.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » So when a baby is born at 23 weeks gestation and is in an incubator, that's not a baby.. cause it's still developing? Ha. Be honest folks, the reason you all hate the word baby is because it brings home the reality of what abortion entails and that is that it takes a human being's life. Has fcuk all to do with wanting to be scientific.
oneilla wrote: » Skin cells are "human life". If human cloning by cells were possible then each time a woman washes her hands she takes a life. Absurd argument again Pete. Abortion is not infanticide - if you and others believed so you'd do more than post nonsensical arguments on a message board.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » ...it takes a human being's life. Has fcuk all to do with wanting to be scientific.
oneilla wrote: » I'm as pro-abortion as I am pro-kidney transplants, pro-heart surgery, pro-chemotherapy etc. You think ending a pregnancy (ie. after implantation) is infanticide. It is not. The comment about making abortion "palatable" in order to "sell it" is absurd and inflammatory.
Tigger wrote: » What is your deadline for abortion of a healthy fetus ? How many weeks in do you think it's a right for the woman and no rights for the fetus till? See that's my stumbling block I thorough I was pro choice and I think I'm 90's pro choice but 2017 pro choice seems to think abortions should be free and available for Mach later terms than I think are appropriate
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Can you define 'the unborn' please?
oneilla wrote: » Most abortions are earlier rather than later - abortifacient tablets can be taken ~9weeks in. Later abortions are more risky and at that point it's more down to the medical opinion rather than the woman's choice. Deadlines are a red herring. That people focus on terms to maintain the current regime imo. proves that they don't want to argue the Catholic line that implantation = human being, not-one-sperm, and all the other daft stuff the church believes around reproductive rights.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Poor comprehension. I said a "human being's life" - not merely 'human life' as you misquoted me as saying.
oneilla wrote: » Your opinion is that pregnancy is a "human being's life". You believe terminating a pregnancy is infanticide ie. murdering a baby. It's not.
Tigger wrote: » What if you shot a woman in the womb the day before her due date and the fetus dies Is that the same as shooting the baby the next day after it was born or much less bad cos it seems the same to me
notjustsweet wrote: » It's not in law which is what matters. She would be shot in the stomach not in "the womb" as she's still one person with one body.
notjustsweet wrote: » If you shot the baby the day after it was born you wouldn't have shot the woman in the stomach anymore would you? Or if you did it'd be two shots. Two separate people, no longer one. Think about it.
Tigger wrote: » Sorry that doesn't make any sense Your stomach is part of your digestive system. I'll say again shot in the woman who is going to have a baby tomorrow's womb, not the stomach in the abdomen yes but not the womb. And surely the existing law is irrelevant when discussing changing the law is it not ? I'm referring to materially or morally
