The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

infogiver · 29-04-2017 10:28PM

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.

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.

One eyed Jack · 29-04-2017 10:35PM

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.

I believe from day one it's a baby too, and I'm not wrong. I've met men who claim they are women, I'm not going to tell them they're wrong either, even if science is more on my side than theirs. The gender recognition act says they're right too. I hope that's not going too fast for you that you can't understand the influence of context upon understanding in a discussion. I'm not too bothered what someone else may refer to it as, I can still work within whatever framework they choose, whether it be legal, medical, philosophical, political, religious, scientific or social.

The problems only arise when people start trying to restrict other people to terminology that suits their argument, because that's the only argument they know, as opposed to being capable of objectively making their arguments in other contexts.

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.

Ohh I don't think that point of view is solely the purview of the anti-choice perspective. I've seen plenty within the pro-choice movement that would suggest they aren't immune to propaganda and claiming some rather hairy nonsense as 'facts' to support their beliefs either. Many of them don't appear to understand the difference between their personal morality and ethics as it is.

neonsofa · 29-04-2017 10:40PM

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.

Again, expectant parents are obviously going to use affectionate terms. It's the same as how a couple will say they are "trying for a baby" rather than trying to conceive, the baby is the end result, they do not try to create a fully formed baby from the get go- they are well aware of how conception and pregnancy works- but they are referring to the whole idea of "the baby", long before it is a baby. Claiming that the use of the term baby somehow proves something is pointless.

pjohnson · 29-04-2017 11:03PM

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.

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.

njs030 · 29-04-2017 11:14PM

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.

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 · 29-04-2017 11:21PM

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.

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!).

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.

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.

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.

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.

njs030 · 29-04-2017 11:29PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think that's been infogiver's position at all, .

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 · 29-04-2017 11:34PM

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.

1. Like I said call it a fridge if you want. Doesn't mutate it into an actual fridge.

2. No I dont give a flying fcuk what Serena thinks but again I was trying to address infogiver who struggles to differentiate these big words. I dont care what the fcuk she calls the foetus but infogiver believes that since she can cite someone who calls it a baby then its 100% a baby and she has disproved the existence of a foetus.

3. I dont really care overall about terminology but when someone does not even seem capable of comprehending any of the embryo's development it is exceptionally amusing. I believe the reproductive system is taught to 15 year olds nowadays.

Maybe its a generational thing she did say she was pregnant 20 years ago. Curriculums have changed since then.

One eyed Jack · 29-04-2017 11:56PM

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.

You could have just described many posters on both sides in the thread there if I'm to be completely honest with you. I mean, I've seen plenty of posts from both sides that are less about fostering discussion, and more about point scoring for thanks. Honestly that's why I bailed out early when I saw that's the way the thread was going.

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.

In the very same way, pjonston (among others) has chosen to project their perceptions onto other posters and characterise their posts in such a fashion rather than make any attempt to understand their position. It's an ongoing game of snotty little comments and derogatory remarks that posters entrenched in their positions on either side of the discussion, appear to engage in.

For what it's worth btw, I have always made arguments from a humanitarian ethical perspective, rather than a religious moral perspective, which is the position those who disagree with my position appear to assume I would take. Their perspective appears to be based upon their political perspective, which is why they may never understand the idea of working class morality.

infogiver · 30-04-2017 12:13AM

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.

...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?

infogiver · 30-04-2017 12:16AM

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.

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

neonsofa · 30-04-2017 12:21AM

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.

That's not what happened at all. Your interpretation of that exchange is bizarre to say the least.

njs030 · 30-04-2017 12:22AM

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

Oh look more assumptions. Where did I say it was rule breaking?
I said you were repetitive and lacking in empathy.
You proved the first was true and I'd no doubts about the second

pjohnson · 30-04-2017 01:38AM

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?

I said I'm not frusted by amused yet yoy read that as "increasingly frustrated"

In real life I genuinely dont know anyone who has issues akin to yours. Well I guess younger children can develop a penchant for "new" words and then struggle horribly to use them.

Outlaw Pete · 30-04-2017 02:14AM

eviltwin wrote: »

It's a developing baby.

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 · 30-04-2017 02:16AM

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.

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.

oneilla · 30-04-2017 02:19AM

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.

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 · 30-04-2017 02:29AM

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.

Poor comprehension.

I said a "human being's life" - not merely 'human life' as you misquoted me as saying.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

...it takes a human being's life. Has fcuk all to do with wanting to be scientific.

Tigger · 30-04-2017 02:32AM

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.

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

oneilla · 30-04-2017 02:41AM

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

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.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-04-2017 02:44AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Can you define 'the unborn' please?

Not too surprisingly, I'm still waiting.

Tigger · 30-04-2017 02:45AM

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.

I'm an atheist have been since I was about 10 and I realised god was stupid concept and I have no issue with sub 9 week abortions
I asked you what weeks you think would be the deadline for a healthy fetus. And saying deadline are a red herring is just saying no comment as I am asking outside the world of religious or other propaganda.

oneilla · 30-04-2017 02:48AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Poor comprehension.

I said a "human being's life" - not merely 'human life' as you misquoted me as saying.

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 · 30-04-2017 02:52AM

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.

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

njs030 · 30-04-2017 02:55AM

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

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.

njs030 · 30-04-2017 02:57AM

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

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.

oneilla · 30-04-2017 02:57AM

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

Ah yes, another abortion = infanticide red herring.

I'm not planning on shooting a woman in the womb. I'd hope neither would you.

Tigger · 30-04-2017 03:00AM

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.

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

Tigger · 30-04-2017 03:02AM

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.

Ok you simply make no sense

njs030 · 30-04-2017 03:05AM

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

Grand.

The existing law relating to murder has nothing to do with changing the 8th amendment.

It's a really weird thing to ask anyway TBH.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments