drunkmonkey wrote: » Has it occurred to you it's you that's stifiling any debate.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Who in there right mind could be bothered when your just going to bounce on them with your hard left stance.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Sometimes it's good to listen
drunkmonkey wrote: » Be open to the idea that you may or may not change your mind on certain things.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » You are of course free to tell me I said things I know I did not, and tell me I made implications I know I did not. When you are finished spreading falsehoods * though you might consider asking me what my position on things is, rather than telling me what they are. Again though: What I AM making is an appeal to the common denominator. As I said, if many people were failing to understand all my posts, the common denominator would be me. If ONE person is failing to understand a lot of my posts, then the common denominator is them. It really is that simple. I never ONCE said or indicated that people think my arguments are wonderful. I simply never said it. You made this up. What I DID say is that so far in all the time I have been debating this issue mos people UNDERSTAND the arguments I am offering. A very different thing to what you are putting in my mouth ENTIRELY.
Yep, the only one getting personal so far has been you. So you can keep your old pots. You have not understood my arguments at all, and if you think you have then remember you just said yourself " no one is in a position to judge themselves no matter how wonderful they think they might be.". But I can quote, and have quoted, points where you have painted my argument EXACTLY opposite to how I presented them. Such as when you claimed I assign rights to the fetus I very clearly on many occasions said I think have no rights.
Hard to hurt with you just imagining you rebutted my argument when you simply did not. Nor are you capable of offending me. This is not a comment about you, but about me. I can not BE offended by a nameless faceless stranger on an internet forum. You could try, but you would fail. It just can not be done. The argument still stands unrebutted in that if we afford abortion in cases of rape we have to establish whether a woman has actually been raped or not. And this is very hard to do. The three main ways we can do it is if she gets someone convicted of rape, if she merely accuses someone of rape, or if we merely take her word for it. What part of that do you imagine you have found a flaw in? Because you certainly have not shown a flaw in it on THIS thread. If you have no methodology by which to ascertain who was raped, then how do you imagine we can afford raped women abortion while witholding it from not raped women? At least both of us agree that we think ALL women should have access to it. So the rape angle is not an issue for you OR for me. But what you think the flaw in it is not clear to me or, I somewhat suspect, to you.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » The argument still stands unrebutted in that if we afford abortion in cases of rape we have to establish whether a woman has actually been raped or not. And this is very hard to do. The three main ways we can do it is if she gets someone convicted of rape, if she merely accuses someone of rape, or if we merely take her word for it. What part of that do you imagine you have found a flaw in? Because you certainly have not shown a flaw in it on THIS thread. If you have no methodology by which to ascertain who was raped, then how do you imagine we can afford raped women abortion while witholding it from not raped women? .
gozunda wrote: » Just because I have pointed out flaws in your logic and / or arguments - does not mean I do not 'understand them.
gozunda wrote: » I have replied only to what you have written
ForestFire wrote: » Then for an abortion to be carried out, on the grounds of rape, an official complaint and prosecution must be undertaken. You receive the abortion up front, as would be necessary, but if you fail to proceed with a prosecution, there is consequences. Of what I don't know. Now none of that might be practical as it forces women into prosecutions and I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing? Also the result of the prosecution would be irrelevant as that fact you proceeded showed you were at least honest about the claim.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I will edit out the pointless posturing guff from your post and reply to the rest: Except that was not a personal comment, it was an accurate description of what is happening here. You are spreading falsehoods of claiming I said things I did not.
The problem is I just demonstrated one example of many where you did not understand them AND You have not actually pointed out flaws in them either. I can repeat it: You claimed for example "does not have the rights you are assigning it" when I nowhere EVER assigned it any. So quite demonstrably you are misunderstanding me, misrepresenting me, and digging down on that position. Which is not helpful. AGAIN here is my position, which is quite the opposite of what you claimed it was: 1) I do not think the fetus at 0-16 weeks has or should have any rights. 2) I think women should have access to abortion in that period therefore. 3) Some people think only women who have been raped should have. 4) I think that is a bad argument because A) It negates the arguments they use to suggest no other women should have it and It is very difficult to ascertain, when a woman shows up for an abortion, that she was or was not raped.Now you can keep pretending I said things I did not, or that you found flaws you did not, OR you could address the 4 points above and explain exactly where you imagine the flaws are. Because not one post from you I have re-read over has a single sentence that rebuts any of that.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I am not sure I understand the above post I am afraid. Most likely my bad. But I am not sure that proceeding with a prosecution does show you were honest about the claim? Alas a lot of people make false accusations all the time and proceed with them. Some back down and admit it, but many don't. We already have enough false accusations of rape in our world. I do not think we require a situation where we are offering incentives for more of them. That is the aspect of it that concerns me. Also one of the important words in "crisis pregnancy" is the word crisis. I think "crisis" could inform us that maybe some women in such a situation might be desperate, or not thinking ENTIRELY rationally, or might be compelled into action they might not consider in ordinary circumstances. So I do not think tying abortion to prosecution, or initiation of criminal proceedings, is a safe approach really. And this is before we consider situations outside the "norm" of rape, whatever is "normal" in rape that is. What of women who do not know, or are not sure, they were raped? What about stealthing? What about contraception sabotage? What about threats against a women that make her feel unable to report a rape? What about women who were raped but do not WANT to take it to criminal proceedings because they wish to put it all behind them and move on, without having to trot out and relive the whole affair in front of legal professionals and/or a jury? They just want the spawn of the hateful little rapist out of them, but they do not want to drag it through the courts or the police stations?
ForestFire wrote: » My theory was a normal women would not risk a false rape claim, just for an abortion?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » What is "normal" here though. As I said in a crisis pregnancy things are out of the ordinary. A raped woman is already not a "normal" woman because being raped is not "normal" for women in the first place. A horrific experience like that has already thrown their lives into the abnormal. Territory they simply have never been in before. Their entire world has been upended. And pressure is on if time frames are short. For example if we had abortion until 12 weeks, most women do not find out they ARE pregnant in the first week. IT might be some weeks later. How much time will she have left to think rationally about it? Let alone go filing criminal complaints and obtain an abortion in a timely manner? And what of women, as I said, who have no wish to pursue a legal prosecution? They have been raped, they hate that, and they want to just move on. Then they find they are pregnant? And rather than give them the relief they desire, we say "no sorry, you have to go through the courts and relive all this crap again, in seeking a prosecution because otherwise no abortion for you"? I see where you are coming from. But the idea of trying to implement a situation like that on already hurt and vulnerable women is horrific to me. Especially when there is no argument forthcoming as to why we should not just give ALL Women abortion options until week 12 at the minimum anyway.
pemay wrote: I was simply looking for the most basic starting point, yes its fair, or no it isn't.
ForestFire wrote: » By normal woman, I meant a woman not raped.
ForestFire wrote: » Can I just take up this point from a practical point of view, as I'm not even sure I would restrict my beliefs this much. But if I understand the question correctly,Then for an abortion to be carried out, on the grounds of rape, an official complaint and prosecution must be undertaken. You receive the abortion up front, as would be necessary, but if you fail to proceed with a prosecution, there is consequences. Of what I don't know. Now none of that might be practical as it forces women into prosecutions and I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing? Also the result of the prosecution would be irrelevant as that fact you proceeded showed you were at least honest about the claim.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » A crisis pregnancy is not a NORMAL situation, so a woman in such a situation is not a "normal" woman in that sense. We do not know what she has, or has not, got going on in her life or how desperate an unwanted pregnancy might make her. And there are many women, despite the claims of at least one user on this thread, who would not find it "simple" to just jump on a vehicle to the UK. So to be honest, I have no idea what lengths such a woman would go to to obtain an abortion out of desperation or need or compunction or compulsion. And if you tell a person in a desperate situation "You can have what you need, if only you go and tell those people over there you were raped" then I think all bets could be off.
gozunda wrote: » Whether 'rape' has been committed may be decided on a balance of probalities and or medical and other evidence.
gozunda wrote: » Few if any women in my experience would ever select to claim rape (as suggested by one poster) just to put themselves through the psychological ordeal
gozunda wrote: » Yes most women imo with the aid of friends or family and yes indeed even by themselves in some cases would certainly opt to take a cheap flight to another jurisdiction
gozunda wrote: » So no it's is highly unlikely that any woman pregnant, having been raped or not would select to go through something like that just to try and get an abortion. Under the present system many woman are reluctant to seek prosecutions due to the horrendous system that such a course entails
One eyed Jack wrote: » And yet for all your waffle, that's the same person you expect a man should be able to spring it on her that he has no interest in being involved in his childs life and put her in a position where she has to choose between an abortion and raising a child on her own. Women aren't normal when they're pregnant? Women would be incentivised to claim they were raped? And you'll still attempt to argue that men should have the right to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their children :rolleyes:
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Indeed, but the easier you make it the more like "abortion on demand" it becomes. Take a woman who genuinely does not know she was raped for example. She just finds herself pregnant. So there is not much in the way of "medical or other evidence" to go on. Just her word for it really. That depends how much they want or need an abortion though. And the easier it is to make a claim of rape, the more likely it is someone would claim it to access abortions that would otherwise be denied them. So we either make it very hard to claim rape, which is pretty awful an approach as you seem to 100% agree, or we make it much easier which just pushes it towards effectively "abortion on demand". So, it seems sensible to leave rape out of it and just give ALL women abortion on demand, no? I too agree they are more likely to "opt" for it if it is an option for them. I would not assume it IS an option for them though. Many people just do not have the money, time, resources, or personal physical or mental health to undergo such. Especially if their world has actually been turned upside down by rape. You talk about women who would not want to go through the process of making a legal complaint of rape if they had not been raped. What of the women who WERE raped who also do not want to make such a complaint. It goes both ways. And this is before we think of the situation of people obtaining medical interventions in other countries to which they should be having follow up medical advice and more. But instead we have them rushing back to a plan? No, much better to just give them the free and open option to have abortion here on their own soil, in their own area. So we are agreed then, the whole concept of "Abortion is bad except in the cases of rape" is bad reasoning, a bad idea, unworkable in a way that would actually benefit the women involved, and just leaves a pointless system open to abuse.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » What I DID say was that a "crisis pregnancy" is not a normal situation so in THAT regard we are not dealing with a "normal woman" in the sense we are dealing with a woman in a situation that is A) not normal in general and not normal for HER particularly either.
And yes I do keep arguing a point that thus far you have failed to address or rebut. Why wouldnt I?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Crisis pregnancies are normal in that there is nothing unusual or uncommon about them
One eyed Jack wrote: » and secondly, a woman experiencing a crisis pregnancy doesn't make her abnormal. Using your rationale, the logical conclusion of your argument is that a woman in those circumstances lacks the mental capacity to be party to any legally binding agreement
One eyed Jack wrote: » You still have yet to address the fact that if a woman chooses to give birth, then the onus is on both parents to maintain that child or children
One eyed Jack wrote: » What point have you made that has been worth rebutting?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Over a population sure, they are not statistically the norm as in they are a minority compared to wanted pregnancies but I am talking about individuals too here. In that in the AVERAGE woman's life they tend to have somewhere between 0 and 1 of them...... usually 0. And as such they are far from "Normal"
and a person in a crisis is acting and thinking far from "normal". So your appraisal here is about as accurate as your "we are done here" comment from earlier. That is to say: Not very.
By "logical conclusion" you appear to mean "something I just made up for you which you never once implied or said" as nothing I said suggests any such conclusion. You really are on a roll of distortions today, though your "pregnant woman are not normal" distortion definitely breaks all your previous records for distortion and blatancy I have to admit.
There is a chasm of difference however between a crisis influencing your normal rational thinking and choices, and it being compromised to the massively exaggerated extent you just leapt to. ALL I am saying, having once again pulled your words out of my mouth, is that a crisis CAN lead people to consider options they might not otherwise consider.
Except I directly addressed it, which is quite different from not addressing it. Maybe if you were not ignoring the vast majority of my posts, and the vast majority of the content of what few posts you do deign to reply to, you might have seen it. My point is that it is NOT such an onus on the parents. Rather it is an onus on the parents to decide together and separately how to proceed.
And as much as it triggered you at the time, I gave you a clear example of this. When a female reporter and a one night stand she met in the world, both agreed she would get pregnant with him and he would subsequently have nothing to do with the child. An example that basically dances a merry dance on your unsubstantiated assertions here.
Well it did not take you long to fall back on your old reliable did it? When you can not rebut something I say, you just move to this "Not worth rebutting" canard that you usually dodge with. Same crap, different day, as they say.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't know where you get your information, sounds like you just made that up to be honest, because in just the US alone in 2011, 45% of pregnancies were unintended.
One eyed Jack wrote: » My appraisal is far from accurate? Again you just made up that a woman experiencing an unintended pregnancy would act far from normal. Again I have no idea how you're quantifying normal
One eyed Jack wrote: » I haven't distorted anything you've said.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Go back and read your own post again, by virtue of an unintended pregnancy, somehow you manage to conclude that this renders a woman irrational and abnormal.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That's not to mention that it would still be over-ruled due to the Courts considering the welfare of the child or children to be the primary consideration in circumstances where a woman has given birth and a man wants to absolve himself of any responsibility for that child or children.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You appear to be talking about before a woman gives birth, so you're still not addressing the question.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You keep using that word, and in the context you're using it, you don't appear to understand what it means. A trigger is a stimulus that evokes a negative emotional reaction in someone experiencing post traumatic stress disorder.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Well extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
One eyed Jack wrote: » so when you claim that a man has a right not to be a parent, without any evidence to substantiate your claim
One eyed Jack wrote: » the proposal is that men should have a right to absolve themselves of any responsibility towards their children. That means children who are born, nothing to do with when a woman is pregnant
One eyed Jack wrote: » You still have yet to address the actual argument presented in the opening post, which has nothing to do with whether or not a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy, the proposal is that men should have a right to absolve themselves of any responsibility towards their children.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Do we get a look in anywhere or can a man/boyfriend/fiance/husband legally challenge a woman's decision to abort? I've put in a poll to see what you think
One eyed Jack wrote: » And yet for all your waffle...
A private debate among Fine Gael politicians became heated in Leinster House after a female TD was accused of preaching to her male colleagues. Party chairman Martin Heydon was forced to intervene after what one minister described as the "setting off of a bomb" by Marcella Corcoran Kennedy. The Offaly TD had urged male members of the party to trust their female counterparts and support the repeal of the Eighth Amendment. She added that women will be the ones having to make hard choices in the future.
iptba wrote: A private debate among Fine Gael politicians became heated in Leinster House after a female TD was accused of preaching to her male colleagues. Party chairman Martin Heydon was forced to intervene after what one minister described as the "setting off of a bomb" by Marcella Corcoran Kennedy. The Offaly TD had urged male members of the party to trust their female counterparts and support the repeal of the Eighth Amendment. She added that women will be the ones having to make hard choices in the future.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/fine-gael-tds-rage-at-being-preached-to-by-female-colleague-in-abortion-debate-36758627.html
iptba wrote: » MEN: Your YES Mattershttps://www.facebook.com/events/366595747188515/ I have no strong opinions on abortion but can understand why people could have strong opinions on the issue on either side. But I find it interesting that some people seem to argue that men shouldn't have an opinion but then say men should have an opinion and it should be "yes". I think if the genders were reversed, there would be a strong reaction against such an approach.
Blue Magic wrote: » The snowflake, neo-liberalist, apologist left are in for a land. In their world, everyone wants this. This referendum will be damn tight. Tbh, I'm undecided but leaning towards Repeal. So tough and do emotive. The problem With prolife debate is that it's all based on emotional blackmail and religion. Two things which I can't stand
