....... 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,
Kidchameleon wrote: » Im not pro choice, im pro choice+
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.
....... 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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Further nothing in your reasoning here actually explains why this should be limited to rape.
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.
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.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » To use your own words back at you: Sickening.
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.
volchitsa wrote: » For instance you have failed to explain why the woman should be allowed to kill the baby but not the rapist
volchitsa wrote: » which would presumably also allow fathers to kill children they hadn't intended to engender.
volchitsa wrote: » And nor have you explained your time limits to this licence to kill - newborn? Six weeks? Twenty years old?
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?
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.
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.
You presume incorrectly.
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.
Kidchameleon wrote: » If you are having sex, you accept that you may become a parent.
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 "+".
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?
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.
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.
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?
volchitsa wrote: » And I would suggest that this is because you know that your position is untenable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kidchameleon wrote: » Respectfully, are you people paying attention to the thread at all?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Kidchameleon wrote: » I have explained several times, the baby in question here carries the rapists and the victims genes.
Revealed: women's fertility app is funded by anti-abortion campaignersThe 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 wrote: » Luckily, 400,000 downloads in 5 years shows barely anyone is downloading it.
Netflix and Disney threaten to boycott Georgia over abortion rights Firms refused to comment on filming in Northern Ireland where laws are stricter
Cabaal wrote: » https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/31/netflix-and-disney-threaten-to-boycott-georgia-over-abortion-rights
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.
