Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam wrote: »

it doesn't appear I am the one pretending points weren't made.

Except it does, multiple times. Just because you do not like, or understand, my answer does not for one minute magically mean the answer was not given. No matter how many times you imply or pretend otherwise.

Absolam wrote: »

Can we also agree that the rights a foetus has (and according to some should or should not have) are relevant to the discussion?

Why do I need to "agree" with it when I specifically said as much myself? My whole point is that since no one, least of all you, has shown an argument why the fetus should have rights AT ALL, there is therefore no valid intellectual basis I have seen for being opposed to abortion.

That is my entire point on the thread and there is little else I need to say since no one has rebutted it, even a little bit.

Absolam wrote: »

If you had never expressed an opinion on why you do not think that we should afford a foetus rights

Except I did express that opinion and explained my basis for it. So your "IF" is irrelevant to me here and your continuing to pretend I did not give an answer when I in fact did.... despite opening up your post pretending you are doing no such thing.... is as transparent as it is blatant.

Absolam wrote: »

It seem to me

Then try to move past what "SEEMS" true to you, and present an actual argument that it IS so. Because your "seems" here in no way other than possibly outright assertion, logically leads to affording a non-sentient, non-conscious entity, lacking even the faculties to produce those things at all, human rights. Not to mention that the argument "It SEEMS we do it in context X and Y so let us assume it in context Z too" is particularly weak nonsense, yet is pretty much all that can be distilled from your attempt.

Absolam wrote: »

So now, there you have a single coherent argument

Except it is anything but. It is an assertion based on nothing but a "seems". None of which you have lent any actual substance or argument to.

Absolam wrote: »

Feel free to discuss the topic

I need not your permission to do so given it is ALL I have been doing so far in the face of your attempts to derail. But by all means feel free to discuss the actual topic yourself. It is a welcome change.

Absolam wrote: »

you know yourself where you're dodging

Yes. I do. Nowhere. At all. And as you said I know it. And I suspect you, and everyone else reading the thread, do too.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except it does, multiple times. Just because you do not like, or understand, my answer does not for one minute magically mean the answer was not given. No matter how many times you imply or pretend otherwise.

Sure. Since you're not being specific, and it doesn't address the topic, I'll just file that in with the rest of the deliberately obtuse meandering waffle and avoid censure.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why do I need to "agree" with it when I specifically said as much myself?

You don't need to, I'm asking do you, as what you actually said wasn't specifically what I said. If on re-reading you conclude it was, I'll point out the differences for you, but I'd suggest it would constitute you discussing an off-topic subject.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My whole point is that since no one, least of all you, has shown an argument why the fetus should have rights AT ALL, there is therefore no valid intellectual basis I have seen for being opposed to abortion.

Though... I did show an argument. You actually saw it this time, because you pointed out your disagreement with it's phrasing.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except I did express that opinion and explained my basis for it. So your "IF" is irrelevant to me here and your continuing to pretend I did not give an answer when I in fact did.... despite opening up your post pretending you are doing no such thing.... is as transparent as it is blatant.

Well I did say If you had never expressed a particular opinion, or if you had. But since you think the prelude was irrelevant to you, let's stick with the main question. Would you flatly exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights that you afford to other things, and if so, on what basis, bearing in mind that you have clearly stated that you do not think that we should afford a foetus rights because you can see no reason for it, which does not actually exclude a foetus from he possibility of having rights that you afford to other things.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then try to move past what "SEEMS" true to you, and present an actual argument that it IS so. Because your "seems" here in no way other than possibly outright assertion, logically leads to affording a non-sentient, non-conscious entity, lacking even the faculties to produce those things at all, human rights.

That doesn't actually appear to be a reason to move past what seems to be the case to me (I didn't mention anything that seems true to me)? If it seems not to be the case to you feel free to dispute it, but disputing whether something 'seems' or 'is' would appear to be veering off topic into deliberately obtuse meandering waffle .
I will say that since a non-sentient, non-conscious entity, lacking even the faculties to produce those things at all (as you put it) is afforded a specific human right, what seems to be the case to me marrys quite well with the observable facts. What do you think?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not to mention that the argument "It SEEMS we do it in context X and Y so let us assume it in context Z too" is particularly weak nonsense, yet is pretty much all that can be distilled from your attempt.

I don't know whether it is a weak argument; you'd probably have to fit something into your X Y and Zs to test it. But I didn't say in context anything and anything so let us assume anything, so it doesn't seem to be applicable to my argument anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except it is anything but. It is an assertion based on nothing but a "seems". None of which you have lent any actual substance or argument to.

Well, I'd suggest the sum of the parts is the argument; if there are any parts lacking substance if you'd like to point out what each one lacks I'll see if I can fill it out for you. So long as you don't feel the parts are off topic, obviously.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I need not your permission to do so given it is ALL I have been doing so far in the face of your attempts to derail. But by all means feel free to discuss the actual topic yourself. It is a welcome change.

I certainly wasn't giving you permission, I was, once again, inviting. I'll avoid getting into your assertions about who's doing what... we don't want to get into deliberately obtuse meandering waffle again.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes. I do. Nowhere. At all. And as you said I know it. And I suspect you, and everyone else reading the thread, do too.

Well it's all there to be read anyway, so we can satisfactorily leave that aside as being off topic too, eh?

Absolam wrote: »

Sure. Since you're not being specific

More of your distortions. I have been HIGHLY specific about my point and the basis for it. Your continued need to pretend otherwise rather than actually address what I have said, is your failing not mine and you can file your own deliberate obtuse meandering waffle whatever way you feel the need without pretending falsely that I am engaged in any.

Absolam wrote: »

You don't need to ........ You actually saw it this time, because you pointed out your disagreement with it's phrasing.

And I saw it and referred to it before despite you wishing to pretend otherwise for reasons known only to you at this point. I have been very clear what my point is and for whatever reason you want to pretend otherwise. Who other than yourself you think your deliberately obtuse meandering waffle is fooling, I honestly do not know.

Absolam wrote: »

Would you flatly exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights

Once again: I have been very clear when, why, and on what basis, I exclude the fetus from having rights. I am happy to repeat myself when necessary as always, but I am not happy to do so merely to fuel someone else's deliberately obtuse meandering waffle and dishonest pretense that I have not said things I actually have.

Absolam wrote: »

That doesn't actually appear to be a reason to move past what seems to be the case to me

That has nothing to do with me. My only point was no one, least of all you, has shown me any coherent argument for affording a fetus rights. Or for affording rights to anything entirely lacking in even the basic structures required to produce sentience or consciousness.

What "seems" to be true to you in your deliberately obtuse meandering waffle does not change that point unless you can move past the "seems" and actually construct a coherent argument for it. As I am interested only in what arguments, evidence, data or reasoning people can produce for their position, not whether they want to talk about how their own position "seems" to them.

Absolam wrote: »

I was, once again, inviting.

And I repeat, I require no such thing to do what I have been doing all along, and only you have been failing to. I have made a point relevant to the thread, relevant to abortion, and relevant to the fetus. And I have stuck to that point regardless of all the deliberately obtuse meandering waffle you have used to try to derail it, me, and the thread.

Absolam wrote: »

Well it's all there to be read anyway, so we can satisfactorily leave that aside as being off topic too, eh?

That would be my recommendation for you indeed given it is there for all to read any I have actually avoided nothing despite your ongoing pretense to the contrary in your deliberately obtuse meandering waffle.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

More of your distortions. I have been HIGHLY specific about my point and the basis for it. Your continued need to pretend otherwise rather than actually address what I have said, is your failing not mine and you can file your own deliberate obtuse meandering waffle whatever way you feel the need without pretending falsely that I am engaged in any.

Unless your going to provide quotes (and perhaps even if you do) I think I'll stick with what I just said thanks. For the avoidance of doubt, that was "Since you're not being specific, and it doesn't address the topic, I'll just file that in with the rest of the deliberately obtuse meandering waffle and avoid censure.".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I saw it and referred to it before despite you wishing to pretend otherwise for reasons known only to you at this point. I have been very clear what my point is and for whatever reason you want to pretend otherwise. Who other than yourself you think your deliberately obtuse meandering waffle is fooling, I honestly do not know.

You mixed a couple of points together there (you signified it with a ........), which makes your reply somewhat obtuse. If you'd like to specify which one you're replying to, I'm happy to discuss.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Once again: I have been very clear when, why, and on what basis, I exclude the fetus from having rights

Actually, you've been very clear (and repetitive) about the fact that you do not think that we should afford a foetus rights because you can see no reason for it, and to be fair I've agreed that you've expressed that opinion, as well as pointing out (which you omitted from your quote) that such an opinion does not actually exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights that you afford to other things, hence the question. Once again.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That has nothing to do with me.

Well, it rather does if you're directing me to move past it? Which is what you did.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My only point was no one, least of all you, has shown me any coherent argument for affording a fetus rights. Or for affording rights to anything entirely lacking in even the basic structures required to produce sentience or consciousness.

And my point was that since a non-sentient, non-conscious entity, lacking even the faculties to produce those things at all (as you put it) is afforded a specific human right, what seems to be the case to me (even though you feel it has nothing to do with you) marrys quite well with the observable facts. Do you think repeating the points adds anything to either of them?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What "seems" to be true to you in your deliberately obtuse meandering waffle does not change that point unless you can move past the "seems" and actually construct a coherent argument for it. As I am interested only in what arguments, evidence, data or reasoning people can produce for their position, not whether they want to talk about how their own position "seems" to them.

I think I already pointed out that I never said anything about what seems to be true to me. And that you haven't given anything that appears to be a reason to move past what seems to be the case to me, despite your direction to do so. Which leaves us where we were before you repeated yourself I think... Except for the fact that I didn't meander into discussing whether we want to talk about our how positions seem to us; that's all down to you I'm afraid. And quite off topic I'd say.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I repeat, I require no such thing to do what I have been doing all along, and only you have been failing to. I have made a point relevant to the thread, relevant to abortion, and relevant to the fetus. And I have stuck to that point regardless of all the deliberately obtuse meandering waffle you have used to try to derail it, me, and the thread.

Yes you certainly do repeat. Fear not; I don't imagine you require an invite, I was being courteous. I'll avoid getting into your assertions about who's doing what, again. And for the same reasons.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That would be my recommendation for you indeed given it is there for all to read any I have actually avoided nothing despite your ongoing pretense to the contrary in your deliberately obtuse meandering waffle.

Well it's nice to know you endorse my suggestion

Shrap

200016001-001-girl-eating-cotton-candy-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=2cF%2FTnQ0twNK5GBrTHeFP3kkprPL9fcPB4HSSw7JF2UrDFum1h3r8o5KwcHqb91L

Shrap wrote: »

Dammit Shrap, have you not been reading everything that's been posted? Candy floss is OFF TOPIC and you haven't even tried to produce arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that show it's relevant to a point that hasn't been repeated at least five times.

Oops.. I think this post is off topic.....

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

Oops.. I think this post is off topic.....

At least its succinct. We may yet save this thread if we try

Kiwi in IE

Shrap wrote: »

At least its succinct. We may yet save this thread if we try

It's getting to the stage where it needs to be aborted!

frostyjacks

Abortion jokes, classy.

Interesting to hear Katie Price talk about how she would've had an abortion on her son if she'd known he was blind. This is one of the reasons why we have the 8th amendment in place; to stop silly women making irrational decisions.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Abortion jokes, classy.

Interesting to hear Katie Price talk about how she would've had an abortion on her son if she'd known he was blind. This is one of the reasons why we have the 8th amendment in place; to stop silly women making irrational decisions.

Classy.
How does the 8th stop me from having an abortion?

frostyjacks wrote: »

Abortion jokes, classy.

Yeah you're right, abortion jokes really do just scrape the bottom of the barrel/vagina.

Absolam wrote: »

Unless your going to provide quotes (and perhaps even if you do) I think I'll stick with what I just said thanks.

If you want to stick to a distorted fantasy sure. In reality however I've been MORE than clear on my position on abortion, my position on why there is no coherent argument for affording the fetus rights, and my basis for that position.

You ignoring or not understanding that position.... is not the same as me not having been clear on it. And your obtuse meandering waffle to the contrary is unlikely to fool anyone but yourself.

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is one of the reasons why we have the 8th amendment in place; to stop silly women making irrational decisions.

Nothing irrational or silly about it. If there are no moral arguments against very early term abortions, and there certainly have been none on this thread, then it is quite rational to identify problems early in the process and abort and start again if and when we find flaws that the parent wants to avoid. Perhaps you have a rational argument about why you think that irrational rather than just, you know, asserting it to be so?

galljga1

frostyjacks wrote: »

Abortion jokes, classy.

Interesting to hear Katie Price talk about how she would've had an abortion on her son if she'd known he was blind. This is one of the reasons why we have the 8th amendment in place; to stop silly women making irrational decisions.

Good man Frosty, philogyny in abundance as usual.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is one of the reasons why we have the 8th amendment in place; to stop silly women making irrational decisions.

I know!
Those women and their ovary's and periods, always ensuring they make can't think straight. Sure women can't be trusted at all and they get emotional at the drop of a hat. Just imagine, Ireland once had a women president...how crazy is that!
:rolleyes:

Sorry but I can't take somebody seriously (you) who believes the catholic church has properly handled the abuse that has happened in Ireland over its history. imho at this stage I just see you as a troll looking for a reaction.

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

to stop silly women making irrational decisions.

That's funny. It's like a quote out of the 19th century about giving "silly" women the vote!

In this century, discovering you and your potential child would be in for a lifetime of dealing with a severe disability, it would be a very rational decision to have an abortion instead of bringing a child into a world of hardship. I can tell you right now that if medical science could "see" autism, I would have taken a trip to the UK for an abortion and the 8th wouldn't have stopped me at all.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you want to stick to a distorted fantasy sure. In reality however I've been MORE than clear on my position on abortion, my position on why there is no coherent argument for affording the fetus rights, and my basis for that position. You ignoring or not understanding that position.... is not the same as me not having been clear on it. And your obtuse meandering waffle to the contrary is unlikely to fool anyone but yourself.

Oh, I hardly think "Since you're not being specific, and it doesn't address the topic, I'll just file that in with the rest of the deliberately obtuse meandering waffle and avoid censure" is a distorted fantasy (though I'll admit, on past form, you might). But since I wasn't referring to you being specific about abortion, I think we're still consigning this particular line to the deliberately obtuse meandering waffle pile; you're obviously not providing quotes (for obvious reasons).

Still, if that's all you're railing against at this stage, I guess it's progress of sorts.

Again I've been MORE than clear on my position on abortion, my position on why there is no coherent argument for affording the fetus rights, and my basis for that position. You ignoring or not understanding that position.... is not the same as me not having been clear on it so your deliberately obtuse meandering waffle to the contrary is little more than fantasy.

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

Abortion jokes, classy.

Interesting to hear Katie Price talk about how she would've had an abortion on her son if she'd known he was blind. This is one of the reasons why we have the 8th amendment in place; to stop silly women making irrational decisions.

You need help with your red pill addiction.

Timberrrrrrrr

frostyjacks wrote: »

Abortion jokes, classy.

Interesting to hear Katie Price talk about how she would've had an abortion on her son if she'd known he was blind. This is one of the reasons why we have the 8th amendment in place; to stop silly women making irrational decisions.

Don't you have a lovely girls competition to judge?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again I've been MORE than clear on my position on abortion, my position on why there is no coherent argument for affording the fetus rights, and my basis for that position.

Are you sure? I may need to go back and check on that..... In the meantime though, that wasn't what we were talking about. But thanks for pointing it out all the same?

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

Abortion jokes, classy.

Interesting to hear Katie Price talk about how she would've had an abortion on her son if she'd known he was blind. This is one of the reasons why we have the 8th amendment in place; to stop silly women making irrational decisions.

how do you presume to get up on the high horse while at the same time patting women on the head and essentially saying, "don't worry, frostyjacks knows what's best for you"?

Shrap wrote: »

That's funny. It's like a quote out of the 19th century about giving "silly" women the vote!

And the 20th century...

Absolam wrote: »

Are you sure? I may need to go back and check on that..... In the meantime though, that wasn't what we were talking about. But thanks for pointing it out all the same?

Entirely sure yes. No idea what you think we were talking about, I was however talking about abortion, the fetus, and the reason I see no basis for affording rights to it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Entirely sure yes. No idea what you think we were talking about, I was however talking about abortion, the fetus, and the reason I see no basis for affording rights to it.

Oh for the love of FSM and his noodly appendages, will the two of you just leave it already! You're arguing about arguing about what you're arguing about! It is no more a coherent debate than just both of you trying to get the last word in.

The US Supreme Court is split on the ‘most important abortion case in a generation’

The case before the justices challenges a 2013 Texas law which imposes restrictions on abortion clinics – measures activists say have forced more than half of the state’s 41 centres to close.

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is one of the reasons why we have the 8th amendment in place; to stop silly women making irrational decisions.

Your posts do a lot to reinforce the religious misogynist stereotype! Is it intentional?

Cabaal

robdonn wrote: »

The US Supreme Court is split on the ‘most important abortion case in a generation’

The case before the justices challenges a 2013 Texas law which imposes restrictions on abortion clinics – measures activists say have forced more than half of the state’s 41 centres to close.

Before anyone says the requirements for the clinic having hospital admission privileges and also 8 feet wide hallways seem reasonable...the requirements are utter bull****.

There's less risk in an abortion when compared to birth centers that do not have these same requirements. The people that want these laws no that hospitals are reluctant to offer admission privileges to abortion clinics because they'll get slack for doing so.

John Oliver explains this in details

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y

Hotblack Desiato

robdonn wrote: »

The US Supreme Court is split on the ‘most important abortion case in a generation’

More on this

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/eamonn-mccann-supreme-court-to-rule-on-states-thwarting-of-us-abortion-rights-1.2557391