The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Pro Lifers Really are Interested in Controlling Women - Study Options
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 23, 2019 4:02:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,333
Neurons: 53,340
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
What I have said forever: The pro life stance is not about life per se.

No, it is about uterus control and here's a study that helps to confirm that position.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/22/a-new-poll-shows-what-really-interests-pro-lifers-controlling-women?__twitter_impression=true
Romany
Posted: Friday, August 23, 2019 6:08:13 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,416
Neurons: 56,048
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

So I guess I'm not the only who has remarked on the " glut of data on what actually motivates Trump voters". This,including the data which has appeared in regard to everything from education to TV habits to religiosity, is freely available to anyone who cares to go to more than one site for their information. Which was why on another thread, I said I find a certain amount of bathos now about people continuing to defend the indefensible: they just don't seem to understand that each time they continue to flog the Trumpscript they are following, they are simply re-enforcing what the data has revealed.

Because I think the news of what the Government is doing in a country which styled itself "The Leader of the Free World"; in regard to the treatment of babies, children and pregnant women in the concentration camps, has had the whole world (and most of America)asking how this could have happened? And asking questions, and analysing, and projecting.

Unlike the writer I would, however, make a distinction between "people who voted for Trump" and the "Trumpeteers" - his 'base' ( always think of that concept in it's adjectival sense). There are those who 'voted for Trump', but could not countenance the man, once his words/actions became indefensible. They will not vote for him a second time. But the Trumpeteers - well now, we have a thread, elsewhere, I think, which illustrates some, at least, of this article right now, don't we?

In view of which for a couple of moments, reading the article, I myself nearly gave way to an urge to ROFL. Or at least give a couple of LOLs. But a slight snigger did the trick admirably. And negated all the palavar of heaving oneself up again after hurling oneself to the floor entailed in a strenuous old ROFL.




Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 23, 2019 7:16:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,333
Neurons: 53,340
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Well I had a really good belly laugh after reading your last few sentences but I did stay in my chair, Rom.

I have so missed you and your writing on this forum. Please come back regularly? Pretty please?
Listening . . .
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:36:26 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 964
Neurons: 3,950
Why (oh! WHY?!) is it so hard to believe that a pro-life supporter is really just supportive of saving an innocent life? I was on the other side of the fence for most of my life. Suddenly, like a beacon of light, it dawned on me. Abortion IS murder. It really is just that simple.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2019 4:48:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 13,031
Neurons: 605,462
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
I have not seriously studied the matter of pro-lifers wanting to control women so I have no statistics, but my observations over time are these:

1. The male "pro-lifers" I know are controlled by their wives.
2. The female "pro-lifers" I know are controlling wives.

It is never straightforward folks.
BobShilling
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2019 7:11:29 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,449
Neurons: 7,891
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Listening . . . wrote:
Abortion IS murder. It really is just that simple.


No, it is not that simple. The fetus at one month is about the size of a grain of rice, completely incapable of thought, feeling or independent existence. To call the termination of such a tiny bundle of cells in the interests of the mental and/or physical health of the woman in whose womb it is located 'murder', particularly if it is there as a result of rape (including incest) is beyond reason.

Even at a far more advanced stage, termination when it would ensure the life of the woman bearing the fetus is not 'murder'.

As I've said in another thread, I don't think anyone advocates a fetus-bearing woman's absolute right to termination at any stage in the pregnancy, but there is no justification whatsoever for a blanket claim that abortion is murder.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2019 10:30:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,333
Neurons: 53,340
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Listening . . . wrote:
Why (oh! WHY?!) is it so hard to believe that a pro-life supporter is really just supportive of saving an innocent life? I was on the other side of the fence for most of my life. Suddenly, like a beacon of light, it dawned on me. Abortion IS murder. It really is just that simple.


Hi Listening. Have not seen you here for a while.

I too flipped my religiously instilled ideas of being anti abortion into realizing that forcing a woman to carry a child and be a mother for life is an extenuating circumstance that needs to be taken into consideration before the legal term "murder" is applied in the courts. In your definition the flip would also be murder if the mother dies.

Do you also count war as murder? Or the death penalty for crime?

As JCB says, it is not always straightforward and I agree with what Bob adds.

Each case should be decided individually by the mother, father, and doctors - politicians and their laws, and private citizens with their opinions, should have no say in the matter when it is not their lives that are affected. Peoples' lives should not be used as a political football which is what is happening in the US and Canada. I don't know about elsewhere.

Edited : Church should not be allowed to make the laws of the state and if the anti-abortion POV is not religion based, it often is males wishing to make sure their seed is spread through the control of women. I as a woman just lazily went along - I don't remember when or where I saw the bigger picture of the roles of women in CDN society - it took some activists to show me that just because that is how it is does not mean that that is how it always has to be. For example - That just because it was permissible for my uncle to pat my teenaged bum, that it is ok that he does. He was harmless and I loved him but did not like anyone touching me. My cousins and I just learned to walk away backwards - now we might tell him to stop, or he may have gotten the message and not done it to begin with.
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:46:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,069
Neurons: 67,008
BobShilling wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Abortion IS murder. It really is just that simple.


No, it is not that simple. The fetus at one month is about the size of a grain of rice, completely incapable of thought, feeling or independent existence. To call the termination of such a tiny bundle of cells in the interests of the mental and/or physical health of the woman in whose womb it is located 'murder', particularly if it is there as a result of rape (including incest) is beyond reason.

Even at a far more advanced stage, termination when it would ensure the life of the woman bearing the fetus is not 'murder'.

As I've said in another thread, I don't think anyone advocates a fetus-bearing woman's absolute right to termination at any stage in the pregnancy, but there is no justification whatsoever for a blanket claim that abortion is murder.


Sure there is. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life. And for the folks who think this way, their concern for the termination of that life is just as valid as the concern is for the children described as being held in "concentration camps" at the border. Their concern has nothing to do with "controlling" women, or their uteruses. It is concern for the life being terminated.

Their motivation may be religious in its genesis, but regardless of its source, the concern is just as valid. In like manner, folks who come to the discussion from a non-religious point of view, may not think that terminating life on such a large scale as we are currently doing is necessarily a good thing.

This is data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which does not include all abortions, since many states don't require reporting.


Current United States Data*

Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2013: 56.5 million+

219 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)

Abortions per year: 1.058 million

Abortions per day: 2,899

Abortions per hour: 120

1 abortion every 30 seconds

These statistics include only surgical and medical abortions.

Humans permit the killing of our fellow humans for a variety of reasons. Since we are going to continue doing so, the argument is not whether or not we will, but under what circumstances, and to how great a degree.
BobShilling
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2019 1:41:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,449
Neurons: 7,891
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:

Current United States Data*

Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2013: 56.5 million+

That's 56.5 million occasion on which women have felt the need for an abortion for their own physical and/or mental well-being.[/quote]

On this CDC site, I read In 2013, the majority (66.0%) of abortions were performed by ≤8 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (91.6%) were performed by ≤13 weeks’ gestation. This is well before the time when medical experts consider the fetus van feel pain or have what we might call consciousness

Quote:
Humans permit the killing of our fellow humans for a variety of reasons. Since we are going to continue doing so, the argument is not whether or not we will, but under what circumstances, and to how great a degree.

A point worth discussing.You do not there seem to disagree with my point in my last post: To call the termination of such a tiny bundle of cells in the interests of the mental and/or physical health of the woman in whose womb it is located 'murder', particularly if it is there as a result of rape (including incest) is beyond reason.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 26, 2019 12:18:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,333
Neurons: 53,340
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
We are sort of away from the topic of the causes of anti abortion fever and men who favour anti abortion rating high on misogyny levels, but to continue sideways for a bit to compare statistics per 1000 for 2014 abortions on US women aged 15-44 rather than per live births : U S 12.1 per 1000 women or 0.0121

As a Canadian doctor practicing in the U.S., Gunter also points out that she often encounters Americans who assume Canada’s relative lack of restriction means more abortions are performed here than in the States. In fact, the opposite is true. In 2014, the last year American data is available, there were 12.1 abortions performed per 1000 women aged 15-44 in the U.S. or 0.0121

In Canada that year, for every 1000 women aged 15-44, there were 8.03 abortions or 0.00801.




Here's How Canada's Abortion Policies Actually Work
"Shocking, to have a procedure decided between a woman and her doctor and not, say, the government."


https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/29/how-canadian-abortion-policy-actually-works_a_23510526/


Why in Canada 2/3 of the US with fewer regulations?

Fewer religious? Access to healthcare and counselling and no restrictions on birth control or morning after pill? Better education? Letting people make their own decisions?
FounDit
Posted: Monday, August 26, 2019 3:56:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,069
Neurons: 67,008
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:

Current United States Data*

Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2013: 56.5 million+

That's 56.5 million occasion on which women have felt the need for an abortion for their own physical and/or mental well-being.


On this CDC site, I read In 2013, the majority (66.0%) of abortions were performed by ≤8 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (91.6%) were performed by ≤13 weeks’ gestation. This is well before the time when medical experts consider the fetus van feel pain or have what we might call consciousness
These stats are beside the point. The point was that in each case, there is the termination of an innocent life, regardless of its size, and the fact that there are many people who are deeply concerned for the welfare of that life; a concern that is just as legitimate as the concern for any child no matter its age.

Quote:
Humans permit the killing of our fellow humans for a variety of reasons. Since we are going to continue doing so, the argument is not whether or not we will, but under what circumstances, and to how great a degree.

A point worth discussing.You do not there seem to disagree with my point in my last post: To call the termination of such a tiny bundle of cells in the interests of the mental and/or physical health of the woman in whose womb it is located 'murder', particularly if it is there as a result of rape (including incest) is beyond reason.[/quote]
I do not agree that it is beyond reason, for the very fact that we agree upon, namely, that we humans do permit the killing of our fellow humans under certain circumstances, usually for self-defense, or defense of another, or punishment for killing another. In the case of abortions, however, no crime has been committed by the young life. It may be killed simply because it may be inconvenient.

This presents an uncomfortable situation for many, but it should not be ignored. Strange as it may be, since the invention of better birth control over the last 60 years or so, it seems counter-intuitive to see that more pregnancies appear to be occurring, increasing the number of abortions. One would think the opposite would have happened - that there would be less need for abortion.

However, it is what it is. My objection is not to abortion itself (although I do think it is done in excess), but to the hypocrisy of laying claim to empathy and an abhorrence to violence, yet at the same time be willing to take a life for no other reason than that it is developing. I cannot hold in high regard the opinions of anyone who so obviously doesn't possess the rational cognition necessary to see the abysmal lack of logic in such thinking.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 26, 2019 11:01:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,333
Neurons: 53,340
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Abortion is a two sided dilemma. The problem is it can't be both ways. A decision has to be made. One or the other. And yes the taking of a life whether innocent or guilty is abhorrent. And yes one feels empathy for the stopping of the life of any unborn child or the treatment of life after it is born.

But to call people hypocritical because they tip the scales towards empathy for the mother rather than the unborn child is disingenuous because that very accusation could be levelled at anti abortion people who have no empathy for the mother's life while professing to be pro life. They are only for life when it is unborn. After that, forget it.

My only point has always been that the decision should NOT be up to the courts and in fact the data I presented earlier shows that that approach actually works better if cutting the numbers down is the objective.
BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 1:18:46 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,449
Neurons: 7,891
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Hope123 wrote:
But to call people hypocritical because they tip the scales towards empathy for the mother rather than the unborn child is disingenuous because that very accusation could be levelled at anti abortion people who have no empathy for the mother's life while professing to be pro life. They are only for life when it is unborn. After that, forget it.


Applause Applause Applause
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 3:25:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,069
Neurons: 67,008
Hope123 wrote:
Abortion is a two sided dilemma. The problem is it can't be both ways. Sure it can: the mother and the child can both live, because in the majority of cases, abortion isn’t necessary at all. It is being used as a method of birth control. You want to argue that all abortions are medically necessary, but that simply isn’t believable. There is no way the vast number of abortions being performed is because all of those babies are deformed, or a threat to the health of the mother. That defies common sense and logic.

A decision has to be made. One or the other. And yes the taking of a life whether innocent or guilty is abhorrent. And yes one feels empathy for the stopping of the life of any unborn child or the treatment of life after it is born.
How can one possibly say they have empathy for the child, describe its termination as abhorrent, yet demand the right to terminate its existence anyway, especially when it is for mere inconvenience? If necessary, I could agree, but as I argued above, there is no way this many are necessary.

But to call people hypocritical because they tip the scales towards empathy for the mother rather than the unborn child is disingenuous because that very accusation could be levelled at anti abortion people who have no empathy for the mother's life while professing to be pro life. They are only for life when it is unborn. After that, forget it.
A specious argument. The hypocrisy lies not in who deserves empathy, but in declaring to have empathy for children while at the same time, demanding the right to terminate their existence. Added to that is the point of fact that, aside from rape and incest, the mother had a choice in the matter of engaging in sex, and a choice in using or not using birth control which is available. The child had no choice in any of those decisions, but suffers the consequences of death because of someone else’s choices.

My only point has always been that the decision should NOT be up to the courts and in fact the data I presented earlier shows that that approach actually works better if cutting the numbers down is the objective.
Had it not been “up to the courts”, abortion would still be illegal, and considered murder. It was precisely because the Supreme Court “found” a right to abortion in the Constitution that the termination of that life became legal. Now that this has been established – and human nature being what it is, always running to the extreme on everything – the number of terminations has increased exponentially. So it would seem that you would celebrate the court’s involvement.

But since reconciling the two opposite positions on abortion – only when it’s necessary and advocating for near universal acceptance – is impossible, the pro-abortion crowd always wants to shift the focus to misogyny, or uterus control, or some other such nonsense when challenged on the hypocrisy of claiming to care for children (as is being done on the border issue), and claiming the right to terminate them at the same time.

By the same token, the pro-life crowd wants none at all, which doesn't seem reasonable to me either. Both sides need to pull back from the extremes, but that may take a while.


BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 3:48:14 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,449
Neurons: 7,891
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
My objection is not to abortion itself (although I do think it is done in excess), but to the hypocrisy of laying claim to empathy and an abhorrence to violence, yet at the same time be willing to take a life for no other reason than that it is developing. I cannot hold in high regard the opinions of anyone who so obviously doesn't possess the rational cognition necessary to see the abysmal lack of logic in such thinking.


Therein lies part of the problem in rational discussion of this topic. Emotion clouds clear thinking.

From what you have said there, you are not entirely opposed to abortion. Fine. The fact that you consider some people who are are in favour of a women's right to choose and who also claim empathy with children separated from their children to be hypocrites is irrelevant.

Similarly, the fact that some who support a woman's right to choose consider many of those who oppose it to be misogynists who seek power over women is also irrelevant.

What is relevant is not how other people judge the motives of supporters and opponents of a pregnant woman's right to choose but the rights of the pregnant woman and the unborn child. In the case of consensual sex between people in a relationship, the father may also have some rights, but let's not get sidetracked there for the moment.

What then becomes important is when the growing bundles of cells is really an 'unborn child', i.e., a 'person'.Is it at the zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus stage? if at the fetus stage, is it at the beginning or some way into it? This is something only qualified medical people's opinions should be considered.

Even after the fetus has clearly become viable, there is still the question, in cases where there is no doubt that the baby will be severely brain-damaged and/or the mother is likely to die if the pregnancy runs full course, of whose life will be sacrificed for the sake of the other's? The word 'murder' has no place in discussing such issues. And 'pro-life' takes on a hollow ring when it can involve the death of a pregnant woman.
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:55:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,069
Neurons: 67,008
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:
My objection is not to abortion itself (although I do think it is done in excess), but to the hypocrisy of laying claim to empathy and an abhorrence to violence, yet at the same time be willing to take a life for no other reason than that it is developing. I cannot hold in high regard the opinions of anyone who so obviously doesn't possess the rational cognition necessary to see the abysmal lack of logic in such thinking.


Therein lies part of the problem in rational discussion of this topic. Emotion clouds clear thinking.
I'm not emotional about the topic. I am analyzing the situation from an objective point of view. The whine about children at the border, equating their situation with Nazi concentration camps is being emotional about it.

From what you have said there, you are not entirely opposed to abortion. Fine. The fact that you consider some people who are are in favour of a women's right to choose and who also claim empathy with children separated from their children to be hypocrites is irrelevant.
According to you. I see it as very relevant for the reason I just laid out above. Ridiculous comparisons are not helpful and are very relevant in dealing with such a situation.

Similarly, the fact that some who support a woman's right to choose consider many of those who oppose it to be misogynists who seek power over women is also irrelevant.
Again, according to you. I think labeling someone a misogynist simply for having a different viewpoint and opinion is not helpful. Wanting to protect a life, especially a developing life, is in no way the equivalent of hating a woman, or all women. Men have a variety of opinions on the matter, just as women do. We don't all engage in group-think.

What is relevant is not how other people judge the motives of supporters and opponents of a pregnant woman's right to choose but the rights of the pregnant woman and the unborn child. In the case of consensual sex between people in a relationship, the father may also have some rights, but let's not get sidetracked there for the moment.
So if the opinions and motives of other people are of no matter, why then the wailing propaganda over the children at the border? You can't have it both ways. If people pretend to be exercised about the treatment of children in one situation, they can't then claim a right to destroy young life in another. It's hypocritical.

What then becomes important is when the growing bundles of cells is really an 'unborn child', i.e., a 'person'.Is it at the zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus stage? if at the fetus stage, is it at the beginning or some way into it? This is something only qualified medical people's opinions should be considered.
This is more of the current meme of "It isn't what it is, it's what we SAY it is". I call "Bullshit". It is a child growing inside the woman's body. Calling it something else is a weasel word to avoid the truth of the matter. If you want women to have the right to terminate their growing babies, then have the backbone to stand up and say so. But don't pretend after doing so that there is great concern for the welfare of children.

At least I am not hypocritical about it. I have concern for children and want the best for them, but I am also aware that sometimes it is necessary to terminate that life. At the same time, I am also aware that there are times when it is necessary to detain them up for a time. So I'm not claiming that one is necessary and the other is the equivalent of a Nazi concentration camp. Both situations can be accommodated without resorting to foolishness.

Even after the fetus has clearly become viable, there is still the question, in cases where there is no doubt that the baby will be severely brain-damaged and/or the mother is likely to die if the pregnancy runs full course, of whose life will be sacrificed for the sake of the other's? And I agree with you under those circumstances.

The word 'murder' has no place in discussing such issues. But it very much has a place when the child is not to be found in those circumstances, as so many are who are terminated.And 'pro-life' takes on a hollow ring when it can involve the death of a pregnant woman.
You have no argument from me on that issue.
BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 5:52:25 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,449
Neurons: 7,891
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
I'm not emotional about the topic. I am analyzing the situation from an objective point of view. The whine about children at the border,

Is the use of the word 'whine' objective?

Quote:
It is a child growing inside the woman's body. Calling it something else is a weasel word to avoid the truth of the matter. If you want women to have the right to terminate their growing babies, then have the backbone to stand up and say so. But don't pretend after doing so that there is great concern for the welfare of children.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I have not said that I want mothers to have the right to terminate their 'growing babies'. Using a different name for a collection of two, or four, or several hundred, cells than for a fully formed human one month before birth is not using 'weasel' words.

Quote:
I am also aware that sometimes it is necessary to terminate that life. At the same time, I am also aware that there are times when it is necessary to detain them up for a time. So I'm not claiming that one is necessary and the other is the equivalent of a Nazi concentration camp. Both situations can be accommodated without resorting to foolishness.

I agree.

You and I have very different opinions on a number of topics, FD. In this thread, however, it seems to me that we agree on more than we disagree on. One thing we seem to agree on is that ridiculous comparisons are unhelpful. We differ in that I think they are irrelevant and you think they are relevant.
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 11:37:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,069
Neurons: 67,008
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:
I'm not emotional about the topic. I am analyzing the situation from an objective point of view. The whine about children at the border,

Is the use of the word 'whine' objective?
Yes, because that is a perfectly descriptive word for exactly what it is.

Quote:
It is a child growing inside the woman's body. Calling it something else is a weasel word to avoid the truth of the matter. If you want women to have the right to terminate their growing babies, then have the backbone to stand up and say so. But don't pretend after doing so that there is great concern for the welfare of children.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I have not said that I want mothers to have the right to terminate their 'growing babies'. Using a different name for a collection of two, or four, or several hundred, cells than for a fully formed human one month before birth is not using 'weasel' words.
I'm not putting words into your mouth. You chose them. I simply call the child what it is – a developing human child.

Quote:
I am also aware that sometimes it is necessary to terminate that life. At the same time, I am also aware that there are times when it is necessary to detain them up for a time. So I'm not claiming that one is necessary and the other is the equivalent of a Nazi concentration camp. Both situations can be accommodated without resorting to foolishness.

I agree.

You and I have very different opinions on a number of topics, FD. In this thread, however, it seems to me that we agree on more than we disagree on. One thing we seem to agree on is that ridiculous comparisons are unhelpful. We differ in that I think they are irrelevant and you think they are relevant.

You don't think ridiculous comparisons distract from rational discussion, or prevent the ability to find some common ground? I think such things are very relevant to that end.
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 4:44:01 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,449
Neurons: 7,891
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
If you seriously think that 'whine' is an objective view of someone's opinion, then I see little point in further discussion with you.
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 5:04:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,177
Neurons: 667,219
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
We're all looking at this the wrong way, 'whining' about women wanting abortions for their 'inconvenient' babies/clusters of cells. If we really want to eliminate the abortions performed for inconvenience, we should be focusing on the real perpetrators here. After all, 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men.

Mandatory male sterilization is the way to go. That way only babies are born when parents delibrately make the choice. And in those cases where sterilization is irreversible? I think that's a low price to pay to preserve life.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:52:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 13,031
Neurons: 605,462
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
[quote=Lotje100... After all, 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men. [/quote]

Does that include pregnancies that are unwanted because the woman has changed her mind? Or the lady Doctor has diagnosed a threat to life for the mother?

100% Lotje? On which planet?
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 7:23:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,177
Neurons: 667,219
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Lotje100 wrote:
... After all, 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men.


Does that include pregnancies that are unwanted because the woman has changed her mind? Or the lady Doctor has diagnosed a threat to life for the mother?

100% Lotje? On which planet?


1) My post was intended to be ludicrous.
2) Yes, that does include pregnancies that are unwanted because the woman has changed her mind. If anything, needing to take that extra step to reverse the man's sterility in order to have a child should already ensure in most cases that the future parents are certain about their dedication.
3) The threat of life to the mother doesn't apply in my post, as I was talking about the abortions for reasons of 'inconvenience' FounDit mentioned, not the life-threatening medical reasons.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 8:00:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,416
Neurons: 56,048
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Lotje said "We're all looking at this the wrong way" - which is 100% correct.We're looking at it from FD's pov.

As Hope said earlier: "We are sort of away from the topic of the causes of anti abortion fever and men who favour anti abortion rating high on misogyny levels,..."

In a previous thread I asked FD a direct question: I asked him how he could support a man who puts children in concentration camps. What person could actually SUPPORT the treatment of children which Trump has initiated. Not only is behaviour like this abhorrent, from a biological pov it goes against the grain of us as a species who, like all other other species, are programmed to protect our young for the protection of the species as a whole.

As he always does when asked to defend the indefensible, FD used his Trump-Template and, knowing that there is no way any honourable, normal, sentient being could possibly defend it, he led for the well-worn "Deflect & Distract" response with which he has been successfully manipulating this forum for so long. I, because of what FD - we have never met - presumes to be my stance on abortion was told I had no right to FEEL ANYTHING about child abuse. A move guaranteed in FD's mind, to make me forget about suffering brown children, and leap into an abortion free-for-all instead. As his rather shaky understanding of the whole issue includes the ridiculous, childish and absolutely untrue (so much so no-one has ever even bothered to pick him up on it) Trumplie, that "Democrats", "The Left" even sit around after the birth calmly debating (with the doctors. nurses and dedicated Health Care workers presumably), on whether to kill our newborn child or not.

And, once more, we were off! On to the well-worn track of abortion where FD can claim the high road and, as usual escape having to tell us, his peers, how he can possibly defend the behaviour towards children which has shocked, horrified and sickened the entire world and which goes against Internation, National, religious, social rules.

Now Hope and I are the only two women who were around when FD threw off his "reasonable guy" front to support every utterance of his Main-Man Parsar - the man who was eventually banned because of his hideous behaviour: but not before having bitched up this forum forever. We don't expect any of the male posters to remember: but we remember all the ways in which FD attacked not only women in general but the women on TFD in particular.

The fact that his misogyny is one of his defining features seems to have been forgotten by most; while people who have joined since that time, remain unaware of FD's racist, mysogynist & abusive posts before his protector, Parsar, had been booted off. His latest meme is that he is no longer a misogynist and (well until a couple of days ago) that he even has no horse in the Abortion debate.

Then Hope found the above article. She posted it to stimulate a discussion on misogyny - not, as she stated, on Abortion.

And, right on cue, FD leaps in and, once again, takes charge of the thread: hey, hey - get people stirred into a good old unresolvable question and one never has to stand up, be a man, and explain inconvenient truths like one's own inhumanity.

Once everyone had obediently taken the bait there was no reason (once again) for the participation of women: our male counterparts could go on for days and days talking about what we should do/think/react to our own bodies. We had lost that right, it seems, because our presumed pro-life stand put us into the category of those who sat around having those "Shall we? Shan't we?" killing decisions with live children, while the blood and the mucus still ran down our legs. Nice.

Then today, the world learns that young girls, in early pubescence, are left to MENSTRUATE INTO THEIR CLOTHES.

Defend that, FD. Abuse us once more. Tell us your fairy-tale about killing our children once we've given birth. Convince us that we are incapable of - or have no claim to - empathy, pity, outrage, sorrow, horror, decency or humanity because of a bull-shit claim cited by a deranged old congenital liar.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now you'll jump into the well-worn Freedom of Speech track and say we are trying to shut you down. Gonna give us the old saw about you being ENTITLED to abuse us because you live in the Land of the Free. Make us listen one more time to how we have no right to take a stand against the crimes being committed against children.

Then - as asked originally - try to convince us that torturing children will Make America Great. And speak up loud & clear mate: no-one else in the civillised world could sanction depriving young women of basic sanitary products. We - and the rest of the world - are dying to hear.

The ultimate degradation of females is defensible you say? Go for it, then.

Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 8:11:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,177
Neurons: 667,219
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Romany wrote:
As his rather shaky understanding of the whole issue includes the ridiculous, childish and absolutely untrue (so much so no-one has ever even bothered to pick him up on it) Trumplie, that "Democrats", "The Left" even sit around after the birth calmly debating (with the doctors. nurses and dedicated Health Care workers presumably), on whether to kill our newborn child or not.


This probably got lost within the rest of the post and thread, but I did respond to some of his misconceptions in this thread.

Lotje1000 wrote:
While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that [...]
- Women who want to kill their own kids before or at birth are hypocrites for having empathy for kids in cages
- Women who want to have an abortion essentially want to kill their child when it has become inconvenient
(I read FounDit's one article about abortion at birth, I also read the act it refers to and it says "24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health." - so essentially, not at birth unless the mother is going to die or if the fetus isn't viable anyway. So hardly because it's inconvenient.)

BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 8:35:44 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,449
Neurons: 7,891
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Romany wrote:
We don't expect any of the male posters to remember: but we remember all the ways in which FD attacked not only women in general but the women on TFD in particular.


I, in a different incarnation, was there. I remember - only too well.

With FD,there seem to be only two main choices - either completely ignore his illogical, irrational, unfounded claims in order not to allow the thread to be hijacked or challenge him. The first of these allows his claims to stand as if they were tacitly accepted. I chose the second way, hoping that I could present a more reason line for consideration.

With the benefit of hindsight, I was probably wrong.
.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:14:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,333
Neurons: 53,340
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
In the long run of the abortion controversy which again is not the topic of this thread, the causes of the two movements of misogyny or concern for life - are actually irrelevant except as interesting psychological data which is why this thread was started. And two groups accusing each other of hypocrisy is also irrelevant.

What is relevant in that controversy is WHO decides - people involved in the decision or people who are not involved. Who gets control over someone else's life.

The best way to prevent abortion is through practical ways to prevent the problem in the first place - education, provision of reasonably priced contraception, the provision of the morning after pill to prevent the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy after a mishap, and giving women the right to control their own lives without any misogyny or ideology, whether religious or not, involved in the decision making.

http://web.mit.edu/pro-choice/www/reasons.html

:::::

Romany is absolutely correct - since FD brings up the border children every time he accuses pro choice people of hypocrisy, it is definitely a way to deflect from being unable to support such WH policies at the border that are creating much human suffering without showing a lack of empathy.

Since the border has now been mentioned several times there is one more thing that is irrelevant: Whether or not pro choice people are hypocritical is irrelevant and does not change the inappropriateness of Trump's manufactured border crisis. The numbers at the border are almost half what they were in 2000.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/30/children-border-crisis-america-wasnt-prepared-for-trump-us-immigration

"This backlog and paralysis is “intentional”, Brané said, adding that the administration’s strategy has “been very clear from the moment [they] came in to power: make the conditions untenable so that people will not come. Punish, and deter people from requesting asylum”."

https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/07/1041991

"UN rights chief ‘appalled’ by US border detention conditions, says holding migrant children may violate international law" But I suppose UN is hesitant to force the issue. Once again might is right - but not right.

FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 4:21:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,069
Neurons: 67,008
I can’t help but chuckle in disbelieving amusement as I read what has been written since yesterday. It’s a good thing I wasn’t standing in front of Lotje and Romany as they vented. I have no doubt that I would have been in danger of being sprayed with spittle and struck with flailing arms.

Lotje completely missed the subject of the whining, thinking it was about abortion. It was not.

Quote FounDit: “The whine [is] about children at the border.”

Romany went off the deep end completely.

Quote Romany: “In a previous thread I asked FD a direct question: I asked him how he could support a man who puts children in concentration camps. That’s easy, because it hasn’t changed. There are no concentration camps. That is a bald-faced lie. You really don’t know what you are talking about.

What person could actually SUPPORT the treatment of children which Trump has initiated. Well, Obama, for one, and you didn’t seem to have a problem with it when he did it. And under both Presidents, the idea was to seek the best outcomes for both the women and children, especially, since there has been much abuse of women and children over the years by those transporting them to our border.

Not only is behaviour like this abhorrent, from a biological pov it goes against the grain of us as a species who, like all other other species, are programmed to protect our young for the protection of the species as a whole.
That is laughable bullshit. And you are supposed to be a student of history? The human race is replete with the abuse of children. But what is happening on our border is not abuse on our part. Separating the children is done precisely for their protection to prevent sex trafficking and other forms of abuse in conjunction with being used to gain entry to our country.

After beginning with such complete nonsense, the remainder of her post is just more incoherent ad hominin assaults that are completely false, resulting in more utterly nonsensical accusations.

Notice there is no attempt to discuss the subject, only attacks on a personal level. This is always the go-to position when they can’t argue the facts. It’s really rather sad.


BobShilling just gave up completely on the discussion. But I suppose there wasn’t much else to say once the hypocrisy had been so clearly exposed.

It now appears there is no end to the illogical thinking on this subject as displayed by Hope:

Quote: Hope:
In the long run of the abortion controversy which again is not the topic of this thread, the causes of the two movements of misogyny or concern for life - are actually irrelevant except as interesting psychological data which is why this thread was started. And two groups accusing each other of hypocrisy is also irrelevant.
There is no misogyny involved on my part. And the topic of the border is relevant because it is your side that focuses on the children, just as you do with abortion.

What is relevant in that controversy is WHO decides - people involved in the decision or people who are not involved. Who gets control over someone else's life.
You finally got something right. When it comes to killing other humans, we all have a stake in that, and we all get to have a voice in the decisions made.

The best way to prevent abortion is through practical ways to prevent the problem in the first place - education, provision of reasonably priced contraception, the provision of the morning after pill to prevent the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy after a mishap, and giving women the right to control their own lives without any misogyny or ideology, whether religious or not, involved in the decision making.
Again, it is not misogyny to have a difference of opinion on the killing of innocent life. Women do have a right to control their own bodies, but there are many who believe they do not, and should not, have an unrestricted right to kill another human simply because of a “mishap” as you call it.

http://web.mit.edu/pro-choice/www/reasons.html

:::::

Romany is absolutely correct - since FD brings up the border children every time he accuses pro choice people of hypocrisy, it is definitely a way to deflect from being unable to support such WH policies at the border that are creating much human suffering without showing a lack of empathy.
Romany is wrong because in the first place, it was not me who complained about the children at the border. I responded to those of you who complained first. Furthermore, I am not deflecting from anything. I fully support the WH policies of securing our country’s borders. My empathy extends to my family, neighbors, community, and country FIRST. If others want to come here, let them do so in an orderly and legal manner.

Since the border has now been mentioned several times there is one more thing that is irrelevant: Whether or not pro choice people are hypocritical is irrelevant and does not change the inappropriateness of Trump's manufactured border crisis. The numbers at the border are almost half what they were in 2000.
It is not irrelevant, pro-choice people are being hypocritical, and Trump did NOT “manufacture” the crisis at the border – the Progressive Liberals did when they encouraged the flood of illegals to cross the border. This started under Obama. Trump merely inherited it. The fact that the numbers are almost half what they were in 2000 is cause for celebration. We need to get the number of illegal crossings to as close to zero as possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/30/children-border-crisis-america-wasnt-prepared-for-trump-us-immigration

"This backlog and paralysis is “intentional”, Brané said, adding that the administration’s strategy has “been very clear from the moment [they] came in to power: make the conditions untenable so that people will not come. Punish, and deter people from requesting asylum”."
Bullshit! Provide the evidence it was “intentional”. Can’t be done. Another bald-faced lie.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/07/1041991

"UN rights chief ‘appalled’ by US border detention conditions, says holding migrant children may violate international law" But I suppose UN is hesitant to force the issue. Once again might is right - but not right.
Awww, the UN rights chief is appalled…tsk, tsk. Too bad. The UN is hesitant to enforce the issue because it hasn’t the authority to do so. For that we can be very thankful, and insure that never happens. Funny how you all think might is right when it is you wielding it.



Listening . . .
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 4:23:09 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 964
Neurons: 3,950
BobShilling wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Abortion IS murder. It really is just that simple.


No, it is not that simple. The fetus at one month is about the size of a grain of rice, completely incapable of thought, feeling or independent existence. To call the termination of such a tiny bundle of cells in the interests of the mental and/or physical health of the woman in whose womb it is located 'murder', particularly if it is there as a result of rape (including incest) is beyond reason.

Even at a far more advanced stage, termination when it would ensure the life of the woman bearing the fetus is not 'murder'.

As I've said in another thread, I don't think anyone advocates a fetus-bearing woman's absolute right to termination at any stage in the pregnancy, but there is no justification whatsoever for a blanket claim that abortion is murder.



There is no easy solution to this issue. However, to support abortion by leaning on the claim that a fetus is a clump of cells that feels no pain, ... talk to a NICU nurse. They are babies and they feel pain. Just because you can’t hear their screams doesn’t mean they aren’t hurting. They are being murdered. They are the most innocent and they need our protection.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 5:46:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,333
Neurons: 53,340
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Listening . . . wrote:
BobShilling wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Abortion IS murder. It really is just that simple.


No, it is not that simple. The fetus at one month is about the size of a grain of rice, completely incapable of thought, feeling or independent existence. To call the termination of such a tiny bundle of cells in the interests of the mental and/or physical health of the woman in whose womb it is located 'murder', particularly if it is there as a result of rape (including incest) is beyond reason.

Even at a far more advanced stage, termination when it would ensure the life of the woman bearing the fetus is not 'murder'.

As I've said in another thread, I don't think anyone advocates a fetus-bearing woman's absolute right to termination at any stage in the pregnancy, but there is no justification whatsoever for a blanket claim that abortion is murder.



There is no easy solution to this issue. However, to support abortion by leaning on the claim that a fetus is a clump of cells that feels no pain, ... talk to a NICU nurse. They are babies and they feel pain. Just because you can’t hear their screams doesn’t mean they aren’t hurting. They are being murdered. They are the most innocent and they need our protection.


A fetus does not even have all the necessary systems in place to feel pain until the third trimester at which point only specific reasons such as life of mother are allowed. What nurses see may just be reflex, not pain.

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

Even if it could feel pain it would be momentary.

Just an afterthought - No body is concerned about pain in all the spontaneous abortions that we call miscarriages. Nobody puts off surgery because they know they will have pain.


Romany
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:27:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,416
Neurons: 56,048
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
F/D

Seriously?
After all that has been said, the above is your response?
On so many levels: - ...seriously??

(Or does that, to your understanding, constitute ad hominum.)
BobShilling
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2019 1:43:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,449
Neurons: 7,891
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:

BobShilling just gave up completely on the discussion. But I suppose there wasn’t much else to say once the hypocrisy had been so clearly exposed.


I simply realised, rather too late, that attempting any form of reasonable discussion with a person who is unwilling or unable to discuss rationally or honestly is pointless.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 2:52:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,333
Neurons: 53,340
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
I was not going to bother answering your digressions, FD, but in light of two pieces of new information decided to enlighten readers.

One: Now even the parents of children born to legal military while serving in other countries must apply for US citizenship for their children. I'm sure that as a veteran that would have sat well with you if it had applied to you.

Two: Canadian immigration lawyers are monitoring the number of Canadian legal citizens who are Muslims who are being denied visitor entry to the US at the Canadian border to see if the pattern is increasing and discriminatory. It is not only illegals who are being targeted.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-canadian-muslims-us-border-crossing-1.5264218

Denying Canadian Muslim men, including a prominent Toronto Imam, with their families with Canadian passports who have been CDN citizens for 20 years who are LEGAL and want only visitor entry at the US border seems to be a recent pattern of discrimination that is getting worse. Canadians are watching. I understand if some have relatives there, but otherwise why chance crossing. Many Canadians have stopped cross border shopping and making tourist trips while spending their money helping the US economy. I read recently the US is no longer the top destination for tourists so maybe it should be careful what it wishes for. Some of us are even white. And have money. And are actively boycotting US trips.

:::

Responses:

FounDit wrote: " If others want to come here, let them do so in an orderly and legal manner."

You can spare us the "legal-illegal BS" when you can't even distinguish between fence jumpers and asylum seekers no matter how many times you've been told. Asylum seekers are NOT illegals. If you want them to be illegal, change your law or get out of international agreements if possible.


The article only stated results of studies - it did not accuse you personally of misogyny.

No we don't all get to have a stake in controlling someone else's life.

A condom breaks and a woman is punished for her entire life. You are right. That is more than a mishap.

FounDit wrote: "...the Progressive Liberals did when they encouraged the flood of illegals to cross the border.." Bald faced lie, using your vocabulary.

FounDit wrote: "Funny how you all think might is right when it is you wielding it. WTF is this supposed to mean?
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:12:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,333
Neurons: 53,340
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada


[image not available]
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 4:06:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,069
Neurons: 67,008
Hope123 wrote:


[image not available]


Only when it really is abuse. Requiring someone to obey the laws of the country they want to enter, and to have respect for its citizens,is NOT abuse.

Example of real abuse: Montgomery County, Maryland. Six illegal aliens arrested for committing six rapes, some of children, both boys and girls, in one month.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 11:32:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,333
Neurons: 53,340
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:


[image not available]


Only when it really is abuse. Requiring someone to obey the laws of the country they want to enter, and to have respect for its citizens,is NOT abuse.

Example of real abuse: Montgomery County, Maryland. Six illegal aliens arrested for committing six rapes, some of children, both boys and girls, in one month.


Agree with both statements.

But what they are doing at the border is far beyond requiring someone to obey the laws.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.